"A Reply To Brother Coffman"
I hope none of my friends will feel they need to come to my aid, as has Brother Coffman, in the case of Brother Farrell Till. Brother Coffman, I read "fairly well" too. All I ask is for brethren to read Brother Till's article (in the Firm Foundation), and then read mind (in the Guardian), and I have no fear what conclusion, discerning brethren will reach.
In paragraph (1) of your article you say, "Personally, it saddens me when men sacrifice, much, undergo hardships, deprive themselves and their families of much to preach in a foreign field where Christ has not been named in this generation; and when they appeal for help in their work — have their words called "silly" and themselves aligned or 'just about' so with a teacher of false doctrine." Brother Coffman, what great sacrifice, hardships and deprivation are those on "foreign fields" making that practically every gospel preacher has not made and many are making in the States today? I know brethren in certain "foreign fields" in the States who do not get to make a trip "back home" much more often than do these "foreign missionaries" in France, Germany, etc. They are paid just about as well as many brethren in the States and about the only difference is that these in the States do not get a boat ride. I have "suffered for the gospel" (?) in times past and have preached where "Christ had not been named in this generation" (?) but I don't recall making a "silly" appeal (Brother Coffman's "silly" opinion notwithstanding) that made me a Paul and those who remained in Tennessee and Texas "apostates." Brother Coffman says again, "And if I personally never go to a mission field (where are you now, Brother Coffman?) these appeals will still have not been in vain as far as I am concerned. For they have already caused me to be more devoted to the Lord's work here where I am." As I understand Brother Till's article, it was not an effort to get you to be more devoted IN HOUSTON but to come TO FRANCE. Unless you leave your "tub of butter" IN HOUSTON and go TO FRANCE, his "AIM MISSED" completely so far as you ARE concerned.
In paragraph (2) I challenge you, Brother Coffman, to point out ONE unfair conclusion I have drawn. Brother Tant would not likely care to do so, but it might help others (if not Brother Coffman) to see I have not been unfair. So far as I am concerned it could be the only fair thing for me and Brother Till. I quoted Brother Till in my paper; Brother Coffman did not quote him but seeks to "explain" Brother Till's and "quotes" me. Brother Coffman, do you know why I didn't accuse (what I did write was not a matter of accusation; they were fair conclusions from what he wrote) Brother Till of the other sin (adultery) you mention? It was because I saw nothing in the article that implied or indicated it.
In paragraph (3) Brother Coffman says, "And when I read Brother Driskill's article reviewing Brother Till my spirit rebelled within me . . . ." And so it turns out that Brother Coffman has become "irked" and has his "feelings ruffled" too.
Paragraph (4) "Brother Till also aimed and it is evident from Brother Driskill's article that Brother Till hit home. To me, personally, Brother Driskill writes like a man who had his feet out in the aisle and got them thoroughly and effectively stepped on." So far as I know, 'no one has asked for what Brother Coffman thought' personally." Brother Coffman, are you trying to "doctor" (doctor up the Till article) someone else's mashed toes? It can work both ways, you know. You say, "And Brother Driskill resorted partially to personality arguments to try to answer Brother Till." Why didn't you point out the "personality argument" made by me? ?
Paragraph (5) I deny Brother Till is doing in France what Paul did when he laid the foundation (preached the gospel) in Corinth. The gospel had not been preached in Corinth and there was no possible way for them to have access to it without Paul going there, but the people of France (together with all other nations) can secure a copy of the gospel that was preached by Paul. Brother Till was talking about "FRANCE" and if there was only ONE New Testament in FRANCE then Brother Till is not doing what Paul did. If everybody in FRANCE must possess a copy of the New Testament (before you could say you are not laying the foundation, as did Paul) then Brother Coffman (Brother Till) I am doing the same thing in Lewisville, Texas, that you are in FRANCE, for here are people in Lewisville who do not possess a copy of the New Testament. Brother Coffman, you state that Brother Till "searched the city of Nancy, France, and could find only about four New Testaments in the French language. Four Bibles for 130,000 people. Some foundation for a located evangelist to build on!" Well, Brother Till writes me that he "spent several days searching the book stores in Nancy trying to find a Bible. Finally I had to write to Owen Aiken in Paris and ask him to buy me one." "I COULD NOT FIND A SINGLE COPY." You and Brother Till should get together. Moreover, if Brother Aiken could buy Paul's sermons in Paris that confirms what I said previously; that the people of FRANCE could secure a copy of Paul's sermons, for if Brother Aiken could buy them in Paris then the FRENCH could do the same. Oh, no, I am not opposed to anyone going to France, or any other "foreign country" anymore than I am opposed to caring for the "fatherless and widows" and to "churches cooperating" but I do resent he implications of any in "foreign countries" that brethren in the States are not following Paul in their preaching. Furthermore, Brother Coffman, there is a difference in "searching the book stores in Nancy" (as Brother Till states in my letter) and in "searching the city of Nancy, France" (as stated in your reply to my article). In as much as Brother Aiken could buy Bibles in Paris there is no way of knowing just how many copies here were in FRANCE or in NANCY. I still insist he is of "laying the foundation" as Paul laid it. Anyone that wants to can see it. Do any of the French people speak another language? How many copies are there, in these other languages? If that's what you call laying the foundation then I'm a "foreign missionary" and the "aim didn't hit home after all."
Paragraph (6) Brother Coffman says, "Brother Driskill, we realize that you are a faithful gospel preacher." Thank you! "We realize that you do a wonderful work." Thank you, sir! ".. .. YOU ARE IMPORTANT." Now, Brother Coffman, the aroma from those flowers are the sweetest I've ever smelled, and I appreciate it even though you didn't mean it. I also appreciate you interpreting Brother Till's article and telling me what he meant and what he didn't mean. We have no Pope to interpret the scriptures but I have you to interpret his article. Well, from his letter to me he didn't mean what he said but I'm not responsible for him saying what he didn't mean. I'm just glad to learn he didn't mean it. If Brother Till was only urging those "who can come and don't" (to France) why didn't he say so??
Otis Gatewood made just the kind of speech at the Abilene lectures (several years ago) while he was way off in that foreign country of Salt Lake, Utah, that Brother Till's article contained. Luther G. Roberts became "irked" and got his "feelings ruffled" and told Otis so, before a large audience. I suppose he should have gone to Otis "privately" (?) but he didn't.
All who know my views and the Guardian position KNOW neither I nor the Guardian, oppose "mission work." Those who insinuate it are either wilfully or ignorantly misrepresenting us.
I hope no one will feel they need to write Brother Coffman, or Brother Till, and "explain what I have meant." Brother Coffman, if you are wondering — well, I have meant what I have said.