Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 14
NEED_DATE
NUMBER 28, PAGE 1,10-13

November 15,

Hit And Run In Oklahoma

James W. Adams

We had a very descriptive name, which it is unnecessary for us to spell out, in any boyhood for the boy who would hit another and then run for his life. In the realm of law, it is a felony for a driver to hit a person with his automobile and run away from the scene of the offense. We doubt that such tactics are less reprehensible in a conflict over spiritual matters. A classic example of hit and run in a professed soldier of the Cross occurred here in Oklahoma City last summer.

The 10th and Francis congregation, which this writer serves as evangelist, planned and conducted a meeting of six days duration in which current problems relating to "institutionalism" and "church cooperation" were discussed — a different speaker each day. The subjects discussed were: (1) "The Pattern of Apostasy"; (2) "Authority in Religion"; (3) "The Mission of the Church"; (4) "Cooperation of Churches — Scriptural and Unscriptural"; (5) "The Organization of the Church"; (6) "Benevolence — The Duty And Its Scriptural Fulfillment." Yater Tant, Cecil B. Douthitt, Charles A. Holt, Roy Cogdill, Ward Hogland and A. Hugh Clark were the speakers.

By way of advertising the meeting, invitations were printed with a place provided for the signature of the sender and all pertinent data relative to the meeting included in. it. Members of the congregation were urged to take as many as they could use and mail them with their signatures at the proper place to people who, in their judgment, might be interested in our series of studies. This writer personally mailed a signed invitation to each preacher in each church in the city. The membership of no congregation was indiscriminately circularized with our invitations.

We had an interesting and profitable meeting. The speakers performed their parts well. Good attendance and interest characterized every service, and we believe much good was accomplished. Very few of the local preachers attended. Among those who attended was Lewis G. Hale, preacher for the Southwest congregation of the city. Brother Hale came on Monday and Tuesday evenings. In Wednesday's mail, all the members at 10th and Francis received letters from brother Hale containing a letter written by Hale himself and a copy of a tract by Thomas B. Warren, entitled, "Logic And The Guardian." The following day another envelope was mailed to each member containing a tract by Roy Deaver entitled, "Highlights of the Douthitt-Warren Debate." This was the last we saw of Lewis Hale during the meeting.

After the meeting, on August 3rd, the 10th and Francis church mailed a reply to Lewis G. Hale's letter to every member, as far as we were able to determine, of the Southwest congregation. The letter written by brother Hale and our reply follows. Two months have passed since our reply to Hale and not one word have we heard from him or Southwest congregation. We can only conclude therefore, that their policy is to hit and run. They no doubt subscribe to the old adage that "discretion is the better part of valor."

The letters which follow are self-explanatory. However, because of a reference made by Hale to a statement contained in our invitation to the meeting, we think it well to reproduce the entire statement from which his quotation was taken. We said, following the announcement of speakers and subjects:

"Each of these men is well known among churches of Christ for his unusual ability to proclaim the New Testament gospel. Each, with the exception of Brother Clark, in addition to preaching extensively on the subject he will discuss, has met the issues involved in public debate. Though Brother Clark has not publicly debated these matters, no man is better known than he for his fidelity to truth and his outstanding ability to proclaim it.

"It is with pleasure and confidence, therefore, that we take this means of inviting our brethren in the Lord of other congregations in this city and area to join with us in a careful study of the Bible concerning these matters that are of so much interest to us all and which have in recent years been the cause of so much unrest, strife, and even division. It is our feeling that no member of the church of the Lord who has a proper regard for his soul and the doctrinal and organizational purity of the Lord's churches will be satisfied without having heard both sides of these problems and issues carefully discussed by able Bible students.

"If you receive this invitation, it is because we believe that YOU are the type Christian who is not governed in religion by blind, unreasoning prejudice, but one who always makes up his own mind in matters of the spirit on the basis of what he believes to be the truth after carefully weighing and studying every proposition. May we count on your being with us and studying these most vital matters?"

After the reader has carefully perused the two letters which follow, and in view of the absolute silence of brother Hale and the Southwest congregation of Oklahoma City, whenever he sees the name of Hale or of Southwest congregation, he may correctly write in letters bold, enclosed in quotation marks, and followed by an exclamation point: "STILL RUNNING!"

