Richmond planet. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1883-1938, 1927-12-24
REV. c. N. LONG And TRE
End BAPT. CHURCH CALL.
DENIES HE SOUGHT GALL TO
INFLUENTIAL RICHMOND
CONGREGATION

CONGREGATION.
Mr.. John Mitchell,
Richmond Planet,
Richmond, Va.
Dear Sir:
Please allow me space in your in
fuential paper for the publication of
the following article:
PLANETS ACCOUNT, DEC. A, OF
REV. LONGS CALL TO SEC
OND BAPTIST CHURCH AND
ACCEPTANCE A MIS-STATE-
MENT OF FACTS = GAIL
NEVER UNCONDITIONALLY
ACCEPTED.
Up to this date, have purpoeely
refrained from expressing myself
relative to my call to the great Sec
ond Baptist Church of Richmond. But
having read two different accounts Of
past two weeks, feel thate it is time
for me to speak. 's. lr$ -
In the first instance, 1 have been
reliably informed by high officials in
Second Church that such "infornaa-
ton" as you have received on this
subject was not given by officials
whose duty and right it is to issue
matters for publication. This is no
Indictment of you, Mr.. Editor, but my
purpose is to show that any informa-
tion given by persons who do not
know all the facts in case, is eer>
tain to be incomplete, if not incorrect.
QUOTATION CITED. "a :
Referring to the call issued me last
August, You stated in your issue of
last week that "the choice of the COM
mittee was practically unanimously
approved. Then began negotiations
with the distinguished New Jersey d.
vine. He is alleged to have submit
ted conditions and propositions, pracr
tically all of which were accepted by
the church. He decided to- accept
and then notified them that he would
decline the call. .is
In the meantime, it is stated that
telegram was received from Rev.
Long stating that he could accept the
call. In your headlines of this article
you also stated that Second Baptist
Church Changes Front-Rev. Longs
Acceptance Rejected by Members"
GROSSLY INCORRECT.
wish to reply that your statement
of the case as set forth above is
grossly incorrect. 1t is replete with
errors. In the first instance, it is
not fact that Second Church "prac-
tically accepted all my conditions and
propositions of acceptance" As a
matter Of fact, I set forth three con-
ditions, only one of which was ae-
cepted by the church. Neither is it
a fact that I sent telegram con-
tanning an unconditional acceptance.
The only condition upon which 1
consented in said telegram to accept
the call was that I'VE come to. some
agreement on the basis of my last
letter." said basis referring to my
three original propositions. Nor is it
a fact that Second Church Changed
Fronts" That is exactly what She
did not do. Having accepted my
declination on. Nov z, she simply
maintained her position on the night
OF Dec. and once more, you were
in error when you stated that "Rev.
Longs acceptance was rejected by
members, for the reason, as previ-
ously stated, that I've never once un-
conditionally accepted the call.
THE FACTS CITED.
The facts in the situation are these,
Having received the call, agreed to
accept upon three conditions. Before
the church had time to act, I declined
the call altogether, and the church ac-
cepted the same. The following week,
NuIfh In 1aIo
that the church had taken any action
on my declination, negotiations be-
tween the clerk and myself were re-
sumed, at which time, the cause of my
declination having been removed, I
again agreed to accept the call upon
the basis of my three original con-
ditions. -.,
On Nov. 10, the clerk notified me
that my declination had been accept
ed by the church on Nov. z, and q, new
committee had been appointed, but
that said new committee had agreed
to accept one of my three conditions,
and to extend me second call, stat
ing also that "there is little or no
doubt that the action of this COM
mittee will be confirmed, and
that there were numerous expressions
of delight at your change of attitude"
ORIGINAL REQUEST.
In reply to this letter, / still in
sisted that the church grant my other
two original requests. In reply to this
letter, I received as late as Thursday
Dec. 1st, a long distance call from
certain officials in Second Baptist
Church urging me to drop the two re-
original requests, and accept
the call with the flat salary of $4,000
per year, upon the assurance that
such concessions would certainly re-
suit in a second call. I replied by
yielding the two remaining conditions
in question, but stipulated two other
instead. These the new
committee accepted but met dis
agreement in the church conference.
Thus the matter was brought to a
lose.
NOT REGAINING LOST
OPPORTUNITIES.
The spirit of YOUR article carried