Brother Brewer Gets Personal In The Advocate
Some weeks ago in the Gospel Advocate appeared an article by G. C. Brewer in which he gave expression to some of his feelings toward Brother W. W. Otey and incidentally toward me. Were it not for some other matters in connection with some things mentioned in the article, I would have passed it by. Brother Brewer has shown an ugly attitude toward him, but I am sure the personal angle does not bother Bro. Otey any more than it bothers the rest of us.
Abraham Lincoln once said, "If I were to stop to read, much less try to answer all the false accusations and uncomplimentary things said against me, I would not have time for anything else. I decided long ago to do the best I can to do right. If in this I succeed, nothing else matters, and if in this I fail, ten angels swearing I was right would not make any difference."
Brother W. W. Otey is a fine example of this attitude. I have known him for 23 years and he has been an encouragement and help to me. In spite of his years his mind is clear and he is abundantly able to take care of himself with G. C. Brewer on any matter in my judgment.
There is at least one glaring inconsistency in Bro. Brewer's article as is most often the case. He is the Bro. Brewer of "I did and I didn't" fame, and about the poorest explanation I have ever seen him make of his inconsistencies was made in his little pamphlet on the "college question" trying to get out from under the record in which he said "he did and he didn't" advocate putting the college in the church budget. He has been on both sides of that question just as he has been on both sides of premillennialism and almost every other issue which has confronted the church. That should no longer need proof but it can be proven.
In his recent article he severely condemns Brother Otey for seriously giving him credit for the proposition Bro. W. L. Totty forwarded to Bro. Otey challenging him to meet Bro. Brewer on the college question. Then he turns around and condemns me for not taking Bro. Totty seriously when he wrote me challenging me to do the same thing. It seems that Bro. Brewer challenges someone to meet Bro. Totty and Bro. Totty challenges someone to meet Bro. Brewer. I seriously doubt if either of them want to be taken seriously.) Surely, Bro. Brewer had no right to so severely condemn Bro. Otey for doing so.
Brother Brewer has passed by two opportunities to debate the issue. He refused to meet Bro Otey on propositions submitted by Bro. Otey and yet condemns Bro. Otey for refusing the propositions he submitted.
He completely ignored the suggestion of a written discussion with Bro. Cled Wallace to be published in the Bible Banner and Gospel Advocate (if they were willing) yet he thinks I should be made to take Bro. Totty seriously when he challenges me to come to the church where he preaches and debate Bro. Brewer, and upon his own propositions too.
As for Bro. Totty, yes, I have ignored his letters—about five long epistles—as I do all written to me of the same kind. He started the first one with a personal attack, accusing me of compromising on the premillennial issue too ridiculous and false to be taken seriously and I had never seen him but one time and never exchanged a letter with him in my life, if I remember correctly. I do not have the time or disposition to answer any of the mail I receive of that kind and don't even read the most of it after the first installment or two.
Besides I happen to know Bro. Totty is under obligation first to carry out his agreement to debate with Bro. Joseph Cox. He backed out of that one because he saw no need of holding it in his city since Bro. Cox didn't represent anybody there. Well, that one eliminates me too. Then Bro. Charlie Campbell offers to prove that Bro Totty also has changed his position on the college question, and I wouldn't be surprised if he did it.
I'm suggesting that Bro. Brewer and Totty promote one of Bro. Brewer's sham debates. They could either one take either side and both represent Bro. Totty's flock by a little side choosing. If they just must debate and don't want to debate the church-school question at the present, then I suggest Bro. Totty let Bro. Brewer affirm that people will be saved in all the denominations or—it is all right to call on sectarian preachers to pray in a worship service, or it is scripturally permissible under the law of expediency to allow Baptists to have fellowship with Churches of Christ by placing membership. I am pretty reliably informed Bro. Brewer advocates all three.
As for a debate on the "college in the church budget" question, if Bro. Totty and Bro. Brewer will pardon me for leaving them out, as well as myself, I would like to suggest that we have a written discussion to be published jointly in the Gospel Advocate and the Bible Banner, and we will make the Banner a weekly beginning with the first issue. The Advocate has aligned itself with that side of the issue by publishing everything written in favor of putting the college in the church budget and refusing to publish articles by men like R. L. Whiteside and C. R. Nichol. They shouldn't feel slandered when classified as advocating such a position. Let them select the man to represent that side of the issue, and we will let Bro. C. R. Nichol present the other side. Since Bro. N. B. Hardeman championed the supporting of a school out of the church treasury, and has always practiced that, he would be an excellent man to discuss it with Bro. Nichol. For the benefit of all the faint hearted we could agree to leave all personalities out and let the brotherhood have the benefit of a full and free discussion of this question. What will they say?