The Judgment Lies Ahead Of Us
As in all serious church difficulties, there is no end to the strife. No one is willing to quit. In it all there is one thing we must remember and that is, there is a Judgment ahead. If we continue seeking for opportunities to hurt gospel preachers for any reason other than that which is based upon Christian ethics, then we stand condemned at the judgment forever and THAT is a long time.
Brother Tant seems determined to find some way to discredit me before the brotherhood. He and I have been what I thought was "bosom friends." In Arkansas we were together in our opposition to premillennialism. In Denver I conducted a meeting with him and we fought together there for that which we felt to be right. I have never attacked either him or any of the "Guardian men," (I shall not call them boys, since they became offended at this), until they continued to discredit both me and the church where I preach. I am only doing now what I feel is just and right in my own defense.
That Tulsa Lecture
1. Concerning my Tulsa Lecture I must say that the "Guardian-Banner Men" were then my friends and we fought premillennialism together. Be it remembered they endorsed my lecture then and years have passed and no criticism of it until now when they seem to think they have found a way to discredit my defense of the church here. Before I answer your charge against me in the Tulsa Lecture, will you tell us in your "Overflow," if you "still endorse" my lecture given then as you did at the time it was delivered for remember your "Overflow" listed me as one of your "Guardian Boys" at that time. Of course, you may have forgotten, many of you, how you complimented me on it and thought I got at the very bottom of the issues. Now, do you or do you not endorse the lecture? Again in that lecture was I, (your Guardian Boy) against congregational cooperation then or for it? Suppose YOU publish my "complete" argument and defense of "congregational cooperation" while I was "one of your boys," remembering at the same time that "at that time" you thought me to be a great defender of the faith and called me to Denver to help you because of your confidence in me as one who stood for the things you thought to be right? Now, who has changed, Brother Tant, you or Harper? When you take care of this "overflow" I am not afraid of what I said in that Tulsa Lecture.
That Harding Affair
2. It is easy to know when men are really "hurting." They begin to look for any and everything that will in the least reflect upon the man they are "after." I believe if I were you, Yater, I would be ashamed of the reference I made about the "Harding College affair." I believe it was "you" who came all the way to Little Rock and met with me and some of the elders asking what to do about Harding. THIS was before I ever had anything publicly to say about the school. Have you forgotten so soon how you fought the school and I thought I was right then? Do you think your pleading in your paper now for the sympathy of Harding is going to get them to forget your fight against them at the time you say I was "for the school, then against the school, and then for the school"? Are you so much in need of sympathy from "any" source that you now resort to such accusations of a man, who at the time, you upheld and thought to be right? Yes at that time you owned me as "one of your boys." See "Overflow."
No Desire
I have no desire to open a long and bitter fight against a man who is now dead and can't speak for himself. I said what I had to say, while he lived. You opposed him then as did I. If you were wrong then; if you were not sincere then that is between you and your God at the judgment. I was sincere. Your paper accused me "once before" of this and of other things also. You saw the truth of the "other thing"; you knew the truth of this. Neither has been corrected. Now here is the truth about that affair.
When I Came To Arkansas
When I moved to Little Rock I knew nothing, absolutely nothing about the school and its relation with R. H. Boll. I went there a friend to the school. It was my native state. I am the only man who was ever able to get Fourth and State to let Brother Armstrong preach there. I did all I knew to do to be for them. I was invited to speak at the school and did. I finally thought they were too friendly with Boll and his group for they were bringing all them except Boll into the state. I began to oppose this when I found it out and Brother Armstrong turned against me. He, in a meeting with the elders at Fourth and State demanded they fire me or stop my opposing his being friendly with Boll. This brought an open fight. Brethren Brewer and Copeland, elders then, still live. Write them. I have shed enough tears over this to have settled it a thousand times if tears could have done it. I lost the friendship of a school I had come to help as best I could.
Tried To Settled It
This went on until Brother Benson asked us, if the school could get Brother West to come and head a department in Bible that would teach against premillennialism would we give him a chance to work it out. We were to take the "opposition to the theory" inside. I was not against him personally nor the school as a school. I told him that I was willing to do what I could. He failed because of brethren Armstrong and Rhodes. I believe to this day Brethren Benson and West will tell you "this" is true. During the time I "tried to be friends," hoping that nothing would happen to defeat our efforts and in a public meeting at Harding told them that, "based upon this agreement's being carried out I hoped we could be friends forever." It failed. Brother Benson came to my home after this. I was in bed sick. He asked me to teach some two or three classes during the week even though Brother West could not come. I told him it would be useless to try that with Brother Armstrong Head of Bible. Now from that time on Brother Armstrong would have nothing to do with me nor would the school. The school and I have been apart since. I am sorry it had to happen.
