Another Open Letter To Brother Tant (Concl)
Dear Brother Tant:
This is the last of two portions of my letter. I shall start where I left off in my observations of your statements in reply to my previous open letter.
Fellowship
Why do you not ever answer my questions about fellowship? You seem to go stone deaf when anyone asks how you can fellowship us although we are in apostasy, if you are correct, and not fellowship the Christian Church when you give EXACTLY THE SAME REASONS for our being in apostasy that you give for their being in the same condition? Why won't you answer this plain, easy, simple question from a THIRD GRADE elder? What are you afraid of? You also overlooked answering whether or not you intend to be in subjection to the North Park elders. Are they taking up funds from members and marking all of them as to how they want them spent so as to avoid damaging any member's conscience who might be opposed to something they elect to support, such as five orphan homes of various arrangements?
Repudiation Or Repentance
If I am always missed by trucks when I walk across the street as far as you missed answering my question about repudiation or repentance on the part of preachers who have suddenly decided they have been teaching and practicing error, then I can cease giving them a thought. Again I ask, "Is there a different pattern concerning forgiveness that applies to preachers ONLY?" The approved example is given in Acts 8:22-24. Why not just tell all of us how to handle this matter. Why should all the members of the church, who sin publicly, be required to come before the congregation and openly admit that they have sinned and ask for the prayers of the church when all a preacher needs do is simply say "I repudiate all of them all the way back to Jerusalem if necessary." No repentance, no prayer, just repudiate. Apparently, Peter didn't know anymore in Acts 10:34 than he did in Acts 8:22. He was born over 1900 years too soon if what you brethren practice is true.
To Flip Or Not To Flip
A preacher in California who was present at the trial in Bakersfield wrote me after reading your letter that there was no question being argued about majority rule in the church when you made your famous statement that elders might flip a coin. "That is entirely within their AUTHORITY if they want to decide the case by a FLIP OF A COIN they can do it." I don't have any desire to get into that argument, but I do have a copy of the record and now I want to just pay my respects to what you said in your answer to me in the Gospel Guardian of January 10, 1957. You said, "being placed on the stand, I testified that the Bible teaches that when elders act in harmony with New Testament teaching, their decision is final, and no subject to any further action by the congregation." To this we will all agree. But listen a little further. You said, "The attorney for the 'sponsoring church' faction, trying to break my testimony, pressed me with question after question as to the METHOD by which elders are to reach a decision. He was trying to get me to say that the ONLY METHOD they could rightfully follow was to take a vote of the congregation, and abide by the majority ruling." If we understand you correctly, it was then that you used the expression "by the flip of a coin." Now Brother Tant, first of all we would ask: Did you mean an actual coin or was this just another expression? Like the BOXES IN THE VESTIBULE? Would it be unkind for us to suggest that, you were not required to deviate from the first answer you gave the attorney, simply because he was pressing you to say something that suited him? Do you feel that pressure justifies a man who is testifying as "an expert witness" to go all out and to any lengths to try to fend off a cross examiner? Do you think that the end justifies the means? The apostle Paul told the Corinthians in II Corinthians 1:8 that he and Timothy were pressed out of measure to the point that they despaired of their lives, yet they never faltered in their trust in God who delivered them. Again he said in Ephesians 6:13, "Wherefore, take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye might be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all to stand." All you had to do, Brother Tent, was to just keep repeating what you said at first.
Now, if I understand you properly, you said, "as a matter of fact, Acts, Chapter 1 indicates that the apostles did do EXACTLY THAT!!" Speaking of the apostles "flipping a coin." Then you asked me, "Would you, Brother Reese, accuse these holy men of "gambling"? Yes, Brother Tant! I surely would if they were doing what you said. In the first place there is no information to which I have access (of course the third grade doesn't afford too much light on the subject) that indicates that these men were flipping coins. Yet supposing that they were, what do we have? Let's go back and read a little more about this matter. That's what we ask denominationalists to do. The Book says Acts 1:24-25, "And they prayed and said, Thou Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, show whether of these two THOU HAST CHOSEN, that he may take part of this ministry and apostleship from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place." Now if I understand this passage, and I believe that I do, it says the Lord was to show which of these men HE had chosen. Not selected by DAME FORTUNE or FICKLE FATE.
