An Open Letter To J. D. Rothwell
Mr. J. D. Rothwell 1004 El Sereno Drive Bakersfield, California
Dear Brother Rothwell:
I have read with interest your report on the state of the churches in Bakersfield, which appeared in the October 16 issue of the Firm Foundation.
Now I fully agree with you that one should acquire the habit of telling the truth, assuming, of course, that he has not already acquired it. However, I fear that at this point we must part company, for I believe that when one starts to tell the truth he ought to tell ALL of it as far as it concerns the matter with which he is dealing. Omitting truth can be as devastating in effect as the telling of a falsehood. And I must say that you have omitted a sizable portion of it.
Your article, appearing under the guise of a general statement concerning the activities of all the congregations in Bakersfield, is really nothing more nor less than the seizing of an opportunity to vent your feelings toward the brethren now meeting in the Moose Hall, and those who have dared to speak out in defense of the principles for which they have stood.
I did not miss the implication in your article that those not living in Bakersfield do not know the facts regarding the difficulties existing there. I must admit that I am not a resident of your city, and I lay no claim to having all the information pertaining to the matter, but I do have some as you are about to see.
My interest, although great from the first, was quickly increased by your statement that "the Guardian Hobby was forcibly introduced into the congregation" by certain brethren. Brother Rothwell, by what process of reasoning did you arrive at this conclusion? Were you by any chance attempting to convey to the readers of the Firm Foundation the idea that the teaching in question was introduced into the East Bakersfield congregation without the consent and over the protest of the elders? If not, what did you mean? Could it be that by "forcibly introduced" you mean that it was without YOUR consent and over YOUR protest? At least the following letter, under date of September 18, 1955, and bearing the signature of those who were the elders at that time seems to indicate that this may have been the case.
"TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
This statement is to certify that the Elders and preachers of the Central congregation meeting at 425 So. 'H' St., Bakersfield, California, notified us that they would not fellowship the East Bakersfield congregation in its meeting with Brother Lloyd Moyer. They refused to announce the meeting and stated that they would not attend. The reason they gave for this action was the report of Brother J. Rothwell, their preacher, of Brother Moyer's opposition to 'Sponsored Church Cooperation' in such works as the Herald of Truth program, Orphan Homes and Missionary projects,' thus making a test of fellowship of these congregations over these issues." "This statement is to forestall any possible reports that Brother Moyer caused a break in the fellowship of these congregations over these issues."
The above letter makes it clear as to who was in the protecting business before the meeting ever began, and it was NOT the East Bakersfield congregation!
Was the teaching "forcibly introduced" over the protest of the elders of that church? Read the following from another letter, under date of September 27, 1955, which also bears the signatures of all the elders at that time.
"We, the elders of the East Bakersfield congregation of the church of Christ, have thoroughly investigated and studied the principles as set forth in the lesson tonight with Brother Lloyd Moyer. We authorized him to speak on the subject."
That should settle the question as to whether the teaching was "forcibly introduced" into the congregation. Let us now raise another question: What was the attitude of the elders AFTER the teaching had been done? Read the second paragraph of the letter from which I last quoted.
"Because of our study of these New Testament principles and their application to present day problems confronting the church, we are convinced that the 'Sponsored-church' type of cooperation in preaching and benevolence, are in violation of these principles. Therefore, we are stopping our support to the Orphan Home in Ontario, California."
Brother Rothwell, over whose protest BESIDE YOUR OWN was this teaching "forcibly introduced"? I challenge you to answer truthfully!
By the word "introduced" I suppose you meant that the teaching done by Lloyd Moyer on institutionalism was the first such teaching that congregation had received. Why is it that someone not living in Bakersfield and consequently "not knowing the facts" must point out to you that those same things were taught some two or three years before? Deny this and the proof will be forth coming!
In the same article, you state that the withdrawal by the congregation from the three trustees "was contested legally, and the three trustees won the suit." Do you base your conclusion on the fact that they gained possession of the building by riotous, un-Christian conduct? Have you heard or read the judgment of the court? It would seem to me, from the reading of your report that you have not.
Another fact which you failed to mention is HOW they "won" the action. is it not true that the decision of the court was based upon testimony, favoring majority rule in the congregation, and did not you and Elmo Franklin give such testimony in the trial? I am not making a charge, I am simply asking, realizing that one must be extremely careful as to what he says, for I understand that some people will disregard 1 Corinthians 6 by going to law against a brother.
Of course, if you did give such testimony, that fact can be established by checking the records of the trial. I notice in an article appearing next to your report that "a copy of all evidence is upon file and can be produced upon request."
Brother Rothwell, I well realize that there are many things I have never learned, but I do know where the majority rule system will eventually take us, for I know where it has taken others. I make no claim to being an outstanding champion of the truth, but the important an serious nature of the issues involved prompt me to state that I will meet you or Elmo Franklin, or both of you, separately or together, in a public discussion of the majority rule question in Bakersfield. And I suspect that there are a dozen others nearby who would gladly do the, same.
I happen to know that you have much to say on these issues. Are you willing to discuss them publicly where both sides can be presented? If you would like to determine whether or not I am sincere sign the following proposition and return it at your earliest convenience. If you prefer, I will also make an affirmation on the subject.
Proposition For Debate The Scriptures teach that major decisions of the elders of a congregation must be ratified by a majority (bulk) of that congregation.
Affirmative__________
Negative_______________
/s/ Pat Broaddus