Will You Please Explain?
This "engagement" that Brother Tant seems to think I had with the "Guardian" only, seems to be progressing rather warmly. It reminds me of the boy who came home one day from a fight. He showed signs of having been handled rather roughly. His father asked him, "Son, what is the matter?" "Dad, I have been fighting with the McCoy's." His dad was rather "riled up" and said, "They can't do this to my son!. The son calmly replied, "Don't be upset Pa; they fought me 'fair' today: I only had to fight 'six of them'." To which the father replied, "Well, so long as they fight 'fair,' only six (6) to one (1) that is all right."
Now in this "engagement" with Brother Tant, I am only having to take on six (6) of them. So long as it is (6) to (1) I guess we should say, "They are fighting fair." Ha. Ha.? ? ? ? Yes it is with the "Guardian," the entire group I am having to fight this battle. I would talk about someone being "unfair," "unchristian," and "dishonorable" and then threaten to get someone else to write on this great and vital work of the Lord! Brother Tant it seems that all of them are dying to get in the fight and help you. Tell them to all come in and say their "piece" and rest assured that E. R. Harper will never complain. I may be late getting to all of you but I shall try to "get around" in my own way, AFTER AWHILE. One thing may I ask, Do not accuse me of "being three months late" in getting to YOU. Remember there is only "one of me" and at this writing (6) of you that I count really getting into this "engagement." But (6) to (1) is OK with me.
This Is For You Brother Tant
You are the "editor." You are the one responsible. You are the one to do some explaining to us and to your followers. I am giving these by number and since you are an honorable opponent, wanting only to do that which is right, I know you will not hedge but will just come right out and give us the answers.
1. Concerning your "endorsement" of our program: Brother Tant I do not know what Brother Nichols said to you. I know what I said to you and I know I told you how we were planning to carry on this work. I know the argument advanced was that other congregations had a right to send money to Highland that we might carry on this work and the help to the saints in Judea was given as proof that it could be done. Now God knows this is true. You said in your paper that the following is what you indorsed, "Brother Nichols (and Brother Willeford) planned to preach the sermons, record them on tape, and then make these recordings available to various congregations in the north and northwest. Brother Nichols' idea in coming to Abilene (so we were led to believe) was solely that he might have access to the Abilene Christian College Chorus to furnish the musical portion of the recorded programs — NOT to help Fifth and Highland do HER work! This is what we understood Brother. Nichol's presentation of it. THAT was the plan we approved and would still approve."
Brother Nichol's Statement
In the latter part of February or the first of March, 1951, I visited with Brother Fannin Yater Tant in his study at his home, 717 E. N. 13th Street, Abilene, Texas, and discussed with him at length the possibilities of a radio program known as the Herald of Truth being extended to many stations over a wide area of the United States.
I told Brother Tant that I had been following closely recent articles of his and I would like his advice as to the scripturalness of the proposed radio work.
I explained that I believed that the scriptural way that such a work should be carried out was for one congregation to raise the funds, produce the program and actually do all the work involved. I further explained that while the program we had at that time, was being conducted by the Central congregation in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, that they had authorized me to attempt to interest some other congregation to assume the responsibility in raising funds, producing programs, and conducting all the work involved in our proposed national program.
Brother Tant asked me point blank, "Will the congregation raising the funds be merely sending the funds on to another congregation to do the work?" My answer was "no"! The congregation raising the funds will do the work connected with the program. His reply was that if such a work is conducted in that way he would be for it and would use the columns of the Guardian to back it.
At no time did I or Brother Willeford think in terms of merely producing a program and sending it to various congregations for it to be used.
It was not my purpose in coming to Abilene to merely use the Abilene Christian College Chorus for the production of any program. If it had been there would have been no purpose in my trying to get the College congregation to oversee the work. The work was never planned as a free lance operation by individuals or a committee, but from the beginning through this present day this network program was to be conducted by one congregation with the support of sister congregations.