Hale's Letter

1405 Sulzberger Oklahoma City 8, Okla.

June 25, 1962 Dear Brethren in Christ:

I have just received a personal invitation to attend a series of Bible Studies of current problems and issues confronting the Churches of Christ, to be conducted at 10th and Francis. I appreciate the invitation and plan to attend as much as possible.

The invitation says: "It is our feeling that no member of the church of the Lord who has a proper regard for his soul and the doctrinal and organizational purity of the Lord's churches will be satisfied without having heard both sides of these problems and issues carefully discussed by able Bible students." Since it is wished that both sides be heard, I am enclosing a tract which will help to accomplish that purpose.

One of the sad and tragic results that usually accompanies differences is that of misunderstanding in other areas. Many times if we differ with someone else in one point, we brand him a heretic in general. We begin to associate him with things with which he is not actually associated. This is condemnation by association.

For example, those of us who support such homes as Tipton and such programs as Herald of Truth are often misrepresented as preaching a "social gospel," "liberals," "modernists." There is no connection.

From the pulpit at Southwest (and elsewhere) I preach:

The inspiration of the Scriptures. They are God's word, our final authority.

The virgin birth of Jesus Christ. He is the only begotten of the Father.

The atoning power of the blood of Christ. Without it there is no salvation.

The resurrection, both of Christ and finally of all men.

The judgment, at which all souls will either go to heaven or hell, which will endure eternally.

The oneness of the body of Christ. Denominationalism is sinful.

The plan of salvation: Hearing, Believing, Repentance, Confession and Baptism for the remission of sins. Those who fail to do this are lost.

The sin of divorce and remarriage for any cause other than fornication.

The sin of immodest dress, mixed bathing, dancing, the use of tobacco (if it defiles the temple of God and I think it does).

The scriptural organization of the church: a local church under the oversight of its own elders free from outside interference. Each congregation is autonomous.

This letter is not designed to alter the organization of 10th & Francis, not to direct its work or worship. Many other things too numerous to mention. The above are perhaps the most misunderstood. Charges should never be made which cannot be fully substantiated. Sometimes in the midst of controversy, brethren are too quick to believe any evil report they hear. This is true regardless of which side of an issue brethren take.

For years, 10th & Francis supported the home at Tipton. During that time, the ladies' class also ate meals in the church building. Were the preachers unsound on basic Bible themes? Did they preach a "social gospel"? Did they fail to preach the truth about the church, baptism, denominationalism, etc.? Of course not. If 10th & Francis could support Tipton Home and eat on church premises and still be sound, not "liberal," "modernist" or peddlers of a "social gospel," why cannot other churches do so now without being any of those things?

Brother Ward Hogland preached for years at Park Hill in Ft. Smith, Arkansas. That is the church where Southern Christian Home had its beginning. In fact, while he preached there, one of his elders, Bro. Loudermilk, was Secretary-Treasurer of the Board. Ward stood then where we stand now. If he was not "liberal," "modernist," then, why are we now?

Ask the Bob Wests, or the Audie Lamberts, (both families find people and friends) or any other members there who have heard this writer, as to whether or not he preaches the plain gospel in a forthright and uncompromising way. Let no one deceive you into believing that there is any connection between the issues of the orphan homes and Herald of Truth and the issues of modernism, liberalism or denominationalism.

I have never believed nor advocated that any church should be criticized or persecuted because it does not choose to support an orphan home or Herald of Truth or send support to missions through a sponsoring church. Perhaps others have, if so, they should not. In fact, in the Abilene Christian College Lectures, 1962, page 492, I stated: "Any co-operation in evangelism or benevolence must be voluntary. No congregation should be esteemed any less if it chooses to do all its work without receiving or giving any outside help. Expedients are allowable, not mandatory.

This letter must not be interpreted to be an attempt to get 10th & Francis to support any work. That must be determined by your elders. I shall not love them any less if they choose to do their work without reference to any other congregation. Let us pray for more understanding and brotherly love. We should mend breaches, not widen them.

