Some Serious Charges
In the Firm Foundation, 1957, page 103, Brother Roy H. Lanier, makes some serious charges against the editor of the Gospel Advocate. Writing under caption, "The Middle Of The Road," he said:
"The time is passed due for some one to set forth the middle of the road view to satisfy the needs of brethren who cannot conscientiously subscribe to either extreme and to plead for unity of brethren on a position which is both scriptural and workable. I made an effort more than a year ago to do this when I wrote a series on cooperation. Two articles of that series were never published because the editor of the Gospel Advocate, who published the series, refused to publish them on the ground that I took positions not in harmony with the published views and policies of the Gospel Advocate. Since I had been a staff writer for that publication for 15 years my writings would be taken by brethren generally as the policy of the paper, and since my position differs from the traditions of the publication, he felt he could not print them. On the other hand, I felt that I could no longer occupy the position of staff writer, for a publication through which I was not allowed to express my views on matters which vitally affects the unity of brethren. I would not preach for a church which would not allow me to teach all of what I conceive to be the truth; I could not continue to be associated with a company which would not, or could not for sake of unity among its staff writers, allow me to write all that I hold as truth on an important subject. So I fulfilled my obligation, finished the projects on which I was working, and asked to be relieved of any further duties and that my name be taken from the payroll."
The writer don't know whether these charges are true or false. He doesn't propose to enter into that phase of the matter. But if the charges be true, they create a very ugly picture on both sides. If they are false, then according to the teaching of the New Testament, Brother Lanier is in a serious situation, and he owes the editor and the public, an apology. On the other hand, if they be true, then the editor is in a bad situation. Probably, some will look upon him as a dictator. This of course would be a poor compliment for an editor of a religious paper. If the charges be true, then when we read an article in the Advocate from John Doe, we will know that we are reading the sentiments of the editor, whether they are the real sentiments of John Doe or not. This creates an ugly picture for both the writer and the editor.
But what about all the other staff writers? Are they under the same rule that Lanier was under? If so (and I take it that they are), then, they, like Lanier, will never be able to get an article in the Advocate that contains positions not in harmony with the published views and policies of the Gospel Advocate. So, when we read an article in the Advocate from a staff writer, we will never know whether the sentiments contained therein are the real sentiments of the staff writers, but will know that they are those of the editor. This creates an ugly picture for both staff writer and editor.
Brethren, would you preach for a church that would not allow you to teach what you consider to be the truth on all subjects? If not, then how can you remain a staff writer for a paper where you are not allowed to do so? Are your backbones made out of the same sort of material that Lanier's is? If so, wonder if we won't hear of others asking that their names be deleted from the payroll?
David Lipscomb said:
"The church that stifles investigation, but prepares and nourishes the elements of violent explosion and division within its own bosom. By stifling investigation, too, it encourages error and discourages truth. Error loves the recesses of darkness and where it is least exposed to disturbing influences, But truth, though ever modest and retiring, loves the sunny exposures where light abounds, and its roots strike all the deeper and become finer and stronger from being digged about and examined. Let us continually encourage an inquiring and investigating spirit." (Gospel Advocate, 1866, page 111.)
Again he said:
"If we speak freely and investigate subjects that others shrink from, we yet will do it in a nonpartisan spirit, and only wish to know and teach the truth on all subjects connected with practical Christianity. Will freely, gladly hear ourselves and let our readers hear both sides of every question we present." (Gospel Advocate, 1866, page '09.)
Once more, 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 of the matters from those occupying opposing positions on these and other practical questions as our space will admit." (Gospel Advocate, 1866, page 717.)
L. C. Merritt, objected to a position E. G. Sewell took relative to evangelists. Sewell said:
"We are always glad for any of the brethren who think that we are mistaken in any matter about which we write, to say so. We are glad to receive and publish the above from brother Merritt. He has written frankly but kindly, and by continuing to examine questions in this way, we may ultimately arrive at the truth." (Gospel Advocate, 1872, page 1052.)
E. H. McDaniel objected to a position Lipscomb took on a certain matter. Lipscomb said:
"We are always glad to have objections made to our positions. If they are not correct, we wish to change them for true and sound positions. We are always glad to exchange an unsound for a sound position." (Gospel Advocate, 1843, page 160.)
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." (Gospel Advocate, 1909, page 749.)
These are some of the published views and policies of the Gospel Advocate under the management of Lipscomb and Sewell. It appears from the above, that if Lanier's charges be true, the views and policies of the Advocate along these lines, have been changed of late years.
Speaking to his opposers, Alexander Campbell, said:
"My pages are open to you. Yes, you may send the antidote with the poison to every fireside. Come on gentlemen, Only be a little more courteous in your manners, and you shall have page for page, line for line, and period for period with me." (Millennial Harbinger, 1830, page 27.)
"Little" men, like Campbell, Lipscomb and Sewell of those early days, were wise enough to know that they did not know everything and held the pages of their respective papers open to free and full discussion of all important issues, and glad to have any error in their writings pointed out, so they could exchange false positions for true and sound ones. Wonder why we can't have all editors and papers today like them?