Will The Book Be Printed?
In a meeting of ten elders and preachers on January 19, Brother Thomas B. Warren led some of us to believe, through his spokesman A. G. Hobbs, that he had yielded to the terms of our signed agreement, and that the Douthitt-Warren Debate would be published according to our written contract.
However, a few days after that meeting I received a letter from Brother Warren demanding that I do one of two things: (1) let him add to the manuscript of his recorded speeches 38 pages which he called his "mimeographed charts" and "blackboard diagrams"; or (2) state in the book that I would not let Warren include in the book "charts" and "blackboard diagrams," which he used in the debate. That letter and these demands convinced me fully that Warren never had intended for that book to be printed.
First, if I should state that I am trying to keep material out of the book, which Brother Warren used in the debate, I would be telling a lie, for I do not want to keep anything out of the book that he used in the debate. He knew I would never make a statement like he wanted me to make. I want every "mimeographed chart" and "blackboard diagram" that he used in the debate to go into the book as he used them; but not as they were drawn up after the debate was over.
Second, he used but very little of the material of these 38 pages which he now wants to go into the book, and not one of these 38 pages is like anything that he did use and that now appears in the manuscripts of his taped speeches. Here are some facts, and I can prove that every one of them is true:
1. Warren distributed two booklets to some of the people during some of the sessions of the debate. I distributed two booklets in exactly the same way that he distributed his booklets.
2. His booklets contained some charts and a great deal of typewritten material which were chapters and not charts at all. He demands that both these typed pages and these so-called charts be included in the book, though he did not read all that is on any one page in his booklets, and did not exhibit from the pulpit one single page of anything that is in either booklet. The two booklets that I distributed contain fifteen chapters, and some of the pages can be called "charts" as appropriately as Tom's so-called "charts." I quoted during the debate as freely and frequently (perhaps more) from my two booklets as Tom quoted from his booklets. He did not do one thing with his two booklets that I did not do with my two booklets during the debate.
3. If Tom's circulating two booklets and quoting occasionally from them during the debate makes the material of his booklets admissible in the debate book, why does not precisely the same thing make my two booklets admissible? I have told Hobbs and Warren repeatedly that I am willing for the material of his two booklets to go into the debate book, if he will let the material of my two booklets be admitted. To this proposal Brother Hobbs made the silly reply that they are willing to go through my speeches and find every quotation from my two booklets and put them in boxes. Well, I too am willing to go through Tom's speeches and put every quotation from his booklets in a "box." But that does not satisfy them. They think that I ought to be satisfied with my quotations in a "box"; but it takes more than a "box" to satisfy them regarding quotations from Tom's booklets.
4. "The "blackboard diagrams" which Tom wants to include in the book bear no resemblance whatever to anything that he drew on the blackboard during his speeches. Everyone who attended the debate knows that he stood at the blackboard during nearly all of his speeches, beat on the board with his chalk (which can be heard on the tape), and made hundreds of meaningless doodles which I called "hieroglyphics" time and again during my speeches. Then he would erase these senseless marks and cover the blackboard again with more doodles. I have told Tom and A. G. Hobbs again and again, over and over, that I am most willing for him to include in the book every blackboard doodle that he drew on the board. But he does not want anything that he drew to go into the book; he wants to put charts in the book, which were drawn up after the debate, and which I never saw until a few days ago, and which he now calls his "blackboard diagrams." He had a projector and canvass lying by his side throughout the debate. Why did he not exhibit these "diagrams" on the canvass? The answer is easy: these "diagrams" had not been drawn up at that time. He never did use his projector at all; he did not unwrap it; he did not exhibit a single chart; the only thing that he exhibited during the debate were those blackboard doodles, or "hieroglyphics."
5. In his recorded speeches Brother Warren made statements that deal a death blow to his false charge that I am trying to prevent material from going into the book, which he used in the debate. While Tom was violating the rules by introducing new material in his final rebuttal, my moderator called his attention to it, and asked him which "chart" he was talking about. He replied that he had not numbered some of his charts yet. Article 3, of our contract says that all charts must be numbered, "if such be used." These confessions appear in Tom's recorded speeches: (1) That he had not numbered his charts at the time of his last speech in the debate; (2) That some of his charts had not been "drawn up"; (3) That Roy Deaver was at that very time drawing up his charts; (4) That he knew I would not let him include them in the debate book, and that he did not blame me for keeping them out:; (5) That he would write another book, and that the people would be able to get these charts in that "other book" which he would write. Why does he now demand that all these "charts" and "diagrams" be included in the debate book, instead of that "other book" which he said he would write? The answer is easy: because of his miserable failure, he does not want the debate published according to our agreement, and he knows that he can prevent its publication by insisting that I comply with his ridiculous demands. I think he knows that my co-publisher, A. G. Hobbs, is so blinded by his centralization hobby that he will join Tom in every demand he makes, and will not cross him on anything.
