Let Brother Wallace Name The Point
The article by Glenn L. Wallace in the April 30th issue of the Guardian entitled "A Hobby Horse in Dallas" reminds me of Solomon's words: "He who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him." (Prov. 18:17) Brother Wallace's article may lead some to believe that Bible Talk and its editor are enemies of righteousness, but an examination of the facts will show that Brother Wallace is only disturbed because he cannot cope with the scriptural arguments set forth by the paper. Nearly always men resort to name-calling when they are unable to meet a man's arguments. The Abilene minister took pains to call me a "hobby horse," "SommeriteKetchersideite," and even "a pastor," and yet he failed to direct even ONE scriptural argument against anything I teach or practice! If Brother Wallace believes I am wrong, let him name the precise point wherein I have departed from the truth. Calling me a "hobby horse" answers no more than calling Brother Wallace a "Campbellite."
Actually Brother Wallace's article is libelous. I could sue him at court for willful defamation of character. But as a Christian I may only return good for evil. So I state kindly to both Brother Wallace and the readers of this fine paper that the personal charges against me are both unfair and untrue. Perhaps Brother Wallace wrote in good faith, but he has been misinformed by somebody. I here state briefly a reply to these personal charges:
1. I have not announced myself "the enemy of all that the churches do in the field of local evangelism." Where did my Abilene brother get such an idea? Rather I am a friend of local evangelism.
2. No, I am not against a "local preacher," for I believe that every Christian is to be a preacher. I do, of course, object to a church making one man the minister, thus hiring a preacher to do what elders should be doing.
I believe that elders are to feed the flock, that every male member is to be encouraged to develop himself as a teacher in the public assembly, and that the evangelists are to go forth and start new churches. Am I a "hobby horse" for accepting what the Bible teaches on all this? I would remind my good brother, Glenn Wallace, that the best minds of the past and present agree with me on these points. Brother Wallace, would you brand Campbell, Stone, Fanning, Lipscomb, Brigance, etc., as "hobbyists"?
3. I am not and never have been on a "$100 a week salary with a congregation in Dallas, Texas." I have been neither hired nor fired. This charge simply is not true. All support Dallas churches have rendered me has been genuinely appreciated on my part, and I think all will admit such help has been strictly free-will offering. The church with which I now work has never given me as much as a single dollar. To call me "a pastor" is simply ludicrous. As a member of the church, I do only my share of edifying.
4. I am not opposed to Christian schools. I am opposed to such schools doing the work of the church. I believe the church should train its own preachers and not rely upon a human institution for anything. Yes, I attended ACC, Freed-Hardeman, and even taught in a third such school. I do not regret that. I only regret that such schools are doing the work of the church. I am not trying to close the schools or to discourage our youth from attending them. I am only trying to get the schools to be independent of the church, to quit doing the church's work.
5. Wallace says, "He publishes a paper called Bible Talk. This paper is a HUMAN institution and it does the very thing he charges upon ACC." Supposing this is true, does it follow that ACC is right in doing a work of the church? Two wrongs have never made one right. It so happens, however, that my brother is mistaken about my paper being a human institution like ACC. My paper is not organized at all. It is no more than this article is or what a tract is. ACC, on the other hand, is an educational corporation with trustees, president, vice president, bursar, faculty, etc., etc. This educational society conducts gospel meetings (lectureships), trains gospel preachers, stages missionary rallies, and maintains a Bible department for the purpose of preparing students "for more competent service in the kingdom of God." (ACC Bulletin, Vol. 37, No. 2) Yet Brother Wallace says that is just like my paper which has no organization whatsoever! As the minister of the College church (an office that I politely ask Wallace to give scripture for) my Abilene brother may be too close to the forest to see the trees!
5. Brother Wallace accuses me of not being in a position to do mission work in Dallas since there are "about 40 churches" here. Well, there are really about 65 churches here, but there should be many more. The Baptists have nearly 200 here. I have already taken part in starting two churches here and I hope to help start others. However, only a part of my work is in Dallas. Each year I hold mission meetings in distant states. I have held meetings in 25 new places in recent years. Yet my good brother accuses me of not practicing what I preach! To explain to you readers that Brother Wallace had never even met me and knew only what he had heard from distracted brethren will help you understand why he exposed his fury in his most uncharitable article.
6. I never met Daniel Sommer, have never read anything he wrote so far as I recall, and I never met Ketcherside until just recently, so all this effort to categorize me as some sort of "ite" is just as senseless as it can be. I agree with Glenn Wallace on many points, but I am no "Wallaceite." I surely agree with Yater Tant in his "centralization" fight, but am I a "Tantite"?
7. I am accused of wanting to "bust churches" and my "supreme aim" is to have "charge of churches.' Wallace even says, "If you want a little pope in Dallas, all we need to do is feed the pocketbook of Leroy." This is so unkind and so untrue! I ask no one for money for myself. I work as a school teacher to support myself. Sometimes my wife works to help us along. We are not after anyone's money. Brother Wallace simply doesn't know what he's talking about.
Brother Wallace knows that the power is in the "sword of the Spirit." There is no power in personal invective. So, if my brother wants to cut "Leroy's doctrine" asunder, let him use the Bible. Let Brother Wallace name the point wherein I am wrong. Getting mad at Sommer, Ketcherside or Bible Talk gets one nowhere. If he has scriptural authority for the elders hiring him as the minister of the College church and for ACC doing the work of the church, let him produce it. In the meantime he should take steps to amend his false attack upon his brother who at least tries to do the right thing.