A Hopeful Beginning
(Editor's note: We have received, and from time to time will publish, a number of articles dealing with the recent meeting in Arlington in which about twenty-five or thirty brethren "on both sides" of current issues came together as brethren to discuss their differences. In this issue we reprint the editorial Brother Reuel Lemmons wrote after he had participated in the meeting. Last month we published Brother Robert Turner's brief account of the meeting, in which he commented that "the very fact of such a meeting is encouraging." Herewith, we give Brother Cogdill's comments on the meeting.)
Brother Turner is imminently right in the fact that the very possibility of such a meeting is encouraging within itself. I am pretty sure that most would agree that under any circumstance where a difference exists unless there is communication the breach will widen and cannot be healed. This is true in the home. in business, and in the church or anywhere else. One of the tragic factors in the present division has been the severing of communications between brethren. The guilt in this matter may rest upon all of us at least to some degree.
When men become so involved and enamored in their own opinions and promotions that they become more important to them that unity among brethren they have made idols out of them. To a great extent this has been true, There are brethren who think so much of the Herald of Truth and the Benevolent Societies and other present day promotions among us that if you raised your voice in opposition to these things you were "branded',', "quarantined", "labeled" and "disfellowshipped," Many of us have felt the sting of being alienated from former friends and from congregations where the ties, had been strong and enduring for many years. The main tragedy was that such severance of relationship came instantaneous and without discussion and study together as brethren.
Many became so involved in either justifying or condemning that they failed to see the consequence or to have time for calm and careful consideration of the issues involved. When they were discussed, too often, those discussions became so involved with audience appeal, sophistry, personal incriminations, inconsistencies and other prejudicial matters that what the Bible taught was not the object of the discussion. Churches refused to allow both sides of the controversy to be heard and in some instances refused to allow either side to be heard for fear of trouble. Communication was lost. Papers and other communication media among brethren took up the matter of thoroughly propagandizing their readers and hearers and brethren became so prejudiced and inflamed that they were unable to prayerfully consider their obligations to truth or to other brethren. In the view of this writer it is too bad that brethren could not have come together as we did in this Arlington meeting long before now and study these issues as we studied them.
In the Arlington meeting the speakers were under certain rules. No one was to question motives, incriminate others, make any personal charges, bring up any one's inconsistencies or deal with anything personal. We were to confine ourselves to Bible arguments. Of course, this was not followed completely by everyone. Perhaps that was too much to expect. But when a breach occurred and it was called to attention, apology was made and the level of the meeting as it was planned was restored. There were three moderators to direct affairs in each one of the sessions. On the whole, order was good, the discussion pleasant and a good spirit prevailed. This does not mean that the speakers did not press their arguments or that specific speeches could not be answered but it did mean that it was to be done without injecting prejudicial matter into the discussion and apart from all personalities. There was no audience present except participants in the discussion so there was no appeal to the audience.
This opportunity for communication alone was enough to justify such a meeting and if it serves the purpose of re-opening communication between the two groups of brethren then it will have served a worthwhile purpose.
There were several things that were evident in the meeting. It was apparent that at least most of those present recognized the need of re-establishing, if possible, the lines of communication between us and keeping them as open as possible.
It was also apparent on the part of at least almost all of those present that name calling, misrepresentation, and an ugly attitude in general toward one another had deterred and hindered a proper consideration of the truth and was wrong. No one, I think, would take any exception to being identified as to his position on any issue if the identification was accurate and if it was not by some nick-name of discrediting epithet. Christianity should forbid such and even a gentlemanly disposition should not allow it. It is rather remarkable that even recently some who have been rather silent in the discussion of these differences among us are seeking a place of prominence for themselves by a "campaign of calumny" and abuse that will add nothing to either the study of "current' issues" or improve in any way the feeling and relationship among brethren.
Where there is common ground, it should be found and recognized, and where differences exist they should be resolved by a careful, unprejudiced, prayerful consideration of what the Bible teaches about them. I doubt if there were any present at the Arlington meeting who expected that meeting to reach any decision on anything. I am equally sure that none expected that any should or would sacrifice a single honest conviction or in any way violate their consciences for the sake of peace. Peace on the basis of a compromise of truth would not be worth having and credit for honesty and uprightness could not be given those who would take part in such. But if the lines of communication can remain open and the proper attitude maintained, a big step in the direction of fellowship with one another upon the truth may have been made possible. I pray that such is the case. May our hearts be unafraid upon any occasion to sit down anywhere with anybody and study the Word of God about any problem. This Christianity demands.
It is devoutly wished by this writer that many other brethren could have been present and taken part in this meeting. But the number was limited that could participate. Perhaps other opportunities will come. I hope so. The speeches are being transcribed and we intend to see, the Lord willing, that they are published in a book. We believe that it will furnish to many an opportunity to study both sides without many distractions that have existed.