Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 21
August 28, 1969
NUMBER 17, PAGE 4-5a

More On The "Peace Offensive"

Editorial

Probably that "peace offensive" designation is an unfortunate one. It has led a few brethren to be apprehensive that we mean "peace at any price" and they have been concerned lest the truth be compromised. Of course, all of us who have been engaged in the battle have never had any such thought, and those who have been in any of the meetings between 'institutional' and conservative brethren have never had any qualms about the matter.

Really, the matter of "peace" has been only the ultimate and final goal in sight. Far more vital, and absolutely indispensable before "peace" can ever be accomplished, is the problem of communications. As all of us know, the break-down in communications has been one of the biggest stumbling-blocks in all our efforts to achieve harmony between brethren. This actually was probably the most important single factor in bringing about the tragic estrangement which has taken place these last ten or fifteen years. And certainly (from the judgment of this editor, at least) the one single decision fraught with the most dreadful and ominous consequences in this situation was the decision made by Brother B. C. Goodpasture a number of years ago to close the pages of the Gospel Advocate to any discussion of the developing differences, and to seek to hang the `yellow tag of quarantine' on many thousands of sincere and faithful Christians who were questioning the scripturalness of such things as Herald of Truth, institutional church-supported benevolence organizations, and church support of secular colleges.

In making this fateful decision, we are sure Brother Goodpasture acted with the sincere conviction that he was doing right. He knew, of course, that he was departing from the traditional course of the Gospel Advocate, and going contrary to the cherished conviction of Lipscomb, Srygley, Sewell, and the other great men who had shaped Advocate policy in the past and had determined that the paper should always be open to a full and brotherly discussion of vital differences. But in spite of his sincerity and honest belief that he was acting wisely, subsequent history has demonstrated that this was perhaps the most tragically wrong decision in the long history of that noble journal's service to the cause of truth. Whether Brother Goodpasture now realizes the gravity of that initial mistake or not, we do not know.

But the Gospel Guardian's "peace offensive," in reality, is nothing more nor less than an effort to overcome, insofar as we can, the effects of that disastrous miscalculation. Whereas, the door was slammed shut on "communications" by that appalling decision, we are seeking to open the door, re-establish the brotherly attitude that existed prior to the debacle, and explore any possibilities that may now exist for meaningful discussions. Instead of a "peace offensive" we would probably have been a bit closer to the actual truth to have designated our effort as a "communication. This is a "sine qua non," and absolute and non-negotiable prerequisite to any kind of rapprochement between brethren.

We have felt that the galloping "liberalism" (classical liberalism — the denial of the infallibility of the Scripture, the depending on direct leading of the Holy Spirit, etc.) now making such serious inroads among the institutional churches would undoubtedly cause many thousands of sincere and humble Christians in those congregations to have some 'second thoughts' about what was happening. We were (and are) hopeful that many of them may awaken to the fact that in driving out the conservative voices from their congregations, and shutting the door on all communications with them, they have simply opened up a Pandora's box of liberalistic promotions and problems. In getting rid of what they (and Brother Goodpasture) called the "antis," they laid themselves open to unbelievable exploitation by far-out liberals and leftists. Indeed, in the very act of closing the door to "the opposition" they left themselves defenseless against the far more deadly and disastrous development of liberalism. Many of the leaders of these churches now recognize (and openly and honestly have stated) that the new "liberalism" poses a far more deadly threat to the New Testament churches than was ever posed by what they call "anti-ism."

What these brethren will do about the new threat is not yet clear. That there will be an irrevocable split among them we think is simply inevitable. No religious body in American history has yet reached the size and influence of the Churches of Christ without a major division within its ranks over liberalism. We see no reason (no reason at all!) to think the Churches of Christ can escape such a split. The signs of it increase with every passing day.

Surely the time is appropriate for all of us (on "both sides" if you will! to concern ourselves with a "communications offensive — an effort to go back now and do what should have been done fifteen years ago: have a brotherly STUDY of the whole problem. For the inexorable movement of history has now demonstrated beyond all peradventure of doubt that the dire warnings and ominous forebodings of the "antis" of fifteen years ago are currently being fulfilled to the very hilt among the institutional churches. And we believe that many brethren who dismissed those warnings as foolish and unfounded fifteen years ago may now be willing to concede that there may have been something to them. At least, we hope so!

So, in order to clarify our position a bit, and to allay any uneasiness or apprehension that any brother may have had that the truth might be in danger of compromise, let us speak of our effort as a "communications offensive" rather than a "peace offensive," remembering always that our FINAL and ultimate objective is for all of us to have peace with God. Having peace with God, we automatically have peace with one another.

F. Y. T.