Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 9
May 23, 1957
NUMBER 4, PAGE 8-10a

G. K. Wallace's Reports And Misrepresentations -- No. I

W. Curtis Porter, Monette, Arkansas

(Editor's note: The original copy of this article was sent to the Gospel Advocate for publication.)

The report of the Indianapolis debate written by brother G. K. Wallace and published in the Gospel Advocate of December 6, 1956, has been reviewed in a former article. This essay will concern his report of the Paragould debate published in the Gospel Advocate of February 14, 1957.

Brother Wallace tells us that "it was sad to see a man of the stature of W. Curtis Porter take such a crushing defeat before an audience." Brother Wallace and other Advocate writers are doing a "magnificent job" of "winning the debate" for brother Guy N. Woods through the Gospel Advocate. From such reports the reader must feel very sorry for W. Curtis Porter. He was so helpless, so confused, so crushed, so defeated and so humiliated under the crushing blows of Guy N. Woods. Surely you must feel sorry for a man that was made to suffer so desperately! But remember that such a description of Porter is that given by a bunch of men who are determined to win the debate for brother Woods. If all the Gospel Advocate readers had been present for the debate, they might have learned that Porter was not as helpless as brother Wallace and others would like for you to believe.

The report of matters that occurred in the day services will not be my especial concern in this article. As I did not attend the day services, I shall leave most of that to others. And already brother Luther Blackmon has given a report of such in a recent issue of the Gospel Guardian. But I wish to pay direct attention to the things that concern me in brother Wallace's report.

Concerning the Missionary Society Brother Wallace says in his report:

"The stock argument of brother Porter was that the orphan home is as sinful as the missionary society. Brother Porter himself introduced the missionary society. Yet, when asked about it he refused to answer on the ground that the question was off the subject."

This statement, like so many of the other statements of such reports, is crammed full of misrepresentations. In the first place, I never made an argument — "stock" or otherwise — that said "the orphan home is as sinful as the missionary society." This is a baseless misrepresentation. I contended that both a "benevolent society" and a "missionary society" to do the work of the church in the fields of benevolence and evangelism are unauthorized in the Scriptures and are therefore wrong. Even in this, the argument was not that one was "as sinful" as the other, but that both are unscriptural. But the parallel had to do with the "benevolent society" and the "missionary society" — not "orphan home" and "missionary society." Furthermore, brother Wallace is claiming that I refused to answer a question about the Missionary Society on the ground that it "was off the subject," although I had introduced the Missionary Society. I am sure that brother Wallace knew he was making a misrepresentation when he made this statement. Brother Woods made the same charge during one of his speeches, but he was reminded of the fact that I did not say the "Missionary Society" was "off the subject." The question had to do with "buying service." Brother Woods asked if churches could "buy service" from a Missionary Society. And I stated that the issue involved in our discussion was not that of "buying service" but it was whether churches could "build and maintain" human organizations for the work of benevolence. It was a matter of whether churches could "contribute" of their funds to Benevolent Organizations. There is a vast difference between "buying service" and making contributions. And brother Wallace knew that brother Woods was corrected on this point. Yet, in spite of it, he made the same baseless charge. Therefore, I am convinced that he knew he was misrepresenting me when he wrote his article. However, telling the truth about it would not create a sufficient amount of prejudice in the minds of Gospel Advocate readers. So it is better to resort to misrepresentation.

Brother Wallace reports the question as placed on the blackboard by brother Woods. It is given as follows:

Charts Go Here

"Can churches Scripturally buy services of:

1. An orphan home: q q

Yes No

2. A missionary society:q q

Yes No Brother Porter was given a piece of crayon and asked to fill in the blanks or check the answer he thought was right. If Porter had said that a church can scripturally buy the service of an orphan home, and if the orphan home is an exact parallel with the missionary society, then a church can scripturally buy the services of a missionary society."

As I did not respond by placing the answers on the blackboard, brother Wallace thinks there was something in the question that was frightening indeed. However, the thing does not contain the "scare" that he thinks. I did not fail to put the answers on the board because of its frightening character but because I wanted to impress on the minds of the audience the issue that was actually involved. We were not discussing "buying service." A church might buy service from many sources to which it could not contribute its money. We were discussing what the church could do in the matter of contributing its funds — what it could "build and maintain." And I refused to be drawn away from the issue to that which was in no way involved. But since brother Wallace and others have had so much to say about this matter, let us take a look at the blackboard arrangement of it.

