For The Record
In the May 27th Guardian is a statement by Brother Tant, I think will serve in a fine way for an article I have been turning over in my mind for some weeks. In discussing men, their writings and actions, how they did not always seem consistent he says "The principles were crystal clear; their full application to specific cases and actions was not always so evident." I think he has an article that is good to think on. You might ask me, Do you mean you would commend something from Brother Tant? Well, I certainly do not personally hate Brother Tant. Not all he writes is bad. There is much about him that I still like. You know some people have, in the past, tried to insinuate that they thought I was not sincere in what I do because I enjoy the happy faculty of differing with a man and that "bitterly," and still respect him and when in his presence treat him as kindly as though we agreed in every point. Do you know here is one of our tragic failures as preachers. We can't differ with each other, so many times, without seemingly despising each other. The reason I can treat him kindly is, I am not mad at men; I do not hate men; I regret to lose a friend; it hurts to the depths of my soul to make an enemy. This is why I can meet with men and discuss our differences and leave friends. I will correct my mistake with you if you think I have wronged you, if you will give me a chance. We will let our men who serve as elders where we preach decide what we should do where you feel I have wronged you. I do not want your but I am not a "rubber-stamp."
The Article
I feel that caution should be exercised in these great and serious problems confronting the church. If some things being done today are wrong I think I know why they have reached such staggering proportions. I believe I can show you that, shall I say "both sides," are to blame. I shudder to use that term. May I use examples of the past generation for my article without too many names that it be minus personalities as far as it is humanly possible?
I remember entering Freed-Hardeman College when I was 23. This summer I will have passed the 57 mark. I have been fairly active all these years in the church in some manner. Now during the passing of these years here are the events that have transpired and these events are the "moulds" into which our minds were cast and from these "moulds" have come our thinking and our actions.
Example: Ryman Auditorium, Nashville, Tennessee
My first example is that of the great Tabernacle Meetings in Nashville, Tennessee, with Brother Hardeman doing the speaking. This is the first example of "congregational cooperation" I ever knew about. Over 40 congregations "cooperated" in this great event. No one congregation could have done this great work. Committees of men from these congregations worked this out. In the last meeting Brother Hardeman conducted there, I was one of the men who sat in the meeting and helped with its arrangements. Again many congregations cooperated; furnished the money; helped to direct the affairs. Question; Were any of these congregations thought to have surrendered their "autonomy"? A generation has come and most of it gone. Shall we now rise up and condemn this great work because it violates the "local autonomy of the church"? It WAS "congregational cooperation." It was a "work greater than any congregation without assistance" could carry. You will bear in mind the "Guardian Men," for many years "backed" Brother Hardeman and the school. Think this over "men"!
Music Hall, Houston, Texas
One of the greatest meetings ever conducted in Houston, Texas was the "Music Hall Congregational Cooperation Meeting" under the supervision of one congregation. I am wondering if now after the passing of the years we are ready to brand this effort as unscriptural because it was "larger than one congregation" could meet? Here, various congregations contributed. One congregation did not see fit to enter. You know the fate of that affair. Question; Has it now turned out that the "only congregation" in Houston at that time that was right, was that ONE that was so assailed for NOT joining this "Music Hall Congregational Cooperation Meeting"? Incidentally, THIS COULD BE CLOSE to that "Lufkin Cooperation Plan" since the "owner of the Guardian" was one of the "leading preachers" in the instigation of such an "inter-congregational cooperation movement"! This was thought to be "too much" for "one congregation" so a number "pitched in" and made it possible for that one to direct this great "congregational cooperation meeting." Remember the 'Guardian Men" were back of this if not the "originators." Think this over!
Tampa, Florida Meeting
In Tampa, Florida, I was invited to assist in a "congregational cooperation meeting." The congregations of the city went together and rented the large auditorium and we had a "city wide meeting." I never heard any criticism of the "arrangements." This was an example of being "too large" for "one congregation" so a number of congregations 'cooperated" and the meeting was on. It wasn't anything to compare with the above mentioned meetings for a number of reasons. One, I am not the preacher the men were who directed the others and the other reasons, no use to mention. I assure you it was not due to any lack on the part of the churches in Tampa. The church there was nothing like as large as in these other cities.
