News And Views
Some News And Observations
Guy Roberson, who has been with the Due West church in Nashville, Tennessee, for the past five years, will move to Akron, Ohio to work with the Thayer Street church.... Franklin T. Puckett has moved from Thayer Street in Akron, to labor with the Market Street church in Dyer-burg, Tennessee....THE LIVING ORACLES is the name of the newest monthly publication among us. The first issue appeared in January. It is a twelve-page monthly, edited by Luther G. Roberts, Salem, Oregon. Tom Campbell, of Kent, Washington, is serving as Business Manager. It is a very neat paper, with large, clear type. It will be published mainly for specific use in the Northwest, but should have a much wider circulation than will be afforded by that area. The first issue contained some good material. The paper is published primarily for members of the church. The subscription price is $1.50 per year and should go to Campbell, Box 325, as above.... C. R. McRay, who has been with the church in Sioux City, Iowa, is to move to Decatur, Texas in April, to labor with the new congregation there. At my last report, he was in need of some additional financial support, and this should be a worthy work. Decatur is only sixty-five miles from Wichita Falls ....If you live within 200-250 (maybe even further in some directions) miles of Wichita Falls, let me suggest that you listen to our radio program each Sunday morning at 8-8:30, over KWFT, 620 on the dial This station has a wide coverage and can be heard far and wide. It goes into Oklahoma City easily. It can be heard in Abilene, Dallas, Ft. Worth, Mt. Pleasant, etc. If you do hear the program, please drop us a card or letter to that effect.... Dennis L. Reed is now with the Berney Points church in Birmingham, Alabama. He was with the church in Palatka, Florida.... For several years, Farris J. Smith has been with the Berney Points church through these years, he has done a fine work with that church. This church has been instrumental in helping start several other churches and very active in the support of gospel preachers. This church has stood like a rock for the truth at home and abroad. The first of this year, Smith began labor with the new Cahaba Heights church in Birmingham, a new congregation started mainly by some of the members from Berney Points. This new group is off to an excellent start....The Castleberry church in Fort Worth has a meeting scheduled with Roy E. Cogdill sometime this year. The elders of this good church have issued a public statement to the effect that they "would be happy to have brother Guy N. Woods meet brother Cogdill in a debate instead." Is there a congregation in Fort Worth that will endorse and back Woods in such? The brethren at Castleberry are truly "set for the defense of the gospel." They are neither ashamed nor afraid to support and encourage such discussions of differences in order that truth may be more clearly ascertained by all. Surely honorable and sincere discussions of what the BIBLE teaches can do only good for Ye CAUSE of TRUTH. Of course, I predict that Woods will have no church to back him, and this suits him fine as is gives an excuse for not having to meet Cogdill again. These brethren have made every effort possible to get Thomas B. Warren, Roy Deaver, or some other preacher in that area to agree to a discussion. So far they have met with complete failure. These men do not want nor intend to debate the current problems and there is no difficulty in understanding why they remain silent and aloof from such....WALLACE HOLT DEBATE. The published account of this debate is still available, but it has been selling in a fine way. The price is still $3.50 per copy. Order a copy from the G. G. or from me at above address.... E. Paul Price is working with the 12th Street church in Levelland, Texas. This congregation is now fourteen months old. They have their own building which will seat over a hundred, two class rooms, and located on three good lots. They are having over fifty in attendance ...."I have enjoyed the WALLACE - HOLT DEBATE very much. In many respects, I believe this to the best one yet. I agree with brother Plyler that G. K. can out-dodge any denominational preacher. I hope that in some way such a discussion can be arranged in Wichita Falls. I think a lot of good could be accomplished." — E. Paul Price.... Walter Henderson has moved from Ocala Florida, to labor with the church in Meridian, Mississippi. He is editing a nice bulletin....H. Edward McCaskill has moved from West Columbia, Texas, and is now with the Miranda Street church in Las Cruces, N. M.....Dean Bullock. who has been at Sinton, Texas, for a number of years, will move to West Columbia.
