by Epiphany Bible Students

October 1, 1956

No. 14

My dear Brethren: Grace and peace through our Beloved Master!

Now comes a Review of “Some More Hoefleisms Examined”, as carried on pages 84‑87 of this September Present Truth. R. G. Jolly says we falsely “accuse him” when we say $20,000 disappeared from the Book Fund. Certainly, the $20,000 has disappeared from the Book Fund; and his statement that “our reply to these accusations is found in P `56, pp. 20, par. 2 and 52, par. 1” is simply another evasion by him — all the while he shrieks “evasion” at others. The $20,000 is not even mentioned in either of these ref­erences; he simply says he had an audit made — that's his “explanation”. There are men sitting in jail who had audits made, which showed their books in balance, but failed to explain items such as the one in question here. It is such irresponsible statements by R. G. Jolly that have caused many to lose all confidence in him and to withdraw all support from him; and we predict many more will yet do so if he does not speedily re­solve to adhere to the truth in what he says and does. Copies of some correspondence are enclosed to corroborate this statement; and more will quickly follow, D,v.

Just as he “deals deceitfully” with our contention in the $20,000 item, so he re­peatedly “deals deceitfully” with the writings of the Star Members. He certainly did so with Brother Johnson's “Faithful and Measurably Faithful”; he also did so with “good” Levites and “cleansed” levites, using these expressions as though they were identi­cal in meaning until we showed his sophistry to be utterly ridiculous; he is now at­tempting to do the same thing with the 60 “Groups” and 60 “Posts”, as evidence page 60, col. 1 (top) of the July P. T. — of which much is yet to be said.

A flagrant instance of his “dealing deceitfully” with Brother Russell's writings was seen at the recent Philadelphia Convention. At the two‑o'clock Testimony Meet­ing on Saturday — at which 123 were in attendance — he had one of his Evangelists conduct the service. This brother opened the meeting with two hymns and a prayer; but did not even read a Scripture text, much less offer any preparatory comment (although later in the meeting he did repeat the day's manna text). He then proceeded to say this would be a “Testimony Meeting” — testimonies and no hymns. Then he asked how many did not want to testify, at which a scattered few raised their hands in various parts of the Tabernacle. After this he began to call upon various ones to testify from a list that had been previously prepared; and he checked them off with a pencil after various individuals came to the microphone to tell how thankful they were for someone at this time like “dear Brother Jolly”. On one or two occasions the name called did not respond — either refused or was not even in the meeting; and the lead­er's confusion was apparent. About 2:45 a brother arose, saying he would like to tes­tify; but was told he could not do so because he was “not on the list”. When he pro­tested the microphone was taken from him, and he had to return to his seat — without testifying.

At the Question Meeting some one (whose identity we do not know) asked if the above‑detailed method was not Revolutionism; at which R. G. Jolly said he had been expecting just such a question, so he read from Tower Reprints 5384 to prove (?) Brother Russell had advocated such a method. Just think of it! His loud and verbose answer was in his usual form — as it also was in his distortions and weak confusion in his discourse on the fourth chapter of John in another meeting. His “stage” conduct throughout the Convention again painful­ly reminded us of the small ships at sea:  They usually honk the loudest when they are in a fog!

At the beginning of his “Examination” on page 84 R. G. Jolly says, “JJH does not attempt to offer anything better” (for his nonsense on John's Behead­ing) — which statement he apparently makes as some measure of proof (?) that his explanation is correct. Some 30 years ago Brother Johnson laughed down That Evil Servant's John's Beheading “without offering anything better” — just as he also did with Brother Streater's exposition on Revelation; and he received much the same retort as R. G. Jolly now hands us.

R. G. Jolly says JJH grasps at straws as does a drowning man; but we know — and many others know — that his statement is simply a reflection of his own inner tor­ments. As Brother Johnson has so aptly stated, “Half truths are more misleading than whole errors, as the course of every erroneous system proves.” As a vivid illustration of this truism, we cite R. G. Jolly's repeated and parrot‑like quotation of Brother Johnson's statement “after my demise” — which remark he has offered many, many times to justify what he has been doing since Oct. 22, 1950 —; but the companion truth that should always accompany “after my demise” R. G. Jolly garbles or ignores completely.  Brother Johnson clearly taught that the work of Rev. 19:5‑9 would be done by the Great Company “after they are cleansed” — by passing through the refining fires of Armageddon. Inasmuch as Brother Johnson died six years sooner than he expected, the question logi­cally arises: Which one of the foregoing companion truths should control? Surely, no one could truthfully contend that Brother Johnson's death in itself effected the cleans­ing of the Great Company as a Class — even in its leaders.  One of the leaders right in the LHMM was not even sufficiently moved by that death to come to the funeral. How­ever, it should not require much imagination to realize that God's heavy hand upon them in the second phase of their Fit‑Man experiences during Armageddon will have a most sobering and cleansing effect upon every one of them who gains life at all.

