Woods-Porter Negotiations
As we reported on this page two weeks ago, the Belmont Avenue congregation and the Garfield Heights congregation, both of Indianapolis, Indiana, have agreed to have another debate, discussing the same issues which were considered in the Totty-Watson-Holt debate last fall. Garfield Heights selected Brother Guy N. Woods to represent them, and Belmont Avenue selected Roy E. Cogdill. When announcement was made of Belmont Avenue's selection, Brother Woods declined to enter into the discussion if he had to meet Cogdill. Since it appeared that this was an insurmountable obstacle, Belmont Avenue yielded the point and agreed to select another representative. Brother W. Curtis Porter agreed to represent them.
After this it developed that Brother Woods did not want to defend the Garfield Heights' position relative to church support of colleges and centralized cooperative arrangements, but wanted to confine the discussion to institutional orphan homes. Since the two congregations had already agreed to debate all three issues, it was not thought wise by Belmont brethren to limit the debate to one phase of the problems now disturbing the church; they therefore declined to yield to Brother Woods' wishes in this matter. Inasmuch as the two congregations had already agreed to debate all three questions, this put Garfield Heights in the embarrassing position of having selected a representative who was not willing to represent them on two of the issues.
After three or four weeks of negotiations, however, Brother W. L. Totty, preacher for Garfield Heights, has written Jack Holt, who preaches for the Belmont Avenue brethren, indicating that Brother Woods has now consented to represent Garfield Heights on the centralized cooperative issue, (on certain conditions); and Brother Totty further states that Brother Woods agrees with Garfield Heights' position on church support of colleges. It seems likely, therefore, that in a matter of time the arrangements can all be worked out, and the debate will materialize.
The "conditions" under which Brother Woods agreed to defend the centralized cooperative arrangements are set forth in a letter from Totty to Holt;
"I have a letter from Brother Guy Woods today saying he is willing to include in the propositions for debate cooperative work such as the Guardian opposes, provided your Guardian men are willing to discuss whether or not Cornelius received the baptism of the Holy Spirit and whether or not an elder must be a married man."
And in a letter from Woods to Holt, Brother Woods writes:
"Why not include the War question, whether Cornelius received the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and whether elders should be married? Then we'd have the Guardian hobbies all out."
We think it fairly evident from these two brief excerpts that Brother Woods is reluctant to defend Garfield Heights, and is trying to make the conditions and requirements impossible of fulfillment. But in spite of that, however, negotiations are still under way. Brother Curtis Porter has written propositions and no doubt by this time they have been submitted to Brother Woods. The Belmont Banner (weekly bulletin of the Belmont Avenue Church) declares that the matter is wholly up to Brother Woods now. If he is willing to debate, the discussion will take place. If he is not willing, it will not take place.
Other Issues
Brother Woods seems to desire to debate certain other issues in addition to the ones the two churches have agreed on. We do not know exactly what his position is on these other issues, but if he is desirous of debating them, he can find men on both sides of each question he mentions right within the Gospel Advocate's own staff! Does Brother Woods want to take a pacifistic position relative to carnal warfare? Then G. K. Wallace, a staff writer for the Gospel Advocate will be as fine a man as he can find to take the other side. Does he want to take the position that Cornelius received exactly the same outpouring of the Holy Spirit that Peter and the apostles received on Pentecost? Then C. R. Nichol, another staff writer for the Gospel Advocate can accommodate him by taking the other side. In fact, we believe that Brother Nichol is almost considered the "father" of the other position so far as modern day preachers are concerned. Does Brother Woods want to argue that an unmarried man can not be an elder? Then (unless we are misinformed) Brother Goodpasture, editor of the Gospel Advocate will string along with David Lipscomb and take the other position.
Now, why does Brother Woods want to brand these matters as "Guardian hobbies"?
So far as we are concerned these issues should not now enter into the discussions. They are matters about which brethren have been divided for years, which do NOT pose a threat to the unity of the church, and over which nobody so far as we know is trying to agitate a "quarantine" of conscientious brethren who differ from him. We've not discussed all of these questions with the Gospel Guardian staff, but we do know that on at least two of them (the war question and the marital status of elders) there is a definite division of conviction. Two of our associate editors have written vigorously and as much as they desired concerning their differences relative to the unmarried elder question. If Brother Woods wants to debate that with somebody on the Guardian staff, he can find both positions represented with us — just as he can with the Gospel Advocate staff.
We regret these side issues being injected, and particularly any effort to brand brethren as "hobbyists" because they have convictions opposite to one's own. There is a time and a place for discussion of the questions Brother Woods poses, but when efforts are being made to "quarantine," ostracize, and ultimately disfellowship many thousands of faithful Christians over other issues, why not confine the discussions to these dangerous and vital matters?
So far as the Gospel Guardian is concerned we are not in the "quarantining" business. We have not even a remote idea of drawing the line of fellowship against any of our brethren. We think it is a time for study, prayer, and a real demonstration of brotherly love, not a time for charges of "hobbyism," with an appeal to quarantine. If willful men are determined to lead the church into apostasy, then in due time brethren can see and recognize who ought to be marked. But as long as sincere and conscientious brethren are studying a question, all this pressure for division and quarantine is both dangerous and unseemly.
Now won't it be an awkward situation if Brother Woods decides to apply the "quarantine" against G. K. Wallace, C. R. Nichol, and B. C. Goodpasture just because they happen to disagree with him over what he calls the "Guardian's hobbies"?
— F. Y. T.