Letters
Dear Brother Tant:
I think I have studied English enough and read literature enough to know a good piece of writing when I see it. Your editorial in the Gospel Guardian of September 21 is superb, a real classic, both in spirit and composition. I can suggest no improvement in style or spirit. I wish it could be published in the Gospel Advocate, the Gospel Broadcast, and the Firm Foundation. It is enough to make the supporters of Brewer and Goodpasture ashamed of them.
Well, some of them will read it, and I would really love to know their reaction.
I did not believe there was such a man as Hiram Higgins; but I wanted to try Brewer out. So I wrote a letter to Hiram Higgins, enclosed in a stamped envelope, with "Hiram Higgins" on the envelope, enclosed it in an envelope addressed to G. C. Brewer, with a note asking him to put on the enclosed envelope the address of Hiram Higgins, and to please mail it to him. Well, I got a hearing from G. C. B. I quote a few sentences:
"Replying I must tell you that Hiram was Hypothetical. The story was fictional and the logic was reducto ad absurdum.
Here is the absurdity:
"Why don't you influence the G. G. boys to fight the wrongs that really exist—there are plenty of them—instead of manufacturing issues? Especially you ought to get them to quit misrepresenting men and issues. They lose the confidence of even their friends when they do that. We need their help on the real issues."
It all sounds to me like Brewer induced the Union Avenue elder to write that letter to you, and it seems that they are about to say "calf rope".
You may use this letter, or any part of it, as you see fit.
It is plain that Fred Dennis does not endorse the stand of G. C. B. and B. C. G. —they are two of a kind. Read the initials of either backward and you have the other, and it does not matter which. I do not think I am through with Brewer yet. I will answer his letter, and tell him a few things.
Fraternally,
Robertson L. Whiteside
Denton, Texas
—O—
Wants Both Sides
Dear Brother Tant:
I consider your editorial "A Personal Statement" in September 21 issue of the Gospel Guardian as a masterpiece. Several things have come to my mind after reading the above mentioned editorial for which I am thankful:
I am thankful that you are not bitter.
I am thankful that you can still consider a man your friend who criticizes you and who does not always agree with everything you write.
I am thankful that the Brownfield church does not consider a man their enemy if he questions some of their practices. They are manifesting a righteous spirit.
I subscribed for the Gospel Guardian several months ago because I felt like I should get both sides of the present day issues. I have always had much confidence in the men who make up the Guardian, but that within itself was not sufficient reason for me to subscribe, when I was already taking several other papers.
But when I saw that I was only going to get one side of the issues through the Gospel Advocate and other papers, I subscribed for the Guardian, and asked other preachers here in Houston to do the same.
Keep the good work going, and I'll try to send in a few more subscriptions. I would like for the elders of the church here where I preach to subscribe for and read the Gospel Guardian.
—T. J. Ruble, Houston, Texas
—O—
Editor In The Pig Pen
Dear brother Tant:
I read your editorial. The impression I got is that the Editor is certainly begging for sympathy.
Regarding my dignity as a Christian gentlemen, it still registers just as high as ever. I have hopes that you may make the corrections (corrections of alleged misstatements in an article by James Adams). That will not be until you come to yourself and quit eating the husks that are not made for Christian gentlemen to feast upon. I doubt that it will ever damage me or Union Avenue or the Japanese work if you never make the correction, but your soul is at stake.
I am not offended at anything you have ever said. I have spoken plain to you and expect you to speak that way to me. Publish the facts, brother, and I will be with you. Until you do, you remain in the pig pen as far as I am concerned.
Sincerely,
E. J. Bonner, Memphis, Tennessee
—O—
"Uni-Denominational And Uni-Sectarian"
I have just received Ernest Beam's paper, "The Christian Forum." On the masthead he says, "Uni-denominational and uni-sectarian." I never read such a conglomeration of sectarian palaver in all my days...and the bad part about it is that he has hit on what a great number of weak and sickly members have held and practiced for some time when they thought they could get away with it. One of the hardest oppositions I have ever had was from a brother and sister who got mad because I wouldn't call on the First Christian preacher to lead prayer and wouldn't ask a Holiness man to lead singing. I predict that Beam with his paper spreading this venomous (original meaning "a love potion") belly-wash over the country will do some real damage to the cause. The church is honey-combed with weak, sickly, untaught and unconverted members who will be taken in by this doctrine. I hate to think of the time, talent, and money that has been drained off the brotherhood and from the work of the Lord by such men as Beam, Smith and others. Such men will have to answer in the judgment, but can they ever answer enough to pay for all the souls they will cause to be lost?