This letter is an attempt to set the record straight as to the lack of connection between church cooperation and soundness in other areas of gospel preaching.

In Brotherly Love,

(Signed) Lewis G. Hale Evangelist

Reply To Hale's Letter

901 N. W. 10th Street Oklahoma City 6, Oklahoma

July 18, 1962 Dear Brethren in Christ:

You may be surprised to receive a letter from us, hence we shall explain why we thus address you. Recently, at 10th and Francis, we had a series of meetings featuring a different speaker each evening. The sermons were dedicated to a study of various aspects of the current controversy among churches of Christ relative to the co-operation of churches in benevolence, evangelism, and edification. Printed invitations were provided by the church so that the members of the congregation might sign them and mail them to their acquaintances in other congregations of the city and the area who, according to their judgment, might be interested in such a study.

It was formally decided in a meeting of the elders and deacons at 10th and Francis, prior to the meeting, that the membership of the various churches of the city and area would not be indiscriminately circularized with our invitations. Up to this time, this has never been done with any literature of any kind emanating from 10th and Francis.

Knowing that many of the members of the churches of the city would be receiving these invitations, Brother James W. Adams, the evangelist at 10th and Francis, deemed it proper that the elders and evangelists of these churches be given the consideration of having a copy of that which was being mailed. Too, it was our desire that they have an invitation to the studies. Hence, each evangelist was mailed an invitation signed by Brother Adams and each eldership was mailed one signed with the name of the congregation.

The Interesting Result

Upon receiving his invitation, Brother Lewis G. Hale, evangelist for the Southwest congregation of Oklahoma City, prepared a letter defending himself against certain charges which he alleges have been made against him and attempting a defense and explanation of his position relative to the issues that were the subject of the studies of our meeting. In doing this, he likewise seeks to point out certain inconsistencies between the past and present practice of one of our speakers and of the past and present practice of the 10th and Francis church. In each letter, there was enclosed a copy of a tract by Thomas B. Warren called "Logic — And The Guardian." This letter and enclosure were mailed to every family and/or member associated with the 10th and Francis congregation. Under separate cover, each was also mailed a copy of a tract by Roy Deaver called "Highlights Of The Douthitt-Warren Debate." We presume this tract came from the same source as the former.

This Letter A Reply

Our letter is a reply to Brother Hale's action and statements. We feel that we owe Brother Hale the courtesy of such a reply, and we desire to be quite as generous as was he, hence we are mailing each household connected with the Southwest congregation (to the best of our knowledge) a copy of our letter. To do less might seem ungrateful on our part and might be regarded as a manifestation on our part of less interest in your souls than Brother Hale professes to have in ours. In this reply we shall do our best to satisfy the demands of the occasion and Brother Lewis Hale.

A Point By Point Review Of Hales' Letter

(1) We should like to ask if the mailing out of this letter and tracts was the Southwest congregation acting through Brother Hale, or if it was Brother Hale's own enterprise? We believe the answer to this question to be important. If it was Brother Hale's personal project, was it done with the consent of or does it now have the endorsement of the congregation and its elders? This project could not have cost less than sixty or seventy dollars. We doubt that the average preacher would spend such an amount of money for such a project. Question: Did the Southwest church subsidize the enterprise? If so, we wonder if you are now willing to go the rest of the way and accept the consequences of your action? We shall see!

(2) Brother Hale said, "I appreciate the invitation and plan to attend as much as possible." He did attend on Monday and Tuesday nights. We appreciate his coming. This is more than can be said of most of the preachers and elders of the city. We regard it significant however, that Brother Hale attended only before his letter and enclosures were received by the members at 10th and Francis and not after — the letter came in Wednesday's mail. We wonder why?

(3) Brother Hale seems much exercised about being "branded a heretic in general" because of his position on current issues. He lists a number of things he believes and preaches, such as: the inspiration of the Scriptures; the authority of God's word; the virgin birth of Christ; the atoning power of the blood of Christ; the resurrection; the judgment; oneness of the body of Christ; conditions of salvation; sin of divorce and remarriage; immodest dress, mixed bathing, dancing and even the use of tobacco (he says he thinks it defiles the temple of God); the scriptural organization of the church — a local church under the oversight of its elders free from outside interference. This last point seemed, in his mind, to lay upon Brother Hale the necessity of explaining the mailing out of his letter to the members of the 10th and Francis congregation. He says, It "is not designed to alter the organization of 10th and Francis; not to direct its work and worship."

