Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
April 9, 1953
NUMBER 48, PAGE 8-9b

Waller Wails — And Misquotes

Geo. B. Curtis, Siloam Springs, Arkansas

Brother J. H. Bradley of Little Rock sends me a copy of the Missionary Baptist Search Light of August 25, 1952. Under the caption, "Bro. Waller Writes" Waller wails on his favorite delusion, "Campbellites." Waller seems to stands rather prominently among the Bogard school of Baptists, and also it seems that his entire claim to a place in the Baptist sun is to rear up on his hind legs and yell "Campbellite" louder and with more hatred than most of his colleagues. In order to give forth his sluice of slime and vituperation he utterly disregards the facts presented to him.

In a former article Mr. Waller stated that Dr. Richardson said that Alexander Campbell and his co-workers started a new church — the "Campbellite Church." I made the observation on this that when Mr. Waller could quote from Dr. Richardson the statement accredited to him by Waller that I should be happy to deal with the information. This I am ready to do.

Let me here state that there is not a single doctrine that I believe and preach to which I am in the least indebted to Alexander Campbell or to any other man this side of the closing of the book of Revelation. Nor am I indebted to any ecclesiastical machinery as encumbers friend Waller — Baptist Associations. Everything that my brethren and I preach and practice can be justified from God's holy word — including Christ's name in His church.

Now to the quotation from the Memoirs of Campbell. Waller says, "Any one can secure a Campbell's Memoirs by Dr. Richardson and read it on page 348." Here is the quotation from Richardson: "That they clearly anticipated the possibility of being compelled, on account of the refusal of the religious parties to accept their overture, to resolve the Christian Association into a distinct church, in order to carry out for themselves the duties and obligations enjoined on them in the scriptures." (Memoirs of Campbell, p. 348)

Note some things that the quotation doesn't say: (1) It doesn't say they established a church of any kind. (2) The refusal of the existing religious parties to go with them back to New Testament ground caused them to anticipate the necessity of resolving themselves into a distinct church. I shall here raise the question what did the author mean by a distinct church?

If Mr. Waller will turn the pages of his Memoirs of Campbell back to page 342 he can learn. One of the objections alleged against the plan proposed of returning to New Testament ground in all things was that "that the principle and plan adopted have a tendency to increase divisions, and to terminate in a new party." In answering that objection Mr. Campbell said: "It is in their power to verify their own predictions by forcing us into a party. But even then we do not become a new party, but only in the sense that the primitive Christians became a new party — a sect everywhere spoken against." In what sense would a strict return to New Testament scriptures constitute a new church, Mr. Waller? A garbled and misapplied quoting is mean, sinful and low. There is a lot of difference between wanting to understand an author and wanting other people to misunderstand him. NO, Richardson didn't here state, imply or any other way suggest that Campbell originated a new and unheard of church. He and those who were associated with him were laboriously and cautiously working their way back beyond the current denominations around them to the very ground occupied by the early church. They took the only road that would unerringly lead them there — the path of God's word.

Mr. Waller says that I made light of his use of the word "Eupheneous." He states that there was a typographical error in the matter, and that he intended to use the word "euphonious." Mr. Waller, do you know the meaning of the word "euphonious"? I sincerely believe that your self-manufactured word fits better than the one you say you were trying to use. And, excuse me, I am about to make light of your use of another word. You state that "you and your sort sprang from this hetrogenous mass in the year 1906 according to Webster's Collegiate 1952 Dictionary." Here Mr. Waller refers to the Christian Association. He uses this big "64-dollar" word five times in the article under review and spells it three different ways in the five. I suppose that all these are typographical errors too. First its hetrogenous, second hetrogeneous, next heterogeneous, next hetrogeneous, last heterogeneous. Twice out of five trials he spelled the word correctly, and I give him forty percent grade on his spelling test. But as to the meaning of the word, he is completely at sea. If there were ever a unified group of people anywhere these were. The word he was needing to use is homogeneous.

You keep harking back to the term, multiple form names. I've begun to doubt the existence of any such term in the language apart from the imaginings of my friend, Waller. I still think you are trying to say compound names. Of course it is extremely out of order for such as I to question the English of one who insists on giving me a lesson in Greek Grammar in the very article under review. And if your erudition were not unassailable, I'd think permissible was permissible. Waller, you are almost as bad to disagree with Webster in your spelling as you are to disagree with God in your theology, — and, I don't want to "make light" of you either.

Here is a prize one from my "eupheneous-hetrogenouspermissable-Campbellite-slaughtering-friend": "Any simpleton would know that is not a multiple form name. It is not used as a name. Have you gone berserk? Benzoheth is not the son of Zoheth." I stated that the name "Benzoheth" meant son of Zoheth and that the word son and the word Zoheth were not necessarily in the same case. The fact is "ungetoverable," Waller. Benzoheth does mean son of Zoheth. Check any Bible dictionary. Waller contends that for "multiple form words" to be a name all words must agree in case. Try this one, friend. "And he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder." (Mark 3:17) What did the Lord surname them? "Sons of thunder." If Waller had been there he would have set the Lord right. He'd have said, "Lord, you can't do that. That's as bad as Curtis. That's eupheneous-euphonious-hetrogenous-multiple form and not permissible." But the Lord surnamed them "The sons of thunder."

Seriously, Waller, I am contending for the name of Christ. Just as my family name is Curtis and I wear that name, so is God's family name Christ and I want to wear His name — and I want you to wear His name also. Waller, why do you hate the name of the Lord and the people who desire to honor Him by giving full credit to Him for the purchasing of the church with His blood? Paul says, "For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named." (Eph. 3:14-15) Again, "But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end." (Heb. 3:6) Whose house is this, Waller? Christ's, isn't it? "Feed the church of the Lord, which he purchased with his own blood." (Acts 20:28) Waller, who shed this blood? It wasn't John, was it? "There is none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved?" (Acts 4:12) Whose name is the apostle referring to, Waller? That's right. So there is no salvation in the name Baptist, is there? "Upon this rock I will build my church." Who said this, Waller? Did He do what He said He intended to do? Then whose church is it? That's right, Mr. Waller. Don't you want to be in that church too? If Christ built a church was it the church of Christ, Mr. Waller? Seriously, is it? "Thou holdest fast my name." (Rev. 2:13) Waller, are you holding fast to Christ's name? "No, Lord? I'm not, and what's more, I don't intend for Curtis to hold fast to your name if I can help it." "Thou hast not denied my name." (Rev. 3:8) (Lord): "Have you denied my name, Waller?" (Waller) "Yes, Lord, I know that the Bible doesn't say a single thing about a Baptist Church; but I love that old Landmark, Missionary Baptist name so well that I have just denied your name, and come what may, I'll continue to wear it. And all who try not to deny your name, I'm going to shout Campbellite at them to the end of the picture." "The churches of Christ salute you." (Rom. 16:16) "Yes, but Lord, you know that is "multiple form, hetrogenous, euphenous-euphonous and not permissible. I'd rather be a Baptist any way:

I'd rather be a Baptist
And walk through life with John,
Than be a simple Christian
Who has put the Savior on.
In the book the Father gave us
His church was bought with blood;
But I'll just take my chances
And, if any one else would wear Christ's name,
I'll still keep up the fight;
Of course, I know I'm mighty weak,
But I can still yell "CAMPBELLITE!"