Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
April 30, 1953

"The Status Quo"

Charles A. Holt, Jr., Mt. Pleasant, Texas

In the last issue of FACTS, a paper published by Brother Gayle Oler, which is supposed to be sent especially to elders and preachers to inform them about Boles Home, Brother Oler presented his "OPEN LETTER TO CHAS. A. HOLT, JR.", as was carried in the Guardian last week. (I am one of several preachers that I know who do not receive FACTS: I am indebted to others for the copies that I have.)

Brother Oler gives as his reason for publishing the "OPEN LETTER" in FACTS, that the article had not yet appeared in the Guardian. He says that we promised to print it without any deletions and as yet it had not come out. So in order to let the brotherhood know "the Status Quo" he was printing it. This is purely and simply an EXCUSE to put the "OPEN LETTER" in FACTS where he knew it would be read by hundreds who would never see the reply in the Guardian. He thus seeks to take advantage of the situation. Is this fair? At the very time the "OPEN LETTER" was coming out in FACTS, the article was in the Guardian office being readied for publication.

Brother Oler mailed his "OPEN LETTER" to Brother Tant at Abilene. Brother Tant was away in a meeting at the time so it had to be forwarded on to him. He then gave the article to me. I took about three weeks to answer it. I was in a meeting and a debate during the time. I did not see any need to hurry, and about so important a matter I wanted to be careful. Furthermore, I never dreamed that Brother Oler would take such an unfair advantage of the situation and run it in his paper on the pretext that it was not coming out in the Guardian, but this just shows how little I know about such things. After I finished my reply I sent it to Brother Tant at Abilene and it had to be forwarded on to him. Then he had to send it to the Guardian office for publication. The material for the paper is kept ahead about three weeks so the articles had to wait their turn. This all takes time as anyone who stops to think knows. Only a little more than seven weeks passed between the time that Brother Oler first mailed his article and' it appeared in the Guardian. This is not long for what had to be done. Anyone that cannot see that Brother Oler has hereby taken unfair advantage of this and is seeking to capitalize on it, is not willing to be fair. Surely Brother Oler was not foolish enough to think we would allow his article to appear with no answer. No doubt he hoped that we would, but he knew better.

When we promised to print anything Brother Oler wrote we did not promise it at any definite time. We thought that he would be reasonable about this. We are still willing to print any defense he will make of Boles Home. We urge him to let himself be heard. The Guardian intends to be fair and is willing for any sincere brother to be heard on the question. It needs serious study.

Now since Brother Oler has taken this advantage of us and has gone to the readers of his FACTS with the "OPEN LETTER," will he show that he sought no unfair advantage and that he wants to be fair by printing my reply to his article in his paper?? Will he? Would he as a Christian write an "OPEN LETTER" attacking a man and call upon the man for information and then refuse the man space to reply. Is there anyone who would say that such is fair and right? Surely not. We shall see what he will do about this. The brotherhood really needs to know "the Status Quo" about this matter and about Boles Home. They are gradually finding out and "the Status Quo" is contrary to the scriptures. Will Brother Oler deny it?