COMMON CAUSE:  B. C. GOODPASTURE, THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE,
AND CHURCHES OF CHRIST IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY
Except where reference is made to the work of others, the work described in this dissertation
is my own or was done in collaboration with my advisory committee.  This dissertation does
not include proprietary or classified information.
John C. Hardin
Certificate of Approval:
Wayne Flynt
Distinguished University
Professor Emeritus
History
Charles A. Israel
Associate Professor
History
David Edwin Harrell, Jr., Chair
Daniel F. Breeden Eminent Scholar
in the Humanities Emeritus
History
George T. Flowers
Dean
Graduate School
COMMON CAUSE:  B. C. GOODPASTURE, THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE,
AND CHURCHES OF CHRIST IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY
John C. Hardin
A Dissertation
Submitted to
the Graduate Faculty of
Auburn University
in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the
Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Auburn, Alabama
May 9, 2009
iii
COMMON CAUSE:  B. C. GOODPASTURE, THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE,
AND CHURCHES OF CHRIST IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY
John C. Hardin
Permission is granted to Auburn University to make copies of this dissertation at its
discretion, upon request of individuals or institutions and at their expense.
The author reserves all publication rights.
Signature of Author
Date of Graduation
iv
VITA
John Clinton Hardin III was born in 1970 in Decatur, Alabama, to Clinton and
Barbara (Akers) Hardin.  He grew up in Moulton, Alabama, where he graduated from
Lawrence County High School in 1989.  He entered Auburn University that year and
graduated in 1993 with a degree in history.  He later earned masters degrees at Lipscomb
University in Biblical studies (1997) and at Auburn University in history (2002).  He has
worked as a campus minister intern for Auburn Church of Christ, as a graduate teaching and
graduate research assistant (with the Alabama Review and the online Encyclopedia of
Alabama) for Auburn University, and as an archivist for the Alabama Department of
Archives and History in Montgomery, where he is currently employed in the Public Services
Division.  He is married to Amie Alexander Hardin, who is originally from Walker County,
Alabama, and who works as a registered dietitian.  They were married in 1993 and have two
daughters, Abbie and Maggie.
v
DISSERTATION ABSTRACT
COMMON CAUSE:  B. C. GOODPASTURE, THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE,
AND CHURCHES OF CHRIST IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY
John C. Hardin
Doctor of Philosophy, May 9, 2009
(M.A., Auburn University, 2002)
(M.A.R., Lipscomb University, 1997)
(B.A., Auburn University, 1993)
362 Typed Pages
Directed by David Edwin Harrell, Jr.
From 1939 to 1977, Benton Cordell Goodpasture (1895-1977) edited the Gospel
Advocate.  Founded in 1855 and published weekly in Nashville, the paper was a crucial
center of influence for Churches of Christ, a loose-knit group of autonomous congregations
concentrated in the South.  After 1945, Goodpasture, the Advocate, and a network of like-
minded preachers, churches, and institutions were at the center of the group?s transition from
a marginal position in society.  The influential editor nurtured growth and denominational
identity by promoting the group?s interests, activities, and institutions, and used his
significant informal power to isolate a small minority of churches resisting modernization. 
The apparent majority consensus that he helped cement in the 1950s came under attack from
the left during the 1960s.  His leadership role then took on a defensive, caretaker quality, but
he remained an important symbol of stability for mainstream Churches of Christ to his death.
vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Several people deserve my thanks.  Mrs. Freddie Goodpasture (now deceased)
enriched this study by graciously allowing me access to her husband?s papers before
generously donating them to the Disciples of Christ Historical Society.  Numerous librarians
and archivists were of assistance: Erma Jean Loveland, Carisse Berryhill, and Chad Longley
at Abilene Christian University; Terence Sheridan and Kay Newman at Southern Christian
University; Marie Byers and David Howard at Lipscomb University; Hope Shull and Sherry
Jennette at Freed-Hardeman University; Dena Luce at Faulkner University; Timothy Nutt at
the University of Arkansas; David McWhirter and Mac Ice at the Disciples of Christ
Historical Society; Henry Terrill at Harding University; Don Meredith at Harding
University Graduate School of Religion; and Jane Henderson at Auburn Church of Christ. 
My thanks also go to Terry Gardner, John Allen Chalk, Fletcher Srygley, Don Haymes, and
Tom Olbricht.  Several friends and colleagues deserve my recognition: David Duer, Tom
Steed, Bill Becker, Barclay Key, Heath Willingham, John Wigginton, Mark Wilson, Scott
Billingsley, Steve Murray, Ken Barr, Jeff Jakeman, Donna Bohanan, Kathryn Braund, Ken
and Nancy Noe, Bill Rogers, and my co-laborers at the Alabama Department of Archives
and History.  Ed Harrell, the director of this piece of work, displayed infinite patience, while
committee members Wayne Flynt, Charles Israel, and Richard Penaskovic (as outside
reader) provided detailed feedback.  I offer my deepest gratitude to all my family, especially
my wife, Amie, and my daughters, Abbie and Maggie, who put up with me most of all.
vii
Style manual used: The Chicago Manual of Style, Fifteenth Edition
Computer software used: Corel WordPerfect 12
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION: ?THE CAUSE WE LOVE? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
CHAPTER 2 THE FIRST YEAR: ?TO THE TOP? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
CHAPTER 3 THE FORTIES: ?SAFE IN YOUR HANDS? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
CHAPTER 4 THE FIFTIES: ?ON THE MARCH? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
CHAPTER 5 THE SIXTIES: ?FORCES OF LIBERALISM? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
CHAPTER 6 THE SEVENTIES: ?THE ANCHOR THAT HOLDS? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251
CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSION: ?A TOWERING OAK?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION:
?THE CAUSE WE LOVE?
Although they were born some twenty years apart, N. B. Hardeman and B. C.
Goodpasture had much in common.  Both men preached among Churches of Christ for
decades, and both served that body in influential leadership positions?as educator and editor,
respectively.  The eldest, Hardeman, lived from 1874 to 1965.  He was co-founder and
longtime president of Freed-Hardeman College, a Henderson, Tennessee, school started in
1908 and supported by members of Churches of Christ.   A legendary orator, Hardeman1
solidified his reputation as a preacher during a series of five acclaimed ?Tabernacle
meetings? sponsored by Nashville churches between 1922 and 1942.  He became a
household name among Churches of Christ as a result of the first meeting, delivering thirty-
nine sermons to a total of 160,000 people in Ryman Auditorium.   The sermons were2
published, and ?at least two generations of Church of Christ preachers cut their theological
teeth on those lectures.?3
The younger Goodpasture, born in 1895, did not come to prominence until 1939,
when he was named editor of the Gospel Advocate.  Published in Nashville, the weekly
paper was the oldest institution among Churches of Christ, a fellowship of loose-knit,
autonomous congregations with its greatest strength in the South, especially Tennessee and
Texas.   Goodpasture was a relatively little-known Atlanta preacher and Advocate staff4
2
writer when he ascended to the editor?s chair.  Although he was already known and admired
by Hardeman, in his new position he would win the elder statesman?s complete confidence
and earn his highest esteem.   Hardeman would come to think of Goodpasture as ?the5
standard bearer for the Church,? and would often tell him as much.   ?I love and appreciate6
what you have done and are yet doing for the Cause we love,? he informed Goodpasture in
1963.  ?Men of your ability and devotion to duty are mighty scarce.?7
Hardeman was not alone in his opinion of Goodpasture, who would remain in charge
of the Gospel Advocate until his death in 1977.  Church leaders and lay members alike
looked to the editor for leadership.  But the record of the Hardeman-Goodpasture
relationship yields more than evidence of Goodpasture?s personal influence.  It also sheds
light on the root and base of his influence, namely the central place of the Advocate among
Churches of Christ.  An illuminating example is contained in a letter from Hardeman to
Goodpasture in 1953.  Now 79, Hardeman?s long tenure as president of Freed-Hardeman
had ended in 1950.  Still a household name, he asked the editor to announce to Advocate
readers that he was continuing to preach and was ?not retired by a long sight.?  Stressing that
he was in good health, he suggested that Goodpasture ?make mention of the fact that
brethren everywhere speak of my sermons as better than usual.?  Although he was already
scheduled for several speaking engagements over the next two years, Hardeman clearly
wanted to make sure that churches did not forget about him.8
Like thousands of preachers since 1855, Hardeman knew to turn to the Gospel
Advocate when he needed to get a message out to the churches.  Preachers knew also to turn
to Goodpasture when they needed his influence to help them secure permanent employment. 
In March 1959, Memphis preacher J. M. Powell, brother-in-law to Goodpasture and
3
Hardeman?s biographer, contacted the editor to ask a favor himself: ?Will you probe the
possibility of me going to the Harding Road church in Nashville?  I hear they are looking for
a preacher.?  He would be interested in any church that Goodpasture recommended, but his
?preference? was the Nashville congregation.   These requests of Goodpasture give evidence9
of de facto organization in a self-proclaimed undenominational tradition, and they raise a
host of questions about Goodpasture, the Gospel Advocate, and Churches of Christ in mid-
twentieth-century America.
The Restoration Movement and Churches of Christ
Originating in the first decade of the nineteenth century, the American restoration
movement, often called the Stone-Campbell movement, began to blossom in the 1820s and
1830s, and so did its papers and editors.   Alexander Campbell?s Christian Baptist (1823-10
1830) and Millennial Harbinger (1830-1870), Barton Stone?s Christian Messenger (1826-
1845), and Walter Scott?s Evangelist (1832-1842) defined the movement in its first
generation.  Subsequent generations were defined by more papers and more editors.  11
Without a formal power structure in the movement, some editors became what have been
called ?editor-bishops.?   The ?people in the pews voted for these ?bishops? with their12
subscriptions,? and, consequently, bestowed upon them great influence.   Churches of Christ13
emerged as a distinct group within the movement after the Civil War, and several movement
leaders started papers that reflected the conservatism of the group.  However, the Gospel
Advocate, edited for fifty years by David Lipscomb, became the most influential of those
papers and defined Churches of Christ more than any other paper.14
Largely a movement of the democratic nineteenth-century American frontier, the
?Christians? and ?Disciples of Christ,? as restoration movement adherents variously called
4
themselves, rapidly added converts to their sect.  Centered in the upper South, they pled for
Christian unity and the restoration of primitive Christianity.  They insisted that followers of
Jesus adhere to the ?pattern? of New Testament Christianity and ?speak where the Bible
speaks and be silent where the Bible is silent.?  They initially eschewed denominational
organization.  By the Civil War, the group was the sixth-largest religious body in the United
States, with 200,000 adherents.  But they were also a diverse group intellectually and
sociologically, and were headed toward division.  By the turn of the twentieth century, the
movement, now containing about one million adherents, had divided largely along sectional
and sociological lines into two distinct fellowships: Christian Churches and Churches of
Christ.  The Churches of Christ were strongest in the South and were mostly poor and rural. 
