Many of those in the church who are advocating the "anti" ideas have said that I am opposed to orphan homes. As supposed proof they quote from my book, "The Life and Works Of C. M. Pullias", printed by the Gospel Advocate in 1948.
These things were written more than thirty years ago in an attempt to bring about a correction of some local conditions that were wrong, which were eventually corrected. The condemnation of orphan homes and such was not intended. Any attempt to use this statement in this way is a misapplication of it, and an injustice to its originator.
I am not opposed to anyone using anything I have said or written if it is not misapplied.
I have never opposed the orphan homes, I have criticized them, but never against the home. Furthermore, my criticism of the orphan homes was not of the same type presently being offered by the "anti" group. I have criticized the church, but such does not prove I am against the church. I did much for the orphan homes in my active days. The report being circulated that I am opposed to them is false. The brethren with whom I have been associated know that I have supported Tennessee Orphan Home and others as well.
Sometime ago someone wrote me a long letter, but didn't sign it, and said he attributed my change to my old age and my dotage. I have always helped the orphan homes. Anyone who says I have changed is either ignorant or willfully misrepresents me. May the Lord have mercy on them.
I am not opposed to homes for the aged, the Herald of Truth, nor do I oppose cooperation among the churches of Christ to do any good work.
C. M. Pullias.
The above appears in the August 6, 1959 issue of the Gospel Advocate. On July 2, 1959 a similar announcement appeared, though more brief than this. Each constitutes an assertion in the form of a denial of opposition to the things therein mentioned. The first was designed to allay all reports and rumors to the effect that brother Pullias opposed orphan homes. Evidently feeling that his first avowal was ineffective, the second appears. Brother Pullias expresses himself as not being opposed to anyone quoting what he has said or written), provided such is not misapplied. Certainly no one can knowingly wrest the words of another, though he be but a man, with impunity. To take what another says and twist it to give it a meaning foreign to the thought and intent of the writer is wrong. But to construe the words of a writer or speaker in harmony with the proper meaning of language, and the contest of the statement appraised, is altogether fair and to be expected. The statement that I have cited on occasion is found on page 577 of the book he mentions. It appeared in the Watchman, the bulletin of the Pearl & Bryan Sts. congregation in Dallas, while brother Pullias was preaching there. This is the statement:
"A great apostasy, maybe, is being planned unawares in the various things the local churches are doing under the eldership. Institutionalism is dangerous because it is a departure from the apostolic way. Human societies to do missionary work is wrong, but no more so than some human organization to take care of the orphans or old people or even the young folks. Happy is the man that condemneth not himself in that which he alloweth. Why not take care of all the work of the Lord as in New Testament times? Do you say times have changed? Then the church is not sufficient, eh? Look out for a great fall!"
Brother Pullias now says this was written more than thirty years ago to bring about a correction of some local conditions that were wrong. Then he must have had in mind some human organization that was in the making, or existing, locally; that is, in Dallas, Texas. But, if so, he fails to tell us in his late statement wherein such was or would be wrong there, and human organizations to take care of others elsewhere, as at Quinlan and Gunter, would be right. What does the geographical location of this human organization have to do with the right or wrong of the matter? Would a human society to preach the gospel be all right anywhere but locally — that is in Dallas?
In January, 1956 I had an article in the Guardian noticing a letter to brother Oler from brother Pullias, which had been printed in Boles Home News. I sent a copy of this article to brother Pullias, in which the above quotation from his book was given. He never saw fit to correct the false impression he now says has been attributed to what he wrote. Furthermore, after his July 2, 1959, statement in the Advocate I wrote him a personal letter, which I signed, asking for a clarification of his views and a reconciling of his present and past pronouncements. He never replied. Now he appears in print and charges either ignorant or willful misrepresentation to myself and all others who have credited him with having opposed orphan homes. This justifies this piece and is the occasion for this notice of his last two statements in the Advocate.
