That Arlington Meeting
Roy E. Cogdill
I took part in the "Arlington Meeting", I was present for every session except one. I made one forty five minute speech and two fifteen minute speeches in the course of the meeting. I sat with Harry Pickup, Jr., and James W. Adams in the home of Dudley Ross Spears in Oklahoma City prior to the meeting when plans were being formulated for it. I think I know why it was held and how it was conducted. I must frankly say that I have never seen as much comment about anything that was inaccurate and untrue in various local bulletins and church papers as there has been about this meeting. It is an amazing thing that such a meeting could be the subject of as much misrepresentation as this meeting has been and I have been made to ask, "Why is it so?"
I have not had one inquiry from those who have been so caustic in their judgments and opinions. They may have discussed the matter with others a great deal but I am suspicious that a good many of the judgments pronounced so caustically were based only upon imaginations. Some may have been rendered upon the impression by several of impressions and opinions concerning the meeting that were intended to be just such and not factual reports or anything akin to such. Most of the criticism which I have read has not been made upon a factual basis at all and in most of it there has been shown no disposition to evidence any confidence in brethren who took part or charity toward them in the judgment formed. In fact, the truth has not been fairly dealt with in most instances and this has been a tremendous disappointment to me.
I have no disposition to make any personal defense in this article. I do not have time to read, hear, or try to answer all the criticisms that are made of me. I would get nothing else done, if I should do so. I want to do the best I can to do what is right and if I can succeed in this, it will not matter what others may say. But there are some corrections as to the facts concerning this meeting that need to be emphasized so that those who continue to misrepresent it will not be ignorant of the fact that they are doing so.
Due to circumstances rather than any personal ambition, I have been in the forefront of the battle against institutionalism from the very beginning of the discussion of the issues involved in this generation. Without any self-praise or any claim of worthiness, or seeking any credit, I have done my best in the fight, against these modem innovations in the Lord's Church and have borne the affronts, insults, ruthless attacks, slanderous charges, loss of friends, rejection by churches I had helped to build and all of the other personal sacrifices that I have been called upon to make without any hesitancy, regret, or bitterness for the burdens borne or the cost paid. I have been grateful that I could have a part in the fight for the truth and be permitted to suffer for its sake.
There are a great many others who have endured reproaches and fought valiantly in the struggle. I know of no group of men that could be named from among them of which such could be said with any more truth than the men who met at Arlington to contend for the truth of God concerning these issues. It could be said of them as a whole that they have fought unflinchingly and unfailingly through this struggle against the invasion of human organizations and cheerfully made whatever sacrifice they were called upon to make without any disposition to compromise. There are others, many others, just as courageous, self-sacrificing, and capable who could have been at the Arlington meeting and done just as good or perhaps a better job of upholding the truth. But all could not participate and the choice had to be made by those who had the opportunity to arrange such a meeting. I cannot think that any of my brethren, including even those who have been so caustic in their criticism of it, would have rejected the opportunity to "contend earnestly for the faith" in such a meeting had they been invited to do so prior to the raising of such furor or criticism against it. I only know this, I will gladly accept every opportunity like it that arises and do the best I can to uphold the truth of God as I have always done until and unless something convinces me that circumstances make it impossible for truth to be fairly represented.
If we are not above giving fair consideration to the facts, and at the risk of confusing some who have made up their minds upon some other basis, I would like to point out a few that are indisputable.
1. The "Arlington Meeting" was not a "Unity Conference" of any kind. Nothing is further from the truth. It was no more such than any of the debates that have taken place on these issues or any others. It was planned and conducted upon the basis of a frank and full discussion of differences with each man unlimited in the right to contend freely for what he believed the Bible to teach. The basis of unity and fellowship was one of the subjects given a major place in the discussion but even this was to be a presentation of what the Bible teaches as such a basis. I am sure that no man present needed to be convinced that the scriptures are the only basis upon which unity can be achieved acceptably in the sight of God. They were men who have known and preached that through all of these years.
2. No one was invited or went to the meeting and participated in it upon the basis of contemplating, discussing, or affecting a compromise on any difference or issue. In all of the meeting that I heard, it was not even suggested by either group that a compromise of conviction or conscience be made for the sake of peace and there was no disposition to affect any upon the part of brethren on either side of the issues discussed that I either heard or saw manifest. To represent that the meeting was called for the purpose of making some compromise or that it was conducted upon that basis is just not so!
3. There was no notion of any "armistice" or "cessation of combat" or "de-escalation" of effort to uphold the truth. Much less was there any idea of "withdrawal or surrender." No such suggestion or notion was advanced in my hearing.
4. There was no out-of-the-way fraternizing among the brethren on opposite sides of the issues discussed though most of them stayed at the same place — "Christian Camp", ate in the same dining room, and conducted themselves toward one another as Christian gentlemen should as far as I could observe. They did not sleep in the same room with the opposition, much less in the same bed! So it was not a "lovey-dovey" affair as some have imagined. I do not like the name of the place either, brother Douthitt, but that is just the name of it and I did not do the naming. It was a pretty nice place and as far as I could learn it was owned by and operated by individuals though it may be put to some questionable usage. There are those, I presume, who would question the hospitality extended to a bunch of "anti" brethren by those who own and operate the place. I did not sleep in any of their beds since my wife had a sister that lived a short distance away but I ate some of the food furnished and it was good and at a very reasonable price, which I paid.