The Christian Churches, or Disciples of Christ, were found mainly in the North in urban
settings, had greater wealth than their southern cousins, and in the wake of division ended up
with most of the members as well as the most valuable church property.  By 1906, the year
that the federal religious census recognized that the movement contained two distinct groups,
the Christian Churches were well on their way to becoming a mainstream American
denomination, while the ultraconservative Churches of Christ, marked by their distinctive
opposition to missionary societies and instrumental music in worship, were circling their
wagons as a small, poor, southern sect.15
Churches of Christ at this time carried a well-ingrained theologically primitivist
attitude, being very concerned with ?the restoration of the ancient order of things.? 
However, having separated from the Christian Churches, they were also a movement ?that
was just beginning to define its own identity.?   Attached to fiercely autonomous16
congregations, and possessing a strong sense of alienation from the world, members of
5
Churches of Christ lived simply and were wary of all things secular and denominational. 
But as they established new congregations and developed schools and papers, their numbers
increased.  The 1906 census, in what was probably a slight undercounting, listed the group
with 159,658 people in 2,649 congregations.  The 1926 religious census, which more
accurately delineated between Christian Churches and Churches of Christ, counted 433,714
members in 6,226 congregations.   As Churches of Christ grew, and as time passed, their17
?cultural separatism? began to slip.   Gospel Advocate editor David Lipscomb was a18
cultural separatist to the degree that he refused to vote, and like many among Churches of
Christ, he was a pacifist.   Ironically, he died during World War I, at a time when the U.S.19
government directly pressured the Advocate to cease publication of pacifist viewpoints. 
Advocate publisher and editor J. C. McQuiddy promptly acquiesced to the government?s
demands, a concession symbolic of the changes that Churches of Christ were beginning to
make in relation to the surrounding culture.20
But it was the World War II era that witnessed dramatic change in the group?s stance
toward the prevailing American culture.  Making strides during those years in size, wealth,
education, and influence, many church members longed to leave behind their reputation as a
backwards, disagreeable sect.  Relaxing their attitude of cultural separation by degrees,
albeit not always their primitivistic rhetoric, they sought to win more souls and greater
respectability by embracing modernization.   Following the war, according to historian21
Richard T. Hughes, ?Churches of Christ identified ever more closely with the values of the
dominant culture; by 1960 they had practically completed their long, tortured journey
toward full-fledged denominational status.?22
6
B. C. Goodpasture and the Gospel Advocate
In 1939, with Churches of Christ in the midst of transition, Tennessee native Benton
Cordell Goodpasture became editor of the Gospel Advocate.  As a group of loosely
connected congregations, Churches of Christ had long organized themselves?to the extent
they organized at all?around the schools and papers founded by individual church members.
The Advocate was not only the most visible periodical among Churches of Christ, it was
also their most influential institution, and Goodpasture?s leadership as editor over the next
four decades, until his death in 1977 at age 81, was central to their story.  His influence was
most far-reaching in the two decades following the Second World War, when the Advocate
buttressed the growth and unity of Churches of Christ and their textbook progression from
sect to denomination, but he endured as an influential figure to the end of his life.
Goodpasture brought to the editor?s chair a dignified manner and a professional
persona, characteristics not always associated with Churches of Christ in 1939, but ones
increasingly appreciated by church members.  Although willing?and sometimes eager?to
engage in controversy, usually from a defensive posture against insurgent voices, he was
more reformer than militant.  Looking to build consensus, even if sometimes engaging in
destructive journalism in order to accomplish his goal, he better reflected the changing
sensibilities of many Advocate readers than his immediate predecessors.  When he did
unleash his fighting streak, often in the form of withering sarcasm, he usually had the
wisdom to employ it against foes possessing little sympathy within mainstream churches.  23
In a fellowship rife with controversialists, knowing which to battle as enemies and which to
cultivate as friends was a useful skill to have.  But most essential to Goodpasture?s
emergence as a dominant leader was his position, by which he steadily built influence,
7
eventually emerging at the center of a network of preachers, college presidents, and other
church leaders.
After World War II, as Churches of Christ advanced in size, affluence, and
education, as well as denominational consciousness, a growing spirit of boosterism flowered. 
Progressive churchmen affiliated with schools and papers were the leading boosters.  Not
theologically liberal, they were progressive in the sense that to varying degrees they were
open to new methods, approaches, and attitudes.  They were increasingly educated and
engaged with the broader culture.  Determined both to save souls and gain wider recognition
and influence for Churches of Christ, they championed the group?s distinctive teachings and
touted its strengths and accomplishments.  In addition to convincing outsiders of the validity
of ?the restoration plea? and its relevance for the twentieth century, these leaders sought to
motivate other church members to adopt their evangelistic zeal, sense of group identity, and
booster spirit.
Goodpasture was a central participant in these efforts, and he thereby contributed to
the growing denominational consciousness of Churches of Christ.  The Advocate supported
and publicized church institutions, personalities, ventures, and practices, authoritatively
placing its stamp of approval on increasingly modern methods and approaches.  Goodpasture
endeared himself to congregational and institutional leaders, and they hailed him for his
efforts to build up the church and his firm stand for biblical truth.  In fact, the Advocate did a
thorough job of endorsing itself and its editor in this regard.  Promotion by the Advocate and
on behalf of the Advocate, combined with Goodpasture?s stature, served to make the paper a
focal point for denominational organization and identity.
8
But not everyone followed the lead of the progressives.  Outside their network was a
small, reactionary network of conservatives leading an anti-institutional movement.  They
resisted modernization by vigorously attacking institutionalism, changing methods, and the
emergence of what they deemed to be denominational attitudes.  The Advocate and its editor
were primary targets of these attacks, to which Goodpasture responded in kind.  He closed
the Advocate to opposing viewpoints; he belittled his antagonists and dismissed their issues
as extreme; he used the Advocate?s influence to exert pressure on preachers and other
leaders to line up with the Advocate; and he used his power to isolate men and institutions he
considered disruptive and damaging to the unity and coherence of Churches of Christ.  By
1960 a schism was virtually complete; the noninstitutional churches, comprising about ten
percent of Churches of Christ, for all intents and purposes were no longer a part of the
mainstream.  Peace and unity had been preserved for the bulk of the churches.
However, the consensus of the fifties was misleading.  The mainstream was itself
destined to split into two relatively distinct channels, each with its own institutional
networks.  Goodpasture?s central role would gradually lessen; by the 1980s no such thing as
a broadly influential ?editor-bishop? would exist in Churches of Christ.  The 1960s would
see the Advocate ignore the noninstitutional movement while continuing to lead a church
?on the march.?  But the decade would also see the paper take notice of ?liberalism? in the
church?s midst.  Although somewhat isolated from the convulsions of the American sixties,
mainstream Churches of Christ were not immune to uncomfortable, unexpected change. 
New leaders were emerging with new levels of education, life experiences, and priorities. 
They carried new opinions on scripture, society, and their denomination.  These progressives
soon redefined Goodpasture and the Advocate as moderate or even reactionary.
9
As the new stresses became apparent, so did the Advocate?s waning influence with a
segment of the church population.  Yet, the new generation?s widest impact would not be felt
until much later in the century.  To most church members the Gospel Advocate was still the
?Old Reliable,? and circulation surged.  As Goodpasture reached his sunset years, he
remained in the editor?s chair but did not significantly inject himself into the controversial
issues of the day.  To the contrary, he sent out mixed signals, as much by his silence as by his
editorial comment, and left it to others to deal with an increasingly fractious body of
believers.  That his voice became less vigorous did not lessen the high regard that many felt
for him, both within his inner circle and beyond.  To such Advocate stalwarts, Goodpasture
could do little wrong; they displayed deep reverence toward the editor to the end, showering
him with honors and high praise all along the way.
Churches of Christ in Context
Several histories of Churches of Christ have noted that the group?s development
during the twentieth century adhered closely to the classic sect-to-denomination model.  In
1912, German scholar Ernst Troeltsch described two main types of Christian groups: the
church and the sect.  The church, officially recognized by the state, was an integral part of
society, adapting to it and even dominating it; persons were born into the church and died in
the church.  On the other hand, a sect, not officially recognized and whose members
voluntarily associated with it, existed in tension with society, and often withdrew from it. 
One extreme existed in the mainstream of society and the other at its margins.   As24
American scholars interacted with the Troeltsch categories, they emphasized the seemingly
inevitable transformation of a sect into a denomination, the term more appropriate to the
American scene.   Liston Pope, in 1942, formulated twenty-one indicators that usually25
10
signaled when a sect was moving toward denominational status.  Several of those applied to
Churches of Christ of the period: improving economic status, greater cultural integration, a
softening stance toward dominant churches, increasingly educated ministers, and movement
?from a psychology of persecution to a psychology of success and dominance.?   Pope?s26
summary of his analysis was an apt description of Churches of Christ in the same period:
A sect, as it gains adherents and the promise of success, begins to reach out toward
greater influence in society, whatever the roots of its ambition may be?evangelistic
fervor, denominational rivalry, ministerial desire for greater income and influence,
the cultural vindication of its peculiar faith, or what not.  In the process it
accommodates gradually to the culture it is attempting to conquer, and thereby loses
influence over those relatively estranged from that culture.  It counts this loss a gain
as its own standards shift and as it attracts an increasing number of persons who
enjoy the cultural and economic privileges of the society.27
Richard T. Hughes provided the following definitions of sect and denomination in
his history of Churches of Christ: ?A sect is by definition estranged from the culture in which
it lives and from the religious bodies that reflect the culture?s values, and it typically stands
in judgment on both.  A denomination, on the other hand, has made its peace both with the
dominant culture and with the larger Christian community.?  According to Hughes, ?by the
1960s, Churches of Christ still for the most part resisted recognition of other denominations
as Christian bodies, and in this sense they still maintained their sectarian status.  But by this
time they also overwhelmingly supported the conservative cultural values that ruled the
American South. . . . In this way they betrayed their evolution toward denominational
standing.?   The progression of Churches of Christ from sect to denomination, Hughes28
argued, began during World War I when the group began to lose its ?apocalyptic
worldview,? which Hughes defined as ?an outlook on life whereby the believer gives his or
her allegiance to the kingdom of God, not to the kingdoms of this world.?   The erosion of29
11
this countercultural perspective ?undermined in significant ways the primitivist dimensions
of Churches of Christ,? thereby making way for ?modernization.?  By World War II, the
apocalyptic worldview was seriously degraded, and after the war Churches of Christ rapidly
?settled into their cultural environment and felt increasingly at home in the world in which
they lived.?30
David Edwin Harrell, Jr., similarly identified ?cultural separatism? as a fundamental
characteristic of Churches of Christ in the first half of the twentieth century.  ?To most
church members,? he asserted, ?the affairs of the world lay remote from and irrelevant to
their lives as New Testament Christians.?  This world view gave Churches of Christ ?a sense
of alienation and distinctiveness, a sense of being a peculiar people.?   But it was a world31
view that by the 1950s would be greatly compromised as Churches of Christ sought to
?become a part of the American culture in which its members lived.?  According to Harrell,
?churches were filled with upwardly mobile, successful Americans who yearned for
recognition for themselves and their church.?  Those church members welcomed
organization; therefore, ?the spread of institutionalism and the growth of denominational
pride were companion pieces.?  It was evident that ?church-sponsored institutions and
programs . . . were both agents of change and symbols of the booming denominational
pride.?  Rejection of denominationalization by the noninstitutional minority actually
preceded rejection of institutionalism, Harrell argued.  Institutions were rejected because
they signified denomination-building.  By the time of that rejection, Churches of Christ
clearly were of divided mind theologically and sociologically, and division was inevitable.32
Other studies of Churches of Christ also recognize the transformation that took place
within the group in the first half of the twentieth century.  In his history, Robert E. Hooper
12
emphasized the ?outsider? identity of Churches of Christ at the turn of the twentieth century. 
