Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 9
November 28, 1957
NUMBER 30, PAGE 2-3b

"In The Gospel Advocate Of 1912"

C. E. W. Dorris, Nashville, Tennessee

Brother J. M. Powell, on a trip from Nashville to Memphis, some weeks ago, "perused" said volume of the Advocate, at least to some degree. The Gospel Advocate of September 8, 1957, carries an article from Brother Powell, under the above caption, in which he gives some things he gathered from the Advocate of 1912. Among other things, he wrote:

"In the issue of January 11, the scholarly M. C. Kurfees write that the problem of sending the gospel to the lost, whether they be in the United States or in other needy parts of the globe, is still the great problem before the church . . . . 'Some matters in this line present themselves for our encouragement ... More churches have been enlisted in the work. In some cases single churches seem to feel more than ever the importance of undertaking the support of a missionary; in others, groups of churches have already undertaken it, (emphasis mine, J. M. P.) and thus on part of the churches the good work goes on.' If Brother Kurfees were living today, it is doubtful that he would be permitted to preach the above sentiments in the pulpit that he occupied for nearly half a century. Some changes have been made all right but it is not in the policy of the Gospel Advocate. Selah."

I, too, have "perused" said volume to some extent, and now propose to introduce some things omitted by Brother Powell.

Brother Kurfees and the church he worked with so long believed strongly in churches cooperating in preaching the gospel to the lost, and that donors to the work ought to send their support directly to the workers in the field. If Kurfees would not be allowed "to preach the above sentiments in the pulpit that he occupied for nearly half a century," then the church is far removed from its original faith and practice in this respect, and must now be believing in, and practicing, the "indirect" method of cooperation — the "sponsoring church" method. If this is the faith and practice of that congregation now, probably Kurfees would be quarantined and "would not be permitted to preach the above sentiments in the pulpit that he occupied for nearly half a century."

J. W. Pearcy, speaking for the Campbell Street Church, Louisville, Kentucky, gives a report of work done and money spent by that church during 1893, as follows:

"We raised this money exclusively by freewill offerings, the only way of giving recognized in the Bible, and sent it to the laborers in the field, thus dealing directly with those whom we supported, as New Testament churches did." (page 41.)

In this same volume (1912), the one "perused" by Brother Powell during his trip to Memphis, in the issue of January 25, Kurfees, writing under the caption, "The Plea According To The Gospel Advocate," stated:

"The Gospel Advocate simply pleads for missionary work to be done now as it was done in the days of the apostles, under the leadership of inspired men, when local churches maintained their independence and preserved direct communications with the missionary in the field. Under this arrangement, when the churches all worked in harmony with none arrayed against it, the gospel spread all over the Roman empire during the first century of the Christian era. And with unbounded faith in the wisdom of God as thus expressed, the Gospel Advocate is contending for the same thing today, endeavoring 'to enlist the churches in world-wide gospel conquest.' "

This extract from Kurfees, and the one from J. W. Pearcy, show beyond doubt that the Louisville church sent its support directly to the men in the field. The Gospel Advocate was also "pleading for missionary work to be done by sending support directly to the workers in the field" and was "contending for the same thing" when Kurfees wrote. But is it not a fact that the Gospel Advocate is pleading and contending for the INDIRECT method today? "Some changes have been made all right," and it appears that they are in the policy of the Gospel Advocate.

In this same volume (1912, April 4 issue) is an article by M. C. Kurfees, under the caption, "Principles And Policy Of The Gospel Advocate." Brother Powell introduced this article, and says: "M. C. Kurfees states that 'in the long ago its present senior editors were associated with Tolbert Fanning on its editorial staff' etc. But Brother Powell overlooked the fact that in this very article, Kurfees rededicated the pages of the Gospel Advocate to the direct method as follows:

"In providing for congregational autonomy and independence, the Holy Spirit provided for direct communication between churches and those whom they sustained, and thus the current of mutual love and sympathy between the two can be maintained."

That settles the question as to the policy of the Gospel Advocate under the management of the old editors. It was the direct method and the Holy Spirit made the arrangement. So says Kurfees. But the present policy of that journal is the indirect method, invented by a few society preachers during a convention in Cincinnati, Ohio, October 24, 1849. Yes, "Some changes have been made all right," and that, too, in the policy of the Gospel Advocate.

On page 737 of the volume Brother Powell examined (1912) we have another article by M. C. Kurfees, under the title: "Our Policy Of Publication." He wrote:

"First of all, let it be distinctly understood that we do not, and shall not, decline to publish any article because we happen not to agree with its teaching. We do not claim infallibility for ourselves, and would be far from declining to publish a contribution merely because of editorial difference from its doctrinal utterances. Even when we have a very decided conviction as to the correctness of a given position, we still know, and are ready at all times to concede, that others may have light on the question which we do not possess, and in such a case we are always ready to welcome the additional light. Hence in all cases when nothing is involved save the mere fact that the editors do not agree with what is taught in a contributed article, we would have no hesitation in publishing it, reserving the right, universally conceded by the editorial fraternity, to make or not to make editorial comment as might be deemed proper."

That part of the Advocate's editorial policy (of 1912) is so clear that it needs no comment. But take a look at the words of Roy H. Lanier, a staff writer of the Gospel Advocate for fifteen years, as he writes under the caption, "The Middle Of The Road:"

"The time is passed due for some one to set forth the middle of the road view to satisfy the needs of brethren who cannot conscientiously submit to either extreme and to plead for unity of brethren on a position which is both scriptural and workable. I made an effort more than a year ago to do this when I wrote a series on cooperation. Two articles of that series were never published because the editor of the Gospel Advocate, who published the series, refused to publish them on the ground that I took positions not in harmony with the published views and policies of the Gospel Advocate... I could not continue to be associated with a company which would not, or could not for the sake of unity among its staff writers, allow me to write all that I hold as truth on an important subject. So I fulfilled my obligation, finished the projects on which I was working, and asked to be relieved of any further duties and that my name be taken from the payroll."

The old editors of the Gospel Advocate would have gladly published Lanier's articles, pointed out anything they conceived as error, and presented the truth. "Some changes have been made all right," and it looks like they are in the policy of the Advocate.

David Lipscomb said that Daniel Sommer was the first that he knew among the disciples to adopt a policy of not publishing both sides of an issue; and for that reason he ceased reading Daniel's paper. (Gospel Advocate, 1911, pages 44,45.) But now the "Old Reliable" has adopted Daniel's policy, and delights in practicing it.

Did I dream it, or did someone actually say, "Some changes have been made all right, but not in the policy of the Gospel Advocate?" Selah!