If Brother Hale did not intend for his letter and tracts to alter in any sense the work at 10th and Francis relative to the support of general, human, benevolent institutions separate and apart from the church and relative to sponsoring church arrangements, such as characterizes the "Herald of Truth," why on earth did he waste his time and money in mailing them to us? What reason could he possibly have had for sending them?

He further says, "I have never believed nor advocated that any church should be criticized or persecuted because it does not choose to support an orphan home or Herald of Truth or send support to missions through a sponsoring church. Perhaps others have, if so, they should not. In fact, in the Abilene Christian College Lectures, 1962, page 492, I stated: `Any co-operation in evangelism or benevolence must be voluntary. No congregation should be esteemed any less if it chooses to do all its work without receiving or giving any outside help. Expedients are allowable, not mandatory'."

All of this sounds very noble, but it so happens that Brother Hale is guilty of the very thing he repudiates. Brother Hale commonly refers to those whose practice is such as that which he mentions as "Antis." Furthermore, witnesses can be produced who have heard him make contemptuous remarks concerning 10th and Francis and her present evangelist simply because of their views and practices in these matters. That our brother is guilty of such is seen in an announcement which he made in the Southwest Bulletin some months past when he announced a sermon on this subject. Not only is he guilty of assuming a contemptuous attitude toward those who are opposed to such arrangements as the "Herald of Truth" and "Orphan Homes" through which churches function to do their benevolence and evangelism, but he falsely charges such people, by implication, with being "heretics in general."

Hear him: "Sermon Topics for Sunday April 10: Morning — Abraham, Father of the Faithful. Evening — To What Extent Can Churches Cooperate? P.S. Some people's idea of 'soundness' is opposition to "Herald of Truth' and children's homes. This will be discussed." (Bulletin of the Southwest Church of Christ, 2600 South Agnew, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, April 7, 1960.) In the Gospel Visitor, weekly publication of the 10th and Francis congregation, Brother Adams replied to Brother Hale's gross insinuation with an article on "Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness" calling attention to the fact that Brother Hale had in making such a statement, charged brethren with recognizing as sound any person opposed to "Herald of Truth" and "Institutional Orphan Homes" regardless of what else he might believe. It was pointed out that such meant that an individual could "deny the deity of Christ, deny the essentiality of baptism, ridicule and desecrate the Lord's supper, live in and openly advocate fornication and adultery, deny the resurrection and the immortality of the human soul" and still be regarded as sound by those to whom Hale made reference. Brother Hale was challenged to produce a single instance in which any brother had ever expressed anything remotely related to such an attitude. To this hour, our brother has been as silent as Pharaoh's tomb. So, if Brother Hale has been charged with "heresy in general" for his views on institutionalism and cooperation, it would appear that he is only reaping what be himself sowed. He has reversed the Bible formula. He has sown in hope, but now reaps in tears.

The fact of the matter is, when brethren such as Brother Hale are charged with being "liberal" and "modernistic," these terms are not used in the sense to which Brother Hale alludes. The term "liberal" is used to signify that an individual's views of Divine Revelation are sufficiently elastic to embrace such things as human institutions through which churches function to perform their divine obligations, centralized control and oversight such as is practiced in sponsoring churches, and church sponsored recreation and social entertainment without precept, approved example, or necessary implication in the word of God. The term "modernist" is used to suggest that the individual accepts as scriptural the modern movements and practices among churches of Christ which are the subject of controversy. We are of the judgment that neither the terms "liberal," "modernist," nor "Anti" should be used without proper qualification so as to indicate in what regard an individual is "liberal," "modern," or "Anti." We will strike hands with Brother Hale on this point. Epithets add nothing to the settling of controversies among brethren.