They were ?a distinct people? who ?have never deliberately withdrawn into secluded
communities? but have always had ?a definite emphasis on separation.?  This exclusivity
slackened around mid-century, but, Hooper contended, Churches of Christ never completed
their move to ?insider? status; instead, in the years after World War II they emerged as
?tentative insiders.?   Michael W. Casey, in his history of preaching in Churches of Christ,33
noted that group members began rapidly blending into their culture after World War II,
having slowly begun that process during the First World War.  Examples of the
acculturation of Churches of Christ were the virtual disappearance of pacifism, increasing
affluence, accredited colleges, a desire to show the world that they had ?arrived,? and a
change in preaching style.  As urban congregations grew, they filled with educated and
upwardly mobile members who ?wanted preachers who had a similar level of education.? 
They hired graduates of the church-related colleges, which, Casey pointed out, were also
seeking to gain respectability by taking the necessary steps to receive accreditation.  These
college-trained preachers brought contemporary styles and values to many pulpits.34
Another body of literature on another loose-knit movement further informs an
understanding of Churches of Christ in the twentieth century.  Several historians of
American fundamentalism have written about the survival of the fundamentalist movement
in the 1930s and 1940s after it largely passed from the public eye in the late 1920s.   After35
battling liberals for many years, fundamentalists lost bids to control denominations like the
Northern Baptist Convention and the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A.  In addition to those
high-profile defeats, fundamentalists were mostly unsuccessful in their anti-evolution
crusade, and in that regard experienced widespread ridicule of their beliefs in 1925 during
13
the infamous Scopes trial in Dayton, Tennessee.  Numerous fundamentalist organizations
that had been created soon after World War I in order to fight modernism in the churches
and in public life were no longer viable by 1930, and fundamentalism as a national
movement was all but dead.36
As scholars have shown, however, fundamentalism itself was not dead; the
fundamentalists had merely retreated and reorganized.  While out of the spotlight, they
informally built regional institutional networks that allowed their doctrines and zeal to thrive
at the grassroots level.   William Bell Riley, for instance, was one fundamentalist who37
headed an informal regional network in the Midwest.  In his study of Riley, William Vance
Trollinger, Jr., emphasized the central importance of parachurch institutions like papers and
schools, as well as powerful personalities, to the establishment and maintenance of networks
like Riley?s.   From his large and visible Baptist church in Minneapolis, Riley directed his38
?empire,? which he had begun to establish early in the century when he founded the
Northwestern Bible and Missionary Training School.  Through that school and his monthly
paper, Riley instilled a vast number of ministers and lay Christians with fundamentalist
doctrine and missionary zeal.  Riley placed ministers all over the Midwest and kept close
tabs on them to make sure they did not depart from the orthodoxy he taught them.  The
Northwestern school and its trappings essentially became a denominational surrogate for
many individuals and churches in the Midwest; since the 1920s they had not felt at home in
the Northern Baptist Convention, and they turned to Riley instead.  Due in large part to
networks like this, by 1950 ?neo-fundamentalism? had begun to emerge at a national level. 
As descendants of the fundamentalist movement, evangelists like Billy Graham and
organizations like ?Youth for Christ? called Americans back to the God of the Bible.39
14
Informal networks of schools, papers, and ministers, in other words, were important
to creating coherence among fundamentalists.  Likewise, informal networks of schools,
papers, and ministers were even more important to Churches of Christ, a group with less
formal structure than the fundamentalist movement.  Historians of Churches of Christ have
emphasized the role of informal institutional networks within the group.  Those networks,
often with powerful personalities at the center, promoted group identity, defined doctrinal
orthodoxy, enforced doctrinal conformity, contributed to growth and unity, delineated
division, and bound numerous individuals and churches together.  Historian Douglas A.
Foster, in his analysis of division in Churches of Christ, made this point well.  Writing as an
insider, he noted that Churches of Christ have always had informal ?structures that served to
hold us together and give us an identity.?  Much like William Bell Riley?s institutions,
?sometimes those informal structures have wielded as much power as any official
denominational organization.?  In particular, colleges, lectureships, and papers, as ?the
major centers of influence and power in Churches of Christ,? have been ?institutions of
control and uniformity.?  Foster argued that ?these institutions usually worked together to
create and maintain a consensus on everything from the order and time of worship to
positions on theological matters. . . . Together, they exerted a powerful influence on this
group of autonomous congregations, making us amazingly uniform.  Those who did not
agree with the positions they defined were often excluded from fellowship through the
workings of the same institutions.?40
Goodpasture and the Advocate in Context
At the center of both the sect-to-denomination transition in Churches of Christ and
the groups?s informal networking were B. C. Goodpasture and the Gospel Advocate.  Ed
15
Harrell, in a lecture delivered shortly after Goodpasture?s death, noted that the editor ?fits
neatly into a sociological model of second generation religious leaders.?  He added that ?one
can pretty well trace the evolution of a religious group by the changes in skills from first to
second generation leaders.?  The second generation becomes concerned with ?preserving and
improving the image of what had been hewn out of the society by the previous generation,?
and they find leaders to match.  Goodpasture, Harrell argued, did not give Churches of
Christ denominational status; he was merely a measure of the degree to which they had
gained such status.  The group ?had come to include institutions and churches that wanted
organization, denominational identification and leadership, and B. C. Goodpasture had the
skills to give them what they wanted.?  The first of those skills was his ability to project the
right image.  As church members became more integrated into society?and more accepting
of it?they developed ?a new image of themselves and [looked] for new type leaders.?  In
Goodpasture they found ?a man who would not shame the brotherhood in polite society. . . .
[He] seemed to be the best of a generation that apparently felt a need to rid itself of the
bumpkin image.?  The second skill was Goodpasture?s ability as a ?second generation
manager.?  Leading a ?consistent and conscientious life in the service? of Churches of
Christ, Goodpasture dedicated himself to maintaining what the group had accomplished in
the first half of the twentieth century.  ?A man with an eye for what would benefit the entire
brotherhood,? Goodpasture ?promoted and nurtured [the] growth? of Churches of Christ and
?managed? controversy so that it disturbed that growth as little as possible.41
Historian Earl Irvin West judged that ?it was mainly through the Gospel Advocate
that [Goodpasture] exercised such a stabilizing direction for a sizable element of the
church.?   Harrell and Richard Hughes likewise pointed to the Advocate as the key to42
16
Goodpasture?s informal power.  Harrell called Goodpasture ?the most influential single man
on the course taken by churches of Christ between 1940 and 1970,? and Hughes described
him as ?the epitome of the ?editor bishop.??   In Harrell?s words, ?Goodpasture controlled43
the most powerful single means of communication in the churches of the period,? and
through that medium was able to ?influence institutions, churches, and preachers.?   That44
fact was not lost on contemporaries.  Goodpasture?s detractors made a special point of
describing in detail what they considered his misuse and abuse of the informal power at his
disposal.  His supporters, on the other hand, thanked him for using the Advocate to help
?correctly guide the thinking of a large segment of people throughout the country.?   That45
segment, as everyone also recognized, was the foundation of the Advocate?s influence.  It
included the preachers, elders, teachers, and everyday church folk who made up the core of
Christians with whom Goodpasture and his writers had common cause.
17
1. On Hardeman see James Marvin Powell and Mary Nelle Hardeman Powers, 
N. B. H.: A Biography of Nicholas Brodie Hardeman (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Co.,
1964); James R. Cope, ?N. B. Hardeman: Orator, Evangelist, Educator, and Debater,? in
They Being Dead Yet Speak: Florida College Annual Lectures, 1981, ed. Melvin D. Curry
(Temple Terrace: Florida College Bookstore, 1981), 133-55; and David H. Warren,
?Hardeman, Nicholas Brodie (1874-1965),? in Douglas A. Foster, et al., eds., The
Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 380-81. 
2. Robert E. Hooper, A Distinct People: A History of the Churches of Christ in the 20th
Century (West Monroe, La.: Howard Publishing Co., 1993), 80.  Michael W. Casey,
Saddlebags, City Streets, and Cyberspace: A History of Preaching in the Churches of
Christ (Abilene, Tex.: ACU Press, 1995), 83.
3. Richard T. Hughes, Reviving the Ancient Faith: The Story of Churches of Christ in
America (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 199.
4. On Churches of Christ see Hooper, A Distinct People; Hughes, Reviving the Ancient
Faith; David Edwin Harrell, Jr., The Churches of Christ in the Twentieth Century: Homer
Hailey?s Personal Journey of Faith (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2000); and
Earl Irvin West, The Search for the Ancient Order: A History of the Restoration
Movement, 4 vols. (Germantown, Tenn.: Religious Book Service, 1979-1994).
5. See J. E. Choate, The Anchor That Holds: A Biography of Benton Cordell Goodpasture
(Nashville: Gospel Advocate Co., 1971), 104, 183; and E. R. Harper, ?E. R. Harper
Reporting,? Gospel Advocate, October 23, 1980, 661.