Conclusion: Are we to suppose that a group of elders may convene and after prayer, begin to flip coins to settle all the problems of the church "as such" and/or elders of the church? Of course, it is understood that, first of all they must have prayer and have the Holy Spirit or the Lord show them what "heads" or "tails" will represent. That is, which is "yes" and which is "no." Do we arrive at this answer by 'command," "necessary inference" or "approved example"? And to think you don't believe in the "mourner's bench" or the direct operation of the Holy Spirit in obtaining salvation when the Holy Spirit is willing to ride on and direct the flip of a coin to determine the eternal destiny of Christians "after" they have been saved. How would it do to "flip a cat"? The odds I am sure would be much more favorable toward what the elders might choose to do if left to them and their judgment, in "harmony with New Testament teaching." So far I have not found a preacher who is agreed with you on how not to cooperate that wants any part of your coin flipping to administer discipline in the church "as such" or any other way.
Whose Famine?
You assert that you do not understand what I am driving at. I think you do. Just tell us whose famine it was. It was in ALL THE WORLD. Were Antioch and Jerusalem equally related to the world? That ought to be easy. When the Lord gave the GREAT COMMISSION to the apostles to "Go INTO ALL THE WORLD," was it obvious that all the world was not equally in need of the gospel? My point is and was: "If one church cannot help another church do a work to which they sustain "the same relationship" or to which "they are equally related," why do you and Brother Douthitt continue using the famine in Acts 11 to show how churches may cooperate.
Will Highland Be Lost?
The reason for asking you to state what you believe as to whether or not Highland and those helping her put on the radio and television program will be lost is to determine really how serious you think the matter of cooperation between churches is in your own mind. If we are not going to be lost why tear up the brotherhood with your condemnation of what we are doing? If we are, why don't' you do like John the Baptist and say so. If we are engaging in sinful practices we have no reason to think we shall be saved and need to be disfellowshipped, if we will not repent. We are rather certain that you have definite ideas about the Roman Church being lost and our writers have paralleled us with it many times. Would you now like to say that you are not ready to say that they will be lost? If you don't know whether or not we are going to be lost for what we are doing, then why all these debates? Are they simply promoted for the purpose of getting notoriety, and satisfying an inward desire to crusade, or just to promote the financial welfare of a "human institution" that is chartered to carry on religious, educational, and benevolent enterprises?
The Violated Contract
The Highland elders are requesting a meeting with the elders of the North Park church where you hold membership to settle if possible the matter which you continue to bring up, questioning the integrity of Brother Harper and Brother Nichols, who are members at Highland. Brother Harper and Brother Nichols have stated they would like to have this opportunity of presenting the matter before the joint meeting. Will you be there? You have made some very serious charges against brethren and so you will no doubt be anxious to have the opportunity to do so in their presence and before those who are held responsible for your soul as well as their own.
In closing I quote from the Booklet, "Why Herald of Truth Is Wrong" Debate Notes For a Discussion on "Sponsored Cooperation Among Churches of Christ."
at
Lufkin, Texas — April 11-14, 1955 Abilene, Texas — June 20-23., 1955 (Later changed to Nov. 28 - Dec. 1, 1955).
This is the book that is included in the Abilene debate book. Again we ask "What is wrong with this book that you changed your mind after Lufkin that you do not want it published? You were rather proud of it at Lufkin and made such sport of Brother Harper not having a prepared answer to it even though you knew at the time that he did not even know the book was in existence. He told you then his printed answer would be ready at Abilene, and you thought that rather funny at the time. Why isn't it funny now? It seems to be all right for you to print anything you wish at any time about any subject whether or not anyone knows about it until too late to do anything about it, but when someone else does the very thing they told you they were going to do, you seem to feel that a most grievous sin has been committed. Is this what is meant by another "expression" we have heard for years "The King Can Do No Wrong"?
In closing may we remind you that the good church at Tenth and Francis in Oklahoma City, which you feel is doing such a wonderful work, (and we agree) in such a fine way (and we agree again) is "preaching the gospel around the world" through other churches and preachers. Not only so these places are listed in their bulletins as "OUR MISSION FIELDS," see their bulletins on raising the budget needs for 1957, November 1956, if I remember them right. I have them in my files if you would care to have a copy made. The only reason we mention this is because they are doing that to which you are opposed and yet you state that they are going to support you in mission work this year. You see, they practice what we preach, and we didn't think you would care to be a party to it, or would you?