A Divisive Demand — — —
As mentioned in this column, in an article by Dudley Spears, last time, Guy N. Woods has definitely called upon all the brethren of his persuasion to buy all of their supplies, books, literature, etc., from the GOSPEL ADVOCATE COMPANY. At least, this is what he meant and by his rule buying from them is the only way to be sure to do what he wants all to do. He scathed any and all who would dare "pass up their brethren who support the cause of Christ, and deal with those who would, were it possible, destroy it!" He later defines those whom he says are bent upon such destruction as "a group of determined men (which) has sought, unsuccessfully....to destroy the orphan homes, homes for the aged, and all cooperative evangelistic efforts among us...." So here we learn, according to Woods, that whoever seeks to "destroy the orphan homes, homes for the aged, and all the cooperative evangelistic efforts among us" in seeking to destroy "the cause of Christ!" He makes all these human organizations and human arrangements synonymous with "the cause of Christ." What a calamity! This means that there was no "cause of Christ" until about seventy-five years ago for none of these things existed before that time! May God pity such prejudice, blindness and perversion of heart. Truly do the "heathen rage and the people imagine vain things."
Although Woods tries to be subtle in his vicious and wicked suggestion, his evil designs and the monetary interests on behalf of the G. A. do seep through. Not only this, but the downright erroneous and ridiculous reasoning is patent to all who think. Listen to this bid for business and appeal to prejudice:
"Occasionally brethren buy books, literature, and other church supplies from publishing houses, book stores and other agencies which either have done nothing to stem the tide of hobbyism and radicalism in the church; or, worse, are engaged actively in promoting it. Such purchases actually subsidize false doctrine; they provide profits which are turned into the propagation of their peculiar views through tracts, the publication of books, and the influence they may otherwise wield."
Now just how well do Woods and the G. A. follow this line of reasoning? The G. A. buys books and supplies from Baptists, Methodists, Catholics, and anyone else who has anything from which they can make money. They aren't the least bit particular about such if there is a dollar to be made. They sell just about all kinds of sectarian publications. They purchase materials and books from Carl Ketcherside, the anti-Sunday School people, premillennialists, Gospel Guardian Company, and many, many others. In this practice are they immune from or above the condemnation Woods gives to others? Do not purchases from the Baptist, Methodist, and Catholic publishing houses "actually subsidize false doctrine....provide profits which are turned into propagation of their peculiar views through tract.... books, and the influence they may otherwise wield" in the same way and to the same degree as other materials purchased from this awful group he refers to? If Woods' logic were true and the G. A. should observe it in practice, then their business would be cut well over half way.
Woods speaks of some "publishing house, book stores and other agencies which have done nothing to stem the tide of hobbyism and radicalism in the church...." I wonder to whom he refers when he speaks of those who have "done nothing" along this line? Do I detect a veiled reference to the Firm Foundation and its fence-straddling editor? Moreover, observe the significant fact that Woods is NOW on record as saying that "publishing houses, book stores and other agencies" have the obligation to "stem the tide of hobbyism and radicalism in the church." Boy, what a mess that would make! He failed to cite the passage of scripture which authorizes such, of course. There is no limit to which a digressive and apostate will go in order to promote his own selfish interests, aims and ambitions. When a man, in his madness, turns the responsibility for keeping the church pure, over to "publishing houses, book stores and other agencies," he is a "real goner!"
In writing along this line further, in issuing for gullible brethren a creed for measuring the "loyalty" of such concerns, Woods urges the brethren to raise this question: "(2) Does the institution have a record of loyalty to the truth ?" Here he advocates measuring "institutions" as regards their "loyalty to the truth." And some people think that there is no danger of "Institutionalism." These men have an "institutional madness." Will the Lord recognize and save these "institutions" which have proven "loyalty to the truth" by their efforts to "stem the tide of hobbyism and radicalism in the church?" Wonder if Woods NOW thinks that the Baptist Board of Publications is an "institution?" Does he think that this "institution" has a "record of loyalty to the truth?"
