Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
December 18, 1958

An Open Letter To Rue Porter

Wright Randolph, Whittier, California

Dear Brother Porter:

In a recent editorial of the Christian Worker you exercised your well known ability to misrepresent, malign and castigate some mighty good men, Hailey, Cogdill, Cope, Tant and others. Without intending to be complimentary, I am most sure, you included my name in the list. I care not for your use of my name, so long as you present the facts. I am thinking it is not an easy matter for Rue Porter to stay with facts.

You implied that I had been to the Philippines, "plying his trade" and by that you mean "splitting churches" I suppose. In the first place I have never set foot on the Philippines. I have, however, recently had the good fortune of preaching to the Kailua congregation of Oahu, T.H. We had a good meeting, Brother Rue, in spite of what you may have heard second hand. Yes, we did deal with those problems which are disturbing churches all over the land. We had an open discussion of something like an hour. It was an informative discussion. Quite a number of those who would agree with you were present, among them two preachers; Brethren Lynn Cook and Elmer Shackelford. And frankly, Brother Porter, I think they did as good job as you could do in trying to refute what I had preached; they miserably failed as the audience would gladly testify. These preachers paid me a visit afterwards and asked: "How would you feel about a debate on these issues ?" Now, Brother Rue, I just want to make it a matter of record that, using your expression, "your ilk" did the challenging for this debate, which is all right. I replied that I would be interested and asked which one of them intended to represent their cause. They answered; "neither, we intend for Brother Guy Woods to to the debating". I suggested that since Woods and Cogdill had just met in such a discussion in Birmingham that it would be a fine thing if we had a repeat showing in Hawaii. They assured me that it would be good and that they would be able to secure the services of Brother Woods, also the Honolulu building for the meeting place. I pressed them to be sure of their ground and that they would be able to secure the services of the man. They had no hesitancy, the matter was left in their hand to complete the arrangements. I was to secure a commitment from Brother Cogdill, which I did and forwarded it to these brethren under date of August 29th. (I have received no reply to this date).

Now, Brother Porter, I have given this information in order to deal with your "prophecy" that "It looks as if Guy N. Woods will be called there to debate with this trouble maker". Unless these brethren were not sincere in their promise to secure Brother Woods, and I think they were sincere, it is not a matter of Brother Woods having to be called to meet this trouble maker, he was supposed to have already been "called". We have been waiting these two and a half months. It is just possible that Brother Guy does not want to meet Brother Roy in Hawaii, or anywhere else. Do you suppose that might be right? Brother Porter, these brethren may never get together for this debate. I note in your editorial you state; "Thirty years ago I pledged myself to stop supporting such Homes if a passage could be brought forward which tells us HOW to do that work". Brother Rue, I might, just possibly might, be able to help you in that matter. Of course, I would want something in return; yes, we are a demanding bunch of trouble-makers, I would like for you to present a passage, just one, that authorizes the church of our Lord to support a human institution like "our homes", Boles, Tipton, Maude Carpenter, etc. It might be possible for you and me to get together in such a public discussion. I have the time if you have the disposition, and I am assured you do for you stated in Riverside, California that you would meet any or all, any time or place. Well, I am one of the "all" and we can surely find the "place". How about it?

Concerning these "trouble-makers" and others of "like ilk" you say; "They believe nothing, and teach nothing except, "I am opposed' to it". You willfully misrepresent Brother Porter, that amounts to lying. Shame on you. I "am opposed" to a lot of things but I am at the same time FOR, in favor of, a lot of things, I am in favor of, and preach, the "one church", baptism for the remission of sins, abounding in the work of the Lord, baptism is immersion, and many others. Brother Rue, you knew that statement was false when you made it, you should retract it.

Again you say; "Their cries of 'digression, institutionalism, organization,' etc. have never put a shirt on the back of an orphan, nor a dinner in his hungry stomach." It may be so, but it has saved a number of God's children from the brink of disaster and has, in a measure, halted the digression of God's people. Even though I like to put a dinner in the stomach of a hungry person, and have done so many times, I had much rather put the gospel in his heart. Jesus did not die to save the body of man but rather the soul.

Brother Rue, we are both getting pretty close to the judgment day. Don't you think it is time for us to put forth the very best within us. If I, and my brethren who stand with me, am in error in these matters you ought to be willing and ready to meet me before them all and refute the teaching. You can never do it by maligning and berating, making little and appealing to prejudice. It will require the "Sword of the Spirit" to do the job.

In all sincerity, I am,

Yours In Him, Wright Randolph, 1707 Kengard Whittier, California