Letters

Lockhart, Texas

"I have not always agreed with the Guardian, but neither have I always agreed with any Christian with whom I have ever been long and intimately associated. I want to help the paper for at least two reasons: (1) I think that articles in the magazine will be good for the people, and (2) I want to help to prevent any one or two religious magazines among us from getting a monopoly over the minds of the brethren, and thus controlling with the most difficult of all tyrannies to rescue men from — that of thought control, and moral pressure. I remember when an associate editor, of great ability and much influence was staying at my home, in a city of another state. Most people who invited him to dinner, also invited all the local preachers; but one preacher did not follow this rule. He had been in a disagreement with this editor; so another minister suggested to me that he was trying to get back into the good graces of the editor. I don't know, but if that was, and is, true now, it is a dangerous influence and power for a man to possess. We hasten (some of us) to loudly and firmly let it be known that we stand on some issues as the leading brethren and papers stand, even if we have to make an opportunity to do so. Such low political groveling is disgusting to me. I even buy my books and materials from the smaller book stores or publishing companies among us, when possible, for this very reason. Personally, I have no ambitions to further my personal popularity among the "leading brethren." As one wrote some time ago that he could not personally recommend me, because of my failure to stand as certain around here stand (though he has never seen me, and knows of me only that which he's heard via gossip); but I wrote back that I have neither the desire nor the need for his recommendation: I work where I have been intimately known for 35 years; I have no ambitions to be either a "big preacher" or an evangelist, or "pastor" of a big church. All I want is the love of those who can stand me, and that the remainder just let me alone — I seek no man's job, and am no threat to any hireling's pay envelope. We need independent minds in the kingdom of God, minds that yield to no power but that of the gospel of Christ. I think C. R. Nichol was right when he told me he thought that any young man who can live at peace with his conscience without preaching, should choose another field of endeavor.

Sincerely, Pryde E. Hinton Dora, Alabama

The Gospel Guardian advertises itself as a paper which prints both sides; realizing this, I believe certain facts should be given concerning the "playground of Northwest Arkansas."

1. He was misinformed as to the locale of the proposed encampments, neither am I trying to uphold the brethren who oversee them; however L. L. Weaver, in a recent letter to the Guardian, is either misinformed or facts have been misrepresented, misapplied, perverted, and distorted.
2. He was misinformed as to the locale of the proposed Baptist encampment — the springboard of his argument; it is in New Mexico — not Wyoming.
3. About the committee (with no elders). There are four men who oversee the Kellem's Ranch Encampment; they are: George B. Curtis (Siloam Springs), Leerie Ball (Johnson), Ernest Highers (Fort Smith), and Claud Robertson (Haskell). When an opportunity to possess a permanent campsite presented itself, a letter was sent to individuals asking them to meet at Monte Ne on Labor Day — the letter was signed by these four men. Thus no committee was appointed, ordained, or called.
4. About the conversion. One hundred forty four have been converted in the past six years at Kellem's; however it is interesting to know Brother L. L. Weaver spoke at the last encampment (July) praising the fine work done there.
5. About the meeting at "Monte Ne Club House." Brother Weaver did not talk to, admonish, nor correct any of these "modernistic brethren." In fact he did not journey the seven miles from his home to see what they intended to do. And to make matters worse he has refused to answer a letter written him by Brother Curtis November 12. This was a nice letter (I read it) asking him if they could confer on the matter.
6. About the "faithful gospel preachers" and the "loyal congregations." Brother Weaver and the congregation he preaches for are the only ones I know of that were "agin it." I surmise they are in the objective case and the kickative mood. Three years ago this same congregation had a program that laid "the playground" in the shade. This "loyal" congregation sent Brother Weaver into Carrot and other adjoining counties to preach for the congregations therein; these congregations sent money to the Rogers church; they in turn, paid Brother Weaver — and even the janitor. If that isn't inter-congregational organization and centralization of authority I'd dislike seeing it.

Again, I'd like to state I'm not defending the scripturalness of encampments, but I would like the brethren to know the churches of Northwest Arkansas have not given themselves wholly over to the devil. Brethren, it is a shame when young preachers, having refused to write, discuss, and help, knife other brothers in the back with such sarcasm through gospel papers. It is my prayer that peace and harmony might prevail and that everything might be done for edification and peace.

In Christ, Charles Hodge

Johnson, Arkansas

P.S. These brethren who "must, just must" have the campsite have tabled the idea rather than have discord in Northwest Arkansas.

I have just noticed the letter written by Brother L. W. Mayo and since he seems to be sincerely seeking information, I thought I might be of assistance. I am not at this time suggesting an argument for or against anything; perhaps that will come later. This brother seeks information and I believe it can be produced, especially that concerning "child" and "children." Brother Mayo asks "Where is the use of the word 'children in 1 Timothy 3:4 and Titus used in such a way as to admit the singular?" There are many places where the word is so used, but I will point out only a few. I'm sure that if just one could be produced, to an honest student that would be sufficient. First — look at the fifth chapter of Timothy at the fourth verse. There you will see exactly the same word, and surely there can be no argument as to whether it admits the singular. Then in the same chapter at the 14th verse you will see a similar, not the same, but a similar word. Next Mark 12:19. On this one you may argue that the revised text renders it "child." But I am studying from the same book Brother Mayo has suggested, Berry's Interlinear. In context we notice the word "seed" in verses 20-21-22. This comes from the Greek word "sperma" which also admits the singular. Then Luke 14:26. Surely this should be enough, but there are others if someone desires them.

Remember the rule we must go by: If 1 Timothy 3:4 must be plural, then everywhere else we find the same word used, it too, must be plural. Now try the suggested scriptures by the rule and see if they will admit the singular.

Brotherly, Robert Craig