Much more could be written to show the folly of Woods' line of appeal, but this is enough to help any honest and thinking person see what motivated the appeal and the end to which it would lead.
"A Plea For Fairness"
In harmony with the above thoughts, I want to present a quotation from the double-minded editor of the Firm Foundation. Writing under the caption above in the issue of January 31, he says:
"On the other hand, many who claim that the things that are contended for are 'non-essentials' go right ahead and 'draw the line' against their brethren who contend for these 'non-essentials." Some even suggest that books and periodicals not be ordered from a publishing house that does not hue to their narrow sectarian line. These stand self-condemned for they have drawn a line over something they themselves claimed was 'non-essential.' One group is just as guilty of causing division as is the other."
Boy, what a "slap in the face" to Woods and the G. A. Lemmons waxes bold and declares that they are "just as guilty of causing division as is the other" — meaning, those of us who are stigmatized as the "hobby-riders" and "antis." This really puts Woods in his place and I know that he will appreciate the company! Not only does he (Woods) stand "self-condemned," according to Lemmons, but he is NOW condemned by Lemmons! This should make It more or less official! Lemmons is about the only person in the brotherhood who has no part or lot in the division which is taking place. He has certainly drawn the circle of limitation around himself and his "little group" as the only ones who are right and the self-confessed "saviors" of the church. If we would all just let Lemmons decide all these things for us, then that would be the end of the matter and we could all play the "double game" and sit down in the "middle of the road" with him, while digression, apostasy and sectarianism runs over all of us. May God deliver us from that fate.
The Use Of Pronouns
In the Wichita Falls Record News, a daily newspaper here, Mr. Glenn Shelton writes an interesting article under the caption. Because I think that it is so true and to the point, I am copying it here. Please read it carefully.
"One of the first decisions we made when we first started writing this column was not to insult you readers by using the cumbersome and dishonest first person. plural when referring to your humble and disobedient servant — me. Now take a gander at this initial sentence and see if you don't agree that the use of "we" is erroneous and silly. To me it is more modest and honest to use "I" when I mean "I" and "we" when I mean "we." Yet many columnists, under the misapprehension that it implies modesty, persist in using "we" and making their stuff as difficult to wade through as a puddle of molasses. For example, I have seen paragraphs similiar to this: "We got up this morning took us a shower, cleaned our fingernails, put on our pants, etc." I decided early that true modesty lies in honesty, and that the spurious use of "we" is more egotistical than the proper use of "I," and that conceit is demonstrated more in the meaning, anyway, than in the word used. I may therefore seem egotistical in this column. But at least I'm honest."
With the above sentiment, I am in 100% agreement. The points are true and well-made. Years ago, I had the privilege of being in (twice) sister Mary Nell Powers' "Preacher's Grammar" class at Freed-Hardeman College. Any reader of this column can tell that I received but little benefit from it, but two things were very vividly impressed upon my mind. One was the correct spelling of the word "grammar" (and if the printer slips up here, I am made out to be a....) and the other had to do with the use of the so-called "editorial we." Never have I heard a more scathing denunciation of the use of "we" when "I" is meant than she could give. She pointed out, in the first place, that it is wrong grammatically. Not only that, but in many instances it becomes confusing and downright ludicrous. I confess that I am at times confused (and often amused) by some very able writers, who evidently labor under the delusion that it is immodest or egotistical to use the perpendicular pronoun "I" — even when only "I" is meant! For example, "We love our wife;" "we preached our first sermon when we were eighteen years old;" or, "we are glad to stand before you on this occasion." I agree with Mr. Shelton that "conceit is demonstrated more in the meaning (or in the erudite and highfalutin language used when it is not necessary)....than in the word used." So, I join him in saying, "I may therefore seem egotistical in this column, but at least I'm honest." When I say "I" I mean "I" and not "we I".