Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 6
September 23, 1954
NUMBER 20, PAGE 12-13a

"That Tulsa Lecture"

John T. Overbey, Tulsa, Oklahoma

"I realize that a position is hard to correct after it has once been set forth in a published address. But I pledge you my word of honor now that if I should ever decide that I have been mistaken in the matters which I am about to present I shall confess it boldly. I will not seek to change my position by explaining, 'Oh, this is what I meant all the time.' I do not want to come to the judgment, knowing that I misled someone while here on earth. I may be lost as a result of my own sins, but I certainly do not wish to accept a position deliberately that I know to be wrong and by it lead someone else astray. For this reason I ask you not to follow blindly the things that I say regarding our colleges. "Study the Bible for yourself on this as well as all other questions."

That, dear reader, is a part of the introduction to Brother E. R. Harper's address on "The Status and Place of Our Colleges," delivered during The Tulsa Lectures in January 1938, at Tulsa, Oklahoma. This is the lecture from which Editor Tant quoted in his "Overflow" in the May 27 issue of the Gospel Guardian, and which has caused Brother Harper no little concern. There are several things in that lecture which no doubt might be a little embarrassing to Brother Harper just now, but they have no bearing on the things which I propose to mention in this paper. Hence, there is no need for introducing them just now. The only reason I have for writing this paper is that I have read "that Tulsa Lecture" very carefully in order to determine in my own mind whether or not Brother Harper has been correctly represented. I am fully aware that many times a quotation has been lifted from its context and made to mean something that is foreign to the thing that was in the mind of the author at the time the statement was made. It is not every time that the one who so does is dishonest, but honest or dishonest, it is never just to treat anyone's statements in that way.

I am deeply interested in the proper solution to the problem concerning the "Herald of Truth." I know it is either all right or it is all wrong. In the words of Brother Harper, "Whoever is wrong about this, better get right." If Brother Harper and the Highland Church are right in building and maintaining such a radio program as the "Herald of Truth" through contributions from the various churches over the land, then I want to do everything in my power to help them along in the adventure; but on the other hand, if they are wrong in such I want to use all the power and influence of my being to put a stop to the thing.

But back to "that Tulsa Lecture": The reader must bear in mind that Brother Harper was discussing "our schools," as to "their proper place and rightful field of labor." In the discussion, he posed five questions and then set out to answer them. The five questions were: "(1) Is there any reason for the existence of our schools? (2) Do they exist as church or private institutions? (3) What is the purpose of our schools? (4) How do (or should) they differ from organized religious societies? (5) What may we expect of them?" Now, it was while discussing the second question, "Do they exist as church or private institutions?", that Brother Harper made the statement which Brother Tant quoted. Let us look at the context:

"Do they exist as private or as church institutions? It is impossible for them to exist as church institutions. The New Testament church exists only in two senses; first in the universal sense, and second, in the sense of a local congregation. There is no universal head on the earth. We have no central organization exercising the control over the whole body. Since no such organization exists it is impossible for the schools to be owned and controlled by such. A school, such as we now have under consideration, cannot belong to a local congregation because they have no power or means for building such. A congregation has no right to build anything larger than it is able to support. It has no right whatever to bind any other congregation to any program of work of its own selection. Each congregation must retain its autonomy. Any effort that destroys the independence of the local congregation runs straight toward sectarianism, if not Romanism."

Now, Brother Harper tells us that "it is impossible for" schools "to exist as church institutions"; and here are his reasons: (1) The church universal cannot own them and control them, for there is no "central organization" to which a deed can be made. (2) The church local cannot own and control them, for a local "congregation has no right to build anything larger than it is able to support."

Now, Brother Harper, where ever in the world did you get the idea that "a congregation has no right to build anything larger than it is able to support"? Could it be possible that it is possible that you were wrong about that back in 1938? Your first reason viz.: the church universal cannot own them, for there is no "central organization" to which a deed could be made, is an axiom. But your second reason evidently is not, for congregations have undertaken to do things that they were unable to support and maintain alone — witness the "Herald of Truth."

The fact that you were discussing the school question back in 1938 does not destroy the force of your argument as it pertains to the issue concerning the "Herald of Truth"; for in that argument you stated a principle, and it holds true in regard to anything that comes under the head of the local church. Notice, you said, "a congregation has no right (and I suppose you mean scriptural right) to build anything larger than it is able to support." Now, if that doesn't show the "Herald of Truth" to be unscriptural I confess I do not know the meaning of words. Look at the argument in the form of a syllogism:

Major Premise: "A congregation has no right to build anything larger than it is able to support." — E. R. Harper, 1938.

Minor Premise: "Herald of Truth" is a program that is larger than a local congregation is able to support. — An axiom.

Therefore: No congregation has a right to build and/or maintain such a program as the "Herald of Truth."

If Brother Harper was right back in 1938, when he said "a congregation has no right to build anything larger than it is able to support"; then he is wrong now in contending that Highland Church is justified in building such a program as the "Herald of Truth." Brother Harper said in 1938, "I pledge you my word of honor now that if I should ever decide that I have been mistaken in the matters which I am about to present I shall confess it boldly. I will not seek to change my position by explaining, 'Oh, this is what I meant all the time'."

Now, Brother Harper, from where I sit, it looks like you have but one alternative, viz.: either come clean and say that you have decided you were mistaken about this matter back in 1938, and "confess it boldly"; or, stand by your statement back in 1938, and condemn the "Herald of Truth" on the ground that it is larger than Highland Church is able to support. Which will you do? Remember, you said, "I will not seek to change my position by explaining, 'Oh, this is what I meant all the time'."

Incidentally, while I'm on the subject of "that Tulsa Lecture," Brother Harper, do you still hold the position in regard to the Bible Departments in "our schools" that you did back in 1938? Or have you decided that you were mistaken in that matter? If so, you ought to "confess it boldly," for, in so far as I know, none of "our schools" have ever conformed to such an arrangement as that suggested by you. In the light of your statements back in 1938, I do not see how you can endorse the Bible Department in Abilene Christian College, or any of "our colleges," for that matter. Have you changed your mind about "our schools," Brother Harper? If so, you ought to 'fess us.

In conclusion, let me say that it will be a great help to yourself and to a lot of other people I know if you will come forth with an article on What Is Wrong With the Missionary Society. Remember, you said back in 1938, "I may be lost as a result of my own sins, but I certainly do not wish to accept a position deliberately that I know to be wrong and by it lead someone else astray." Your influence as a teacher is far-reaching, Brother Harper — don't forget this!