Totty's Turmoil
Elsewhere in this issue of the Gospel Guardian there appears an article by W. L. Totty, which he designates "Analysis of Joseph Cox's Article."
Technical Twiddling
Brother Totty says: "Brother Cox set up a straw man," but he is wrong again. His "morbid fear" of failure to prove that we are "Sommerites" has troubled his thinking and turned him to technical twiddling. Nobody quoted Totty as saying: "Cogdill's position and Sommer's position were exactly the same 'over what constitutes the Lord's money'." My statement is still ,true as Brother Totty quoted: "I showed in my review of Brother Totty's first article that Cogdill's 'position' could not be 'exactly' Brother Sommer's "position' in view of the 'difference' ... 'over what constitutes the Lord's money." Brother Totty may be "so extremely exercised" over his desire to prove someone a "Sommerite" that he cannot see that the "difference" between Cogdill and Sommer "over what constitutes the Lord's money," actually constitutes the difference between them on the support of Bible colleges. Sommer says: "Faithful obedience to the divine doctrine of equality makes the building of religio-secular institutions by Christians impossible" (Sommer-Armstrong Discussion, page 6).
"That Point"
My respondent sought to show my "carelessness in dealing with (his) quotations." Thus he complains: "Brother Cox left out the phrase (on that point) which modified my statement." Brother Totty missed the "point" at issue by setting up "a straw man" and assuming the "point" to be proved. Therefore, his little lesson on grammar "on that point" is worthless. Brother Totty says: 'There is absolutely no difference between Cogdill and Sommer on that point." His previous quotation shows that he refers to Cogdill's position which says: ".... we have . . . . contended . . . . earnestly that Christian individuals can support and maintain them (Bible colleges)." Totty further says: "That is exactly the position of the late Daniel Sommer, and anyone who is acquainted with his writings can verify that fact." Let us hear Brother Sommer again on "that point" — ". . . the requirements of the divine doctrine of justice when faithfully obeyed make it impossible for individual Christians to build religio-secular schools" (Sommer-Armstrong Discussion, page 6). (Emphasis mine, JHC.)
Sommer-Rhodes Debate Brother Totty wrote some notes a few years ago; incidentally that was before he changed his position to church support of colleges. Writing upon the edge of Sommer-Rhodes Debate, page 30, Brother Totty questions the "position" of Sommer as to what he meant in objecting to establishing schools "with the Lord's money." Totty says: "Where is this done (establishing schools with the Lord's money) if he means the church's money?" (Parenthesis mine, JHC.) This shows that Totty did not at that time believe in churches supporting colleges, and it also shows that he knew Sommer was confused about the position that Brother Sommer had taken in regard to "the Lord's money." Did Brother Totty think when he wrote that question that "Brother Sommer had the ability and honesty to state his position"? We must conclude that Brother Totty has invalidated his proof text from
Sommer-Rhodes Debate, page 30, "however painful it may be to him."
That "White Elephant" Again
My respondent says: "Brother Cox took issue with my statement that Brother Sommer endorsed the Buffalo Seminary operated by Alexander Campbell." Brother Totty is mistaken. I showed in my former article that Sommer's endorsement of "Buffalo Seminary" was no proof that "Brother Sommer believed in a Christian individual's right to establish and support such schools as are called 'Bible colleges'." Sommer was contrasting Campbell teaching in his "own house" with schools organized by "David Lipscomb, J. A. Harding, J. N. Armstrong, and others." What Brother Totty needs to do is to show that Brother Sommer "contended earnestly that Christian individuals can support and maintain" schools called "Bible colleges." He is on record as saying: "That is exactly the position of the late Daniel Sommer." A. R. Sommer, commenting upon his father's acceptance of "Buffalo Seminary," said: "The truth is that the school Sommer accepted was far from . . . . a modern Bible ( ?) college .... Armstrong harped on the dodge that Christians could support his kind of schools 'providing' the schools themselves were 'right.' But their right to exist has never been scripturally established!" (American Christian Review, January, 1954.) So Brother Totty's "Buffalo" argument remains a "white elephant."
"Rough Draft"
Totty mutilates "Rough Draft" in his desperate attempt to prove that Cox is a "Johnny Come Lately." In order for Totty to prove that Cox's position on the support of "Bible colleges" is Sommer's position, he must prove that Sommer taught that "Christian individuals can support and maintain" these schools. Therefore, he garbles Sommer's "Rough Draft" in an attempt to make the reader believe that he has proved "that point." Totty's first quotation taken from the "Rough Draft" was under the heading, "Bible Colleges" and Orphan Homes. He perverted its meaning by leaving off the Following: "We're saved as individuals, anyhow, not as churches. If anyone must take the risk, let that one do it as an individual." Sommer taught that one was taking a risk on his salvation if he should support "Bible Colleges and Orphan Homes" on an individualistic basis. The second mutilated quotation Totty gave from "Rough . Draft" was under the heading: "Brotherly Love." "If you wish to support a Missionary Society or an Education Society to do church work, go ahead — that is between you and the Head of the church. But, keep your hands off the church treasury!" Brother Totty left out "a Missionary Society" from the quotation as the reader will see by turning to his article. He knew to put that into his article would ruin the application he was making of it; therefore, he chose to mutilate it. The reader can see that Sommer put the "Education Society" (Bible College) and "Missionary Society" in the same category. Totty can as easily prove Sommer taught "a Missionary Society" can be scripturally supported by individuals, as he can prove that Sommer taught "Bible Colleges" can be scripturally supported by them.
