E. R. Harper, Guy N. Woods, A. C. Pullias and others have sought to justify the existence of such illicit inter-congregational cooperation as the "Herald of Truth" on the basis of the great good they are doing. This is the old "the end justifies the means" argument. I heard Harper say that the Herald of Truth has converted 25,000 people. It would be most interesting to see the 25,000 name list compiled. I suspect his estimating imagination was a little over active that afternoon.

Recently I have been reading Churches of Christ, a history published in 1904 by John T. Brown, a Christian Church preacher. Harper and Woods must have been reading the same book, for they have repeated Brown's arguments, though his were made in defense of the Missionary Society.

Brown states that "whenever and however the gospel is preached," men should rejoice. "Where the Bible lays down no plan (sounds like A. C. Pullias' tract "Where There Is No Pattern") the judgment of the many must prevail over that of the few," and that those favoring the society "have always been vastly in the majority." (p. 100). If this line of argument is valid in 1964 when applied to Herald of Truth, why did it not also justify the Missionary Society in 1904?

Brown asserts that the society then was supporting 300 men and women, and had been the instrument through which 120,000 people had been converted and 1800 churches started (p. 109). Now, let's see the Herald of Truth match that! If 25,000 conversions prove the Herald of Truth is scriptural. 120,000 conversions should at least be enough to prove the Missionary Society to be scriptural. But it would mean more to me if Brown and Harper, et al, had just given the scripture authorizing their human arrangements. And if they had known a suitable passage to cite, it would have been given. But apparently, these brethren are as prepared to accept one as the other. Such is the degree of the growing and distressing apostasy among us.

Too Late Now

The March 6, 1964 Christian Chronicle reports the resignation of Don Gardner as President of Ohio Valley College at Parkersburg, West Virginia, effective August 1. 1964.

Since September 25, 1963 I have written Brother Gardner three times trying to get one question answered, and am yet without success I must report. My September 25, 1963 letter read:

Dear Brother Gardner,

"I am aware that Ohio Valley College does not solicit funds from churches. But would you please answer the following question: 'Do you personally think it is sinful for a church of Christ to contribute to what is commonly called a Bible College?'"

Brotherly,

Cecil Willis

Now that question doesn't seem hard to me to answer. But a college president has not gotten it answered yet. I can answer it relative to my own opinion with one word: "yes!" Brother Gardner was kind enough to send me a "pledge card, which you may use in remitting your decision to help us build a greater school" (Letter, November 2, 1963), but he did not answer my question! Three letters have been unable to elicit the slightest indication that he ever intends to answer.

So far as me supporting a College is concerned, I had just as soon see a college take money from church treasuries (as is endorsed by many appearing on OVC lecture programs) as to have men on its administration and faculty who teach it is alright to do so. It is my opinion that Don Gardner thinks it is all right for a church to contribute to a college, but he merely thinks it is unwise to tell me so.

I fully intended to write Brother Gardner once a month until he answered my question. I even thought about publishing the letters to see if that would warm his interest in answering. But since he is leaving, I guess it is "Too Late Now." But I still would like to know what you believe Brother Gardner.

Now it will be interesting to see what kind of a man the board will select to replace Brother Gardner. With the Gospel Advocate, Batsell B. Baxter, B. C. Goodpasture and A. C. Pullias now openly and publicly advocating church support of colleges, it would appear that this would be a good time to find out if the OVC Board really thinks it sinful for a church to contribute to a college, or merely politically inexpedient. The replacement for Don Gardner should 'provide a pretty accurate preliminary barometer of their belief, and their future action will reveal the depth of their convictions.

They cannot "tight-rope walk" forever. Even the Advocate will not tolerate that. Keep your eyes and ears open. Some interesting things may happen shortly in the Ohio Valley

_______

Say What You Mean, Brethren

In the February 6, 1964 Gospel Adrocate, the Osceola, Arkansas church ran an ad seeking to locate a preacher to work with them. However the ad stated: "Anti-Christ need not apply."

Those brethren most likely meant if a preacher opposes church contributions to colleges and orphan homes, and opposes sponsoring church cooperation such as the Herald of Truth, and church sponsored recreational activities, he need not apply for the job at Osceola.

It would help tremendously if brethren would say what they mean, wouldn't it? Not very many would understand opposition to the above-mentioned things to be "antichrist." but if you doubt this is what the Osceloa church means by "anti-Christ," you write them. Frankly, I "ain't" interested in their job anyway!

Truth Magazine VIII: 8, p. 2-3 May 1964