6. Statement by W. W. Harlin, Sr., n.d. (ca. 1965), Benton Cordell Goodpasture papers,
Disciples of Christ Historical Society, Nashville.  See also Choate, The Anchor That Holds,
216; and multiple Hardeman letters in Goodpasture papers.
7. Letter from N. B. Hardeman to B. C. Goodpasture, October 24, 1963, Goodpasture
papers.
8. Letter from N. B. Hardeman to B. C. Goodpasture, August 18, 1953, Goodpasture
papers.
9. Letter from J. M. Powell to B. C. Goodpasture, March 10, 1959, Goodpasture papers. 
Powell?s request was not an isolated one, as indicated by references in the Advocate and by
other letters in the Goodpasture papers; see, for example, B. C. Goodpasture, ??Demas Hath
Forsaken Me,?? Gospel Advocate, December 10, 1959, 786; and letter from Robert H.
Brooks to B. C. Goodpasture, October 9, 1973, Goodpasture papers.
10. For a succinct overview and interpretation of the restoration movement see David Edwin
Notes
18
Harrell, Jr., ?Restorationism and the Stone-Campbell Tradition,? in Encyclopedia of the
American Religious Experience, vol. 2, ed. Charles H. Lippy and Peter W. Williams  (New
York: Charles Scribner?s Sons, 1988), 845-58.  Other histories include Winfred Ernest
Garrison and Alfred T. DeGroot, The Disciples of Christ: A History, revised edition (St.
Louis: The Bethany Press, 1958); David Edwin Harrell, Jr., Quest for a Christian America:
The Disciples of Christ and American Society to 1866 (Nashville: Disciples of Christ
Historical Society, 1966); David Edwin Harrell, Jr., The Social Sources of Division in the
Disciples of Christ, 1865-1900 (Atlanta: Publishing Systems, Inc., 1973); Lester G.
McAllister and William E. Tucker, Journey in Faith: A History of the Christian Church
(Disciples of Christ) (St. Louis: Bethany Press, 1975); and Henry E. Webb, In Search of
Christian Unity: A History of the Restoration Movement (Cincinnati: Standard Publishing
Co., 1990).
11. See Robert L. Friedly, ?Journalism,? in Foster, Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell
Movement, 434-38; and James Brooks Major, ?The Role of Periodicals in the Development
of the Disciples of Christ, 1850-1910,? Ph.D. Thesis, Vanderbilt University, 1966.
12. See Hughes, Reviving the Ancient Faith, 10, 350; and Major, ?The Role of
Periodicals,? 307-08.
13. Hughes, Reviving the Ancient Faith, 242.
14. See David L. Little, ?Gospel Advocate,? in Foster, Encyclopedia of the Stone-
Campbell Movement, 361-63.  Austin McGary established the Firm Foundation in Austin,
Texas, in 1884; its influence would come to rival the Advocate?s, especially in its own
region.  See T. Wesley Crawford, ?Firm Foundation,? in Foster, Encyclopedia of the
Stone-Campbell Movement, 337-38.
15. See, especially, Harrell, The Churches of Christ in the Twentieth Century, 3-9; and
Hughes, Reviving the Ancient Faith, 10-14.  See also William Woodson, Standing For
Their Faith (A history of churches of Christ in Tennessee, 1900-1950) (Henderson, Tenn.:
J & W Publications, 1979).
16. Harrell, The Churches of Christ in the Twentieth Century, 9.
17. Ibid., 8.
18. Ibid., 71-73.
19. See D[avid] Lipscomb, Civil Government: Its Origin, Mission, and Destiny and the
Christian?s Relation To It (Nashville: McQuiddy Printing Co., 1913).
20. See Hughes, Reviving the Ancient Faith, 145-51; and Hooper, A Distinct People, 110-
19.
21. Ibid., 221-224.
19
22. Ibid., 223.
23. Goodpasture could employ withering sarcasm in private too.  About the time he was
offered the editor?s job, he penned a reply to the widow of a Christian Church minister that
was anything but cordial and professional.  A book collector and dealer, he had bought
several of the deceased minister?s books, and was later accused by the widow of dishonest
dealings.  His reply was extremely sharp.  See letter from Mrs. D. S. Pooser to B. C.
Goodpasture, August 5 [1938], Goodpasture papers; and letter from B. C. Goodpasture to
Mrs. D. S. Pooser, August 6, 1938, Goodpasture papers.  See also letter from Mrs. George
B. Curtis to B. C. Goodpasture, October 20, 1959, Goodpasture papers.
24. Ernst Troeltsch, The Social Teaching of the Christian Churches, reprint, 2 vols.,
translated by Olive Wyon (New York: Harper & Row, 1960), 331-82, 461-65, 993-1002.
25. See H. Richard Niebuhr, The Social Sources of Denominationalism, reprint, (New
York: New American Library, 1975); and David O. Moberg, The Church as a Social
Institution: The Sociology of American Religion (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall,
1962), 73-126.
26. Liston Pope, Millhands and Preachers: A Study of Gastonia, (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1942), 122-124.
27. Ibid., 119.
28. Hughes, Reviving the Ancient Faith, 254; see also pp. 4-8.
29. Ibid., xii
30. Ibid., 221-28.
31. Harrell, The Churches of Christ in the Twentieth Century, 71-73.
32. Ibid., 151-75.
33. Hooper, A Distinct People, 107-130.
34. Casey, Saddlebags, City Streets, and Cyberspace, 75-89, 127-28.
35. On the fundamentalist movement see George M. Marsden, Fundamentalism and
American Culture: The Shaping of Twentieth-Century Evangelicalism, 1870-1925 (New
York: Oxford University Press, 1980).
36. See Joel A. Carpenter, Revive Us Again: The Reawakening of American
Fundamentalism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 3-12; and William Vance
Trollinger, Jr., God?s Empire: William Bell Riley and Midwestern Fundamentalism
(Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1990), 4-9.
20
37. See Carpenter, Revive Us Again, 13-32.  See also Virginia Lieson Brereton, Training
God?s Army: The American Bible Schools, 1880-1940 (Bloomington: Indiana University
Press, 1990).
38. Trollinger, God?s Empire.
39. Carpenter, Revive Us Again, 161-76, 211-32.
40. Douglas A. Foster, Will the Cycle Be Unbroken? Churches of Christ Face the 21st
Century (Abilene, Tex.: ACU Press, 1994), 67-68.
41. Ed Harrell, ?B. C. Goodpasture: Leader of Institutional Thought,? in Curry, They Being
Dead Yet Speak, 241-53.
42. Earl Irvin West, The Search for the Ancient Order: A History of the Restoration
Movement, 1919-1950 (Germantown, Tenn.: Religious Book Service, 1987), 347.
43. Harrell, ?B. C. Goodpasture,? 243.  Hughes, Reviving the Ancient Faith, 239.
44. Harrell, ?B. C. Goodpasture,? 243, 249.
45. ?They Like the Advocate,? Gospel Advocate, June 9, 1960, 356 (Thomas J. Wagner
remark).  See also Lane Cubstead, ?Standing the Test of Time: The Gospel Advocate?109
Years in Nashville,? Christian Chronicle, September 11, 1964.
21
CHAPTER 2
THE FIRST YEAR:
?TO THE TOP?
Born April 9, 1895, in Overton County, Tennessee, Benton Cordell Goodpasture
stood out at an early age; locals knew him to be intelligent, handsome, and athletic.  The
oldest of eight children, Cordell helped his father, John Jefferson Goodpasture, work the
family?s 200-acre Cumberland Mountain farm near Livingston.  He attended public and
subscription schools at several county locations, excelling in a variety of subjects, including
debate.  He also dedicated himself to Bible study, and at age fourteen had visiting preacher
T. C. Fox baptize him in the waters of Flat Creek, the namesake of both his community and
his home congregation.  Influenced especially by his mother, Elora Thompson Goodpasture,
who acquainted him with leading Church of Christ preachers of the day, the studious youth
decided from an early age to preach.  He delivered his first sermon in 1912 at age seventeen
on the subject of faith.  ?My mother instilled in my heart early in life a desire to follow in the
footsteps of David Lipscomb, E. G. Sewell, James A. Harding, and other great preachers of
the day by telling me stories of their work,? Goodpasture recollected decades later.  Two
years after he began preaching, he held his first extended gospel meeting at Baptist Ridge in
adjacent Clay County.  Reporting it to the Gospel Advocate, the influential church paper in
Nashville that he would later edit, the young preacher proudly announced, ?Nine were added
to the Lord?six baptized and three restored.?1
22
Nashville and Atlanta
In the fall of 1914, after brief stints at Burritt College in Spencer and Dixie College
in Cookeville, Goodpasture made his way to Tennessee?s capital city.  At age nineteen, with
money earned from preaching and borrowed from his father, he enrolled in Nashville Bible
School, founded in 1891 by David Lipscomb and James A. Harding.   Presiding over the2
college when Goodpasture arrived on campus was H. Leo Boles, a former student and
faculty member.   The forty-year-old Boles, who had been handpicked as school president by3
Lipscomb, became Goodpasture?s mentor, remaining influential in his life and career until
his death in 1946.  By the time Goodpasture graduated in 1918 as valedictorian, the school
had changed its name to David Lipscomb College.  Boles often commented in later years
that Goodpasture was the best student he ever had, and in 1939 he was instrumental in
bringing his star pupil to the Advocate as editor.4
Goodpasture married in 1918.  His bride was a fellow student, Emily Cleveland
Cliett of Childersburg, Alabama, who finished a year ahead of him.  They would have three
children together: Cordell (1921), Eleanor (1924), and Cliett (1933).  Shortly before he
married Cleveland, Goodpasture became the minister at Shelbyville (Tennessee) Church of
Christ, his first full-time preaching job.  He did not remain with the Shelbyville church long,
instead accepting an offer from the Gospel Advocate to serve as circulation manager.  For
the first six months of 1920, Goodpasture worked for publisher J. C. McQuiddy, preaching
to numerous churches, primarily in middle Tennessee, and soliciting subscriptions for the
Advocate.  He reported his travels in a column called ?Journeyings Often,? mixing in some
of the history of the congregations he visited.  McQuiddy, who had become acquainted with
Goodpasture through Nashville Bible School, called him ?one of our most promising young
23
preachers? when introducing him to the Advocate readership.  A church in Atlanta also
recognized his promise, and McQuiddy soon lost his dedicated circulation manager to West
End Avenue Church of Christ, where Goodpasture began preaching in the summer of 1920.5
Goodpasture labored in Atlanta for eighteen of the next nineteen years. The West
End church had been established in 1905 and was one of only three Churches of Christ in
Atlanta.  Goodpasture became the congregation?s second full-time minister, following S. H.
