Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 6
April 7, 1955
NUMBER 47, PAGE 1

Vilification Is Not Argument

Roy E. Cogdill

The Gospel Advocate of Dec. 9, 1954, carries an article by Cecil N. Wright under the heading of "Revived Sommerism", which is probably a resume of the speech he delivered at the Thanksgiving Lectureship at Harding College. Cecil adopts a pious and righteous tone in a part of this article which is wholly out of character for anyone who will undertake to "nickname" someone religiously as a means of reflecting on him or with a name that is rejected and which he is unwilling to wear.

Brother Wright would disclaim being a "Campbellite". I wonder why? Probably for many reasons but I am sure that he cannot give as good a reason for the refusal to wear such a name as I can give along with many other good brethren who deserve just as much consideration as Brother Wright ever deserved in his life, for not being willing to wear the name of Sommer. Let him try it and see.

I heard an old preacher say in my youth that when anyone called members of the Church of Christ by the nickname "Campbellite" it was either due to rank ignorance or downright meanness. Brother Wright can take either horn of the dilemma he wants but the same applies. My mother taught me when I was a child never to call anyone by a name either to their face or otherwise which they were unwilling to accept and wear. Gentlemanly conduct demands that. I wouldn't even call one of the Sommers a "Sommerite" because I am sure that they do not accept and wear the name. Brother Wright needs to improve on his manners and act the part of a Christian gentleman or discontinue his attempt to use a pious appeal such as "Let us avoid being ugly or un-christian in our opposition to error". Brother Wright has resorted to an effort to "prate against us with wicked words" as often and much as any writer on the issues today. He need not now adopt the voice of Jacob for he has the hands of Esau. He is out of character in such words. He has acted dishonorably and cowardly in his attacks against the Gospel Guardian and those who write against the institutional promotions in the church today.

No, I am not offended by the term for I long ago learned that I do not have to be something just because someone calls me that. My attitude however does not change the complexion of brother Wright's name calling.

He cannot be excused in such. Neither can he be excused for continuing to misrepresent the attitude of those who write for The Gospel Guardian. He knows, and if he doesn't he is wilfully ignorant, that none of us agrees with Daniel Sommer's teaching or with the teaching of those who factiously oppose the teaching of the Bible in a college. He cannot fail to know that we stand in defense of the right of a Christian to teach the Bible in a college whenever and wherever such an opportunity is granted. He knows that we would defend that right as quickly as we will oppose putting the colleges in the budgets of the churches. Now suppose Brother Wright tell us where he stands on the college question. Does he believe and teach and will he affirm that it is scripturally right for a congregation to contribute out of its treasury to the support and maintenance of a school like David Lipscomb or Abilene Christian College. If be will affirm that, there are many of us glad to deny it. On the other hand will he deny the right of an individual to use his resources to maintain a school in which the word of God is allowed to be taught? If he will there are many of us "Guardianites" as he denominates us, who gladly will affirm the right of a Christian individual to do so. With whom does Cecil Wright agree? What kind of an "ite" is he?

When Brother Wright gets to the point where he is ready to discuss the issues honorably as a Christian should instead of "contending with much abuse and vilification" for unscriptural methods of doing the Lord's work, we will try to accommodate him. Until he is ready he does not deserve to be heard. It is pretty reliably reported that a good brother collared him at Searcy after his speech and made him admit that he had misrepresented us in what he had stated our position to be with regards to such matters. What about it Cecil?

There are an increasing number of brethren who are wondering what kind of a case, Guy N. Woods, E. R. Harper, Cecil Wright and all the Gospel Advocate "Spear-headers" would make out in their efforts to "quarantine" if you took their vilification, misrepresentation, and "prating with evil words" away from them. It would be interesting to see wouldn't it? Since when does a scriptural position need such bolstering as we have witnessed upon their part?