The arrangement assumes that I said a "Missionary Society" and an "Orphan Home" are parallel. This, within itself, is a misrepresentation. I contended that the "Benevolent Society" that provides the orphan home is parallel to the "Missionary Society" that provides evangelism for the lost. The "orphan home" is not parallel to the "Missionary Society" but to "evangelism" which the Missionary Society provides. The two "Societies" are parallel.

One provides "benevolence"; the other, "evangelism." Evangelism is not parallel to the Benevolent Society; and benevolence is not a parallel to the Missionary Society. But one society is parallel to the other.

I do not know of any one who has ever said that the "Benevolent Society" and the "Missionary Society" are identical, but they are parallel in that they are both human organizations doing the work that God designed the church to do. So whether services can be bought from them is entirely beside the point of issue. We might use the Missionary Society in a similar arrangement with other human organizations like this:

Can churches Scripturally buy services of

3. American Bible Society: q q

Yes No

4. Mayo Foundation: q q

Yes No

5. Missionary Society: q q

Yes No Just how would brother Wallace, brother Woods, brother Warren and others deal with this Would they say that churches can scripturally contribute their funds to these organizations to do the work God designed the churches to do They oppose the Missionary Society as a human organization that is doing the work God intended for the church to perform. Suppose the American Bible Society, besides printing and distributing Bibles, should decide to send out preachers to preach the gospel to the lost. Would they oppose this on the basis that it is a human organization that would be doing the work of the church And would they oppose the churches contributing their funds to the Mayo Foundation to administer to the afflicted upon the same basis In other words, would they oppose the idea of turning the work of the churches to these organizations because they are human organizations And would not these be parallel with the Missionary Society in that they are all human organizations that would be doing what the church is required to do But how about "buying service" from them Could not the churches buy Bibles from the American Bible Society Could they not buy service from the Mayo Foundation in the treatment of their afflicted Would this be the same as contributing their funds to these organizations to do the work of the churches Would it be the same as "buying the service" of preaching the gospel I am sure the reader can see the difference. There are some types of service that churches might buy but there are other types of service they could not buy. Churches might buy Bibles from the American Bible Society, but they cannot buy the services of gospel preachers from that society, nor contribute their funds to them for such work. They might buy medical treatment from the Mayo Foundation, but they cannot buy from the Mayo Foundation the service or gospel preaching, nor can they contribute their funds to the Mayo Foundation for such work. And if a Missionary Society should be selling tents, I know of no reason why churches could not buy those tents, but they could not buy the service of preaching the gospel. So some types of service might be bought from many such organizations, but this is not so with all types. And some type of service might be bought from a Benevolent Society, but not every type of Service. An X therefore, might be placed in every square involved on the blackboard. The questions, as related to all of the organizations involved, might be answered by both "Yes" and "No", inasmuch as there are different kinds of service that might be rendered. Though the Benevolent Society, the Missionary Society, the American Bible Society and the Mayo Foundation are not identical in every respect, they would all be parallel in the sense that they would be human organizations doing the work of the church if churches should turn their funds to them for such purpose. And I would oppose them all upon the same basis. I wonder if brother Wallace would oppose any of them in such work except the Missionary Society.

The-Box-In-The-Vestibule Brother Wallace Said In His Report:

"At this point we all knew that Porter was forever and eternally whipped off of the 'Box-in-the-Vestibule' idea."

It just so happens that Porter had never at any time advocated a "Box-in-the-Vestibule" idea. And what brother Yater Tant said about it has been misrepresented throughout the nation. His statement was not an endorsement of supporting benevolence by that method, but, 'in view of the fact that some brethren are determined to do it as it is being done today, he suggested that such a method could be followed and only those individuals who were thus determined would have part in it. In that way, the funds would not come from the church treasury, and brethren who were opposed to the present set-up would not be forced to support something that was in conflict with their conscience. But these promotional brethren continually misrepresented brother Tant as they do every one else.

