Some Comment On Brother Warren's Latest Article
It was with deep regret that I read the second issue of "The Spiritual Sword," a new paper edited by Brother Thomas Warren, published "to uphold truth and oppose error — not persons." While there are several things in this issue that arouse regret in my heart the specific thing is the editorial cartoon and the editor's comment on it.
The editor pictures those who oppose him on this issue as fighting helpless orphan children by refusing to help them in their grave hour of need. The editor depicts his opponents as cruel, heartless and without compassion to an extreme. They allow the children to remain out in the snow while torturing them by tantalizingly holding up before them food and clothing. At the same time, those Christians whom the editor attacks are seen to be mercilessly withholding these needs on the grounds of hypocritical piety. If such were a true picture I would be glad to be among the first "to cast the first stone."
But it is not a true picture. It is a subterfuge which will serve the purpose of arousing antagonism and antipathy in the hearts of his readers, not otherwise informed, against any and all who call in question any feature of the benevolent organizations and practices among us today.
The care of orphan children not only arouses sympathy in human hearts but it is a grave obligation of Christians; one which can have a definite bearing upon where one spends eternity. I have never heard any Christian at any time deny this. I have never heard of any teaching believed by Christians whose reasonable consequence was the starving of orphan children — Christians or otherwise.
I am not willing to try to prove that because I oppose the editor on this issue I am more charitable, more merciful more benevolent than he. I am perfectly willing to allow the decision to be rendered by Christ. At the same time, I am not willing to admit that because he differs from me on this issue he is more charitable, more merciful, more benevolent than I. In my judgment, it is a poor display of humility and graciousness for him to make such an admission about himself and such a charge against his opponents; especially in the light of his promise to "oppose error — not persons."
I feel the need to make mention of this in our bulletin for several reasons. First, we at Castleberry come within the scope of the editor's indictment. The indictment is by no means a representation of our views on the issue nor the intent of our position. Of course, other brethren may speak for themselves but I firmly believe others will feel the same way.
Secondly, our bulletin goes out into some homes which also receive the paper under consideration. If we were silent on the matter some might interpret our silence as an admission of guilt.
I do not ever recall, seeing a more forthright appeal to prejudice or a more complete misrepresentation of the real nature of an opponent's argument. Such a thing is objective dishonesty and cannot he condoned by any Christian who really understands the true issues involved or by one who does not understand, if he will allow those whom the editor misrepresents to speak for themselves.
This is a caricature of the faith and conscience of honorable brethren and makes a travesty of the high-sounding claim of the paper for fairness and objectivity in dealing with the issues of "liberalism and anti-ism."
In warfare it is expected that the battles will wax hot. And men are expected to come to close quarters, attempting to deal mortifying blows to the enemy. But those soldiers who fight for what they believe to be Truth, claiming to be under the banner of Prince Immanuel, are expected to fight consistent with honor. To them honor should be more than a word. In such combat we expect to face the broadsword and rapier but never the stiletto in the back.
There is a sense in which opponents have no right to dictate to their opponents the tactics they must use — as long as they are just. But stretch the word as far as you like, this cannot be included under the category of "just." While I do not like the word "anti" because of its pre-possessions, and would, therefore, prefer being called by another name, I can find some semblance of excuse for it; while for this I find none.
I am thoroughly disappointed in those responsible. While I have never been intimately and personally acquainted with the editor I have followed his writings and thinking through the past few years with a great deal of benefit to myself. On other matters I have found his reasoning to be clear, sound and fair. Even in spite of my disagreement with his views on the institutional question I have appreciated in his arguments what is lacking in the arguments of hosts of those who agree with him: some appeal to Scripture. That his appeal to Scripture has been sufficient to prove his proposition, I deny.
Even his plan of procedure — arranging his arguments in syllogistic form — cannot be satisfactorily criticized. And, brethren with whom I am acquainted have criticized them not because of their logic but because of the lack of it; not because it is reasoning but because it is specious reasoning.
One of Brother Warren's lessons of several years ago, which so impressed me, was entitled, "Evasions of the Law of Rationality." The purpose of the articles was to show common ways that sound thinking is avoided. In the light of this which we are now criticizing we ask him to re-study his own well planned lessons, realize his mistake and correct it.
These articles originally printed in Gospel Guardian, 1954, are most valuable in helping one avoid the mistakes of evading clear reasoning. From reading these articles it is undeniable that the editor once knew his lessons well but that he has either forgotten them or failed to apply them is equally undeniable in reading this article under criticism.
In illustrating "the appeal to emotion" as an "evasion of the law of rationality," under the point "examples in the church," our brother wrote this: "Again, brethren are heard to say, 'Boles Home is a scriptural way for the church to do its benevolent work.' Why? "Because the most pitiful sight in the world to me is a poor, hungry, homeless little orphan child. I just cannot hear to think that the Home is unscriptural when I think of all the poor, little orphans.' It's true that homeless orphan children are objects of deep sympathy, but this fact is no substitute for proof from the Bible that such a set-up is authorized by the Lord. The fact that we all feel strongly about the matter is not proof that the church is to work through such an institution."
And, a little later on in the same article he said: "Let us not, in such cases, begin to wring our hands like a sectarian and cry, "Oh, you are against supporting orphans and preaching the gospel." Emphasis mine. H. P., Jr.)
Our brother also falls under his own criticism — 1954 style — because he now tries to evade rationality by an "argumentum ad hominen" — argument to the man. Under "examples in the church" he wrote in the Gospel Guardian: "Joe Blow writes an article trying to set forth what the Bible teaches about caring for orphan children and other benevolent work of the church. He tries to show, by evidential proof, that certain 'homes' do not fit the scriptural way of doing things. Jack seeks to show his thesis to be false by saying. `Joe Blow is an `anti' He never seeks to do anything positive. No matter how you fix his soup, he doesn't like it. If you fix it thin, he doesn't like it. If you fix it thick, he doesn't like it. The truth of the matter is, he really cares nothing for poor, little orphan children. You need pay no attention to anything he says on this subject until he proves by his own plan that he is interested in orphans. . . . Why can't all see this?"
His closing question is pertinent and demands an answer: "Why can't all (you) see this?" I am perfectly willing to be taught in the Scriptures by a logician but I want the logician to be at least 'logical enough to apply his own lessons when trying to instruct me.
In this groundless indictment against his brethren our brother has sinned. For the sake of his soul, in the interest of arriving at the Truth, out of respect for those whom he has falsely attacked, we call upon him to repent, confess his wrong and retract his charge which his cartoon and article have taught explicitly and implicitly.