It seems our brethren, the American so-called "missionaries" in the Philippines, at the Philippine Bible School in Baguio City, have difficulty distinguishing the truth from what they would prefer it to be. The recent Philippine Christian (the name they use for their publication; it has nothing to do with the character of its contents) is another example. Let me cite several instances of what I mean from it. All references are from Vol. 10, No. 3-7, March-August 1973.

Page 2, "Editorial Notes," Another "Episcopal" Visitation: Among other interesting points is the fact Brother LeCroy considers Frank Butler and Jady Copeland as brethren in Christ, but I guess I am not so fortunate. I was unable to find "brother" attached to my name. It seems LeCroy is all upset because of the challenge I wrote on the chalkboard at the Baguio and subsequent lectureships. It read, "The PBC is Scriptural." Below I drew two lines, one for his (or another American at that' school) signature to affirm and the other for mine, to deny. I signed mine. He did not sign his, either at Baguio City or any other site. In this issue of the magazine he did make another attempt to divert our differences into something personal to provide a vehicle of criticism for me wanting a public debate.

Concerning this matter of whether our differences are personal or doctrinal, I deny as I have for seven years, there is anything personal I have against any of the; Americans or Filipinos operating that school. I thus deny there is any purpose in individual discussion of the errors for which that school, and its operators stand. Further, I deny my purpose in seeking a debate is personal fame. Let me state again why I have sought to persuade, force or otherwise get one of the Americans into a debate on the right of that school to exist as presently financed and organized. I know the Filipino people well enough to have considerable respect for their intellectual honesty. I believe such a debate, under fair conditions, on fair propositions which properly distinguish our differences will convince a number of Filipino brethren. What is more, the PBC-Americans know this also. All their dodging, their attempts to reduce this to something personal, or to rationalize away their refusal to debate, American against American, sum up in this. Let me make it a matter of public record, as I have previously done in personal correspondence with them: I do not care one whit whether they debate me, Roy Cogdill, Cecil Willis, Connie Adams, J. T. Smith, Larry Hafley or another of their choosing (providing he represents those of us who oppose the school). The claim of the PBC-liberal Americans that I am seeking fame is nonsense. To apply this to Cogdill, Willis, Adams or the others is ridiculous. If fame is their purpose (it is not), then these men are already properly famous in their own right by virtue of their works. They, and I seek a debate there solely and singly that the school (PBC) may be exposed to Filipino brethren for what it is; a violation of the Word of God in practice which, if not repented of and corrected, will send all connected with it to hell. To claim these others, or myself have other motives necessarily means they have evidence of this or they can read our minds. In view of 1 cor. 13:5, A. . . love thinketh no evil;@ and Jn. 7:24, AJudge not according to appearance, but judge righteous judgment,@ they need to either trot out the evidence on which they base these charges, or withdraw them, repent of having made them and ask for forgiveness.

While I am on this subject, let me comment on my judgment of their motives in refusal to debate. In even a casual study, the Bible makes it obvious only error suffers from public discussion. Further, while it is possible to be wrong and sincere, after exposure to the truth, a person, if sincere, will be right; if not right, he will no longer be sincere. These brethren have been exposed to the truth on the institutional errors for a number of years, including seven years at least partially as a result of my efforts. This is evidence of the finest sort that, one, they do not believe the Bible (if they did, they would be scared out of their socks C note Heb. 10:31; 12:29 and 2 Thess. 1:9), and two, they know they are out of harmony with Bible teaching. Thus their refusal to engage in public discussion is an attempt to prevent Filipino Christians from learning they know this, for in the minds of the Filipino saints, it would classify the PBC Americans as hypocrites.

On page 3, right column, LeCroy comments, ". . . some like Brother Hafley have written in a much more courteous way, and I told him the reasons why I would not personally debate with him . . . ." By implication, Cogdill, Willis, Adams, myself and others are less than courteous. All right, if Brother LeCroy approves Hafley and not the rest of us, debate him. Hafley and Earl Robertson plan, God willing, to be in that nation this coming spring (1974). As to LeCroy's remarks concerning his refusal to debate, I am made to wonder whether he himself believes them since in earlier correspondence with Hafley, he submitted propositions for Larry's consideration. Who or what caused you to change your mind, Brother LeCroy?

On page 7, Bob Buchanan wrote under the title of "Shall Two `Great White Fathers' Debate?" His main thrusts were that I desire to debate as the "white champion" and I have refused a valid requirement to discuss the PBC with him on a personal basis. I deny both. First, it is the liberal Americans there who have thoroughly acted the part of the "white father" in the Filipino; their continued control over the financial support of their preachers by funneling the money through their hands is one illustration. Another is Douglas Gunselman's article in the Firm Foundation in 1967 urging American brethren to send all support through an American there rather than send it directly to the Filipino preacher. Gunselman claimed Filipinos are not trustworthy. Concerning the other charge, there is nothing to be served for Christ's cause by a private discussion between myself and any or all of them. There is nothing personal between us. Our differences are doctrinal, not personal. It is this doctrine I want to see aired before Filipino audiences under circumstances which will permit and aid them to recognize truth. Now then, the liberals' continuous suggestions that if the 'Anti' Americans want to debate, they can debate Filipino preachers is an attempt to hang the "great white father" bit on us. I am not buying. If the American "wins", then it is passed off as "that sophisticated American `Anti' came over here to make fun of and mock our faithful but unskilled Filipino preachers." Witness the results of the Smith-Lacuata debate, and the subsequent smothering of some of the fine work J. T. Smith did in it.

Concerning the letter (from him to me) Buchanan reprinted on page 8, it would be interesting if he also printed my response. It would also be more fair. I published a more recent exchange between us last year in Truth Magazine. I am perfectly willing for brethren to examine all our correspondence, and judge for themselves who is right and who is wrong. Would you care to do that Brother Buchanan? I have copies of all the correspondence I have sent you, and hopefully, all you sent to me (at least all of it I have received). Should we lay it all out, side by side? You print them in the Philippine Christian and I will take it upon myself to obtain Cecil Willis' permission to print it all in Truth. What could be more fair than that?

I think this is enough to demonstrate the truth of my introductory statement about the loose handling of fact. But I believe the most significant point to be noted in the entire publication was the considerable effort attempting to wiggle out of a debate, American against American, there in that nation before Filipino audiences on fair propositions representing the differences between us. Something is "bugging" them, otherwise the idea of a debate would have gotten scant, if any attention. Could it be the liberal Americans at the PBC are beginning to feel the pressure of questions from their fellows over their continual refusal to defend their idol? Is it possible some of the students at the school are expressing their wonder over why their American instructors won't debate the American "Anti's' who come there? It has been truly said, "A hit dog howls." The American liberal brethren running the Philippine Bible College are howling . . . LOUD!

One further remark: I will, as I have done before, send them a copy of this manuscript at the same time I send it to Cecil Willis, that they might know nothing is being done in a corner (it would be nice if they would do the same in return, but I won't hold my breath waiting). Brethren in the Philippines, most of the evil existing among and between you there ties directly or indirectly to the Philippine Bible College and those who run it. So, to them I have this message: as one of my purposes in life, I long ago resolved to destroy that school. To this end, I have devoted considerable effort. To this end, I intend to devote even more in the future. Do not claim you have not been warned!

Truth Magazine, XVIII:9, p. 8-9
January 2, 1974