Analysis Of Joseph Cox's Article
Brother Joseph Cox had an article in the Gospel Guardian of May 6 which he called "A Reply To Brother Totty's 'Reply'." Brother Cox was still trying to answer an article that I had in the November 19, 1953 issue of the Gospel Advocate in which I showed a parallel between the teaching of Brother Roy E. Cogdill and the late Daniel Sommer oh the Bible college and orphan home question. One might wonder why Brother Cox is so extremely exercised over my article when it did not mention him. But when one considers that Brother Cox also occupies the position of the late Daniel Sommer and that he has a morbid fear of being classed with the Sommerites, one can understand his desperate attempt to prove that Daniel Sommer was opposed to Bible colleges as such.
Brother Cox set up a straw man composed of single words and short phrases from my article and connected. By that procedure he succeeded in making out a case against me to the effect that I said that there was absolutely no technical difference between Sommer and Cogdill on any point. Quotations from my original article will prove that that is not the case. In the Gospel Advocate, November 19, 1953, I said: "He (Sommer) occupied the same position on that issue that Brother Cogdill and his associates occupy. Brother Sommer did not oppose orphan homes and Bible colleges as such, but he opposed supporting them with the Lord's money. If there is any difference at all between Sommer's position and Cogdill's position, it is over what constitutes the Lord's money." That quotation shows that I did not contend that Sommer and Cogdill are technically the same on every point, notwithstanding the fact that Brother Cox labored hard to convince the readers of the Guardian that I said that Cogdill and Sommer were "exactly" the same.
Brother Cox lamented that I did not answer his "first" argument; but seriously, Brother Cox did not make an argument. He said in his first paragraph in the Guardian: "I showed in my review of Brother Totty's first article that Brother Cogdill's 'position' could not be 'exactly' Brother Sommer's 'position' in view of the 'difference"... over what constitutes the Lord's money'." But I did not say Cogdill's position and Sommer's position were exactly the same "over what constitutes the Lord's money." Thus we see that Brother Cox's "first" argument was based upon a misquotation.
Another example of Brother Cox's carelessness in dealing with quotations is found in the way he handled a quotation from me in the same issue of the Gospel Advocate. I quoted from Brother Cogdill where he said: "They (schools) are no part of its (church's) work, and cannot scripturally be supported out of its funds. But we have also contended just as earnestly that Christian individuals can support and maintain them, ..." In commenting on that, I said: "That is exactly the position of the late Daniel Sommer, and anyone who is acquainted with his writings can easily verify this fact. There is absolutely no difference between Cogdill and Sommer on that point." Brother Cox left out the phrase "on that point," which modified my statement.
Under the heading "The Lord's Money" Brother Cox said: "In Brother Totty's 'reply' to my first article he quotes from Sommer-Rhodes Debate, page 30, to prove that Brother Sommer was not 'against' Christian individuals establishing and supporting 'Bible colleges'." I shall give the quotation from Brother Sommer again. In the Sommer-Rhodes Debate, page 30, Brother Sommer said this: "Here are the headings of the tract: 'Concerning the unscripturalness of establishing religio-secular schools with the Lord's money.' Not concerning the establishment of such schools, — I did not stop there, — but I said 'with the Lord's money'." Brother Sommer further stated on the same page, "Now, I submit that when my respondent said I had written a tract against religio-secular schools he stopped short of telling the truth in the case, for it was not against such schools as such, but against establishing them with the Lord's money." If that statement from Brother Sommer does not prove that he was not opposed to establishing Bible schools as such, then he could not be relied upon to state his position on anything.
Now if we are to conclude that Brother Cox knows more about what Brother Sommer taught than Brother Sommer himself, then we will grant that Brother Cox is right. However, if we agree that Brother Sommer had the ability and honesty to state his position, we must conclude that Brother Cox is wrong, however painful it may be to him.
Brother Cox took issue with my statement that Brother Sommer endorsed the Buffalo Seminary operated by Alexander Campbell. He said that I could have learned on the same page from "Brother Sommer's own words" that he did not endorse individual Christians' right to establish and support Bible colleges. I have again read that entire page, and I must confess that I cannot learn that from Brother Sommer's "own words." Here is what he actually said: "What I have just quoted indicates the kind of school which I regard as scriptural. Such a school was the 'Buffalo Seminary' conducted by Alexander Campbell for several years, beginning about 1818." — Daniel Sommer, Sommer-Armstrong Debate, page 87. Sommer plainly stated that he regarded that Bible school as scriptural. But Brother Cox went on to say that Brother Sommer condemned conferring "pompous, foolish, worldly titles" upon its "pupils." But that is another question and does not prove that Brother Sommer was against schools as such, but against conferring the described titles. So again Brother Cox's argument falls flat, or as he would say, "has turned out to be a 'white elephant'."
Here let me give a quotation from the "Rough Draft," a document put out by the Sommers and endorsed by Brother Daniel Sommer. It says: "Supporting them (Bible colleges and orphan homes) is an individual matter — the church contribution is not for that purpose .... If you wish to support ... 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." That statement says that supporting orphan homes and Bible colleges "is an individual matter," but the church contribution is not to be used. Isn't that what Brother Cox says? If so, then where is the difference between him and Daniel Sommer on the support of orphan homes and Bible colleges? The only difference is that Sommer taught it first, and Cox is a "Johnny Come Lately."
