Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 14
January 17, 1963
NUMBER 36, PAGE 4,12-13

The History Of Religious Journalism - (No. 3)

(Text Of A Lecture Delivered At The Florida Christian College Lectureship, February, 1962.)

One of the greatest influences among the churches for the last century, and one which still today wields great power was the journal founded by Tolbert Fanning in 1855 — the Gospel Advocate. This journal started with the avowed purpose of providing a medium through which honest and sincere brethren could fully explore whatever questions or issues or problems might come before them, particularly, in the beginning, the missionary society. The paper had only a short life before the Civil War interrupted it, and publication was suspended for some four years. In 1866, however, under the editorship of David Lipscomb the paper was started anew. The re-born journal was fashioned in much the same pattern as its predecessor. Lipscomb said:

"Our purpose in the future, as in the past, shall be to encourage the free and full investigation of every subject having a practical bearing upon the spiritual welfare of the human family and the kingdom of our Redeemer." (Lipscomb, G.A., Oct. 24, 1867.)

Brother Earl West, in his "Search For The Ancient Order" gives further clarification of that policy. He writes:

"Upon the rebirth of the Advocate, the editors followed in a measure the attitude which they took in 1855 when the Advocate was first born. They wanted the columns of their paper to be used as a means of having open and free discussions of all questions of interest to the church. It was not the original purpose of the editors in reviving the Advocate to war upon the missionary society, but of freely discussing the issue in the desire that unity might be achieved." (S. A 0., Vol. II, page 16.)

Further defining Lipscomb's attitude, and showing much of the character of this noble soldier of Christ, West writes:

"Like other editors, Lipscomb frequently received criticism from brethren who did not like to see discussions and personalities carried on in the press. Such criticism, he thought, generally indicated a lack of understanding of the role of a periodical. Papers possessed no authority; they were but a clearing-house for ideas; avenues by which brethren came to a mutual understanding!' (S. A. 0., Vol. II, page 18)

When the aged Lipscomb was in his last active years, and after nearly half a century of editing the Advocate, having gone through the heart-ache and anguish of seeing the church of the Lord torn asunder throughout the nation, and between eighty and ninety percent of the congregations swept into the digression, he looked back over the things that had been accomplished, and now and then fell into a mood of reminiscence and retrospection. In one such mood he wrote in 1912:

"I have been near the end of my earthly journey for some time. I have by good brethren and sisters been complimented for the good I have done them and others. The good has come from holding the Gospel Advocate open to discuss the evils of introducing into the church things not required by God....If these evils are not discussed, we disobey God and leave the evils to run riot in the churches." (Gospel Advocate, 1912, pages 44,45.)

In this same editorial the venerable Lipscomb sets forth his feelings about any paper that would operate on a different policy. He explains that he had ceased to read the papers edited by brother Sommers and brother Warlick because they refused to punish both sides of controversial matters, and states flatly:

"If the Gospel Advocate were to adopt the policy of criticizing others and refusing to let them reply, I would cease to read it."

This fair and brotherly attitude made of the Gospel Advocate a great and powerful instrument for the advancement of truth. Through all the years of Lipscomb's editorship we find over and over again that his journal carried articles contrary to Lipscomb's own convictions and understanding of the Bible. He even went out of his way to seek such articles from able and sincere brethren. He was quite aware of his own fallibility, and conceded it to be entirely possible that somebody, somewhere, somehow might possess a modicum of truth which he himself did not have. He conceded the possibility that he might be in error on some point — at least he was willing to look, and let his readers look, at a different point of view. He felt that truth in contrast with error was an excellent way to advance truth and to expose error.

The result of Lipscomb's policy was a well informed brotherhood, in which freedom of expression was tolerated and appreciated. A great variety of questions came up for study, one of the most noted of which was the "re-baptism" controversy. For thirty years this issue was debated back and forth on the pages of the Advocate. Yet, even at the height of the discussion, there were no effort at all to close the paper against those who opposed Lipscomb's views and convictions. Indeed, my own father was invited by Lipscomb to become one of the associate editors of the Advocate at the very time when my father was, as he said, "in competition with A. McGary" to see which would be the "leader of the re-baptism" school of thought. As an associate editor of the Advocate he had full and free rein to write what he wanted to and as much as he wanted in defense of his own teaching, and contrary to Lipscomb's.

This issue was settled among the churches without a division. And through the years that followed, issue after issue, some of grave importance, others of trivial consequence, found their way into the pages of the Advocate for exploration, discussion, and settlement. Take for example, the question of a Christian's relationship to Civil government. David Lipscomb was sincerely convinced that a Christian ought not to participate in the affairs of government; as a citizen in the kingdom of God, he had no right to vote or hold office in any earthly rule. But believing that with all his heart, he nevertheless, solicited the writings of many men of different persuasion — such men as G. G. Taylor, F. D. Srygley, W. L. Butler and others of a strongly different conviction. The matter was freely and fully discussed for many, many years. And there was no division of the church over it.