We have gone into quite some detail in the foregoing for the benefit of every Faithful Youthful Worthy and other Faithful members of God's House who read it now, or may yet read it; and we urge upon them to plant it indelibly upon their minds when they are talking of present conditions with any uncleansed Great Company member — ­especially, the leaders among them. We have realized for sometime how unpopular with them is our contention that they could not possibly have been cleansed — as a class — in any of the 60 Groups at Oct. 22, 1950. As they consider what may lie ahead of them — if we are right —, it is certain to give them “butterflies in their stomachs”; and their arguments are certain to be colored, perhaps unconsciously so by some of them, by their horrible predicament. Please know we do not say this facetiously; we say it in all sobriety and keen sympathy. But, as we have previously said, there is no occasion for any Youthful Worthy or others in God's House to become involved with the uncleansed Great Company in their Fit‑Man experiences — unless they are in the same relative condition.

In this connection, we have vigorously pursued the slander matter over the past year, because we have been acutely aware of the King Saul type, (he types the crown-­lost leaders up to Armageddon) wherein Saul immediately began to lie after Samuel con­fronted him with his “rebellion” (spiritual witchcraft — “especially deceptive false teachings”) — 1 Sam. 15:13,23.  We are all witnesses of the flood of falsehood that has appeared in writing and conversation during the past few years — and it is still going on!  Another instance of it came to our attention during the Philadelphia Con­vention.  We were talking to a certain brother, a member of the Philadelphia Class, when a sister came up and interrupted to say that this very brother was circulating a story about us to the effect that we made all our money playing the race horses; that she had asked him if Brother Johnson had known about it; that he had told her, “Yes, but what could he do about it?”  When confronted by the sister, the brother free­ly admitted all the details as given here; but just “couldn't remember” who had told it to him — just some more of the underhand knifing of which we have been protesting.  This same brother said he doesn't read our writings because of our “bad spirit” — ­although he apparently reposes in smug complacency of his “good spirit” which freely allows him to “murder” his brother (see Berean Comments on 1 Jn. 3:15).  All know that Brother Johnson gave us Pilgrim appointments right up to the month before he died; and that he insisted that we conduct his funeral — none of which he needed to do if any of the foregoing were true.  Nor did he need to accept such “tainted” money from us, or pub­lish the gracious praise about it as it is found on page 191 of the 1936 Present Truth a small part of which we quote:

“We are sure that all of us will rejoice over this (the unstinted gift of 1327 Snyder Avenue to the Epiphany work) and that all of us will therefor first of all thank God, and, secondly, will feel grateful to the dear brother who so kindly gave it, and who for years has been the largest financial supporter of the Epiphany work. His not desiring his left hand to know what his right hand has done moves us to withhold his name; but without knowing his name, will the brethren please remember him in prayer, for which we are sure he will be grateful and rejoice.”

The malicious gossip detailed herein could be only the concoction of a vicious liar, or emanate from one so nearly moronic that he just can't understand why and how two and two make four.  All of this is a sad reminder of Jesus' words spoken about those “whited sepulchers” of His day whose “good spirit” would not allow them to light a fire on the Sabbath, but which freely allowed them to crucify the lord of Glory:  “Ye compass land and sea to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of Hell than your­selves” — Matt. 23:15.

Now we come to consider “The Thousand‑year Reign of Christ”, as found on page 86. R. G. Jolly still labels as “new light” our reference to 1 Cor. 15:24, although he admits our quotation about it by Brother Johnson appeared first in The Herald of The Epiphany on Nov. 15, 1949.  It also appeared in 1954 in The Bible Standard; and again in 1956 in the book, The Millennium.  Presumably this statement was proof‑read before and after publication in 1949; then again in 1954; then again in 1956. But never once did Bro. Johnson, R. G. Jolly, or anyone else, raise a question about it.  Thus, is not R. G. Jolly again guilty of gross falsehood when he accuses us of preaching as “new light” an item that had previously been published and approved three different times in our own LHMM publications?