Trivial Travelling
Brother Totty winds around in circles trying to harmonize his contradictory statements on his "position past and present," complaining of what he calls my "misrepresentations." He is like the growling lion in a cage, always travelling but going nowhere. I quoted him as saying: "I don't teach that churches should support colleges. I don't preach that they may." There is one word (even) deleted from that sentence by typographical error — but in no way changes the meaning of the statement. I quoted the statement to show that Totty was not teaching in 1951 what he is now teaching. He now teaches that churches may support colleges, but in 1951 he said: "I don't teach that churches should support colleges. I don't even preach that they may." In fact, I don't preach on that subject.' But Totty preaches on "that subject" NOW. If he would quit preaching on "that subject," would he be now preaching that churches may support colleges? Moreover, his quibble on what he believed in 1951 makes his dilemma even worse, for the statement shows that he did not have the courage and conviction to preach what he claimed to have believed. Brother Totty, "Why criest thou for thine afflictions?"
Potty says: "My position has always been that churches had a scriptural right to support Bible school: and orphan homes, if they desired to do so, but I have always believed it should be left to the judgment of the individual congregation. For that reason I did not preach on the subject for several years after I came to Indianapolis, except in debates." What logic!
Does Totty now think that contributions to these institutions (by churches) should not be left to "the individual congregation"? Is that the "reason" he started preaching on "the subject"? Totty says his reason fox not preaching on church support of Bible colleges and orphan homes for several years was because he believed "the individual congregation" should decide the matter, If he still believes "the individual congregation" should decide the matter, his logic (?) will force him to quit preaching on "the subject" now, "except in debates." But, during those several years he claims he was not preaching "on the subject," he did manage to preach in debates that "churches had a scriptural right to support Bible schools ...." I heard him in those debates which he held with Millard Springer and Carl Ketcherside during those "several years." Totty did not preach church support of schools in those debates. Moreover, Brother Totty said: "I never tried to 'justify' churches supporting colleges.' He claims that statement was made with reference to what he preached in the debate with Ketcherside. But now he claims to have done no preaching on churches supporting "Bible colleges" "except in debates." Thus he runs around in his cage of contradictions. Brother Totty denies that he told me that "we could not defend churches supporting colleges," but that statement is the truth spite of his denial. Totty's excuse for not trying "to 'justify' church support of colleges" in his debate with Ketcherside is ridiculous. He says: "Church support of colleges was not the issue under discussion .. . ." It was as much an issue as was orphan homes, for they were discussed under the same proposition and Brother Totty knows it. As a matter of fact, there was nothing in his formal proposition which he signed with Ketcherside fox debate that said one word about "Bible colleges" or "orphan homes." Totty also knows that to be true.
The Advocate's Position
What Brother Wallace said about the position of the Advocate, while he was editor of that paper, has not been impeached. Brother John T. Hinds (once editor of the Advocate) wrote an article in the Advocate February 18, 1932, clearly setting forth the idea of support for colleges on an individualistic basis. Brother Foy E. Wallace, Jr., the editor, wrote of Hinds' article: "The foregoing article was sent in by Brother Hinds for the 'Queries and Answers' department, but because it touches a live and vital issue, making scriptural distinctions with cleanness, we give it editorial space and endorsement." Moreover, Brother Wallace published an article from Brother C. R. Nichol "Concerning Christian Colleges" appearing in the Gospel Advocate March 24, 1932 (editorial page). Nichol said: "It is not within the right of the church to take its money and spend it, or place it in the hands of men who will spend it in maintaining athletics in a college, or teaching the branches called 'science' in the college curriculum . . . . It is my persuasion that if Christian colleges will make their appeals for help to individuals — and they have a right to do that — their troubles will soon be over, and local congregations will not suffer." Brother Wallace wrote the following note showing he endorsed the position of Nichol as scriptural. "In the Firm Foundation, March 8, Brother C. R. Nichol treats the same question with equal clarity and scriptural discrimination." In the Gospel Advocate, April 13, 1933, (editorial page) Brother F. B. Srygley said: "I do not believe that contributions should be made to these schools, or any other secular business from the public treasury of the church . . . . Brother Baxter, the president of David Lipscomb College, said through the Advocate a few months ago that it should not be done."
Finis
Finally, Brother Totty should come down off his "perch" and let Brother G. C. Brewer show him how to "scratch" for the real "gravel" of "Sommerism," then his "Johnny Come Lately" child's play will be over. In a recorded speech at David Lipscomb College Brother Brewer read Brother Sommer's Syllogisms from page 6 of Sommer-Armstrong Debate and made this statement. "Now you can see then he was just opposed to the building of schools, what he called religio-secular schools; that is, the schools that taught branches other than the Bible, but taught the Bible in connection with that. He said that we used the Lord's money, and with him the Lord's money is your money. Regardless of whether it's in the treasury or out, it's the Lord's money, and therefore, it left nothing in your hands to work with." If Brother,' Totty will follow Brewer's instructions, he may be able to apologize to all of us whom he calls "Sommerites," as did his friend, G. C. Brewer to Brother Otey. Brother Brewer states: "I said Brother Otey had been a `Sommerite' all his life. Brother Otey thinks I ought to correct that statement. All right, I will do it. Brother Otey is not a Sommerite. He does not agree fully with Daniel Sommer's well-known position on the college question" (Gospel Advocate, December 17, 1953). We'll be awaiting Brother Totty's apology; until then we bid him farewell.