Time rolled relentlessly on, however; and there came a day when the mighty Lipscomb laid down his editorial pen and shortly thereafter, his life. Today his mortal dust sleeps in old Olivet Cemetery, and men of lesser stature and smaller spirit have taken over the journal to which he gave such strength and power. Feeling insecure and uncertain in the positions espoused, and in their ability to defend them, the present management of that paper has adopted a policy which the saintly Lipscomb would have held in scorn and contempt — the "closed door" policy of refusing a discussion of both sides of controversial matters, and permitting only those articles to appear which reflect the judgment and conviction of one man — the editor.

Many statements have appeared in that journal in recent years seeking to defend this policy. Such as:

"We do not feel that we are obligated to furnish a medium for radicals and hobbyists to ventilate their hobbies, nor are we obligated to become an agency for the dissemination of error." (Gospel Advocate, November 4, 1954)

Or again:

"When the farmer gets ready to sow a bushel of wheat, it is not necessary for him to sow a bushel of weeds in order to be fair; neither is it necessary for the editor, when he gives space to truth, to give equal space to error. It would be downright silly for the farmer to sow weeds which would impose additional toil on himself or on some other and do great damage to the wheat." (Goodpasture, G. A., March 19, 1953)

Once again, in the winter of 1953-1954 several articles appeared in that journal, and with editorial sanction, calling for a general "quarantine" of all brethren who were not in harmony with the Advocate's position on benevolent institutions, church support of the colleges, and various other such matters.

The results of this tragic policy are too well known to most of you here to need much comment. A sect has emerged; a faction has been built up; bitterness and malice have spread through the land. Churches have been divided; brethren have been alienated' and the whole sad story of a hundred years ago seems in process of re-enactment before our very eyes.

Many times during the last decade men of wisdom and understanding have pleaded with the management of the Advocate to reverse this dangerous and destructive policy. Even some of those on the editorial staff of that paper have pleaded in vain that the Advocate revert back to the policy it held under David Lipscomb, and which made it a mighty force for truth. The net result has been a firm and unequivocal "Nyet!". There will be no reversal of policy. Those not in accord are driven from the pages of the paper, and from the editorial staff which produces it. There is an assumption of infallibility, an arrogance of attitude that can have but one result — the splitting off of a huge segment from the true church of the Lord and the forming of a liberalistic sect or denomination in our midst.

Let me but make brief mention of one other journal of importance and influence — the Word and Work. This is a premillennial monthly organ, which under the editorship of Robert H. Boll, built up a dedicated following over a period of some forty years, and has managed pretty well to isolate and insulate this group of brethren from other Christians. The Word and Work has almost without exception followed a "closed door" policy so far as the premillennial question is concerned. All the articles on it, and all writings about it have been in favor of it; few if any have been permitted in opposition. The results are known to all students of contemporary church history.

Now, let us summarize this brief "history" of religious journalism among the disciples. In every major issue among the brethren in which the religious journals generally have given a full, free and open discussion of the question, the tendency has been to resolve the problem and to promote unity. I have but to mention such problems as the "re-baptism" question, the "open or closed communion" question, the "located preacher" issue, and the "civil government" question. All of these were given full discussion. No paper among us arose to advocate any one position on them, excluding articles on the other side. And on none of these questions did division come.

But look at the other side of the story. Those questions on which division has come have almost invariably had some journal, of greater or lesser strength, which adopted a "closed door" policy, and promoted only one side of the disputed matter. Take, for example, the Missionary Society and Instrumental Music. It is entirely conceivable (even likely) that had the Christian Standard been willing to give these great questions the same open, free, and complete airing that the American Christian Review and the Gospel Advocate gave to them, the brotherhood could have come to an understanding of the truth, and no split would have taken place. But the tragic facts are otherwise. The Christian Standard adopted a closed door policy. And division came.

Or consider, further, the opposition to Christian colleges. If brother Daniel Sommer had been willing to give the same full, free discussion to this question that he gave to many others in his paper, had he been willing for his readers to see "both sides" and to judge for themselves, the tragic division might have been avoided. But he closed the columns of his journal to all articles in defense of the schools, and carried only those writings which were opposed to them. The result was a division — useless and unnecessary.

Take up the non-Sunday School position which flourished for so many years in the western states of our nation. These brethren had a number of papers (and still maintain a few) which carefully and aggressively follow a "closed door" policy in the discussion of the Sunday School question. They would permit no article in favor of the Sunday schools, and kept up a continual publication of material opposing. The consequences — a faction grew up, a group of people who did not know exactly why the Bible School was wrong, perhaps, but who were almost fanatical in their opposition to it.

And I spoke but a moment ago of the premillennial faction within the church — many of the brethren of deep conviction and humility, but people who have been wedded to a journal which has maintained a strict "close door" policy so far as the discussion of the pre-millennial problem is concerned.

As many of you know, I am and for a dozen years have been, connected with the Gospel Guardian. So long as I have anything to do with that journal, I am determined that the mistake of refusing space to honest and sincere brethren who differ from me shall not be made. I am not infallible; and nobody connected with this paper is infallible. There is too much at stake for us to assume infallibility. We are willing to let both sides be heard; and then let the readers decide. In the long sweep of the years this policy has generally tended toward the promotion of unity and harmony; the opposite policy has promoted discord and strife.

And I close this report with the famous words of a great American philosopher and poet, George Santayana: "Those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it."

— F. Y. T.