But he tries to make an “out” for himself by pleading a faulty disc.  It now “appears” that the word “of” should have been typed “is”.  When he says it “appears” that way, he is admitting he is not at all certain of it; and we now ask if he would allow us or others to inspect that disc?  In any event, his “correction” just won't work, because it makes a ridiculous jumble of Brother Johnson's writing; and reveals at the same tine the scrambled state of R. G. Jolly's mind.  So often we have re­ferred to his contentions as nonsense — which we do again in this instance; but we do this not in a manner of name‑calling; we do it because that's the way Brother John­son put it.  “When these people fall into Azazel's hands”, he said, “they talk all sorts of nonsense.”  So we simply use the language the Star Member said best suits such cases.  In this instance R. G. Jolly is desperately pushed to save his face; and, as was the case with Saul, he goes from error to error, from blunder to blunder, and from misdeed to misdeed.  Conversely speaking, when crown‑losers repeatedly talk all sorts of nonsense, we may know they are in Azazel's hands.  Brother Johnson aptly stated that such preach much better in righteousness while they are under the restrain­ing hand of a Star Member and before they are abandoned to Azazel; and R. G. Jolly is a pointed illustration of this truth.  Before he was abandoned to Azazel on October 22, 1950, he had not displayed one‑tenth the nonsense he has been showing since that date.

Let us note carefully what Brother Johnson wrote:  “Then cometh the and (when he shall have ruled over all the earth); when he shall have delivered up the Kingdom to God; when he shall have put down all rule and authority (the pretended authority and the pretended night of Satan).”  Surely, if language means anything at all, the “shall have” in all these statements (which we have abbreviated to save space) is a clear and unmistakable declaration that all the items mentioned are fully accomplished before “cometh the end”.  We reconstruct it to make it clearer:  “When Christ (Christ Himself primarily, and the Church secondarily) shall have ruled over all the earth....... when he shall have delivered up the Kingdom to God......... when he shall have put down all rule...... (the pretended authority and the pretended night of Satan, all of this will be put down by the almighty hand of Christ) then cometh the end.”  Thus, R. G. Jolly's “correction” now has Brother Johnson saying Satan is to be destroyed before the Little Season even starts!!

From our knowledge of past occurrences we can sometime discern the future.  Thus, there was a Harvest at the end of, the Jewish Age — the separation of the wheat from the chaff.  This Harvest occurred during the first 40 years of the Age that followed — ­in the Gospel Age.  Thus, “the ends of the ages” (1 Cor. 10:11) intertwined in insep­arable fashion for that Harvest.  Then there was a Harvest of the Gospel Age — the separation of the wheat from the tares — which Harvest occurred in the first 40 years of the Age following it — in the Millennial Age; therefore, these two Ages are insep­arably intertwined just as had occurred with the Jewish Harvest.  Now, there will be a Harvest of the Millennial Age (see Matt. 25:32 Berean Comments) — the separation of the sheep from the goats —; and it is a very logical deduc­tion that Harvest will occupy 40 years, and will occur in the first 40 years of the Age following the Millen­nial Age — just as was true of the Jewish and Gospel Age Harvests.  All of this is just deduction, of course; there is no direct Scriptural proof for it.  So, if any one wishes to be contentious, we have no further argument to offer, except to say Brother Johnson is in agreement with this presentation.

However, we realize it is measurably weak simply to say any statement is correct just because “Brother Johnson said so”.  Therefore, we now turn to the Scriptures for corroboration.  It is stated in Matt. 25:31:  “The Son of Man shall come...... all the holy Angels with him (This self‑evidently is Christ and the Church — see Berean Com­ments)..... and shall divide the sheep from the goats....... Then shall the King say.”  This “King” is the same Christ and His Church — reigning on their Millennial Throne and this whole parable is a clear presentation of the Millennial Harvest in the Little Season — the first 40 Years of the Age following the Millennial Age.  A King is the chief executive of the country over which he reigns — just as our President is Chief Executive of the United States.  We have three branches of Government.  The legisla­tive branch (Congress) enacts the laws; the judicial branch (our court judges) inter­prets those laws; and our executive branch (of whom our President is chief) executes the judgments written, even if it becomes necessary to call out the army to do so.

