Woods' Statements And Replies
I note that you are engaged in your favorite pursuit of misrepresenting me through the columns of the Guardian; and, inasmuch as you purport to tell the readers what I meant in various statements which I home made, I shall test your honesty and see whether you are really willing for them to KNOW what I meant in the statements you cite. If you refuse to do so, this will indicate that you do not want them to know, but have deliberately misrepresented me. I shall give you a change (his spelling) to vindicate yourself by running the following statement from me in an early issue of that paper:
"Brother Welch's charge that I have taken three different positions, relative to the orphan home issue, is a figment of his imagination. The first instance he cites does not touch the issue, because there (as the context shows, and as he well knows) the question was not how shall the work of caring for the fatherless and widow be done, but in what way shall the money be raised There are no organizations in the church of our Lord for raising funds for the work of the church, except the church itself; It is the function of the church, through its own organization to provide the money for needy people (1 Tim. 5:16); it is the function of the home to serve as a HOME in caring for the fatherless and destitute widow. This is the idea precisely in the second instance cited; and it is there shown that the home serves as the institution which God ordained for such care, it being the duty of the church to support it in times of need. In the alleged third position Brother Welch cites this distinction was further emphasized and explained.
Unable to answer the argument, Welch attempts to confuse by alleging a contradiction. We have always believed that the church has its obligations; the home has its respective sphere, and the two must not be confused. The Catholics would make a civil government out of the church; Welch wants it to turn into a home. Each position is equally false.
Moreover, the claim that the Deaver-Warren argument has been dropped is nothing more than wishful thinking on his part. It was dropped by Porter, we admit, insofar as any effort to answer it at Paragould was concerned, but it was used there; emphasized and repeated. Brother Welch had better try to answer some of the arguments, rather than deal in misrepresentation of our position."
Now, Bob, the opportunity is yours to show whether you have any respect for truth or not. What are you going to do about it?
Faithfully yours, Signed: Guy N. Woods
May 10, 1957 Dear Brother Woods:
This is in reply to your letter of May 4. Your letter was rather hasty, in view of the fact that your statement was made when only one article of a series had appeared, and in that statement you charge that I am unable to answer your argument. Perhaps by holding your statement until my series is completed you will then have a different statement to make.
The first paragraph of your statement is an attempt to deny the fact that you have changed in your teaching or positions. You talk about what you "meant" in the quotations of yours in my first article. I have not been concerned with what you "meant", only you know that; but I am concerned with what you said and with what you have taught. I have dealt fairly with what you said.
Sincerely, in Christ, Signed: Robert C. Welch
May 16, 1957 Dear Brother Welch:
May I compliment you on stumbling upon the truth for once? In your letter of May 10, you say:
"I have not been concerned with what you `meant', only you know that . . ."
Yet, you propose to tell the readers of the GUARDIAN what I meant; and, when I protested that you were misrepresenting me, and asked for an opportunity to tell them the truth, you tell me you are not concerned with what I "Meant." Well, you must live with your conscience; Not I; but when you read that the GUARDIAN always prints BOTH SIDES of every issue, YOU WILL KNOW THAT SUCH IS A PALPABLE FALSEHOOD.
Faithfully yours, Signed: Guy N. Woods