Hall, and he worked hard to build it up.  He also exerted great effort on behalf of Churches
of Christ all over Georgia, frequently sending in reports to the Advocate and making appeals
for support.  In 1927, Goodpasture left Atlanta for the Poplar Street Church of Christ in
Florence, Alabama.  His stay there was brief, however, as a new congregation, Seminole
Avenue Church of Christ, lured him back to Atlanta the following year.  It also flourished
under his leadership and he continued with it until 1939, when, in addition to accepting the
Advocate editorship, he agreed to preach for Nashville?s Hillsboro Church of Christ.6
It was during his time with Seminole Avenue that Goodpasture had his second
formal association with the Advocate, becoming a staff writer in 1931.  Although he gained
additional exposure, he did not make a major contribution to the Advocate in that capacity. 
Most of his work appeared under the heading, ?The Pioneer Pulpit,? a column he filled with
selections from the writings of historical restoration movement leaders.   During his time in7
Atlanta, Goodpasture also kept ties with his alma mater.  By the invitation of President
Boles he delivered the commencement address to the David Lipscomb College graduating
class of 1924.  During 1930 and 1931 he served as president of the college?s alumni
association.  In 1933, at President Batsell Baxter?s behest, Goodpasture preached the
baccalaureate sermon to that year?s class at Nashville?s Central Church of Christ.   Also8
24
during his Atlanta years, Goodpasture formed a relationship with N. B. Hardeman, president
of Freed-Hardeman College in Henderson, Tennessee.  According to Goodpasture?s
biographer, Hardeman offered Goodpasture a teaching job at the college in 1925. 
Goodpasture did not accept, but Hardeman proved to be a significant comrade during
Goodpasture?s first twenty-five years as editor of the Advocate.9
Having preached little outside of Georgia and Tennessee, Goodpasture was not well
known when he became editor of the Advocate in 1939, but he was not unknown.  He had
gained exposure beyond his preaching orbit through the Advocate, he was well-known in
David Lipscomb College circles, and he had remained close to the influential Boles.  Several
preachers knew him as a dealer in used and rare books, while others knew him as the
compiler of two books of sermons by prominent preachers: Marshall Keeble, an African
American, and longtime Advocate writer M. C. Kurfees.   Goodpasture also wrote the10
introduction to Boles?s Biographical Sketches of Gospel Preachers, published in 1932.  11
Yet, as his biographer J. E. Choate noted, ?Goodpasture was not widely known as a preacher
during the years he stayed in Atlanta outside the pages of the Advocate.?  In addition to
writing for the paper, Goodpasture, like scores of other preachers, reported to the Advocate
on his and his congregation?s activities, but ?there were not many . . . who knew of his rare
talents.?  In 1939 he did not possess the reputation, or even the name recognition, to make
him an obvious candidate for the prominent position of Gospel Advocate editor.  But, as
Choate remarked, ?H. Leo Boles was one who did [know of Goodpasture?s abilities] and
that would make all the difference in the future of B. C. Goodpasture.?12
25
The Gospel Advocate
The Gospel Advocate was founded in 1855 by conservative restoration movement
leaders Tolbert Fanning and William Lipscomb, who jointly published the monthly from
Nashville.  After the Civil War, as historian David Edwin Harrell, Jr., has noted, ?the
Gospel Advocate was the nucleus which the Churches of Christ gathered around.?   David13
Lipscomb became co-publisher and co-editor with Fanning in 1866 and soon emerged as a
pivotal leader among Churches of Christ.  Throughout Lipscomb?s tenure, which lasted until
his death in 1917, numerous men shared editorial duties with him.  Elisha G. Sewell became
Lipscomb?s co-editor in 1870 and served the Advocate until 1924.  Other editors and
important writers that served with Lipscomb included F. D. Srygley, E. A. Elam, A. B.
Lipscomb, M. C. Kurfees, and J. C. McQuiddy, who became the principal owner of the
Advocate in 1912.   Lipscomb, according to historian Richard T. Hughes, ?was chosen by14
the people? for his leadership position among them.  They ?found in him and in his Gospel
Advocate perspectives that seemed true and right.?  Reading each week the words of this
?simple servant? and ?plain man of God? who accepted the plain meaning of scripture,
southern ?common people? accepted his ?moral authority? and embraced his leadership. 
?They were people whose allegiance was to God, the Bible, and the primitive church,?
Hughes argued, ?and to them, David Lipscomb was the most consistent expression of their
ideals that one could hope to find.?15
The Advocate, although staunchly conservative and reflective of the cultural
separatism of Churches of Christ, generally considered the search for God?s truth open-
ended.  ?While [Lipscomb] was forthright about his beliefs,? Hughes observed, ?he was
nonetheless short on dogmatism and long on forbearance and moderation.?  He waited until
26
1897 to call for division with liberal Disciples.  By that time he felt obligated to ?[advise] his
readers to separate from those congregations marked by use of the instrument in worship or
by support of the missionary society.?  According to Hughes, ?Lipscomb did everything he
could do to convince his adversaries of the truth of his position,? but Lipscomb also
?respected the right of independent judgment, and sought in every way he could to foster
discussion and communication, not division, in the movement he loved.?   Lipscomb?s16
colleagues and immediate successors handled the Advocate in similar fashion.  H. Leo
Boles, who edited the Advocate in the early 1920s and wrote for the paper for more than
forty years, was one who embodied the Lipscomb spirit.  A student of Lipscomb?s at
Nashville Bible School, it has been claimed that ?no one ever absorbed his teacher?s
viewpoints more completely than did Boles.?17
In 1923, when Boles returned to the presidency of David Lipscomb College,
Advocate publisher J. C. McQuiddy appointed Nashville native James A. Allen to the
editor?s chair.  Unlike Boles, Allen was ?a raw-boned and rambunctious old-time preacher
who specialized in attacking Baptists.?   His style did not suit Leon B. McQuiddy, who18
took ownership of the Advocate in 1924 when his father died.  The two men often clashed,
and in 1930 McQuiddy replaced Allen with Texan Foy E. Wallace, Jr.   Wallace, the first19
editor of the Advocate from west of the Mississippi, was only 33 years old when he made his
way to Nashville.  He had published little and edited nothing, but he had made a name for
himself as a preacher.  McQuiddy hoped to capitalize on his fame and obvious abilities to
improve the Advocate?s lackluster circulation and extend its influence in the West, the
domain of the Firm Foundation, edited and published weekly in Austin, Texas, by G. H. P.
Showalter.     20
27
McQuiddy, however, got more of a controversialist in Wallace than perhaps he
realized.  In contrast to the Lipscomb legacy, Wallace would make his reputation as an
editor by aggressively forcing conformity on controversial issues, using the platform of the
Gospel Advocate to pressure people and institutions into taking a stand on one side or
another of battle lines he fixed firmly in place.  In 1932, after a couple of years of stable
leadership, he turned ?heresy hunter? and began crusading against premillennialism.  Open
advocacy of premillennialism was confined primarily to congregations in Louisville and
New Orleans, but Wallace, dismayed by the doctrine?s persistence and fully awakened to its
insidiousness, declared that he would tolerate it no longer.  Moreover, he intended that no
one else would either.  Preachers, churches, and especially colleges showing even a hint of
sympathy for premillennial doctrine, or those who taught it, risked his wrath and that of his
fellow crusaders.   Wallace resigned as editor in 1934, citing personal financial problems,21
and John T. Hinds, who also hailed from west of the Mississippi, replaced him.  Hinds
softened the Wallace approach, but by the late thirties many church leaders longed for the
influential Advocate to return to a more constructive leadership role.22
Selecting an Editor
The Advocate editorship became vacant in January 1938 when Hinds died after
suffering a stroke a few months earlier.   That same month, H. Leo Boles, then a prominent23
staff writer for the Advocate, mentioned to Goodpasture that perhaps he could be named the
next editor.  Boles spoke with Advocate publisher Leon McQuiddy about the same time and
suggested Goodpasture for the job.   But Boles was not the only one offering names to24
McQuiddy.  Other church leaders also displayed more than a casual interest in McQuiddy?s
28
search for a new editor.  Like Boles, they anticipated that the next editor of the Gospel
Advocate would provide crucial direction for Churches of Christ.
Texas preacher Jesse P. Sewell was one who made specific suggestions to
McQuiddy.  Sewell, an early graduate of Nashville Bible School, served from 1912 to 1924
as president of Abilene Christian College, a Texas school supported by members of
Churches of Christ.  He had also been a staff writer for the Advocate, and in 1938 was still
an influential preacher and writer among Churches of Christ.  In the 1930s and 1940s
Sewell led efforts ?to offset the fighting style? of leaders such as Foy Wallace.   With the25
Advocate vacancy, Sewell saw a perfect opportunity for the most important periodical
among Churches of Christ to reform itself and establish a wholly constructive policy.  He
also saw danger, fearing that McQuiddy might hand the editorship to Wallace or another
militant aligned with him.  Sewell had good reason to believe that might happen.  Even
before Hinds had his stroke, McQuiddy had explored the possibility of returning Wallace to
the editor?s chair.  He eventually turned away from that idea, making plans instead to launch
a new paper west of the Mississippi with Wallace as editor.  The first issue of that paper, the
Bible Banner, appeared in July 1938, and McQuiddy reportedly provided it with financial
support for two years.  At any rate, McQuiddy?s association with Wallace gravely concerned
Sewell and like-minded reformers.   Intent on preventing someone with Wallace?s divisive26
style access to such a powerful platform as the Gospel Advocate, Sewell wrote a series of
letters to McQuiddy demanding that he reform the Advocate.  He implored him to hire an
editor who would provide unifying leadership to Churches of Christ.27
In his first letter, Sewell suggested E. W. McMillan, an irenic Nashville preacher, for
the position.  He also lectured McQuiddy at length on the ?very serious and grave
29
responsibility? facing him in the selection of a new editor.  ?The paper,? Sewell advised,
?constitutes a center of influence and leadership among a large group of disciples which is
all but absolute.  The way it goes in spirit, attitude, teaching and character this large group
goes and will go. . . . I doubt if there has ever been a time when the churches and individual
Christians needed sane, conservative, careful, understanding, sympathetic, devoted, sound,
loyal, positive, aggressive, constructive leadership more than at this time.?  Sewell also
instructed McQuiddy that the new ?editor should be a man who understands the situation,
the great need at this point and who can teach and guide us out of our present unscriptural
chaotic condition.?  Sewell believed McMillan could meet these requirements, but added
that he had not discussed the possibility with McMillan.28
When McQuiddy responded by rejecting McMillan as a candidate, Sewell sent him
another lengthy letter.  He was disappointed that McQuiddy believed McMillan would
?head? a faction.  Sewell did not think this to be true, but he did agree that there were
factions among Churches of Christ ?over issues, institutions, and personal interests and
ambitions.?  And, he warned, ?each group would like to have the Advocate to promote its
ideas and interests as against all the others.?  Indeed, ?who wouldn?t like to have such a
medium, established, paid for, and influential, turned over to them to promote their views
and interests as against all others??  That, Sewell informed McQuiddy, was why his decision
was crucial.  It was his ?obligation? to make sure that the Advocate was not handed over to
one faction or another; it was his ?job to see that the Advocate makes no surrender . . . that it
serve no faction or man-prescribed issues.?29
Since McMillan was not acceptable to McQuiddy as his next editor, Sewell proposed
Batsell Baxter, president of George Pepperdine College, a recently established Los Angeles
30
school related to Churches of Christ.  Sewell considered Baxter a wise choice precisely
because he could transcend the factionalism plaguing Churches of Christ.  Baxter, Sewell
observed, had ?never been assigned even to membership in anybody?s faction.?  He
attributed Baxter?s skill at remaining unaffiliated to his personality: ?He is not the kind of
man who gets intimate with anybody.  Nobody goes crazy about him.  No one especially
loves him.  Nobody expects any special favors from him.?  Just as Baxter, when head of
Abilene Christian College and then David Lipscomb College, had managed to steer clear of
factionalism and bring opposing groups together, Sewell was convinced he could do the
same as editor of the Advocate.  Even if Baxter, who was not privy to Sewell?s suggestion of
him, rejected McQuiddy?s offer, the offer alone ?would prove to people you are willing to
keep the Advocate away from the bitterness and strife and factions.?  But, Sewell concluded,
whomever McQuiddy settled on must use the Advocate to serve the church.  He must not let
it become ?the paper of any faction.?30
Sewell subsequently corresponded with Baxter about his idea, and Baxter indicated
that he did not want the job.   In a letter informing McQuiddy of this, Sewell suggested two31
?young? men as possibilities: Wendell Bedicheck, managing editor of an Abilene daily
newspaper, and Don Morris, vice president of Abilene Christian College.  Sewell listed both
men as being about 35 years old; he praised the many attributes of each and listed reasons
why either man would be a great choice as editor.  Sewell presumed that either candidate
would need an ?older man for a few years? to get him ?settled well in the situation,? and
suggested R. L. Whiteside, an older preacher and former editor, as a candidate for that role. 