Just anything that Tom Warren tells A. G. Hobbs that I said, regardless of how untrue it may be, Brother Hobbs joins right in and accuses me of saying it without asking me if I said it. For example, Brother Tom told Brother Hobbs that I had agreed to say nothing in the papers until we could reach an agreement. That is far from the truth. Immediately after the debate, Roy Deaver rushed into the Gospel Advocate with five or six articles, where I am not permitted to say one word in reply. Within the past decade the Gospel Advocate has acquired the reputation of publishing almost anything, regardless of how untrue it may be, that the editor thinks will "quarantine" or in some way harm those who disagree with his theories of centralized control. The editor of the Advocate knows me personally, and he is no fool. Therefore, I know, and I think nearly all the readers of the Advocate know, that the editor knows that Roy Deaver's "Highlights" are prejudicial and false; yet he published them as though he thought they were true. In the light of such unfair and prejudicial editorial conduct, I proposed to Brother Warren that nothing else be said in the papers till we reach an agreement and publish the book. But he did not say one word in reply to that proposal; then I stated it again. But he would not say whether he would accept it or not; he would not give me an answer. Therefore, I was not bound by the proposal; no man is bound by a proposition which the other party does not accept. But according to the way that Tom and Hobbs reason, if a man proposes marriage to a woman even though she does not accept his proposal, the man is bound by it and must go on and marry the woman anyway.
6. The charge that I want only the "verbal explanation" of Tom's "diagrams" and "charts" in the debate book is totally false. I would be most happy to see every one of Tom's blackboard "hieroglyphics" in the book with every "verbal explanation" that he made of them. But there is an ocean of difference between the blackboard doodles that Tom used in the debate, and the "diagrams" and "charts" that he drew up after the debate and that he did not use during the debate and that he said he would publish in "another book." Brother Warren's efforts to duplicate the old J. Frank Norris - E. R. Harper stunt of adding 38 pages to his speeches are failing miserably.
I wish the elders of the Eastridge Church in Fort Worth would accept the challenge of the elders of the Southside Church in Brownwood, and let Tom and me debate the same propositions in Fort Worth and Brown-wood that we discussed in South Houston. I think they would accept that challenge, if they did not know that Roy Deaver's Gospel Advocate "Highlights" are false to the core.
Brethren Hobbs and Warren claim that they are "willing to sit down with other men and determine this matter as brethren in Christ should in any matter of dispute." I wish the readers of the Guardian really knew how hard it is for me to get these brethren in such a meeting. During the past two weeks I have had two appointments to meet them in Stephenville, about half way between Brownwood and Fort Worth. Both times they have waited till the "eleventh hour" and then sent me a telegram stating they would not be there.
If we do have another meeting to "determine this matter," I sincerely hope that they slip off from Roy Deaver and leave him at home. Though he was not a disputant in the debate and has nothing whatever to do with the publication of the book, he has appeared in every meeting we have had. He bounces around like a poodle in tall oats and makes himself a nuisance to all. That is why I want him left under the front porch at home. If ever in all my life I have seen a self-assertive "smart aleck," Roy is it. The only time that he has contributed anything constructive to these meetings was in that meeting on January 19, when he helped to hold Elder Burlison when Brother Burlison lost control of himself and yelled out, "Cut that off!" and dashed across the room and turned the switch off of the recording machine.
A series of articles in reply to Roy Deaver's Gospel Advocate "Highlights" will begin in the Gospel Guardian within a few weeks.
The Douthitt-Warren Debate has not been published for this reason: Tom Warren and A. G. Hobbs are demanding that Tom exercise the privilege of adding 38 pages of new material to his speeches, with no reply at all from me. I refuse to let him do that, and I have told them many times that I am willing for Tom to add as many new pages as he wishes of any kind of material that he chooses; but I must be given exactly the same number of pages in which to reply. They refuse to do this, and they refuse to let the book be published according to the terms of our signed contract.