In the July 1959 issue of TRUTH Magazine, I wrote under the heading "The James D. Bales Tract." In the article, I examined some arguments Bales had made in a tract called: "The Law of Love." Because I considered the arguments to be too shallow for Bro. Bales' intelligence and understanding, I said (more than once) that I couldn't believe that "Bales doesn't know any better."

In his announcement that he "may reply" to my review of his tract, Bro. Bales takes particular exception to my "sitting in judgment" on his motives. Perhaps I was wrong to so do. However, I would like to raise the question: Was Paul "sitting in judgment on Peter's motives" (Gal. 2) when he accused Peter of hypocracy? Be that as it may. Let me approach the matter on the assumption that Bales DIDN'T KNOW any better. In his reply we shall see.

In order to settle once and for all the question of whether it is a question of motives or understanding, let me set out again the questions, raised in my review of Bro. Bales' tract. Then in his reply, he can deal specifically with the points:

First, I showed him his tract (pp. 26-27) that Bales placed caring for orphans on a par with caring for the sick. Then I showed that he contended that churches could build and maintain orphan homes (Benevolent Societies) in which to care for orphans. I then showed that, according to his reasoning, churches could build and maintain hospitals in which to care for the sick. But I said Bales wouldn't take the position that churches could build and maintain hospitals. And I concluded that Bales surely KNEW that caring for orphans did not include building and maintain Benevolent Societies. In his review, let Bro. Bales deal specifically with this issue. Let him tell us: 1. Can the churches build and maintain Benevolent Societies, such as Boles, Potter, and Tennessee Orphan Homes? 2. Can the churches build and maintain hospitals? and 3. If the churches CAN build the Benevolent Societies, and CANNOT build the hospitals, how does he reason that caring for orphans and caring for sick are parallel? If he answers these questions, he will have replied to my charge that he knows better than to argue as he did in his tract. If he hedges and dodges these questiens, he will confirm my charge.

Secondly, I showed from his tract (pp. 23-24) that Bales placed orphan homes on a par with colleges operated by our brethren. Then I showed that he contended that churches could build and maintain the orphan homes (Benevolent Societies) because they were not in competition with churches. But I also showed that he said colleges were not in competition with churches. I then showed that, according to his reasoning, if churches could build and maintain benevolent societies, they could also build and maintain Colleges. Now in his review, let Bro. Bales deal specifically with my questions. 1. Can the Churches build and maintain Benevolent Societies, such as Boles, Potter and Tennessee Orphan Homes? 2. Call churches build and maintain Colleges? and 3. If Churches CAN build and maintain Benevolent Societies, and CANNOT build and maintain Colleges how does he reason that orphan homes (Benevolent Societies) and colleges are parallel? If he answers these questions, he will have dealt with my specific charge that he KNOWS better than to argue as he did in his tract.

Thirdly, I showed from his tract (p. 17) that Bales placed orphan homes on a par with the trustees of church property. Then I showed that he contended that churches could build and maintain orphan homes (Benevolent Societies). Then I showed that, according to his reasoning, churches could band together and form a TRUSTEE ORGANIZATION to take care of the church property of all the churches. In his review, let Bales deal specifically with the questions I have raised. 1. Can churches build and manitain orphan homes (Benevolent Societies) to look after orphans for all of the churches? 2. Can churches build and maintain a trustee organization to look after the property of all the churches?, and 3. If the churches CAN build and maintain orphan homes (Benevolent Societies) to care for orphans for all the churches, but CANNOT build and maintain trustee organizations to care for the property of all the churches, how can he reason that orphan homes ( Benevolent Societies) are parallel with trustees ? If Bales candidly answers these questions, he will deal with my charge. If he hedges and dodges these questions he will confirm my charge that he KNOWS better.

Fourtly, I showed from his tract (p. 15) that Bales placed orphan homes on a par with church houses and preacher houses. Then I showed that he contended that churches could build and maintain orphan homes (Benevolent Societies). But I showed that, according to his reasoning, churches could build and maintain Church House Building and Preacher House Building Organizations to build church houses and preacher houses for all the churches. Let. Bro. Bales, in his review, deal with this matter. Let him answer these questions: 1. Can churches build and maintain orphan homes (Benevolent Societies) to care for orphans for all the churches? 2. Can churches build and maintain Church House Building Organizations and Preacher House Building Organizations to build church houses and Preacher houses for all the churches? and 3. If the churches CAN build orphan homes (Benevolent Societies) but CANNOT build Church House Building Organizations and Preacher House Building Organizations, how can he reason that orphan homes (Benevolent Societies) are on a par with church houses and Preacher houses? If he deals with these questions, he will deal with my charge that he KNOWS they are not parallel.

Finally, I showed from his tract (p. 13) that Bales placed orphan homes on a par with the church housing some orphans in the church building. This parallel (?) by Bro. Bales was so fantastic, it really needed no comment. However, in his reply, let Bro. Bales answer these questions. 1. If the church houses some orphans in the church building, isn't it the CHURCH doing the work and overseeing the work? 2. If Potter Orphan Home (A Benevolent Society) houses some orphans in a building, which THEY built, isn't it the BENEVOLENT SOCIETY doing, the work and overseeing the work? and 3. If it is the CHURCH in one instance and a BENEVOLENT SOCIETY in the other, how does he reason that they are parallel? A candid answer will either refute my charge that Bales KNOWS better or it will substantiate my charge.

I am aware that Bro. Bales is far more advanced in educational attainments than I am. But he strongly urges that if his argurnents are faulty, it is a matter of intelligence and understanding, rather than one of motives. I still find it hard to believe. However we await his reply to my question in this article. This should clear up the matter.

Truth Magazine IV:4, pp. 22-23
January 1960