First, then, in criticizing the homes, he says he never had in mind the form of criticism now offered by the "anti's". But the present objection, basically, is that they are human organizations created by and maintained by churches to do the work of the church. However, in the quotation from brother Pullias he says, "Why not take care of all the work of the Lord as in New Testament times?" He further suggests that a failure to do so implies that the church is not sufficient, and that a great fall is liable to result! Isn't that what brethren are saying, that the church is sufficient to do all God wants it to do, and that human organizations to care for orphans are as wrong as Missionary Societies to preach the gospel? Just wherein, brother Pullias, is there any difference in what you said then, and what many of us are saying now?
How under heaven any man can say a missionary society, a human society to preach the gospel is wrong, and then say that is is no more wrong than a human organization to take care of orphans, and deny he has ever been opposed to the latter? If he wasn't opposed to orphan homes when he penned that statement, he wasn't opposed to human societies to do missionary work! Furthermore, he is not now opposed to them, as avowed in his non-opposition to the Herald of Truth. Throughout his preaching, as I, have heard him, and as recorded in his book, has been the appeal to "get in the church, to stay in it, and stay out of everything else."
On page 580 of his book he says: "Since there is nothing larger nor smaller than the local church through which to do the work and worship of the New Testament, we should be careful not to band several congregations together for any purpose, neither should we have a class or clan in the local church doing anything independent of the church".
Again: "The combining and organizing of a number of congregations is also a violation of New Testament teaching. There are only two ways in which the work may be done. It can be done as an individual Christian, or as an individual congregation of Christians. God's way will succeed, but human wisdom will fail. All such, therefore, are hindrances and not helps." Life And Works of C. M. Pullias, page 74).
Do these statements look like they were penned by a man that stood unopposed to all the things he now says he does not oppose, and never opposed? Of course we didn't have the Herald of Truth thirty years ago, and Gunter was not then begging for money while exacting fifty-five dollars from each old person a month above all they can beg the churches out of. However, we had Boles then, but then it was under elders; now it isn't, we are told. In fact, we are told by those who should know that it is wrong under elders, and right under a board. But brother Pullias in that warning voiced thirty years ago speaks of a great apostasy being unwittingly planned in the things being done under the eldership. Possibly, then, he was trying to get Boles out from under an eldership, and under a board, and when this was done, the eventual correction of which he speaks was accomplished!
Brother Pullias, we need a clear, full explanation of just what you do believe, and why. Assertions are within themselves worthless, however venerable may the one be who makes them. Age does not invest the statements of one with authority and sacredness, independent of evidence from the scriptures to support and establish the position taken and the persuasion avowed.
Many of us have esteemed highly the preaching and teaching of brother Pullias through the years, and feel we have been blessed by such; however, by these statements he has invalidated every vestige of integrity and confidence that heretofore has attached to his utterances. It may be his age; I do not know. It may be the fact that he has been close to the Advocate, and has a nephew who is one of the ring leaders of liberalism, and through the college which he heads together with Goodpasture constitutes the powerful combine endeavoring to control and lead the churches into apostasy today. It might be the fact that he labors with and derives support from a liberal church in Dallas that influences him to make these repeated statements of not being against what brethren are doing today. It may be all or none of these reasons and causes for his present avowals. It may be that he has forgotten what he formerly taught, and actually believes the scriptures authorize these things. In which case, let us have the testimony of God's Word, brother Pullias.
Yes, brother Pullias, such is in order from you at this time, for as you wrote in the Gospel Advocate, on the front page, of January 5, 1933 the following: "There is no middle ground between the word of the Lord and human device. We are, therefore, uncompromisingly opposed to the things not taught by the apostles of Christ in religion. Anything the Lord did dot teach through his apostles, and the New Testament church did not practice, is to be regarded as intolerable. 'If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth, that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ.' This will put an end to all untaught things which have divided the churches through all the years. No one has a right to write a thing or teach a thing, contrary to this passage, which has to do with human life and destiny. For whosoever goeth onward and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ hath not God.' The secret things belong unto the Lord our God; but those things which are revealed belong unto us and our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law'. Let us never depart from the revealed things, therefore", it behooves you to show these things which you affirm as favoring presently and in the past are among the things revealed by Christ through His holy apostles. A failure to do so is to indict yourself of guilt in departing from those principles you avowed years ago.