?I do not care for him myself,? Sewell confessed, but he thought that Whiteside would be
?acceptable? to even some of the most conservative and militant preachers among Churches
31
of Christ, including Foy Wallace.  But, Sewell added, although ?he is worth careful
consideration,? there must be ?a clear understanding that the Advocate is to serve . . . NO
FACTION.?32
In yet another letter, Sewell recommended Roy H. Lanier, a preacher from Texas, for
the Advocate?s top job.  ?Not a partisan or a factionist,? Sewell predicted that Lanier would
be accepted by all but the most conservative preachers, and even they would not ?undertake
to point out anything unscriptural in his teaching or life.?  Sewell went on to extol Lanier?s
many virtues, listing numerous reasons why he would be a good choice as the next editor of
the Advocate.  He summarized by stating to McQuiddy: ?If you are looking for a real
Christian man, with ability, training and experience, with no axes to grind, free from
domination by any body or any faction . . . then you will have to look a long time for a better
man than Roy H. Lanier.?33
Meanwhile, as Sewell worked to convince McQuiddy to hire the right man for
Churches of Christ, others, especially Clinton Davidson, a wealthy New York businessman,
were also looking for ways to reform journalism within the fellowship.  In June 1938,
Davidson announced the results of a recent survey of preachers regarding the church papers. 
Summarizing the responses to the first two questions, Davidson wrote: ?Expressing it
another way, we might say that 97% of those who answered the questionnaire were opposed
to articles in which one writer criticizes another writer by name, rather than condemning his
teaching, and 96% believe that the members of their congregations are also so opposed.? 
Davidson quoted numerous excerpts from responses to the survey, almost all of which
reinforced the point that he was clearly attempting to make: church members had grown
weary, even ashamed, of controversy in their papers.  Davidson quoted at length one
32
preacher who had given a church paper subscription to a family that he hoped ?would ?be
taught the way of the Lord more perfectly.??  But to the preacher?s dismay,
This paper caused this family to get a wrong impression of the church of Christ.  The
mother and wife in this family asked me to have the paper stopped, as she did not
want to read the bitter wranglings and ugly insinuations that appeared in this paper. 
I hear constantly this criticism against some of our ?oldest? and soundest papers. 
These criticisms come from members of the church, who are sound in the faith, and
who do not believe in compromising any truths, who likewise do not believe in
speculations, and the many ?isms? extant, but who stand upon Paul?s injunction,
?Speaking the Truth in love.?34
By August 1938 Davidson was communicating with like-minded reformers about
launching a new paper, one that would reflect the desires expressed in the survey.  E. H.
Ijams, president of David Lipscomb College, E. W. McMillan, minister at Nashville?s
Central Church of Christ, and S. H. Hall, a Gospel Advocate staff writer and preacher in
Savannah, Georgia, were three leaders in close contact with Davidson about the proposed
paper.   Davidson wrote Jesse Sewell at the end of August and informed him of his plans to35
buy an existing paper, the Cincinnati-based Christian Leader, which he planned to merge
with three other papers and produce ?twice monthly a magazine with better paper stock,
better typography, and better cover than any paper in the brotherhood.?  And, he added, ?the
policy will be 100% constructive;? a policy, Davidson assured Sewell, ?exactly in accord
with your ideas.?  Plans were for R. B. Sweet to serve as editor, with hopes that Sewell
would be able to help with any Sunday school literature that the new Christian Leader
might choose to produce.36
Sewell replied to Davidson that this was the first he had heard of the proposed
journal.  He liked the idea, but felt that a new paper would be unnecessary if McQuiddy
could be convinced to reform the Advocate.  On the other hand, Sewell conjectured, if
33
McQuiddy offered the editorship to a ?Wallace man, then there will have to be a new paper
or the restoration movement will be destroyed.?  The same would hold true if McQuiddy
?should select an extreme factionalist on the other side? (i.e. a premillennialist or
premillennial sympathizer).  But, Sewell insisted, ?with an editor who belongs to the Lord
and no faction in the Advocate office, there would be no need for a new paper as I see it. . . .
The need of a new journal depends entirely on who Bro. McQuiddy selects . . . and what [the
Advocate?s] policies for the future are to be.?  Sewell informed Davidson that he had been
?urging? McQuiddy to find someone who would be ?fair and just to everyone,? and who
would ?modernize the Advocate as to methods? while providing ?a positive constructive
service to all the churches of the Lord and agencies of education and service.?37
Soon after Davidson communicated with Sewell, E. W. McMillan also wrote Sewell
about ?the new paper movement.?  He insisted that the time was ripe for a new kind of
journalism among Churches of Christ: ?While the brotherhood is receptive, we must meet
their desires.?  Since McQuiddy had not yet made a decision about his editor, and had thus
far seemingly resisted pleadings to reform the Advocate, McMillan did not believe that he
would ?do anything toward allowing the Gospel Advocate to be a part of the movement.? 
To the contrary, he was of the ?conviction that [McQuiddy] ultimately will lend the
Advocate to the extreme, radical element,? meaning Foy Wallace and allies.38
As the situation developed, an offer was made on September 14, 1938, to Sewell and
G. C. Brewer, minister at the influential Broadway Church of Christ in Lubbock, Texas, to
become co-editors of the new Christian Leader, with Sewell as editor-in-chief; it was
proposed that R. B. Sweet edit the Sunday school literature instead of the paper itself.  39
McMillan urged Sewell to accept the offer even though it would require him to move from
34
San Antonio to Nashville, where the paper would be published:  ?Personally, I believe that
this offer to you is the largest that the Lord has sent your way since he made you president of
Abilene Christian College.?   Sewell indicated that he would accept his offer if Brewer and40
Sweet accepted their offers.   This plan did not go forward, however; when the new41
Christian Leader, which had absorbed the Truth Seeker and the West Coast Christian,
published its first issue on January 1, 1939, McMillan was serving as editor, with Sewell in
charge of Sunday school literature.42
Ironically, while Sewell was exerting great effort to persuade McQuiddy to reform
the Advocate, other reformers were trying to convince McQuiddy to make Sewell his next
editor.  In late August 1938, Don Morris, vice president of Abilene Christian College,
informed Sewell that he and the president of the school, James F. Cox, had ?talked several
times about the possibility of your being the next editor of the Gospel Advocate.?  They
were convinced ?that this would be the very best thing for the paper and the cause that it
represents.?  With Sewell as editor, Churches of Christ would get the ?constructive Christian
journal? they needed.  Morris and Cox, wanting to aid ?in bringing such an appointment
about,? started a letter-writing campaign on Sewell?s behalf.   Cox wrote Sewell that he had43
requested a ?Brother Scott to contact several of the leading brethren in Texas and ask them
to write Brother McQuiddy.?   A. R. Holton, a minister from Sherman, Texas, also44
participated in the Sewell campaign.  He told Sewell that he was ?taking the liberty to write
Brother Leon McQuiddy . . . urging that you be selected? as Advocate editor.   Holton45
further reported that Tom Smith, also of Sherman, had written McQuiddy ?urging your
appointment.?46
35
Acquiescing to this campaign, Sewell sent Holton a list of persons he might contact
to enlist in the cause.   He also sent McQuiddy another letter.  He acknowledged that many47
were recommending him as editor, but he wanted McQuiddy to know that he was not
interested in the position as long as the Advocate?s guiding policy remained unchanged. 
?Now, let?s get it straight,? Sewell announced to McQuiddy, ?there are no conditions under
which I would accept the editorship of the Advocate.  If it is to continue with its present
spirit, attitude and lack of constructive program I certainly would not be interested.?  48
Sewell likely would have made an effective reform editor.  As Lipscomb president E. H.