—Thomas Allen Robertson, McLean, Texas
—O—
An Exchange Of Letters
Dear Yater:
What have I ever done to you that would cause you to reflect upon me and the Pepperdine College as you do?
I have never spoken a word in my life that was designed to do you harm, but have stood by you and Helen as long as I have known you. In your note (Gospel Guardian, "Overflow" August 31) this time you ask a question. Will you publish the answer? "There is no conflict, I am simply more able to understand the perfect example than I am the perfect teaching." Yater, YOU know what I mean, and the Lord does not love you for what you said, especially about the college. We can take it, but I hate to see you hurt. God bless you and much love to you all. If I can serve you in this life let me know.
—Jimmie (Lovell)
Los Angeles, California
—O—
Dear Jimmie:
Thanks for your card. Yes, I will be glad to publish your answer to the question I asked. I am glad to receive your explanation.
You ask, "What have I ever done to you that would cause you to reflect upon me and the Pepperdine College as you do?" I have never had the least sort of unpleasant relation with you, Jimmie. On the contrary, every contact in any way has been pleasant and enjoyable. I have loved you and appreciated you as a friend and brother in Christ. And I still do. You backed me up in a way that left nothing to be desired during those trying days at Denver when we were trying to get Park Hill started—perhaps it would really be more accurate to say I backed you up, for you know, of course, that it was your enthusiasm and your spirit that really sparked the drive for that new congregation.
But, Jimmie, something has happened to you since you went back to California. You seem to me to have lost sight of Him whom we both want to serve, and to have become so completely under the influence and domination of men that we hardly speak the same language any more. You ask what you have done to me—well, you have done nothing to me; but I cannot escape the conviction that your influence and your work have done an irreparable hurt to the cause of Him whom I seek to serve. Pepperdine College is dominated by a spirit which is destructive to New Testament Christianity; its influence is hurtful to the cause of Christ. In years to come, if it continues as it has in the past few years, it will certainly precipitate a split in the body of Christ. And however much I may love you, Jimmie, that friendship can never close my mouth or stop my pen when I think the cause of my Lord is at stake. I will continue to love you—AND TO DO EVERYTHING WITHIN MY POWER TO COUNTERACT AND NULLIFY THE HURTFUL, DESTRUCTIVE INFLUENCE COMING OUT OF PEPPERDINE COLLEGE. I believe brother Pepperdine is a good man, but Pepperdine College is not the school he started out to create! And I weep as I contemplate the awful harm which I believe the school is doing, and will do, to the church of my Lord.
Yours in Him,
Yater Tant
—O—
He Likes The Guardian
Brother Tant:
This is my virgin message to the Gospel Guardian, and I am writing to say that I like the size and style of the publication. Its arrangement is convenient, the paper is superb, the type is clear and easily readable; and best of all, the general position of its articles, editorials, and comments rings true to the Old Book. There is plenty of need for such a publication. I predict for it a wide circulation, a very wholesome acceptance, and a great power for good in the field of religious journalism.
F. 0. Howell, Memphis Tenn.
—O—
Soliciting For Cut And Dried Plans
Edgar Furr, San Marcos, Texas
In a paragraph on page ten of the Gospel Guardian of August 10 on "Not the 'Sending' but the 'Spending' " the issue that should be discussed is set forth clearly. I recently saw a clipping for an appeal which provokes a discussion of what is before us. They make an appeal for four things. First of all, they have "cut and dried plans" that they know they are unable to finance. Should a congregation do this? Then they appeal to other congregations and brethren to help carry out their plans, and appeal for others to recognize them as an agency to do a needy work over which they attempt to take the oversight.
In another article submitted, a congregation buys lots to build a house of service in Mexico. They state that "This is an urgent and immediate appeal for brethren everywhere who are disposed to do so to help us with cost of erecting the building." It is most likely that this congregation could and will see that the building is built and paid for if others do not help, but suppose that others should help and should see fit to send workers to preach in this place, would they be privileged to do so without the consent of the congregation who solicits the money and builds the house?
Looking at the situation from a scriptural standpoint, Paul and his helpers went out from Antioch, that we can all agree, then in Phil. 4:16 he said, "for even in Thessalonica you sent me help once and again." Why will not this same plan work today? If a brother wishes to go out from a congregation to Italy and he "needs" why not send to him for his needs. If he cannot be trusted with the money, then the church should not send him out. I firmly believe the Bible plan will still work, and the work can be better and more efficiently done. Let him do the work which he goes out to do without dictatorial restraint.