Now, in the Millennial Age Christ and His Church will be all three of the fore­going.  They will enact the laws (“the law shall go forth from Mount Zion”); they will interpret the laws through the Worthies (“the word of the lord from Jerusalem”); and they will “execute the judgments written”.  The 144,0Ol — as a complete unit — be­gan to “execute the judgments written” for the first time in September 1914; and they will finish the “execution of the Judgments written” 1,000 years later — at the end of the Millennial Harvest, which is the end of the Little Season.  Now, Brother John­son says in Vol. E‑l9 (mis‑numbered E‑l7 by R. G. Jolly), Page 350 nine lines from bottom, that the Jews will “prove faithful in the Little Season” (See also top of page 351).  Be it noted that this Vol. E‑17 is the same one R. G. Jolly is now trying to “correct”.  On page 367 (top) of the same book it is stated all who gain life must live “faithfully during the thousand years and stand the final tests during the Little Sea­son.”  On page 414 of the same book (bottom) we have, “by the time the Millennium and its subsequent little season will have fully ended God through the Christ .... will have blessed all the willing and obedient of mankind with restitution”.  And on page 407 of the same book (12 lines from bottom) it is stated the Christ will effect “the eter­nal annihilation of Satan and the impenitent angels at the end of the Little Season” —­ not before the Little Season starts, as R. G. Jolly now “corrects” it.  Thus, the final “execution of the judgments written” will be accomplished by Christ and the Church in 2914 — just 1,000 years after the full Christ company began to “execute the judgments written” in 1914.  Please note we do not contend — and never have contended — that 1874 to 2874 is not the Millennial Day. We are in full harmony both Star Members on this.  Our contention is that the Christ's reign does not end until the Millennial Harvest ends.

R. G. Jolly says JJH is revolutionizing in this matter; but JJH now passes the “compliment” right back to him — he is revolutionizing with his “correction”.  We now patiently wait for him to “declare, if he has understanding.”!  We wonder if it will be necessary for him to “correct” some more discs to do this.  In due course we shall have much more to say about his presentations in the July and September Present Truths; but we wish to observe here that the once‑elevating Present Truth has in six short years become so besmirched and “dis”graced by its present Editor that it is rapidly approach­ing the level of the once‑elevating Watch Tower.

With this writing comes the prayer of the writer that this presentation may be the means of one and all “growing in grace and in the knowledge” of our Beloved lord.  We advise all to read and compare this with R. G. Jolly's Present Truth (?) — which is just the reverse of the advice he is giving to his blind sectarian followers.  “Let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me.”

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim


Please note: The following correspondence is published by request of The Winston‑Salem Ecclesia.

Winston-Salem, N. C.

March 31, 1956

To R. G. Jolly:

In view of the March Present Truth we feel that we would not be faith­ful to the Lord and to Truth if we did not register a vigorous protest against the errors printed there as well as some others. It will not be necessary to list them for you, as Brother Hoefle has been doing that very ably and you have not made any attempt to correct or amend your false teachings, slanderous statements, etc.  We cannot support one who “sets himself up” as Pastor and Teacher and then proceeds to slander a brother and “lord it over” God's people.  We hope you realize fully the seriousness of your position — i. e. that your very life is in Jeopardy (1 John 3:15).

You have gone to great lengths to prove that the Great Company in the LHMM were cleansed by late 1950.  If this were true we believe it would show “by their fruits”.  However, the words and actions of some of these Great Company members show them to be in a very uncleansed condition.  We are sorry to see also that some of the Youthful Worthies are not “proving all things”, but are accepting unquestionably anything you say or print merely because “Bro. Jolly said so”.  This is sectarianism.

You may consider this as a complete withdrawal from you of fellowship and support, financial or otherwise, until such time as you forsake your erroneous course, which we sincerely hope you will do before it is too late.  We do this in accordance with Brother Johnson's instructions to withdraw brotherly help and favor from wilful revolutionists.


The Winston‑Salem Ecclesia


April 12, 1956

The Winston‑Salem Ecclesia

c/o Sister ----------, Sec'y.

carbon copies:  Sister --------, Bro. and Sr. --------

Brother J. W. -------, Sister --------- and Brother and Sister ------------

Dear Brethren: Greetings in Jesus' name!