My Little Rock Radio Program
In Little Rock, I preached over the radio, for almost 12 years. Much of that time I was on daily. Now the Fourth and State congregation did not pay for this. It came from congregations and individuals in the state and out of the state. It was "too large" for Fourth and State. I made an appeal for help. We got it. Fourth and State, at the closing part of my stay, became able to carry most of the expenses and we stopped much of the contributions. But the point is; Here was a radio program made possible by "congregational cooperation." No congregation thought of having surrendered its "local autonomy." Rather it felt it was exercising that right when it sent a contribution for this special purpose. Do you know who was BACK OF ME ALL DURING THIS TIME? (Paging Yater Fanning Tant.) Do you know who called me "one of their boys" at this time? It was the "Guardian Men." "Quoth the Overflow ever more." No doubt about that! They were back of me and my program. The debate between Brother Hardeman and Bogard was broadcast. Do you know Fourth and State was not able to do this and it was made possible by congregations sending contributions to help pay for it? I have a picture of the preachers who were there, at least most of them. Among them, Brethren Overby, Showalter, Johnson, Blue, Warlick, and Tant, the father of our Guardian Editor, from whom we all quote so often in showing that "we are drifting." I announced at the debate and over the radio that we would have to have help. How many of them remember it I do not know. The point is, we got the money. The Guardian Men, at that time were back of this debate and I never heard a criticism of it. Brother Hardeman and his school then were THE recommended "defenders of the faith" and the school practiced THEN what it does now. Remember this! Here again was "congregational cooperation" sending to "one congregation" and the "Guardian Men" were my bosom companions. I fact Brother Tant says I was of their "boys" at this time, "Quoth the Overflow ever more." Remember this!
Highland And The Indians
Now before I came to Highland the church here undertook to help Brother White establish a congregation for the Indians in Oneida, Wisconsin. The church here felt they could not bear all this expense. They called upon sister congregations to help in this work. Brother Henry, who lived here then, was the SPECIAL TREASURER for this work. Congregations sent in money for this as they are for our radio program. However in the Indian affair, they went beyond what we are now doing. They actually owned the building and just sold it not too long ago. This was done by "congregational cooperation." Do you know who wrote an article praising this work and upholding it as all right? It was the "GUARDIAN MEN." It might have been under a different name but the same men. Since I was "one of their boys" then; could this be another of the "Lufkin Plan" in "congregational cooperation"? Remember this was "too big for Highland." Others contributed. The "Guardian Family," said, paraphrasing with my quotes 'That's it men." Think this over!
Little Rock, Arkansas
In Little Rock, Arkansas they have a daily radio program. The Sixth and Izard congregation has complete charge of it. The other congregations contribute to this by sending it to the Sixth and Izard congregation. Here is another "congregational cooperation radio program." Of course all of us know the "owner" of the Guardian is a strong supporter of this good church. For her, he has conducted a number of meetings. I haven't heard him "sounding off" about that. May I ask, Why this "sudden outburst" against Highland on the grounds of being "against congregational cooperation" with all this "background" behind you? Think it over!
Last Highland's Radio Program
Be it remembered, once and for all, that before we entered our program that the editor of the Guardian told me personally, God our witness before whom we shall one day stand, that it was all right. He thought it was scriptural. He told us he would announce it in the Guardian for us and THAT HE DID. I saw him at different times after this and asked him about the program. No criticism of the "how it was being carried on." He did say some criticized the preachers. I told him I did not want to enter it if it would cause any trouble in the church. He did not think it would. He gave me his blessings as did scores of others. Now this YOU will never know if it is true or not, for it is between us, but God before whom Yater and Ernie will some day stand knows I went to him and talked to him and another preacher here in Abilene and they BOTH said it was all right. One of them used the argument of the contribution to the poor saints in Judea as an example of its being scriptural for congregations to "cooperate." He said it was an emergency and the congregations could help Highland as they did back in Judea. Now brethren believe as you wish. The above is true. I am willing to meet the men face to face who said this. But enough.
Conclusion
My point in writing all this is: If churches are doing wrong in their helping each other in this great work of evangelization they have learned it from examples we have set before them and you Guardian Men have been in the very middle of it all. Now when you have helped to teach and train churches and preachers to do this, you need not think you can "change everyone of them just because you NOW have decided it all wrong." Another thing; Since you have practiced and defended these practices all these years, Do you not think you should approach this in a manner free from "burlesque" and "ridicule" and "fun-making"? If I had helped to lead men into trouble, I certainly would feel keenly my responsibility in the affair and would try to treat them as I would have wanted them to treat me while I was practicing it. You know the "irony of all this is" the "one church in Houston" that was so assailed is proving by your "new ideas" to have been the only one that was "scriptural."
Now men, I know why all this practice was so brought to such great proportions and why these churches began so to practice this 'congregational cooperation." I was there. We had trouble with "three men." Don Carlos Janes, Barney Morehead, and Jimmie Loyal in their "one man missionary societies." This we then thought to be wrong. I still do. I understand Brother Tant thinks it all right! I have the proof.
We began to emphasize this principle of "doing it through the church" and "not" through a "one man missionary society." Now Brother Janes is dead. He can't speak. But Jimmie and Barney are still living. Ask them if they were not fought on the grounds of a "one man missionary society." Well, it will be tragic if now you "Guardian Men" decide THEY were right, after we have killed the influence of these men. Frankly I think they were wrong. I was honest in what I did. If I now thought them to be scriptural then, I would get on my knees and beg God and these men to forgive me, for if we were wrong and they were right, God knows we have done more harm than will ever be corrected in this world. I am honest when. I say "You Guardian Men" need to find out where you are and then remember you were just as "positive" and fought "just as hard" when you believed in "congregational cooperation" as you are now since you have "changed your minds." Yes, your "principles are crystal clear; But your practice has not always been evident." "Quoth the Guardian ever more."