5. The rules concerning the conduct of the discussion did not prescribe or limit any man's right to present and contend with all the force he had for what he believed the Bible taught. Any other contention is just not so! It is my judgment that the rules for the most part were good rules. Circumstances pretty well eliminated any disposition upon the part of any to appeal to the audience. This is always present as a temptation in every debate as all honest men will admit. All personal incriminations, inconsistencies in practice, and impugning of motives were to be left out. The consequences of an argument or position were not to be urged upon those who did not avow them. Bible argument alone was to be the rule. Though these rules were not absolutely observed by all, they were pretty well adhered to, especially after attention was called to a violation or two and a ruling was made by the three moderators. Such rules would improve any discussion or debate.
6. This meeting was not for the purpose of causing a cessation of the work of the Lord upon the part of anybody or for the purpose of interfering with it. It was not for the purpose and did not contain the element of trying to persuade anyone to abandon anything which could be established as that which God would have men in His Church to do. It was not a "conference" about anything but what the Bible teaches to be the truth of God. It was not an effort to accomplish anything but uphold the truth and persuade to be satisfied with it and abide by it. It is a complete misrepresentation to try to make out of it a "Witty-Murch Unity Conference", if I understood what those meetings were. It is no less false to say that it was a "Plains of Ono Unity Conference." Neither of these misrepresentations even come close to the truth supported by the facts. To have made them is inexcusable and to repeat them will be malicious.
7. The "box in the vestibule" idea that has occasioned so much comment and which some have inferred was proposed as a compromise measure in this meeting was not even discussed and the only reference I heard made to it was by one of the brethren speaking in support of modern projects among the churches. His remarks, in substance, were: "You can guffaw at the 'box in the vestibule' idea all you want, but if removing all these things to which these brethren object from the budget of the churches and placing them on the basis of individual contributions would solve our problems, eliminate division, and restore fellowship with these brethren, I am ready for it to come." If the support of human institutions had been left upon an individual basis instead of being injected into the budget of the churches there never would have been any division such as there is today!
Common sense should dictate to all that neither the meeting itself nor those who participated in it can be held responsible for the erroneous conclusions and false notions and hopes that some may have reached concerning it. I have never held a debate but that my position concerning nearly everything and the whole outcome of the discussion was not misrepresented by some after the debate was over. I have never even known of one being held in which this was not true. You cannot prevent the inability of some to properly evaluate, the false conceptions, and the prejudiced conclusions which some will reach. The Lord himself could not do that and there is no way to prevent the opponent and his representatives from trying to win a debate after it is over. Brother Whiteside told me one time that the greatest difficulty he had encountered in preaching the Gospel was to keep some people from going away from the service with the notion that he had taught exactly the opposite to what he did teach. Every man is responsible for his own conclusions and impressions and in many instances they are in no wise justified.
What has been written by some who attended the "Arlington Meeting" in an effort to evaluate the good accomplished may have done some harm and be somewhat responsible for the false conclusions others who were not there may have drawn. But this is no fault of the rest of us and we cannot be held responsible for it. Any conclusion concerning the nature of such a meeting should not have been based, in the first place, on the opinion of J. D. Thomas, Reuel Lemmons, the Christian Chronicle's report, or what Gayle Oler might infer. Some brethren seem to have a lot more regard for such opinions than they do for the good sense and loyalty to the truth upon the part of the rest of us. I do not know how much good was done. Probably only time will reveal that. But I cannot see how any harm could have been done except by the false impressions and conclusions that may have been drawn and were wholly unwarranted. Such a meeting certainly violated no scriptural principle. Will our critics affirm that it did? They can find some "takers" if they do. If it is to be criticized and condemned upon the basis of judgment whose judgment is to be the standard? Can we take the judgment of those who were not present and know nothing about it except hearsay? Can such a verdict be rendered upon the basis of the false hopes and ideas that some may have when the facts show that they were wholly unwarranted? Surely the facts should be the basis of our judgment. In some instances those who are even novices — still wet behind the ears in Gospel preaching — and particularly in writing have felt called upon to pronounce judgment and have considered and expected others to so consider their pronounced judgment to be official and final.
I have long thought that we deal with one another, even our confederates, with a lot less confidence than we have in ourselves and many, many times with a lot less charity than is becoming a Christian. I do not have my feelings hurt, they are pretty hard to hurt at this stage, but I am disappointed in a good many of my brethren who are so ready to charge some of us with compromise when we have never in all of our lives shown a disposition to do so. Why? If any harm has come out of the Arlington meeting as such, it is negligible, in my judgment, compared to the harm that has been done by the hostile, "biting and devouring" disposition shown in much of the criticism that has been written concerning it.
— 35 West Par Ave., Orlando, Fla.