I was much surprised and saddened to receive a letter dated March 31, signed “The Winston‑Salem Ecclesia by Sr. --------, Sec'y.,” telling of “a complete withdrawal of brotherly fellowship and support, financial and otherwise,” from me.  I cannot bring my­self to believe that this letter really expresses the true heart's sentiments of each one of you.  Until I have much more, and indisputable evidence to the contrary, I will con­tinue to be persuaded of better things concerning you.  I am sending a separate copy of this letter to each one of you, or to each family, so that each of you may have an oppor­tunity to study it carefully and answer it individually.  If any of you did not agree either partially or wholly with the March 31 letter, I would be glad to know.  I cannot feel that the March 31 letter is fully and unreservedly endorsed in every one of its state­ments by every individual of your ecclesia.

The March 31 letter (I will not call it your letter, because I do not think it ex­presses the true heart's sentiments of all of you) stated, “In view of the March Present Truth we feel that we would not be faithful to the Lord and the Truth, if we did not register a vigorous protest against the errors printed there as well as others.”  The March 31 letter does not even point out one thing in the March P.T. or elsewhere in our magazines which is supposed to be erroneous, and yet it says, “You have not made any attempt to correct or amend your false teachings, slanderous statements, etc.  Not once have any of you written to me about any of the points at issue in the present controversy, or anything connected therewith which I have written or stated.  And yet the March 31 letter mentions “a complete withdrawal of fellowship.”  Brethren, such things ought not to be.  If this is the kind of judgment with which you judge (Matt. 7:2), then I tremble for you.

If you are registering a vigorous protest against some things in the March P. T. which you do not name, but which you consider to be error, I wonder if you are also registering a vigorous protest against the widely disseminated errors of John Hoefle?  As examples: (1) Are you protesting against his error on the Saints' thousand‑year reign, set forth in his Sept. 15 circular, which in the March P.T. is clearly proven to be out of harmony with the Scriptures, and the writings of the Parousia and Epiphany messengers? (2) Are you vigorously protesting against J. J. H.'s fighting the proclamation of the Rev. 19:5‑9 message as beginning Oct. 22, 1950, whereas Bro. Johnson told us very plainly that it would “have to be proclaimed by the Great Company and Youthful Worthies,” after his demise (P 150, p. 192), and “that it does not refer to that section of the Great Company that remains in Babylon until it is destroyed, but to the Truth sections” (P 131, P. 156, col. 2)?  (3) Are you protesting against J. J. H.'s attempt to prove that the Great Company is not a higher class than the Ancient and Youthful Worthies?

The March 31 letter states, “We cannot support one who ‘sets himself up' as Pastor and Teacher.” Brother Johnson made it clear that my successorship as executive trustee of the L.H.M.M. did “not imply successorship of general pastor and teacher, i. e., successor­ship of the Epiphany messenger as such.” Nor have I ever claimed successorship of the Epiphany Messenger as pastor and teacher.  But I remind you, brethren, that it was Brother Johnson and not myself, who indicated, not only my successorship as executive trustee, but also my office as “the Lord's appointed leader for the good levites and good Youthful Worthies” (P '48, P. 45), and stated that after his demise I was to lead “the brethren of the Great Company and Youthful Worthies in a victorious war for the Lord” (P '5O, pp. 192, 193).  It was Brother Johnson, and not myself, that set me forth as antitypical Baanah and Hiram, his special helper (P `42, p. 14, col. 2, bottom; P `43, p. 79, col. 2, top:  B Vol. 10, p. 449 line 18).  I do not see how I could possibly fill these offices without doing some teahhing (can you?), not as a successor to, or as a parity with, the Epiphany Messenger, but in the far inferior office, as the Lord's appointed leader for the good Levites and good Youthful Worthies.  Is this what the March 31 letter calls “setting myself up”?

The March 31 letter states, “We cannot support one who .... then proceeds to slander a brother and `lord it over' God's people.”  Yet it does not state a single instance.  It is very easy to make charges of this kind.  I would like to know the specific instance or instances wherein I have slandered a brother and lorded it over God's people.

The March 31 letter continues, “The words and actions of some of these Great Company members (i. e., in the L.H.M.M.) shows them to be in a very uncleansed condition.”  Again a general charge is made, and no specific instance is cited.