Ijams suggested, as head of the Advocate he would have exerted the greatest effort ?to hold
destructive things and destructive men in check.?   But McQuiddy, who indicated to Holton49
that he would give Sewell ?full consideration,? did not offer him the editor?s chair.50
Shortly before McQuiddy turned instead to B. C. Goodpasture, he responded to a
letter of Sewell?s with a statement of the obvious.  The decision he faced was ?a very
important one.?   A few days later he commented to Sewell on Davidson?s reform efforts. 51
?Frankly,? he stated, ?I do not believe that all the various factions in the brotherhood will
ever agree on the policy of any one paper, or any two papers, for that matter. . . . Something
must be done to wipe out [personal] differences before any settlement of [doctrinal] issues
can be attempted.?    In reply, Sewell acknowledged that ?100% agreement on the policy of52
the Advocate? was not possible, but he did ?believe [McQuiddy could] bring about such a
large percent of agreement as to make ineffective the opposition.?  Sewell implored
McQuiddy, as he had many times before, to ?decide on . . . a positive, aggressive,
constructive program, and select an editor on whom you can depend to put that kind of
program over, and to keep himself and the paper out of all the hates [sic] and bitterness
36
about him.?  Sewell implied that McQuiddy would likely be able to forestall the launching
of a new paper by Davidson if he committed the Advocate to a constructive policy.  Sewell
also indicated to McQuiddy just how much he wished for Churches of Christ to come
together in consensus:
If you will [implement a positive policy] I believe it will bring together all of the
constructive forces of the brotherhood and that in a reasonable time you will see a
spirit of confidence, trust, hope, optimism, determination and work among the
brethren and churches everywhere such as you have not seen for years. . . . Gradually
hate and bitterness will give way and love and cooperation will come among those
who are loyal to the fundamentals.53
Sewell apparently never mentioned Goodpasture to McQuiddy as a candidate for the
Advocate editorship.  By the first week of September 1938, however, McQuiddy had offered
the position to the Atlanta preacher.  Reluctant to accept it, Goodpasture did not firmly and
finally agree to take the job until several months had passed.  As soon as the offer was made,
H. Leo Boles was urging his prot?g?, now 43 years old, to accept it ?at once.?  Boles was
convinced that Goodpasture?s ?splendid intellectual attainments? and his ?loyalty to ?the old
paths? and ?the ancient order of things?? made him not only a worthy candidate for the
position but the perfect one.  He was convinced further that the coveted job represented a
natural career move: ?The present opportunity is a golden opportunity for you; it gives you
opportunity to rise ?to the top? in the brotherhood, and places you in [a] position [that] many
are now aspiring to reach.?54
Moreover, Boles feared that if Goodpasture did not accept, or tarried in making a
decision, the job?and its influence?might go to someone undesirable to them both: ?I would
regret exceedingly to see ?the ark of God fall into the hands of the Philistines?.  There is great
danger in the situation just at this time, and ?while the powers that be? have decided that you
37
are the logical man, if turned down another will be offered the proposition.  No one in the
brotherhood is better qualified for this place than you.  You just must accept the
proposition.?  Boles stressed to Goodpasture that the Advocate job would ?place you where
you can do the most good.  It broadens your field of usefulness and places you where you
can serve God in a larger field.?  Goodpasture?s potential for service to the people of God
reminded Boles of a Bible character.  ?Who knows,? he wrote, ?but that you like Esther
have come to such prominence just for the times that be, and should you fail to accept the
proposition I can not see where help will come from another source.?  Boles, in short, could
not imagine a good outcome if Goodpasture did not come to Nashville.55
In late November 1938, at least three months after McQuiddy had offered
Goodpasture the editorship, Boles wrote to Goodpasture as his ?own son,? still trying to
convince him to make the move to Tennessee.  Goodpasture, however, was not enthusiastic
about taking the job.  Speaking many years later, he reflected on that time in his life: ?It was
a great difficult matter to me [to move to Nashville] after being in Atlanta eighteen years. 
We were rather well settled in so many ways there, we loved the people, we loved the
work.?   He also recalled, according to his biographer, that he had some misgivings about56
being an editor because ?he had little experience in editing articles with no experience at all
in editing a paper.?   Goodpasture also had concerns about his asthma condition and a57
decrease in pay.  Boles addressed those concerns and repeated the arguments for
Goodpasture assuming the Advocate?s helm.  He again stressed that the job was ?an
opportunity of a lifetime; editor of the Gospel Advocate places you at once in the most
important position in the brotherhood. . . . With this honor goes the advantage of doing more
38
good than you have ever been in a position to do.?  In Boles?s opinion, Goodpasture ?would
be making the greatest mistake of [his] life in refusing to accept the proposition.?58
In late January 1939 Goodpasture finally agreed to edit the Advocate.  He59
explained some years later that despite a cut in salary he ?accepted the work because of the
challenge and the opportunities of doing good for the cause of Christ.?   Boles nonchalantly60
reported his acceptance to N. B. Hardeman, president of Freed-Hardeman College: ?Brother
Goodpasture . . . has agreed to take the editorship of the Gospel Advocate.  I suppose that
Brother McQuiddy has telephoned you as he told me last night that he would.?   Boles,61
despite his restraint, undoubtedly was both elated and relieved by Goodpasture?s decision to
take the job.  A full year had passed since he first broached the subject with him, and in that
time he had ?worked patiently, tactfully, and prayerfully? on his behalf, finally getting the
outcome he desired.62
Charting Course
With the March 2, 1939, issue of the Gospel Advocate, B. C. Goodpasture began
what would become a thirty-eight year tenure as editor.  Reporting that many readers had
inquired as to ?what changes, if any,? would be made to the paper?s editorial policy, he
hearkened to his revered predecessors.  ?The future policy of this great paper,? he
announced, ?will be that of its original founders and editors and their worthy successors all
down the years.?  He quoted at length from Tolbert Fanning and William Lipscomb, the
founding editors, and from David Lipscomb, the paper?s longest-serving editor.  He
highlighted ?their ?constant aims,?? which were to ?preach the gospel of Jesus Christ,? to
?advocate no ?claims of any party,?? and ?to do everything with the ?most kindly feelings
toward all men.??  Further observing that they ?exalted principles above persons, and sought
39
to be free from personal bitterness and recriminations,? he remarked that it was his intention
to be the same kind of editor.   With his first issue, then, Goodpasture distanced himself63
from the militant style of Foy Wallace and aligned himself with the values of former editors
like Lipscomb and Boles.64
When Goodpasture?s appointment had been announced, a month before his first
issue, readers learned that the new editor would be guided by ?an editorial committee that
will control the editorial policies of the Advocate.?   More information came in his second65
issue: ?A committee of twelve brethren with good judgment and deep interest in the great
mission of the Gospel Advocate has been selected to restate and outline the policies of the
Advocate.?  Goodpasture, it was reported, was ?in full accord with the committee?s
statements of the policies,? which were printed therewith.   E. W. McMillan, in a Christian66
Leader editorial, commended the Advocate for its decentralized  ?arrangement.?  Dividing
responsibilities between the editor and an editorial committee, he concluded, demonstrated
?wisdom . . . in these days of tendency toward centralization and individual power.?   H.67
Leo Boles was a member of the committee, as were six other preachers from Tennessee. 
Two members lived in Kentucky, while Alabama, Arkansas, and West Virginia were
represented by one member each.   Although Goodpasture would have the ?unreserved right68
to use his own judgment as to what is published in the Advocate,? the very existence of the
committee was an indication of his perceived inexperience and lack of influence.  So was the
unnamed ?group of three brethren of the committee with whom the editor will advise should
he receive a request to publish an article about which he may have doubts as to its
publication.?69
40
The policy published by the committee reiterated many of the themes found the
previous week in Goodpasture?s first editorial.  The committee reassured Advocate readers
that the paper would be ?courteous and respectful? toward other papers published by
members of Churches of Christ.  In regard to church-affiliated colleges, which were frequent
targets of attacks, the Advocate declared that ?it promotes and encourages all the good and
condemns all that is wrong in these colleges.  It has no special favorites among the colleges
and does not sponsor any one of them.?  The committee was not quite so ambiguous,
however, in stating another aspect of the new policy.  Although the Advocate would
continue to allow, as it always had, open discussion of controversial issues, there would be
no allowance for ?bitter and offensive personalities.?  ?The discussion of issues must be
dignified and edifying.  [The Advocate] will not let its columns be filled with wrangling and
the disputing about questions of no profit.?  Goodpasture would have the authority ?to blue-
pencil all slurs, insinuations, and innuendoes? and even bring the discussion of an issue to an
end if it no longer proved ?profitable to the readers.?  The committee also expressed its
desire for the Advocate to appeal more to ?young people,? to do a better job of teaching the
unsaved, to encourage local congregations and mission efforts, and generally to better ?serve
every phase of church work.?70
Despite the publicity given to the establishment of the editorial committee, it was not
mentioned again in the Advocate, and it likely never really functioned after members had an
initial meeting with Goodpasture in Nashville and subsequently published the new policy.  71
Within a few months of Goodpasture?s first issue, the Bible Banner, published in Oklahoma
City and edited by Foy Wallace, accused Goodpasture of not allowing the committee to
function as intended.  Banner staff writer Cecil B. Douthitt complained that Goodpasture
41
?refuses to comply with the policy and wishes of his chosen committee.  Some of his most
persistent objectors are on his committee.?  One unnamed member of the committee
reportedly ?asked [Goodpasture] to see an article that had been sent in for publication and
which the editor would not publish,? but was refused.  Douthitt further reported that another
committee member, W. Clarence Cooke, ?was very much displeased with Bro.
Goodpasture?s interpretation of his ?authority? as delegated by the committee.?  In a letter to
Goodpasture, Cooke insisted that ?since such a committee exists it should be consulted?
about submissions under consideration for rejection.  He announced to the editor that he was
removing himself from the committee in protest of such abuses.72
The Banner?s portrayal of Goodpasture?s relationship to the committee undoubtedly
was biased.  Goodpasture had recently refused to publish articles submitted by Douthitt in
response to a series of three articles by G. C. Brewer on dealing with premillennialists.   In73
Douthitt?s opinion, the Brewer articles, the first of which ran before Goodpasture became
editor, exhibited a ?compromising ?attitude? toward? teachers of premillennialism.  His
inability to reply to Brewer in the Advocate almost certainly colored his interpretation of
Goodpasture?s use of the committee.   However, the bias of the Banner notwithstanding, the74
paper probably was accurate in reporting that Goodpasture made little use of the committee. 
