RESPONSE TO GARRETT’S COMMENTS
by James D. Bales

Concerning the remarks by Leroy Garrett in the June 1966 issue of Restoration Review I would like to make the following observations. First, my reference to financial resources did not primarily apply to Voices of Concern. In fact, it is my intention, the Lord willing, to analyze this book with the help of others. Before I got the Review I had already written a number of individuals to help in this project. Whether Voices of Concern was analyzed does not depend on whether or not grants such as the type I had in mind were available. I simply emphasized that much more writing could be done if some of us were not so tied up with other work. It is a fact of life that when I have a full teaching load I cannot do as much research and work as I would like to do.

Second, Brother Garrett seemed amazed that I spoke of answering Voices of Concern when I had not even seen it. He indicated that there might be something in it with which I would agree. It would have been quite simple for Leroy to have realized: (a) I would not endeavor to refute something that I thought was true. In a letter which I wrote to some individuals about a cooperative answer to Voices of Concern I pointed out that obviously we should “acknowledge any rebuke which it justly delivers and any truth to which it calls attention.” (b) Knowing that Bob Meyers and certain others were writing on “Church of Christism,” I do not have to see this particular publication in order to know from my previous contacts with them that there are some things in it that certainly need answering. Since at least several of these were indicating in one way or another why they left, it is quite obvious that since I haven’t left I would believe that they were in error in at least certain things. (c) If brother Garrett had exercised some of the charity and understanding that we all find it easier to talk about than to practice, he would not have made such irrelevant comments; and have said that this could be “very revealing of the kind of people we have allowed ourselves to become.”

Third, how could Garrett assume that I thought that anything critical of brethren must be “fostered by ulterior motives, and is thus to be treated as some threat to our wellbeing.” Really, brother Garrett, as often as I have been critical of brethren this also seems irrelevant to the subject under consideration.

Fourth, Garrett thought that “Much more maturity on our part would perhaps lead to the raising of funds to help any who might be willing to write helpful criticism of our system.” I shall furnish brother Garrett an opportunity for exercise of such maturity. If he will raise my salary, and expenses for the necessary books and publications, for the next year I shall analyze, the Lord willing, at least certain of the issues which are raised in the Restoration Review and in Carl Ketcherside’s publications.

Fifth, the Lord willing, I shall accept the suggestion to review Voices of Concern in Restoration Review.

Sixth, I am not interested in a face to face encounter with brother Ketcherside under the circumstances that so far as I now understand, surrounded such a possibility. (a) It seems that we would furnish the audience by furnishing a college where he could do the debating. Dr. Altizer would not have furnished a place at Emory nor would we have furnished a place at Harding; instead we would have met on neutral ground in Atlanta, Georgia. (b) Altizer already had a national audience and a public confrontation with him would have given an unusual opportunity to expose the ultimate outcomes of the rejection of God; as certain of these outcomes were evident in the writings of Dr. Altizer. (c) The idea of a debate with Altizer did not spontaneously come to my mind. I was peacefully studying in my office around 10:30 one night when I was contacted by some members of the church in West Monroe, Louisiana, who asked me if I would do the debating if they challenged Dr. Altizer. (d) Since a debate involves expenses—in the gathering of material and in traveling as well as secretarial help—the church in West Monroe well understood that I neither could nor should bear these expenses. In proposing a debate with Ketcherside he wanted us to furnish the place; and I could look after my own expenses, evidently. It may be news to brother Garrett, but it is not to me, that I find it difficult to finance by myself a trip to Little Rock. (e) Usually I prefer a written discussion to an oral discussion for two reasons. (1) A written discussion generally is not as much of a nervous strain on me as is an oral discussion. I do not physically bear nervous strain as easily as I once did. (2) A written discussion enables one to better deal with the issues which are raised. One can word a thing, reword it, leave it out, etc. He cannot do it when in an oral debate. Then, too, in a written debate one does not have to set aside a block of time such as he does when scheduling an oral debate.

I recently cooperated in an oral debate on evolution and in connection with this signed up to debate later in another state on the Bible. But I was invited into this also and someone took care of the financial aspect of the Little Rock debate. It is my present opinion, that, unless the circumstances are very unusual, I shall accept no additional oral debates unless I have at least three or four months free to concentrate on the preparations for the debate. In some cases, longer. —Harding College, Searcy, Ark.

COMMENT

Brother Bales’ explanation as to why he would plan to review a book he had not yet seen is reasonable. I am sorry if I pressed this point too hard. It is most commendable that he would anticipate reviewing Voices of Concern with the resolution to “acknowledge any rebuke which it justly delivers and any truth to which it calls attention.” It still appears to me that, even with this noble intention in mind, it would have been better had he waited and read the book before planning a review of it. After all, he might have found himself too much in sympathy with its contents to bother about a critical review. Even the title “Church of Christism” means different things to different people, and even James Bales himself might conjure up a use for it in his own vocabulary. So he could have waited to see what the concerned voices in Voices of Concern meant by the term.

But this was no big point with me, and I gladly accept brother Bales’ statement of his intentions. I would only urge that we look for opportunities to encourage criticism. The challenge to review a book of criticisms even before it makes its appearance might leave the impression that we are all too touchy in this area.

I am not necessarily urging a debate between brethren Bales and Ketcherside, though I must admit that I think it would be profitable and helpful, especially if the format were different from our factious encounters of the past. A real dialogue between four participants would be ideal. I am satisfied to accept brother Bales’ preferences about any such discussions. My initial statement had more to do with Jimmie Lovell’s suggestion that there be such a debate than any expressed desires of my own.

But we did unequivocally invite brother Bales to review Voices of Concern in the columns of this journal, and so we unequivocally accept his offer to do so. We are suggesting to him that the review begin with the first issue of 1967, and he will be free to extend the study all through the ten issues of that volume. We will invite those who are most involved in his criticisms to make such reply as they see fit in equal space.

So our readers may look for further information concerning what promises to be a very interesting exchange. —the Editor

(Since writing the above we have confirmation from Prof. Bale’s that he will begin his analysis in our January issue —Ed.)