Yater, You Knew
Yater, you knew these things then and you led me to believe you were behind me every step of the way. It is my opinion that Brother Benson and Harding College down deep in their hearts have as much respect for me today, because I was honest in my stand, as they do for you now, after having stood as you did against them, all these years. Now, when you need sympathy, you try to court the favor of those you fought at the time of the events you are now criticizing me for. Aren't you really ashamed of yourself, Brother Tant, for resorting to such a thing? I am glad to see Harding making some changes. This should have taken place years ago and the sorrow we all had to undergo might never have happened. Somebody will answer at the judgment for not having done this and much more long, long ago. EVERYBODY, Brother Tant, KNOWS WHAT WAS RIGHT THEN, that the Boll faction should have been repudiated. They KNOW WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH YOU that you PRINTED WHAT YOU HAVE ABOUT MY STAND WITH HARDING. Enemies have always gone together when they have a common object to overcome. Remember the Jewish factions did this and killed the Christ. THINK THIS OVER! They never "gain in the long-run by it." In fairness to Harding, I should say, I haven't seen them "lining up with the Guardian" courting "your favor." It seems to be a "one way ride." I notice, Yater, that Clinton Davidson is riding with them now. Have you "Guardian men" gone to bed with "Clinton"?
Freed-Hardeman
Of course, I was in Little Rock in 1934, having moved there about the first of the year. The time when I worked is of little significance. Your accusation that I went out under the direction of Freed-Hardeman College to solicit churches to make contributions to the school is just not so. From the days of N. B. Hardeman's and C. P. Roland's direction of the school, I feel certain that the school has not sent men out for that purpose. If churches gave to the school they did it, as I understand, on their "own" and not from the school's having "solicited such." If I am wrong the school can correct me.
My Understanding
When I was called to meet with them about this affair, I plainly told them I would not solicit churches to contribute from their treasury for I did not believe the school had the right to demand a place in the church budget. To this Brethren Hardeman, Briggance, and Roland agreed. Upon this understanding I went to work.
My Operations
I went to individuals whose names were furnished me; to elders of the church to find those in the church who were able to contribute; I asked the privilege to speak at a few places, as I now recall, on Wednesday nights and Sunday nights that the needs of the school might be presented to the people. While years have passed and I did not keep minutes of those meetings, not thinking I would ever be misrepresented in this affair, yet I know what I did and what I believed. In some places I feel certain a contribution was taken, not as a church, but as individuals, as we have done at Highland several times since I came here. How not wishing to carry this money with me, I gave it to some brother who would give me a check for it, or possibly would ask the elders if they would take the money and give me a check in its stead. As years passed it could be possible that some records have been mixed up or that the church made no explanation of such transactions and someone who is eager to cast reflection upon both me and Freed-Hardeman, after nearly a quarter of a century, has now come up with what he "hopes" is a "practice of condemnation" against "Ernie Harper."
No, Brother Tant, I have never in my life asked a church to contribute as a church to a school. If during the passing of the years, with the loose way the church has of keeping records they seem to have staggered on what they think to be such a practice, I can assure you that no such thing ever was my practice. My friends will believe me; my enemies will not. Such is the tragedy of church troubles. Yater, at THAT TIME those who were your "predecessors" in the paper never dreamed of my having done anything wrong. A quarter of a century has now passed, about it, and in your desperation to overcome my "two little articles" in defense of the church here and myself, you are "combing the years" trying to "ruin the influence" of a man with whom all these years you men have fought or should I say, with whom I have fought. It has taken "25 years" for you men to decide I was wrong and not honest in actions. Aren't you men REALLY ASHAMED for some of your actions? Do you HONESTLY THINK ABOUT ME, Brother Tant, AS YOUR OVERFLOW TRIED TO MAKE IT APPEAR THAT YOU FEEL? If I were wrong THEN, so were you, for YOU were RIGHT WITH ME, OR SO YOU TOLD ME. Sit down prayerfully and think over what you brethren, (who are worthy of better things than setting your hearts to destroy the influence of men who have and still do help to fight the battles of the church) are doing to the church of our Lord.
A Good Policy The next time some brother sends you in something trying to reflect upon the honor and the integrity of a gospel preacher, write the preacher and get his side of it and then try to be fair with the truth of the matter before you put upon the pages of your paper a lot of "stuff" that will hinder his work and influence in the church for life. Remember it is a terrible thing to "shame the church of the Lord" unless you KNOW you are right. Now I am willing to meet any man about whom I have ever written anything and before the elders where he lives and where I live, we will try to find out if I have misrepresented him. If I have, I will correct it. We need our men and if they can at all find a way to come together we "need to be about it."