The letter continues, “we are sorry to see, also, that some of the Youthful Worthies are not ‘Proving all things' but are accepting unquestion­ably anything you say or print merely because ‘Bro. Jolly said so.'  This is sectarianism!”  Let me ask, If some in Brother Russell's day (E Vol. 5, P. 480) or Brother Johnson's day did not prove all things, but accepted unquestionably anything they said merely because Brother Russell or Brother Johnson said so, did this prove that Brother Russell or Brother Johnson was at fault?  Have you known any case wherein I have encouraged such an attitude on the part of any?  Have I not rather, on the other hand, in harmony with St. Paul's admonition in Col. 2:18, discouraged servility and angel‑worship, as is evidenced, e.g., by the article on Angel ­Worship in the September 1952 P.T.?

The letter states further, “We do this in accordance with Brother Johnson's instruc­tions to withdraw brotherly help and favor from wilful revolutionists.”  Where did Bro. Johnson ever instruct withdrawal of brotherly help and favor prior to a proper investi­gation and hearing of a matter?

My hope is that all of you, or at least some of you, will realize that the action indicated in the March 31 letter was taken hastily, without proper hearing and investi­gation.  The great Adversary would like every one of us to disfellowship one another, and that without sufficient cause.  He is interested in having us bite and devour one another (Gal. 5:15).

Brother Johnson often quoted the text, “He that answereth a matter before he hear­eth it, it is folly and shame unto him” (Prov. 18:13).  How are we, brethren, ever go­ing to be fitted to assist in the Judging work of the Kingdom, if we do not carefully and thoroughly hear a matter before we make a decision on it?  If we cut someone off from fellowship without proper investiga­tion and cause, will the great King of the Uni­verse approve us and our action?  Let us remember that each of us has his individual responsibility in this matter, and we must all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.  I realize that this is a severe test for most of you, and it is made more severe by the fact that J.J.H. is married to a blood relative of most of you.  I pray that the Lord will give you the necessary wisdom and grace to stand firm amid this test, and to de­cide the matter solely on the basis of the principles involved.

I expect to hear from you further concerning this matter, either individually or as a class.  It you reply as a class, then I would appreciate the signatures of each member of the class who approves the contents of said letter fully and unqualifiedly.  With continued love in the Lord, and prayers for your welfare, I remain,

Faithfully your brother and servant,

(Signed)  Bro.  R.G. Jolly


Winston‑Salem, N. C.

April 22, 1956

To Raymond G. Jolly:

In answer to your letter of April 12, we wish to tell you first of all that our letter of March 31 was unanimously approved at our business meeting without protest from any one against any part of it.

Secondly, we further wish to inform you that our letter of March 31 was our voluntary act — not suggested or dictated by Brother Hoefle.  Therefore, when you “wonder if we are registering a vigorous protest against the errors of John Hoefle”, we think you would be well advised just to speak for yourself. Certainly if he is guilty of everything in every way you charge, that would in no sense justify you to “go and do likewise” — or excuse you in the slightest degree.  Here again — just as has been your wont in about everything you write — ­you resort to your usual volume of words in an effort to bury your own errors and sins.

You ask us for specific instances:  Brother Hoefle has given numerous speci­fic instances, so why should we repeat them.  Our suggestion is that you answer them in the Present Truth, eight of which are found on page 10 of his March 27 answer to your March Present Truth.

Also, on page 3 of Brother Hoefle's article of November 15, 1955 your atten­tion is directed to your statement in the November Present Truth:

“Brother Johnson controlled fully the LHMM until the day of his death, even as we now so control it.”

In our humble opinion, that statement can only be classified among your sins of lying or power‑grasping or wilful revolutionism. If we are wrong in this, we shall appreciate your explanation in the Present Truth.

We have tried to make this letter terse and to the point. We realize we could have resorted to voluminous words; but we think we have made ourselves clear enough. You seem to be ready enough to “tremble for us”; but we think you should resort to self‑examination first of all and answer the charges that have been publicly made against you in clear and unmistakable language — and while you are exonerating yourself, please give a clear explanation in regard to the way you have handled this slander case against Brother Hoefle, stating in unmistakable language as to whether Brother Eschrich is guilty of the slander as charged by Brother Gavin; or whether Brother Gavin is guilty of lying and making up the slander, giving it to Brother Hoefle and numerous other brethren.

Insofar as having each one in this class sign this letter, we are having it signed as usual – by our secretary – with all the names given below.  We do not feel you have a right to dictate to us in this matter.  The class – each member – ­has voted unanimously that this letter be sent to you, and all were present at this business meeting.


The Winston‑Salem Ecclesia