The Arguments Don't Argue
We have noted with interest and care what has been said in the Gospel Advocate in defense of the closed policy of that paper. Some of the defenders have been content to simply assert that the Advocate policy is good or that the Advocate itself is sound and true, while others, principally Guy N. Woods, have attempted to prove by argument and quotations from dead editors that the Advocate policy is fair.
Nobody expects an editor to print everything he receives. Nobody expects an editor to raise every issue in the pages of his journal. And nobody thinks that every article that appears has to be answered. An editor has a right to raise the questions that he chooses and to exercise his own judgment as to how long the issue may be discussed. Nobody has objected to the Advocate editor's rights in exercising his freedom in such matters. The objection is to the Advocate's practice of raising an issue, attacking a brother, reviewing the brother's article, (mis) quoting him, misrepresenting him, calling his name freely, and sometimes even calling on him to reply, and then refusing him one line of space to reply.
An article in the Millennial Harbinger in which Alexander Campbell explains why he does not print articles by a Dr. Thomas, a re-baptism hobbyist, has been presented as evidence that Campbell's Harbinger had the same policy that the Advocate has. Only a glance at Campbell's article (M.H., Vol. VI, page 619) will show that Campbell said he did not desire a discussion of that particular issue at that time. Campbell was explaining that he did not care to raise the issue in his paper at that point. Let it be shown where Campbell ever attacked Dr. Thomas' position, reviewed Dr. Thomas' articles, and then refused Dr. Thomas the space to reply! That would be more like the practice of the Advocate! Of course, Campbell had the right to refuse to raise the question of re-baptism on the pages of his Harbinger, if he deemed it wise to choose so. But this is not what the Advocate has done; she has raised the issues, discussed her side of the issue freely and then refused to allow the ones whose articles she has reviewed to reply. Campbell said in the article referred to: "I regret to see the matter agitated at this time . . . ." The Advocate has shown no tendency to avoid agitating the issues dear to her heart; only she wants to do all the stirring!
Campbell had too much to say about his attitude toward fairness in controversy for anyone to mistake him. Hear him:
"I have given my readers both sides of all controversies, my own side, so to speak, and the side of my opponents. If the Christian Baptist does not prove this proposition, it proves nothing. Few, if any, papers of religion have taken this course. He who has read the Columbian Star can have no correct idea of a single question which I have discussed — of a single proposition which I have advanced; nay, he must have the most incorrect ideas of my writings. As soon could a Muscleman of the order of Omar discover the Christian religion through the Koran, as a citizen of Georgia learn anything of my views through the columns of the Columbian Star.
". . . . If he will fill as many columns with my replies as he does with his accusations, it will be the most impartial looking thing I have ever known him to do. At all events, I will permit my readers to hear both sides, and to judge for themselves. In the name of sacred justice — in the name of Christian righteousness, I demand it of every Christian editor who publishes anything against my views, to let me speak to the people through their columns. This I ask not as a favor to me, nor as a favor to the truth, but I demand it as the decree of immutable justice — as a debt due me as a man, as a professor of the Christian faith. If my arguments be puerile, be weak, be foolish, and unscriptural, let them appear, and they will call for no elaborate refutation." (Millennial Harbinger, Vol. I, pp. 97, 98.) (Emphasis mine, K.L.F.)
The "Columbian Star" referred to by Campbell in the preceding quotation was a religious paper edited by Abner W. Clopton, who repeatedly used Campbell's name, but refused to allow Campbell's answers to appear in the "Star." In spite of Clopton's unfairness Campbell would always allow Clopton to speak "for himself" through the Harbinger. After printing one of Clopton's long articles in the Harbinger, Campbell once wrote:
".... Nothing but a vehement desire to give my readers both sides, and to let them see with what weapons I am assaulted, could induce me to occupy so many pages with productions so vapid as the preceding.
". . .. Is not the 'Star,' the vehicle in which he rides, devoted to sectarian interests, and so one sided as not to give both sides — and is it not a fair sample of the periodicals of the day ?" (Millennial Harbinger, Vol. I, p. 165.)