The Specific Method

As previously mentioned. it is not my intention to give much consideration to brother Wallace's report of the day services. But a little of it concerns me, and I shall notice that. Brother Yater Tant spoke the first day concerning the way to establish Bible authority. Brother Wallace says that "Tant arose and spoke for thirty minutes, trying to patch up the failure of W. Curtis Porter on the night before." If, when Tant spoke concerning Bible authority, he was "trying to patch up" Porter's "failure." I wonder who was trying to patch what when W. L. Totty, Sterl A. Watson. G. K. Wallace and Roy Deaver spent so much time in the day services in the advocacy of their position. Could it be that they were "trying to patch up the failure of Guy N. Woods"

I wonder if brother Wallace did not realize that such reasoning could backfire on him.

Wallace Continues With The Following Statement:

"Brother Tant took up the subject of generic and specific teaching to try to salvage their lost cause. He tried to 'rule in' and 'rule out' by generic teaching (J. B. Briney's argument — Page W. W. Otey). When he was asked if the word visit in James 1:27 was generic he replied: 'Yes, and that no specific method for caring for orphans was required.' But be it remembered that W. Curtis Porter affirmed the specific method was to put the orphans in a private home. We now have Tant versus Porter. What next "

Yes, I am wondering, "What next" For there to be "the specific method" of caring for orphans means there is only one method for it. It could not be otherwise and be "specific." Never in my life, at Paragould or anywhere else, did I say "the specific method" for caring for orphans is to put them into a private home. I presented a chart that designated a number of methods by which it could be done, and Guy N. Woods endorsed every one of them as to a Scriptural method. Then Wallace reports that I affirmed that there is only one way to do it. Wallace saw the chart I introduced and heard Woods endorse every method listed on it. Then he reports that I affirmed there is only one method. Nobody knew better than G. K. Wallace that he was misrepresenting me. When gospel preachers stoop to "vile methods" of "base misrepresentation" to prejudice people against the truth and win applause for human systems, it is time to ask, "What next" Wallace does not have "Tant versus Porter." I have never heard anyone say there is a specific "method" of caring for orphans. Whether the church or a human organization provides a home different methods might be used. Both organizations would have to employ methods. The church is the organization that may scripturally provide such methods. But if the church surrenders its funds to a human organization to do its work, then it acts without divine authority.

Wallace-Ketcherside Debate

In their debate at Paragould a few years ago Wallace and Ketcherside did not discuss the orphan home issue. Wallace presents a letter from J. A. McNutt to Ketcherside stating that he "preferred" to discuss the home at Wichita, Kansas, "because of his familiarity with all phases of that work from the beginning." Nobody denies that such "familiarity" would cause him to "prefer" to discuss that home. But that was not the only reason for his preference. In my former article I gave a quotation from Wallace from the Gospel Guardian of May 24, 1951, not long before the debate, that shows another reason why he "preferred" not to discuss Southern Christian Home. Here it is again:

"There is no parallel between colleges and orphan homes. There is a parallel between an orphans home that has a board of trustees other than the elders of the church to do the work of the church, and the United Christian Missionary Society."

The Southern Christian Home, which Ketcherside wanted to discuss, was and is under "a board of trustees other than the elders of the church." Brother Wallace said that such was parallel to the United Christian Missionary Society. If, in 1951, he believed the "organization" of the United Christian Missionary Society was unscriptural, he also believed the "organization" of the Southern Christian Association was unscriptural. They were parallel then. So his preference to discuss some other home was also produced by his belief that Southern Christian Association was an unscriptural organization. There is no need for him to quibble around about it and try to make people believe he thought it was scriptural then. Everybody who ever read his articles knows better.

The Power Of Wallace Or The Weakness Of Woods Note These Words From Wallace:

"I arose and suggested that W. Carl Ketcherside came to Paragould, Arkansas, in 1951 to divide or take over the church at Second and Walnut. Too, I suggested that brethren asked

me to meet Ketcherside in debate and thus he was unable to divide the church at Second and Walnut. Also, I suggested that Tommy McClure and Curtis Porter had been able to do what Carl Ketcherside was unable to do, and that they had succeeded in dividing the church."

My! This is amazing! If Tommy McClure and Curtis Porter were "able to do" what Carl Ketcherside was "unable to do" — to divide the church at Second and Walnut, — then one of two things must be true. Either Tommy McClure and Curtis Porter were much more powerful than Ketcherside, or Guy N. Woods was much weaker than Wallace. Wallace, when called to debate, was "able" to stop Ketcherside, but Woods, when called to debate, was "unable" to stop McClure and Porter.

In concluding his report Wallace "predicts" that "these brethren will soon decide that debating is wrong."

And I "predict" that his "prediction" proves to be wrong.