Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
April 22, 1954
NUMBER 49, PAGE 3,9b

Garrett's Self-Condemnation -- Answering Brother Garrett

Thomas B. Warren, Fort Worth, Texas

"Wherefore thou art without excuse, 0 man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest dost practice the same things." (Rom. 2:1) In this verse from the pen of Paul, it is pointed out that the Jews, in condemning the Gentiles as being worthy of death, had condemned themselves as being worthy of the same fate, for they were guilty of the same crimes of which they accused the Gentiles.

Seemingly, it is very easy for men to fall into the error of assigning their neighbors and brethren to hell for sins of which they themselves are guilty. A contemporary example of this is Leroy Garrett, the publisher of Bible Talk, a new medium of an old faction.

Sometimes statements are so contradictory that it is almost beyond the capacity of rational men to accept the fact that they came from the same source. The pages of Bible Talk are filled with such contradictory statements. Following are just a few of the many examples from the pen of its editor, Leroy Garrett.

"There are too many Haman's in the church. Personal victory is placed above individual integrity. Such ones find themselves not listening to reason, refusing to admit mistakes, misrepresenting an opponent, and using innuendo and name-calling rather than logic. We even impugn one another's motives. The command 'Be kind one to another' needs to be blended with the charge to 'reprove, rebuke, and exhort'." (Bible Talk, Vol. 2, No. 3, p. 34) Thus does Brother Garrett rightfully speak in condemnation of name-calling, innuendo, and impugning of other men's motives.

But note the following from the same pen, "The salaried ministers take over the lucrative city jobs about like an old hen sets on her nest." (Ibid., p. 37) Here is the use of innuendo, a derogatory hint that preachers of the gospel are interested only in the monetary support which comes with preaching the unsearchable riches of Christ.

Again, Brother Garrett very "kindly" tells us, "The real saints among us are tired of being spoon-fed by a professional who doles out his sermons across the counter like a haberdasher hands out socks across the counter. 'So much preach so much pay' is repugnant to men of sense." (Ibid., p. 45) But just one page later he says, "Name-calling answers nothing." (Ibid., p. 46) But that is not all! On the very next page (in fact at the same opening of the paper) we find from the pen of our brother who so vehemently condemns name-calling, "Yes, the religious racketeers have the support of their auditors .....(Ibid., p. 47).

But again, from the same pen, we read, "You and I both agree with Campbell when he said: 'Men, fond of nicknaming, are generally weak in reason, argument, and proof.' Let us have not 'lies' at all, but let us have real men who will face the issue with reasonable argumentation" (Ibid., Vol. 2, No. 1, p. 15) But unbelievably the same writer says, in reference to a preaching brother, ". . . . found preaching a smooth racket." (Ibid., p. 14) "The chicanery of the clergy is amazing." (Ibid., Vol. 2, No. 2, p. 32) Here the brother, who has urged all to be kind and to avoid name-calling and impugning of motives. calls gospel preachers by a name which they do not accept and has accused them of trickery and deceit.

But the supply of these unbelievable contradictions is not nearly exhausted. Brother Garrett further says, "I felt the personal element was far too strong for the purpose of this paper?" (Ibid., Vol. 1, No. 7, p. 101), but a few issues later, the "personal element" was not too strong for such a purpose, "... is a typical modern pastor. After seven years he has made his church almost as worldly as he is." (Ibid., Vol. 2, No. 1, p. 18) Again our editor-brother says, "Some of the ecclesiastical playboys here in Dallas are doing a little whistling." Then after making reference to a Dallas brother, Brother Garrett says, "When a man goes to the pains to explain to me vehemently that he is not a horse thief, I aorta get suspicious that he might be just that . . . . is only whistling in the dark." (Ibid., Vol. 1, No. 7, p. 100)

Our editor friend and brother again hopelessly contradicts himself when he says, "So, let us refrain from all stigmata." (Ibid., Vol. 1, No. 7, p. 104) Again, "Name-calling has not yet answered one argument." (Ibid.) Yet on a single page of his paper, are found the following phrases, ".. . fellow craftsmen ... priest craft ... Dallas clergy ... pastor-preachers ... hireling system ... It is sectarian to the core and I believe that these preachers know that it is." (Ibid., Vol. 1, No. 4, p. 52) "Here is a man that is on his way out of the pastor system. He is too honest to stay in." (Ibid., p. 64)

Again our editor-brother decries name-calling when he says, "One should be manly enough just to admit that he cannot meet an argument rather than to resort to such ugly conduct as name-calling." (Ibid.) To this sentiment, all should say "Amen"! But Brother Garrett flies in the face of his own condemnation and says, ". . . religious hireling . . . insidious digression (Ibid., Vol. 1, No. 5, p. 66,67) ... college-bred pastor."

Brother Garrett rightfully lists the impugning of motives among the list of things to be carefully avoided, yet the following words flowed from his pen, "The one-man pastor's wife is known as 'the minister's wife.' And if you think one has trouble with these pastors, just confront an ambitious minister's wife on the question of the pastor system! She sees red when someone questions her husband's lucrative job. She likes the security of a $100 a week paycheck. They can sing, 'It pays to serve Jesus, it pays every Sunday night.' She might more appropriately sing, 'Pass me not, 0 gentle paycheck'." This statement simply says that the wives of gospel preachers are motivated by material gain. To charge another with this sin, one would have to know the thoughts and intents of the other's heart. This is, of course, impossible for a mere man. Brother Garrett should, to do the Christian and gentlemanly thing, publicly apologize for this and other similar charges.

Bible Talk is the medium for yet more name-calling, "The one-man pastor is ... and a coward lurched behind the protective skirt of an assumed ecclesiasticism." (Ibid., Vol. 1, No. 7, p. 100) Brother Garrett has somehow gotten the idea that gospel preachers are afraid to meet him in public discussion, and so has indulged in name-calling. It is difficult to imagine, however, why anyone would be afraid to meet in public discussion a man who writes in such fashion as to contradict himself so frequently as does Brother Garrett. Certainly the present writer entertains no such illusions of Brother Garrett's ability as a debater. After having read some of his articles and engaged him in a three-hour discussion, it is the present writer's sincere conviction that, in a discussion with an able opponent, Brother Garrett would have trouble in even defending the truth. How little, then, is he to be feared in a discussion on a subject about which he holds an erroneous position. This conviction is held because Brother Garrett seems to have no idea as to how to be consistent with himself. Certainly such a man is not to be feared in debate. Does Mother Garrett entertain the idea that his readers are not aware of his inconsistencies?