Signed, James W. Nichols
JWN:lnp
Nichols Original Announcement
I now give you the announcement of this program published in Brother Tant's own paper, Gospel Guardian. This article was printed November 29, 1951, before our program began February 10, 1952. This was nearly three (3) months BEFORE THE PROGRAM EVER BEGAN. I give only that part of it that shows no such plan was in the mind of either Brethren Nichols, Willeford or the Highland Church of Christ.
"This program is to be under the SUPERVISION of the Highland Church of Christ, Abilene, Texas." "The elders are accepting this Mutual (network) offer conditionally and are simply asking sister congregations to help.". "Highland is asking the churches of Christ throughout the brotherhood to CONTRIBUTE as LIBERALLY as possible with the hope that the larger congregations will put $1,000.00 or more in their budget for 1952." "The Highland congregation is requesting that the elders of other churches meet at once and discuss this opportunity and notify Highland (not Nichols and Willeford, E.R.H.) as to what they will be willing to do to help make this nation wide program a reality."
"P. S. Kendrick has been APPOINTED TREASURER of this radio work, and all contributions will be promptly acknowledged. The elders of Highland invite any questions or suggestions concerning the work, etc."
Now with Brother Nichol's statement showing that Brother Tant indorsed this program provided the church to, which the money was sent did the work; since my conversation with him was AFTER the meeting at Brother Kendrick's in which most of this entire section was represented to discuss "Highland's doing this work," at which meeting Brother Wallace spoke in its behalf; and since he published in his "own paper" nearly three (3) months BEFORE the program even had its beginning, I ask you, Brother Tant, and appeal to your readers, HOW CAN you harmonize your article of what "you say we told you" with the article, "published in your own paper"? Is it possible you can't understand plain English? You published that it was under the direction of Highland. Not one word was there in this of what you said you indorsed. I never heard of any such proposal to Highland. Again, Why would Brother Nichols' have to come to Abilene to get the chorus? They could have made the tape and sent it to the broadcasting company.
Now Brother Yater, I told you and Brother Wallace, and I believe Brother Wallace will tell you I did, that Highland was to direct this program and churches would be asked to make contributions and YOU, Brother Tant "indorsed THAT" to me. .I did not tell you any such kind of arrangement as you claim. I told you what it was and it was to me you indorsed such a program. You published it three months, or thereabouts, "before" it started. You "never did criticize" it to me "after this." There is also the explanation you published about it from the pen of Brother G. K. Wallace. Everybody but you understood it, and if you would read your own paper carefully, even you could understand. (WILL SOME ONE PLEASE SEND BROTHER TANT A SUBSCRIPTION FOR HIS OWN PAPER SO HE WILL HAVE ONE TO READ? EVIDENTLY HE DOES NOT READ HIS OWN PAPER OR HE WOULD NOT HAVE MADE THIS MISTAKE. BROTHER TANT DO YOU READ ONLY YOUR OWN ARTICLES? REMEMBER THERE ARE OTHER ARTICLES IN YOUR PAPER. READ THEM.)
You Guardian Men!
I appeal to you men who are relying on Brother Tant as your editor, to fight your battles, to think seriously on this. How can a man, who is so unable to understand such plain explanations as the above, suddenly become the "GUARDIAN OF THE GOSPEL OF THE SON OF GOD"? Brother Tant let us have your explanation for this misunderstanding!
Don Carlos Janes
2. Brother Tant's Denial of the Don Carlos Janes' affair: In the July 15th Guardian Brother Tant says in the "Overflow," "Brother. Harper says he has the proof that this writer now approves of the one man missionary society as practiced by Don Carlos Janes and others. Well, well, We suspect he keeps that proof in the same folder with his scriptural proof of Herald of Truth's right to exist, etc., etc.?" Then he says "He doesn't have proof; he has delusions."
Now Brother Tant, I shall let the readers decide who is having "delusions." All these men in this statement surely did not misunderstand you. They all understood you alike. Your followers are going to begin "wondering"after while, What is wrong with you that you can't even read your own paper and understand what kind of program, this radio program was to be, when it said in plain English, three months, or thereabouts, before it ever began, that Highland was to have it; NOT these boys as you said you understood.
