A Reply To "The Party Spirit And The Psuedo-Issues
The hearts of many faithful Christians were broken when an article under the above title by Foy E. Wallace, appeared in the Firm Foundation of April 28, 1964. Brother Wallace has been a life-long friend of me and my family. My children have known, loved, and been closer to brother Wallace than to any other preacher outside the family. Believe me when I say that never has my confidence in any man suffered a greater disappointment. This I feel, not because brother Wallace has failed me or any man, but because he has failed the Cause of Christ.
In all of my life I have never read so many words which said so little, yet hurt so many so much. The first three sentences burned up 114 words. One sentence alone used 69 words. His article consumed six pages plus, in type reduced by one-third. Had it been printed in regular size type, it would have required two more pages; over half of the entire paper. Outside of the Book of Mormon, Science and Health, and a few other writings of the cults, I have never read such long and cumbersome sentences with such little sense in them. All who know Foy Wallace know that he does not usually speak or write with such an uncertain sound.
It appears that the writer had an axe to grind, but was never able to bring the axe and the grindstone together. He named nobody and barely mentioned anything. He got mighty close to some, came very near to others, and just side-swiped the rest; and did that on both sides at once, going right down the "middle of the road. He says much about somebody — none knows who — "parroting the party line but does not name the party. So how can we know the line? He rambles on about those big bad "party leaders but names not of them. So how can we fight against them with him? He lashes out at the "party paper and the party school and lays them low, but again he names neither. He boldly bounces on the "blight of hobbyism and brands somebody with reviving the "Sommer-Ketcherside Party but leaves us in the dark as to who it is. Please tell us, brother Wallace, who these "hobbyists are so that we may join in the fight. He repeats his "repudiation but repeatedly refuses to tell us who it is that he is repudiating.
Brother Wallace is chagrined at the charge having changed, and his denial is a parroting of Guy N. Woods and company. Everybody who has known Foy Wallace knows that he has been loud in his denunciation of the programs and promoters whose company he now keeps and on whose programs and promotions he now speaks. He seems to be mad at everybody who debates the issues now before the church, and at everybody who quotes what brother Wallace has written. But he is glad that he debated and that he wrote. This reminds me of the methods of a sectarian debater who, when you quote what he wrote, denies what you quote, but affirms what he wrote! He is glad of what he wrote, but sad at what you quote of what he wrote. He seems to think that nobody can quote the pioneers without "misappropriating them except brother Foy and the crowd he is now running with. It is perfectly all right for Tom Warren to quote him as saying "I have nothing against the Herald of Truth except its size, and nothing at all against any of the orphan homes. This does not seem to be misquoting him at all; neither has he changed! But there are plenty of us still around who have heard brother Foy when he did have much against both the board controlled homes and the Herald of Truth, and it was more than size that he objected to.
Next, brother Wallace amuses us with his "middle of the road meanderings. Here two of the passages which he reaches for (of the few he even alludes to) backfire in his face right in the "middle of the road. When Moses told Israel concerning the law, to "turn not from it to the right hand or to the left, he claims that this law represents the road. If so, then it took in both sides, the middle, and all in between. Being in the middle in that case would be as bad as being on either side of the road. And anybody who has been reading after the most vocal "middle of the roader knows that in his editorials he has been all over the road on all sides, and has landed in the ditch on both sides many times.
The writer takes a backhanded swipe at somebody who thinks it is a sin to eat on church property under any or all circumstances, and who thinks the Corinthian question, "What? Have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? proves it. I do not know who would so misuse that Scripture, but I wonder about brother Wallace's argument to answer the fellow. Read him: "The misuse of the Corinthian passage, What? Have ye not houses to eat and drink in?' is an example of frustration in forcing passages to serve their purpose. Of course, the Corinthian church, to whom this rebuke was administered did not have a church house' at all, and the use of the passage is a misfire. Besides, the verse reads eat and drink,' so the same argument (?) would require the removal of the drinking fountains from the vestibules.
Lead on, brother, lead on. Where is one of those church buildings today (even where they serve all kinds of eats) that has a drinking fountain in the vestibule which gives forth the kind of drink referred to in the Corinthian passage? They got drunk on what they were drinking in Corinth. Now just who is "forcing passages to serve their purpose? in the first place no one knows of anyone who makes the argument which brother Wallace attempts to answer, and no one believes the answer brother Wallace attempts — not even brother Wallace.
This is but a brief treatment of just a small sample of a rather large overdose of hash that has been warmed over so many times by the digressives until it is 4rotten. His charge that the announced aim of division came first from the brethren with whom I am associated is false, and he should know it. The "yellow tag of quarantine was first advocated in a paper published by the crowd he is now associated with. If he is serious about not reading the Gospel Guardian, and if he is telling the truth, he is in no position to represent with any degree of accuracy what is taught therein. He has pretty well demonstrated that he has built his entire case upon hearsay; and what he has hear comes from our enemies and is false to the core.
The whole attitude manifested in brother Wallace's article reminds me of the politician who, when called upon to make a speech about an issue over which the voters were divided, said, "My friends, you the voters have a right to know where I stand. Half of my friends are for it, and half of my friends are against it. But I do not equivocate; I do not hesitate to tell you where I stand. I stand with my friends! P.S. He lost the election.
Brother Wallace indicts everybody, but convicts nobody, which reminds me of W. L. Totty.
--4981 Mt. Casas Drive, San Diego, California
(EDITOR'S NOTE; Copies of Foy E. Wallace, Jr's writings on current issues which appeared in August, September, and October issues of TORCH 1950 are available for cost of mailing. Send you name and address along with 15 cents to Robert H Farish, 413Groesbeck, Lufkin, Texas.)