In Defense Of "Herald Of Truth" That Conversation
Many are the regrets in one's experiences. For years there stood as a great army of men those who fought together on the vital issues that confronted us then. We fought and won those battles because we were united in love, purpose, and convictions. Our opponents said we were "legalists" and had not the "spirit of the Master" and could not "get along among ourselves" and predicted we would "devour each other." I was in the middle of that long and vicious struggle. Of course they failed to point out the fact they were "already divided" and knew not where they stood for they were "Fellowshipping all who held to their peculiar hobbies" and many of them have long since left the church entirely. But they did not leave until` they had stamped eternally upon the minds of many, these fatal words, "they will devour each other."
Years have passed and this is the first time I have ever, either in pulpit or with pen, been caused to speak against any of that group of men who was caused to suffer so much at the hands of men determined to take the church into error. I do it now in tears for I have loved those men, fought with those men, and have understood their manner of thinking more than many who have criticized them. Our ranks have been divided, now at least three times, with hard things said about us all. This to me is the tragedy of this generation. That fine group of men against whom no man could stand, has now lost its power for good as it once had and the church has lost its confidence, to a great degree, in the sincerity of those of us who so valiantly fought the battles of the church during the past 20 years. The reason for this is, Too many of you boys have "changed your positions" too many times on too many things. To do so is to establish yourselves as "novices" and men without the power to make up your minds "once and for all" as to what is "really the truth." Some of you can be used on both sides of many issues. Your rapid changes are creating in the minds of a great number the impression that you "change with the necessity." That is a man's privilege and each time to think it right but still it destroys confidence and renders your influence weak in some places where it should be strong. You boys do not agree among yourselves on the question you are now trying to kill. Which one of you shall we believe and follow? Suppose we decided to make a change, which one of you shall we follow and what guarantee do we have that tomorrow, after the change has been made that something will not arise that will change your minds and you will be fighting for the very thing that today you are set to destroy?
The Conversation
After the "joint meeting" of the churches in Abilene, at least most of them, in a Wednesday night prayer-meeting, at which service I was one of the speakers at the College Church of Christ, Brother Tant approached me regarding the radio program of the Highland Church of Christ. The following is, in many statements the very wording between us. I can't give it as if recorded of course, but here it is. God shall judge between us in the day of judgment and if I "twist it" I shall spend eternity in hell unless corrected here. He said, "Brother Harper would you debate this question in the Gospel Guardian with Brother James Adams or with Brother ( — ),?" He mentioned two men, both friends of mine. I told him, "No, I do not care to enter into a long drawn out debate on the question between those men. I told him we did not want to cause a lot of trouble over our program and certainly not a brotherhood fight over it. I suggested to him to let all who wanted to, to write for it and those against it write against it. He did not invite me to "just submit a series of articles in defense of the Herald of Truth." He wanted me to enter into a debate on the question with two men whom he named. I did not say "I was going to stay strictly out of it." Those words never came from my mouth. Brother Tant possibly got that impression from my declining to enter a debate in his paper on the subject but to utter that expression, I did not. He suggested I was the logical man for it, since I was the local preacher and so many knew me and then asked me the questions, "You refuse then to defend it."
Now he puts in my mouth, in his paper, these words "I will not defend it." What I am now going to have to say hurts me beyond words to express because Brother Tant and I have been friends for twenty years, personal friends. Why he made that statement, I do not know unless the mind of man "Plays him tricks." Those words never came from my tips. They were your words, Yater, and with leading questions you were trying to force me to say what "you wanted said." I have been in these fights before and refuse to be "forced into such affairs." Here is what I told you in answer to "your question and statement"; not mine. I told you, "If you mean by that, am I against it, I am glad to tell you I think it is all right and I see nothing wrong with preaching over this program. I further told you, The elders at Highland nor the preachers on the program need any one to defend them, that you will find out in time that "all he brains are not in Rome" and they will be able to make their own defense. I think to your sorrow, you will find this out. I told you I did not meet with them often, that it was not my program, and they did not need me to defend them, but that I believe the program was being carried on all right."
Attack Me I told you that, If you boys want to jump on me for being the preacher for Highland, the church that has the program, to just roll up your sleeves and wade in, that I felt I would be able to defend myself. You did not print that. How does that harmonize with your statement, "I am going to stay STRICTLY out of ANY controversy." You said to me, No one is going to attack you, and yet in your paper you have made these statements, most of which are plain misstatements of facts and leave on the minds of the people, that I am not for the program.
Now, Yater, you boys are going to have to correct your false statements about people or be lost in the day of judgment. You have made statement after statement in your paper about this that are just plain misrepresentations. Whether you knew it or not, is not the point, you could have known the truth if you would have tried to learn from the right sources. That you did not do. I am not mad at you boys. I am sorry for you. This is not the first time such falsehoods have been made in your paper, which falsehoods were calculated to harm a brother. You know that I know this is true and you know why I know it. You boys need to learn how to find out the truth about things before you rush into print and hurt the good name of some church. You are operating like children, making charges that are false, may be you do not know better, but the point is, you can learn better. You are too eager to just accept what some man says, not realizing the irresponsibility that goes with such statements. You are honor bound to investigate charges made before you print them to the hurt or ruin of some man or church.
Illustrations
The first is the misrepresentation of my conversation with you; the second is your statement of the elders at Highland forcing the old "digressive pressure," upon the elders at the College Church to hurt their preacher; the third, that we are paying Brother McDonald $200,000 to represent us and this could be saved. You see you are so ignorant of this entire affair that you make yourself ridiculous by your statements; the fourth, the implication Brother Adams made concerning an article to one in the magazines, ALL of which have now been proven to be false, not true, simple misrepresentations of the truth.
Realm Of Judgment
Wonder why you did not tell them of our conversation that night when you told me that the moat that was wrong with our program was in the realm of judgment; that your biggest objection is we were not carrying it on as it should be? And then my answer to you about your dividing the church over that which you finally admitted was mostly in the realm of judgment? Remember, I told you that you boys would have to answer at the judgment for dividing the church of our Lord over what you finally admitted was in the "realm of human judgment"?
This One Question
Yater, where do you boys get the authority for organizing the "Gospel Guardian Company," "a human organization," a "human society," and then having as its supreme purpose the keeping of the church of the Lord in the right way? Since when did the Lord give men the right to organize "societies" and "companies" through which the church is to "operate" in "keeping the church pure"? I thought you were opposed to "human societies" through which to do mission work, local work, and by which the church is to be made merchandise of.
Suppose we should organize the "Gospel Guardian Company" and have for our purpose the "preaching of the gospel"; the "doing the work of the local church on their prospects"; and the "keeping the church with her elders from digressing" and do this by means of "ABC" instead of by means of the "printed page of the Gospel Guardian Company"? Could we then "put it in the church budget" and ask other churches and individuals to support it? Could we then ask churches to do their "mission work" through it and collect from "all sources"? If not, why not? This is exactly what you are doing with your "Ancient Landmarks" and the "Gospel Guardian Company." I challenge you and Brother Adams to deny this. I will come with the proof, for I have the articles and your "personal letters" to this effect.