My Proof On the last Wednesday evening in 1953 the following elders of the Highland Church, together with Brethren James W. Nichols, and James D. Willeford, met with Brother Yater Tant in the W. F. Cawyer home, at 2009 Lincoln Drive, Abilene, Texas. We asked for a meeting' with Brother Tant to discuss the radio program, the Herald of Truth. At this meeting Brother Willeford explained to Brother Tant why a local congregation was asked to do the radio program. He explained that he and Brother Nichols did not deem it proper to ask that help be given to them personally for this task. He then called attention to the individual effort of Brother Don Carlos Janes who was criticized for being "a one man missionary society." Brother Tant replied that what Brother Janes did was "right and scriptural" but the man himself was "dishonest."
Signed, James D. Willeford
I was present and certify that the above is true. Signed, James W. Nichols
The Following Elders Testify The Above Is True
Signed: W. F. Cawyer---------------------------
J. M. Patterson-----------------------------
John F. Reese-----------------------------
W. C. Smith---------------------------------
L. E. Weathers-----------------------------
E. L. Crawford-----------------------------
Lewis Smith--------------------------------
Overflow, February 1954
Now hear our Brother Tant again. This time we quote from the "Overflow" of February 4, 1954. "We see where 'World Vision Bookstore' last year sent $4,500.00 worth of Bibles, New Testaments, and religious supplies to various missionaries. The magazine says it was done 'by your cooperation.' A continuation of which is solicited. So instead of a 'sponsoring' church, you can send your contributions to a 'sponsoring bookstore' and let Brother Barney Morehead use it as he sees fit in helping the missionaries. HAVE OUR BRETHREN SO QUICKLY FORGOTTEN DON CARLOS JANES?" (Emphasis mine, E.R.H.)
Some one objects to my "childish writings" and suggests I have missed the point! Well there is one point I haven't missed. I am successfully showing that these men are "Floundering in their own desperation to kill our radio program." Here is a man saying to one group, Janes did nothing wrong in principle. He was both "right and scriptural" in what he did; he was JUST "DISHONEST." Now in order to defeat Barney Morehead he cried to the brotherhood in lamentable tones, "Have our brethren so quickly forgotten Don Carlos Janes"? Brother Tant, "had you so soon forgotten Don Carlos Janes" when you were trying to defeat the way we are carrying on our radio program here at Highland when YOU declared him to be both "right and scriptural"? Now if he, back in December 30, 1953, were both "right and scriptural" how does it now happen that in January 4, 1954 he is all of a sudden wrong and you are crying to the brotherhood against him?
Brother Tant, a man who is setting himself up as capable of editing a paper that is dedicated to discipling the church of our blessed Lord and keeping the elders over the Lord's church in line, needs to be more consistent than this article shows you to be.
