Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 10
March 12, 1959
NUMBER 44, PAGE 9a-11b

Some More Concerning Those "Blytheville Orphans"

Jesse M. Kelley, Blytheville, Arkansas

Due to the fact that Guy Woods and some others are running around over the country misrepresenting the church in Blytheville concerning some destitute children who became our responsibility in the fall and winter of 1957, it has become necessary to write again about that matter. We had hoped that our clear and complete explanation concerning the matter which was published in the Gospel Guardian last year would satisfy brother Woods and Company; and believing that he and others who hold his position possessed a degree of integrity and fairness, we thought the matter would be closed. But it has become painfully apparent that we were mistaken in our estimation of our opponents' sense of fairness and Christian dignity. For more than a year now, brother Woods has been misrepresenting this matter almost everywhere he goes, notwithstanding the fact that he has been repeatedly informed of the circumstances in that situation in both public print and personal correspondence. Furthermore, he has been personally invited to come to Blytheville and examine the photo static records for himself. Every courtesy and privilege possible have been extended to him in order that he may know first hand the circumstances; but thus far he has neither accepted our explanation of the matter, nor accepted our personal invitation to examine the records for himself. Instead, he has continued to misrepresent and falsify the facts as he well knows them to be.

This article is not intended to justify the action of the Blytheville church in this case. We have already done that in the former article mentioned above; the invitation remains open to anyone who desires to see the records. Our purpose here is to show conclusively that Woods is knowingly misrepresenting us, and that he is maliciously falsifying the facts as he well knows them to be. We shall appeal to public and published statements, together with statements coming from his own pen in personal correspondence to us to prove beyond any shadow of doubt that he knows he is misrepresenting the facts in this matter.

First, we refer the reader to the `Cogdill-Woods Debate" held in Birmingham, Alabama, in November of 1957. On page 40 brother Woods introduces an editorial by Yater Tant, which appeared in the Gospel Guardian of September 19, 1957, captioned "Do You Want a Family". That editorial was the result of a telephone conversation which we had with brother Tant who was in Oregon at the time in a gospel meeting. We gave brother Tant the facts in our case here and he represented them fairly in the above named editorial. The matter concerned four unfortunate children in Blytheville whose mother was dying of cancer, and whose father was incapacitated and unable to provide for the children. We quote a portion of that editorial to show that there was no room for misunderstanding or a misconstruction of the facts in any way:

"Once again, we come to our readers with an appeal in behalf of helpless children ... a Christian mother is dying of cancer, and before she crosses over she is extremely anxious to see her four sweet children in the home of some Christian father and mother who will love them, shield them, and care for them as their own. (Emp. mine, JMK) She is not interested merely in knowing that her children will have food and clothes and shelter; there is little chance that any child in America need suffer for lack of these essentials... Both the father and mother have already signed the necessary papers, committing the children into the custody of the elders of the congregation where they live to find a proper home . . . Once the elders are satisfied as to the ability and character of the prospective parents, the adoption can be arranged swiftly and legally."

It will be noted in the above portion of the editorial that brother Tant made it crystal clear that the elders of the Blytheville church were endeavoring to carry out the dying request of the mother of these children... She did not ask, nor did she intend for the elders here to take the children and oversee their supervision and welfare indefinitely. Their responsibility was fulfilling the request of the mother and nothing else. The children were never permanent charges of the church, no more than my children are; the request was specific — the elders were to do what they could to see that the children were adopted by a Christian man and woman, and nothing more. Of course these children were cared for several months; they were fed and clothed under the supervision of the elders with the expense for the same coming from the treasury of the church. The church was functioning in a work of benevolence.

What does brother Woods say about this? He misrepresented it then and is doing so now. On page 71 of the debate Woods said, ". . . brother Tant's appeal for some home to take these children off the hands of the elders ..." (Emp. mine, JMK) This statement is a prejudicial one, designed to create prejudice in the minds of his hearers, and the implication is false to the core. The elders were honoring the request of a person then dead, and who had made the request in her last hours. Had this been the only such statement Woods had made relative to this matter, we might well have excused him on the grounds that it may have been a slip of the tongue. But later on in the debate he stoops a little lower (if that be possible), and on page 122 says, "A group of elders, which he says are in Blytheville, Arkansas, have a bunch of Children, and they are trying their best to get rid of them." (Emp. mine MK) By his implication he is saying that the elders in Blytheville have some children they are responsible for, but are doing their best to sidestep that responsibility. He was dishonest in making that statement; he implied something that wasn't so and no one knows it better than Guy Woods.

But that is not all. Ever since the debate Woods has been running around over the country and holding the Blytheville church and its elders up as a church that "tried to get rid of children which were its responsibility." In the Freed-Hardeman College lectures, on January 6th, this year he made a statement in the open (?) forum that the Blytheville church had some children which they "tried to get rid of." Brooks Webb, who is acquainted with the Blytheville church, tried to get recognition in that "open forum" to set forth the facts in the case. But that "open forum" wasn't as open as it is advertised to be by F. H. C. Guy Woods lied when he made that statement an he knows it.

In personal correspondence we have informed this man of the circumstances in this matter. He read our former article which was published first in the Apostolic Voice, a publication of the Blytheville church, then in the Gospel Guardian. He was reminded of the circumstances at the Birmingham debate, and has been told by word of mouth, yet continues to misrepresent and falsify wherever he goes. A man must be pretty hard up for a convincing argument when he continually resort to lies and misrepresentation to bolster his case; It is apparent that his conscience is "seared."

In a letter to this writer, dated May 7, 1958, Woods makes the ridiculous assertion that Roy Cogdill said the church in Blytheville was his (Cogdill's) example of a "home" that was taking care of orphan children. Here is his paragraph: "Yes, I DID ASK ROY to give an example of the type of home which he endorsed; and, when he cited Blytheville, I emphasized — as you well know — that I asked for the address of a HOME and he gave me the address of a church; hence, did not know the difference between the two. THIS IS ONE DEAL YOU AND COGDILL WILL NOT WIGGLE OUT OF.' " (all emp. his) I have searched in vain in the book of the debate for this request for the address of a home. It is not there. Rather he asked for the address a church that was -"Within the framework of the congregation; under the supervision of the elders, are seeing to it that destitute children are cared for. Brother Cogdill gave the address of the Blytheville church. It was "within the framework of the church, and under the supervision of the elders," that this church was temporarily caring for destitute children. And when Guy "Woods, or anybody else says that we were "trying to get rid of them" they have lied and they know it.

We are sorry that this man has so conducted himself that this article has become necessary. It seems that he has completely repudiated the principles of dignity and common decency in his dealings with any who will not go along with him in his wild, erratic course. His deliberate misrepresentations has made it distressingly difficult for us to feel kindly toward him. When anyone becomes so prejudiced that he will willfully and knowingly misrepresent a brother or a church, and will falsify what he well knows to be the facts in order to put his position in a favorable light before his hearers, he has reached the place that he does not merit the fellowship of faithful brethren until he repents. In spite of his voluntary spiritual degradation our earnest prayers are in his behalf. May God grant him the grace and the disposition to repent and turn again to the Cause which he once espoused but has now repudiated.