The Unchangeable Has Changed!
Of late we have heard quite a lot about the unchangeableness of the Gospel Advocate. This sounds good to those that know no better. It deceives many. But we would suggest to those who wish to have it believed that the Gospel Advocate has not changed both its policy and its position, that they see to it that their "prospect" be encouraged to read only current issues of the Gospel Advocate. For if they should read back issues they would find that both policy and position have been changed. And the surprising part is that one does not have to go back very many issues to find this to be true.
The present editorial policy is to print only those things in the paper which the editor believes to be the truth. As was said in Birmingham, we are going to print only "the truth." But this is to presuppose that the editor of the Gospel Advocate has all the truth on every point, which is just a little too much supposing for me. If it should be found that he does not, even on one point, none of the people who read only the Gospel Advocate will ever be aware of it. For Bro. Goodpasture will see that none who contradict him will write in his paper.
The editorial policy is one point upon which old "Unchangeable" has done an about face. In 1866, Bro. David Lipscomb said:
We wish to say to all such that while we never expect to conceal our faith or principles on any subject of interest to the religious world, never expect to profess one kind of faith or principle to one man and a different kind to another; at the same time we have no disposition to color the character of the Advocate by our own peculiar impressions or convictions on any subject. Any Christian brother shall have the same freedom to our pages, on any subject that we may deem of interest, that the Editors themselves have. In one word the Gospel Advocate shall not be partisan for or against Missionary Societies, nor for or against Christians engaging in war or politics, but shall be open to as free, full and candid investigation on these and other practical questions as our space will admit.
Not only has the editorial policy changed drastically, but Bro. Lipscomb could not even get the above statement printed in the Gospel Advocate today, unless the editor reversed his editorial policy again. In 1909 Bro. E. A. Elam said "The columns of the Gospel Advocate have always been open to full and free discussion of all practical questions. Friend and foe must admit this." But in contrast to this, today we are told, boastfully and arrogantly, that nothing will be printed in the columns of the Gospel Advocate that the editor does not believe to be the truth.
Well, if this policy has always been the same, then everything the editor has published in the Gospel Advocate he must have believed to be the truth. If the editorial policy has not changed, and we are assured by the Gospel Advocate that it has not, then the doctrinal position has changed. I never knew it was so bad for a man to change if he learned he was wrong. In fact, it is the only thing honesty will permit him to do. But to change leads to sin if one is going to deny he has changed. This is precisely the position of those at the wheel of the Advocate.
In 1948 Bro. Goodpasture printed an article by Bro. G. K. Wallace in which he told of the work being done by the Maude Carpenter Children's Home in Wichita, Kansas. Of it Bro. Wallace says: "This work (i. e. care of orphan children — CW) is the work of a church. This home was built and is maintained by and under the directions of the elders of the Riverside Church. The only organization there is the church. The only officers are the elders of the church. Certainly no one can question the right of a congregation to take care of orphan children." (Oct. 21, 1948). Today we are told by the Gospel Advocate staff with editorial endorsement (everything has to have editorial endorsement in the Gospel Advocate, else it would never appear there) that these Wichita brethren just thought they were over the home as elders. Actually they were members of the board of directors of the corporation that provides the home, and in addition, elders of the Riverside church. But Bro. Wallace says "The only organization there is the church." The Advocate now maintains such an arrangement would be sinful. So either Bro. Goodpasture printed something he did not believe, and if so the editorial policy has changed, or he believed what was printed, and if so, the doctrinal position has changed. Either way one goes, to call "old reliable" unchangeable is a misnomer. In fact, it is a misstatement of facts.
Also, in 1948 Bro. Goodpasture printed an article by Bro. C. D. Plum. Either Bro. Goodpasture agreed with it, or he has changed the editorial policy of the Gospel Advocate. Bro. Plum says: "Some of the orphan homes and old people's homes are under the direct oversight of the elders of a congregation. In my judgment, this is as it should be. This eliminates the unscriptural board for such homes. This lets the church take care of those unfortunate ones as the church, and not through another institution." (Jan. 8, 1948). Now did Bro. Goodpasture believe that a home with a board of directors chosen from several churches has an "unscriptural board?" If not he printed something he believed to be error. And the editorial policy of the unchangeable has changed. If not, he believed that an orphan home without "the direct oversight of the elders of a congregation" was unscriptural, which is the reverse of the Gospel Advocate's present position. Now the orphan home and old people's home has to have one of these "unscriptural boards" of which Bro. Plum spoke in order to be scriptural!
Either the editorial policy has changed, and Bro. Goodpasture has printed some things he did not believe to be the truth; or else the Gospel Advocate's position has not always been the same. Actually both are true. But in either instance, these brethren should quit denying their change. Brethren everywhere would respect them more if they would forthrightly admit their change, and proceed with their argument from there.