(4) We should like to raise another question for Brother Hale's consideration at this point. Why, Brother Hale, do you preach the things you say you preach? The same authority which enjoins the facts to which you have made reference likewise enjoins the mission and organizational structure of the church which you and others ignore in your practice. Why preach some and ignore others? You refer to institutional orphan homes and sponsoring churches as "optional expedients." Here is the issue. We regard these arrangements as antagonistic to and, therefore, corruptions of the divinely authorized organization of the church of the New Testament. We do not believe Brother Hale can produce "the law" on which his alleged "expedients" are justified from his New Testament. (1 Cor. 6:12, 10:23.) We should be happy to see him try.

(5) The previous point suggests this one. Brother Hale says that he mailed his letter and enclosure to assist us in seeing that "both sides be heard." We wonder if our brother would truly like for both sides to be heard? It so, would he and the Southwest congregation entertain the idea of a joint discussion of the issues involved in these matters between Brethren Hale and Adams before the combined membership of the 10th and Francis and Southwest congregations and others who might care to attend. It seems to us that this would be the logical and proper way of having both sides heard. This is not to be regarded as a challenge. You have initiated a controversy between us through circularizing the membership at 10th and Francis. The question is: Do you have the confidence in the scripturalness of your position on these matters and the sincerity and honesty of your avowed purpose to HAVE BOTH SIDES HEARD fully and fairly? This is the legitimate consequence of your act, Brother Hale. Will you face It? As we see the matter, Southwest congregation can do one of two things: it can (1) repudiate what Brother Hale has done, or (2) face and accept the legitimate consequence of Hale's act — a public discussion of these issues. What will Southwest do?

(6) Relative to the charges of inconsistency between past and present practices, may we say that 10th and Francis does not attempt to justify the scripturalness of her present teaching and practice on what she may have done or not done in the past, but rather, on what the word of God teaches. How does Brother Hale think it should be done?

(7) Brother Hale decries the fact that he has been associated with "liberality" and "modernism." We should like to raise this point for his consideration: As far as we know, Brother Hale has never raised his voice against a single one of the practices that are now the occasion of controversy among brethren. He quotes freely in his book, "How Churches Can Co-operate," from Thomas B. Warren, J. W. Roberts, and Roy Lanier, Sr. He mails out tracts of Thomas B. Warren and Roy Deaver. Roberts is an associate and co-worker with Dr J. D. Thomas, author of the book, "We Be Brethren." In fact, Roberts read the manuscripts of the book and offered detailed criticisms and suggestions. Roberts has never repudiated, as far as we know, a single position taken by Thomas in his book. These men, along with Warren and Deaver, are the exponents of the most advanced and liberal views on institutionalism, church co-operation, and church sponsored recreation, etc. We deem it perfectly proper, therefore, to associate Brother Lewis G. Hale with the views of these men even to the support by the church of secular education which they espouse. If it is not proper to do so, why not? If Brother Hale has ever taken issue with these men in a public way, we are completely unaware of it.

Furthermore, Hale's position on "allowable expedients" is the very reverse of the position of Guy N. Woods, Thomas B. Warren, Roy C. Deaver, and the Gospel Advocate. For that matter, it is out of harmony even with the views of Roy Lanier, Sr., whom Hale quotes in his book. Where has our brother been while these men have been doing all of their teaching on these questions? Did not Brother Hale advertise and encourage the appearance of Guy N. Woods on these issues in this city only a short time past? Did Brother Hale challenge the position of Woods on these matters? If so, we have not heard of it!

Conclusion

May we say in conclusion, as did Brother Hale, that "this letter is an attempt to set the record straight." We have no feeling of personal animosity toward Brother Hale. We love him as he professes to love us. We do not believe that the present issues can be settled by prayer or brotherly love. They did not arise in a lack of brotherly love nor disbelief in prayer. They are properly questions of authority and can be settled only by an appeal to the word of God. To this end, we urge all people who profess to love the Lord to accept nothing in religion for which they cannot produce a "thus saith the Lord."

Brotherly yours, For the elders at 10th and Francis

Signed: James W. Adams Authorized, read, and approved by the elders of the 10th and Francis Church of Christ, 901 N. W. 10th Street, Oklahoma City 6, Oklahoma.

Lewis Culbert L. L. Estes Tom T. Lipe C. A. Ward