The G. K. Wallace Letter
Brother Tant, I have asked you several times or some two or three at least, to answer your endorsement of the "G. K. Wallace article" which article you unreservedly recommended, saying, "We commend it to a very careful reading, for we are CERTAIN it is SOLIDLY BASED on SCRIPTURAL FOUNDATIONS." (Emphasis mine.) The following are some of his statements:
"A CONGREGATION MAY COOPERATE WITH ANOTHER IN ANY GOOD WORK. THIS IS CLEARLY SEEN IN THE NEW TESTAMENT." Notice this did not say an "emergency to feed the poor," but in "any good work." Our preaching of the gospel is a "good work." Therefore other churches may cooperate with us; Brother Tant being our witness. Answer it BROTHER TANT BEING OUR WITNESS. Answer it Brother Tant! The Maud Carpenter Home is asking help from other congregations to do a work "greater than they are able to do." YOU Brother Tant give us your "scriptural argument" showing they have a right to "do a work greater than they are able to do" and where they have a "scriptural right" to receive "funds from other churches' to feed the poor "through this home in Kansas." You said it is "solidly based on SCRIPTURAL FOUNDATIONS." Again Brother Wallace says "That the care of orphan children is a responsibility of the church, is not denied except by a few brethren north of the Mason Dixon line. They affirm that the care of orphan children is an individual matter. Most of my brethren admit, however, that it is a work of the church. If it is the work of the church, we wonder why the church cannot do this work without an organization to take over the work of the elders. The Children's Home in Wichita, Kansas, is operated by the Riverside Church. We have NO ORGANIZATION EXCEPT THE CHURCH." "There is no parallel between colleges and orphan homes. There is a parallel between an orphans' home that has a board of trustees other than the elders of the church to do the work of the church, and the United Christian Missionary Society." "There are many large congregations in the brotherhood that could rent or buy a piece of property in their community, get permission from the state to take children under their care and place them in those homes and provide for them. In order to do this they do not have to go out and form some organization that God never heard of. The organization to do the work was given to the church by inspiration before the close of the apostolic age. The elders of the church are bishops of the charge allotted to them, etc." "Cannot we see the difference in asking good men to give advice and of taking these advisors and forming them into an executive body? Do all those who advise the church in any given community become executives in the church because someone asks their opinion in regard to certain matters? Can we still affirm that the church is scriptural in name, organization, doctrine and PRACTICE?" (Emphasis mine, E.R.H.)
Now in our article or booklet "That the Brethren May Know" we have our parallel letter on "our radio program." You should send for this booklet. You will then know why Brother Tant fails to answer this. Brother Tant, the Maud Carpenter Home asks for money from other congregations to do this work. You have indorsed this as "scriptural." Question, Is this the "church universal" doing a work? Is this "centralized control and oversight?" Tell us and then try defending their practice!
A Debate Soon???
Now I am sure we will have a debate on this question SOON. Brother Holt has challenged Brother Wallace for a debate on the Maud Carpenter Home. Yater, Brother Holt thinks it is "institutionalism"; that it is "centralization of power and oversight"; that it is the "church universal working"; that it is equal to the "Missionary society" in principle and is willing to meet YOU in debate I am sure because he has challenged Brother Wallace. Just "sit back," G. K., and let the Guardian Men, settle their own "differences." Brother Tant when you defend YOUR OWN POSITION in the Maud Carpenter Home, as published in your own paper by Brother G. K. Wallace, your fight against us is over.
I Tried In The Beginning
I tried in the beginning to avoid this very thing we are in now. I went to you and Brother Wallace and both of you indorsed the program as it now is. Brother Wallace indorses it as he says it. "Now is." You, Brother Tant, told me there was no reason why we should have any trouble, that it is scriptural and you would announce it and you did. Now after two years you "change your mind" and begin fighting it. You could have at least been as considerate of me as I was of you. I went to you BEFORE WE STARTED. Had you come to me BEFORE YOUR PAPER STARTED TRYING TO KILL THE PROGRAM, we might have avoided this "ugly and prolonged fight." But now that we are in this fight, with me it is a fight to the finish.
Why My Method Of Fighting?
It is very simple. You brethren have missed the point. Just because you in the past have done something wrong does not make our program right. I know that. Let me give you the strength of my "method of answering." If what you brethren "have done in the past is right and scriptural" then since our program is the same in principle, "our program is also right." Now before you have the right to attack our work, you are honor bound to repudiate all you have done in the past along the line of "congregational cooperation" and show wherein it was wrong. You are forced to correct this before these churches where you have taught such things. Have you been wrong in all your "congregational cooperation" and are you now opposed to all "intercongregational cooperation" such as the Nashville meetings; Houston meetings; Tampa meetings; Maud Carpenters Home, Wichita, Kansas; local radio programs made possible by "congregational cooperation" in cities and counties? Just tell us "where to stop"; "how far to go" and then begin a "fight against all such above cooperations" setting forth "the why" or the 'only way or ways," giving us scripture and examples and say "this is it."
Yours until next week,