Mr. Clack wrote Campbell once regarding Campbell's attitude as editor:
"From a very cursory perusal of the first number of your Millennial Harbinger, I learn that your pages are open to those of a different sentiment with yours."
To which Campbell replied:
". .. . You shall have a fair hearing, and every reasonable facility afforded you in correcting any of my errors. While ever I conduct a press, it shall be a free press! And my readers shall hear both sides. I will always judge for myself, and they shall have the same opportunity." (Millennial Harbinger, Vol. I, pp. 120, 124.)
Every line of the preceding quotations from Campbell cry out against Brother Woods' recent article in the Advocate in which he attempts to prove that Campbell would endorse his (Woods') practice of using his own words to (mis) represent another. If Mr. Clack, an opponent of Campbell, could, with a "cursory perusal" of Campbell's paper, determine that Campbell opened his pages to those with "a different sentiment" to his, surely Brother Woods, with his far reaching abilities, being not prejudiced toward Campbell, could, with a little closer "perusal," see that he has misunderstood and misrepresented Campbell. From the way that Brother Woods has been using Campbell's writings, one would gather that he hasn't "perused" them at all!!
In the October 7 issue of the Advocate we were urged to believe that the inspired writer, Luke, practiced the Advocate policy because he recorded only a part of what was said in the Jerusalem conference (Acts 15). What someone needs to find is where those advocating circumcision were not allowed to express their views at the conference. Acts 15:6 says: "And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter." Acts 15:7 says: "And when there had been much disputing . . . ." Luke was guided by the Holy Spirit to give the conclusions reached, after much disputing. Does somebody think that we have an editor living today who can give us the conclusions, or solutions to all the problems? Has some one editor the wisdom to have been able to weigh all the facts and render the proper decisions? Does Brother Woods actually think that the Advocate editor is a parallel to Luke? If God ever selects B. C. Goodpasture and speaks to us through him, guiding him with the Holy Spirit, then every believer will accept him without question or criticism; until then, we will do well to act toward one another like the brethren did at the conference, "considering" and "disputing" the matter. Brother Woods would have a better case if he could find where Luke stood up at the meeting in Acts 15, and refused to allow another to express himself!!
Actually, the present defenders of the Advocate do not agree among themselves concerning the Advocate's practice, past and present. Brother Woods says, "Its able editor and those associated with him in the preparation of the material which fills its columns will continue to present only that which edifies, instructs and warns, leaving it to those who advocate false doctrine to supply their own mediums and channels for the propagation of their errors." (Advocate, Oct. 7, 1955.) But Brother J. M. Powell says, "Through the years the pages of the Advocate have been open for a full, free and honorable discussion of the various issues which confront the brotherhood." (Advocate, Jan. 6, 1955.) One defends the Advocate on the basis of its past practice of holding its pages "open" for "honorable discussion" of the "various issues" which have confronted us, while another defends it on the basis of its present practice of "(filling) its columns" with "only" that which the editor decides is truth, leaving those who disagree to "supply their own mediums and channels"!
One writer recently wrote that he liked the Advocate because it had helped him "In becoming known to the great brotherhood." (If he only knew it, he could become better "known" by opposing the Advocate!!) He then related how he had "just recently .... received an invitation from a church in Texas to preach in their meeting," because that church had seen his name in the Advocate. Many preachers have recently written in support of that paper. Let us sincerely hope that they had other and better reasons.
The Gospel Advocate became great partly because of her concept and practice of fairness in controversy and toward brethren. No amount of explaining and quibbling and misquoting can vindicate her present ruthless attitude toward those who question or disagree with her. Parading the names of influential preachers who have decided to go along with her will not convince those whose sense of justice has been formed by Christian principles, nor those who have taken the time to find exactly what contributed to the greatness of the most respected editors and religious journals of the past.
Those now with the Advocate are riding on the crest of the popularity gained by the Advocate when she "advocated" fairness toward brethren in controversy. The fact that the editor feels it necessary to print an article almost weekly in defense of his paper is evidence that somebody is conscious of the question that has arisen in the minds of many regarding whether or not the Advocate deserves the popularity it enjoys.
It might do all of us good to get up a good sermon on "Fairness Toward Brethren In Controversy."