My Position, Past And-Present
My position has always been that churches had a scriptural right to support Bible schools 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.
Since Brother Charles M. Campbell is furnishing Brother Cox with quotations from letters which I wrote to him, fairness demands that he tell Brother Cox my position, for he certainly knows it. In April, 1944, I held a meeting in Bowling Green, Kentucky, where Brother Campbell preached at that time; and Brother Campbell and I had lunch with the superintendent of Potter Orphan Home at the Helm Hotel. At that time Brother Campbell advised the superintendent to solicit loyal churches in order to get support for the orphan home. I agreed to Brother Campbell's suggestion. After I returned home, Brother Campbell wrote me a letter and asked me to send a list of all the premillennial churches which I knew in Indiana to the superintendent of Potter Orphan Home so he would not solicit premillennialists for support. Moreover, in 1946 I wrote a little booklet entitled "Who Did the Agitating?" in which I contended that church support of orphan homes and Bible colleges is scriptural. Brother Campbell wrote an unreserved endorsement of that little booklet on May 20, 1946. I suggest that when Cox goes to Campbell again for fragmentary quotations he get the whole story.
Brother Cox's statement that I told him prior to my debate with Ketcherside in 1942 that "we could not defend churches supporting colleges" is entirely incorrect. I never told Brother Cox or anybody else that at any time. He further stated, "That was why I helped him in that debate." In that debate, although I did not argue the church support of Bible colleges, I did make arguments for the support of orphan homes by churches. The last night of that debate was recorded; and at the close Brother Cox took the microphone and said, "Brother Totty is not fighting his battle; he is fighting our battle." I am preaching the same thing now I preached then. Whose battle does Brother Cox think I am fighting now?
He quotes from a letter which I wrote to Charlie Campbell in 1947 and said, "I never tried to 'justify' churches supporting colleges. I justified individuals supporting colleges and will continue to do so." That was in reference to the debate I had with Carl Ketcherside, and I was merely stating that church support of colleges was not the issue under discussion, and I explained that to Brother Campbell in a later letter.
But Brother Cox reached the climax of his misrepresentations when he garbled a quotation from a letter of mine written to Charles M. Campbell March 28, 1951. Here is the way Brother Cox used the quotation: "I don't teach that churches should support colleges. I don't preach that they may." I comparison I give you the entire quotation: "I don't teach that the church should support colleges. I don't even preach that they may. I fact, I don't preach on that subject. I believe they may, but I leave that to the individual congregation."
What could the New Testament be made to teach if it were handled in the manner in which Brother Cox handled the quotation from me? Brother Cox mutilated that quotation in order to prove that I was against church support of colleges when I wrote that, notwithstanding the fact that I definitely said, "I believe they may." A like misuse of the scripture is the foundation of sectarianism. This exposure of Brother Cox's unfairness is no doubt exceedingly embarrassing to him, but I am not responsible for his actions in the matter.
Brother Cox avers that I am in a "dilemma" and that he would like to have my "explanation on the tense of the verb, 'don't,' in this latter statement." The "latter statement" is the quotation from me which Brother Cox so ruthlessly mutilated. I don't have to give an explanation of the tense of the verb in order to extricate myself from Brother Cox's imaginary "dilemma." All I have to do is to expose his unfairness in handling the quotation, and the "dilemma" disappears.
The Advocate's Position
In 1953 the editor of the Gospel Advocate published a series of articles in that paper strongly defending the scriptural right for churches to support Bible colleges and orphan homes. Those articles had "editorial approval." However, in Brother Cox's article in the Guardian he said that the man who was editor in 1933 wrote in 1947 and said that he "dissented from the view that such organizations can be scripturally supported by the church." It seems to me that 1933 would have been the logical time for the editor to have written that instead of waiting fourteen years. But be that as it may, those articles were published in the Gospel Advocate in 1933 without a dissenting word against them. Whether or not that was the policy of the Advocate in 1933, it certainly was what it taught; and the editor did not contradict it, but rather said it had "editorial approval."
Conclusion
In conclusion a quotation from A. R. Sommer in reference to Brother Cox and those like him who changed their position in 1947 is in order. He said: "When complimenting the stand of some recent converts, it might serve as a good turn toward 'brotherhood unity' by also recounting that for the last sixty years and more The Review has firmly contended that church treasuries should not be raided for benefit of religio-secular, tax-free, schools . . . . So even while crediting the late converts to that scriptural position so long upheld by The Review, yet Christian fairness requires acknowledgment also of The Review's rugged pioneering along that line." The editor of The Review called Cox and those associating with him "late converts" to the position which The Review had held for sixty years. He also referred to them as "Johnnies Come Lately." Brother Cox tried to blunt the point of that dart by saying that A. R. Sommer "was trying to get on the "bandwagon." But of all the peculiar ideas of the Sommers which we may dislike, it is exceedingly doubtful that they ever tried to get on anybody's "bandwagon." Brother Cox and his colleagues are the ones who climbed onto the Sommer "bandwagon" along about 1947. And to him we ask: "Why criest thou for thine afflictions."