The new editor apparently relied heavily on Boles for advice instead.  Boles met with him
almost daily at the Advocate office, and those informal meetings in all likelihood represented
the extent of the committee?s work after it published the new editorial guidelines.75
As his first year progressed, Goodpasture adhered to the Advocate?s newly outlined
policy, at least as he interpreted it.  Mostly avoiding controversial issues, his editorials
frequently were non-sectarian essays that could have been printed in most any conservative
42
Christian publication.  He ended one editorial, for example, by stating, ?The example and
teaching of Jesus, if faithfully accepted, would solve the great social, industrial, and religious
problems that today vex an anxious and fear-torn world.?   Editorials that addressed76
Churches of Christ directly carried such headings as ?Unity,? ?Bitter and Offensive
Personalities,? and ?We Are Brethren,? and spoke directly to the problems of peace and
unity within the group.   Goodpasture seemed determined to set a new tone for both the77
paper and Churches of Christ.  Emphasizing that ?the church cannot live and prosper
without unity,? he employed stern language: ?It were better for a man that a millstone were
hanged about his neck and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea than that he should
disrupt the harmony and peace of a church of our Lord contrary to his word.?78
In another first-year editorial Goodpasture reminded readers of the story of Abraham
and Lot.   Abraham, although in a superior position, made peace with his nephew Lot when79
the two came into serious conflict.  The Hebrew patriarch, Goodpasture noted, believed that
?strife between him and Lot was out of the question, because they were brethren.? 
Observing that ?Abraham surrendered his rights . . . in the interest of peace,? he argued that
Christians, like Abraham, ?had the privilege . . . of giving up a right in the interest of a
superior cause.?  That cause was not merely peace, but peace between ?brethren.?  Turning
to the New Testament, Goodpasture also made note of Paul?s reprimand of the Galatian
churches: ?But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of
another.?   Delivering a reprimand of his own, he drew an unmistakable parallel between80
the Galatians and Churches of Christ:
It is stark tragedy that men?yes, brethren in Christ?sometimes do so far forget
themselves and their high calling as to engage in conduct that can be fittingly
described only in language suitable to the wild beasts of the jungle. . . . What a pity
43
that the churches in Galatia, or elsewhere, were ever divided and the different parties
pitted against each other for their mutual destruction!81
Goodpasture published several comments in support of that editorial.  Boles noted its
?timeliness,? and remarked that ?the strife and confusion that exist in the brotherhood are
rebuked in such a way that no one can take offense, and there is set forth a scriptural way by
which all may avoid being a disturber of the peace between brethren.?   Foy Wallace, on the82
other hand, was appalled by the editorial and registered complaint in the Bible Banner.  In
addition to considering it a misuse of scripture, he believed that it was directed at him and
others who opposed lenient treatment of premillennialists.   The editorial probably was83
directed toward Wallace and his cohorts, but also toward premillennialists who insisted on
promoting the doctrine, thereby ignoring ?the interest of peace.?
Goodpasture did not rely on his pen alone to convince readers of the necessity of
peace and unity among God?s people?or whatever issue was at hand; he also relied on the
words of others.  In his first issue he reprinted lengthy excerpts from earlier issues of the
Advocate, thus beginning a practice that he would continue with regularity for the rest of his
long tenure.  When reprinting excerpts, and frequently an entire article or editorial, he
usually kept his comments to a minimum, often appending a sentence like this one: ?The
foregoing articles reflect our present sentiments on the matters in question.?Editor.?  84
Although frequently criticized through the years, usually by his detractors, for being ?a
scissors and paste editor,? Goodpasture skillfully utilized reprints to demonstrate continuity
between himself and earlier editors and church leaders.85
Inaugurating another practice that would endure, Goodpasture began printing
compliments given to him and his paper.  As with the reprints, he usually did this in his
44
editorial space.  In an early issue, he printed a long excerpt from a letter praising the
Advocate, and introduced it as ?fairly representative of a large number of letters which we
have received within the past few weeks.?   In two consecutive issues in December 1939, he86
published commendations from twelve different men, some of whom were prominent among
Churches of Christ.  Athens Clay Pullias, vice president of David Lipscomb College, wrote
that ?the Gospel Advocate has never been better than it is now.?  A young preacher from
Richmond, California, Elbridge B. Linn, remarked that ?the improved general tone of the
Gospel Advocate encourages us who are vitally interested in the policy and progress of the
paper.?   A much older reader, H. C. Harris of Homestead, Florida, wrote Goodpasture that87
?the Gospel Advocate is really good?never was better. (I am seventy-four and have read the
Advocate many years.)  I wish for the Advocate the increased circulation it deserves.?  88
Although not a practice unique to Goodpasture and the Advocate, the benefits of printing
such remarks were obvious.  Placed prominently at the top of the editorial page, they served
to advertise and promote the Advocate.  They also helped a new editor build credibility,
while at the same time allowing him to respond indirectly to his critics.  With the statements,
Goodpasture conveyed that Advocate readers?whether young or old, prominent or obscure?
approved of his way of running the paper.
When, in Goodpasture?s first issue, H. Leo Boles introduced Advocate readers to
their new editor, he anticipated questions about his fitness for the job.  While admitting that
Goodpasture lacked editorial experience, he argued that he did not lack the kind of
experience necessary to be an effective editor.  And neither was he short on ability.  In fact,
not only was he qualified to edit the Gospel Advocate, he was ?eminently qualified.?  He
understood the ?prevailing conditions in the brotherhood? and, Boles suggested, held appeal
45
for a wide range of readers.  He was ?educated, well informed, cultured, intelligent,
conservative, and yet aggressive in his work as a preacher of the gospel.?  Goodpasture
could satisfy readers wanting a more professional leadership, and at the same time make it
difficult for anyone to accuse him of being untraditional.  Addressing both types of readers,
Boles declared that Goodpasture
knows the Bible, loves it, preaches and teaches it; he is no weakling; he never
compromises with error; he does not seek popularity; he never attempts to ?play
politics?; he is always kind and courteous with those who may differ with him.  He is
strong in his convictions, humble and meek in his bearing; he is scholarly and
thorough in his treatment of subjects; always courteous and cultured in his manners;
deeply spiritual and humble in his nature.  He loves the church of our Lord; he is
willing to sacrifice for the cause of Christ.  It is the judgment of his friends that the
Gospel Advocate Company is fortunate in securing the services of such a scholarly,
Christian gentleman.89
With that assessment Boles revealed?consistent with his letters to Goodpasture?that he
believed the preacher from Atlanta to be exactly what Churches of Christ needed in 1939. 
Goodpasture would be a dignified editor who would not allow the Advocate, in the words of
Jesse Sewell, to be ?the paper of any faction.?   Nor would Goodpasture, Boles judged, be90
what some called ?soft,? a description reserved for preachers?and editors?who did not
firmly, and without compromise, set forth the truths of the Bible and oppose doctrinal error.
Boles?s opinion notwithstanding, one Advocate staff writer, the progressive-minded
John Allen Hudson, was a bit wary of all the talk about policymaking.   In Goodpasture?s91
second issue, he diplomatically addressed the Advocate?s new policy by contending that the
?character? of the men ?behind a paper? naturally determined the policy of that paper.  ?The
policy of the paper they edit will correspond,? he argued, to their ?spirit and intellect.?  So,
he inquired, in what manner should a paper worthy of the ?Restoration Movement? be
conducted?  A spirit of love and forbearance was certainly essential, but it was equally
46
important that the ?papers or journals in this movement . . . be militant against all forms of
departure? from the religion that Jesus established.  Indeed, ?it is incompatible with the very
spirit and genius of the Restoration Movement for its great leaders and writers to be weak
and namby-pamby.?  Hudson had been reassured, therefore, when the Advocate ?promised
its readers to carry on as it has for the past eighty years.?  If Goodpasture kept his promise
then the Advocate would not go soft.  But if ever the Advocate ceased to be ?a medium that
is strong for the old plea? of the restoration movement, then, Hudson estimated, ?we should
need to hang our heads and weep.?92
Judging by the long association he maintained with the Advocate from 1939
forward, Hudson came to regard Goodpasture?s management of the paper acceptable.  Foy
Wallace?s Bible Banner, however, showed increasing displeasure with the new editor. 
During 1939, the monthly devoted much of its space to berating the new Christian Leader,
which it accused of seeking ?to condemn those who are not friendly to premillennialism, and
to apologize for all false teachers and doctrine under the false heading of love,? but it also
reserved adequate space to critique the Advocate.   G. C. Brewer counseled Goodpasture in93
June 1939 that ?some radicals will oppose you because you are not as radical as they.?  He
reasoned that ?this group will go to the Bible Banner.?   Those ?radicals? were drawn to the94
Banner by the presence of Wallace.  As Banner staff writer Hugo McCord explained, ?Foy
Wallace has stood for the truth and nothing but the truth [in fighting premillennialism], and I
am derelict in my duty if I do not do my little bit in helping him wage a strong battle.?95
With the Banner?s first issue after Goodpasture took the Advocate?s helm, Wallace
belittled the idea of an editorial committee as something for the editor ?to hide behind,? but
he still held out hope that the Advocate would not ?[modify] its past militant policy.?   In a96
47
month?s time, however, Wallace had lost even that bit of optimism.  He made a passionate,
but restrained, appeal to Goodpasture to apply his new policy with greater fairness.  Wallace
wrote that the Nashville editor was someone he ?held in highest esteem.?  As far as he knew,
?his personal soundness . . . [could not] be justly questioned, and in character there are no
finer men in the church.?  So what he was ?about to say carries no reflection or fling in his
direction.?  In fact, he was ?trying to say this in love.?  Wallace was chagrined, he revealed,
by a policy that allowed one writer in the Advocate ?to say about everything that he wants to
say about anything, and then invoke an editorial policy against any effective reply to it,?
having in mind G. C. Brewer?s recent series on premillennialism, especially.97
Goodpasture made an indirect response to Wallace.  Without mentioning him or the
Banner, he quoted from the Advocate?s statement of policy: ?Both sides of an issue may be
discussed freely and fully so long as the discussion is profitable to the readers.  The editor is
granted, and will exercise, authority in stopping any discussions.?  ?In closing discussions in
our columns,? Goodpasture added, ?it may sometimes seem that an injustice is done some
one; but certainly such is not intended.?   He also remarked that no ?scheme of intimidation98
. . . [would] cause [the Advocate] to deviate, knowingly, from the path of courageous,
dignified, religious journalism.?   By the next issue of the Banner, Wallace had lost99
patience with Goodpasture, going so far as to equate the Advocate with the Christian
Leader.  Wallace would not be surprised, he stated, ?for the New Christian Leader to deal in
such platitudes [as ?courageous, dignified, religious journalism?], but for the Gospel
Advocate to . . . retreat behind the verbiage of carefully worded resolutions of editorial
committees is a keen disappointment.?  No longer could the Advocate be counted on,
48
Wallace lamented, ?to take the lead in a major fight . . . with a relentless offensive against
false movements and the men who promote them.?100
Some church members who fully wished for Goodpasture to succeed also expressed
early criticism.  After he had been on the job almost two months, Boles wrote to inform him
of ?one general complaint and disappointment? he had heard from ?a great number of
preachers in Florida and Alabama and Tennessee since March 1.?  As Boles reported it,
several preachers were disappointed by Goodpasture?s lack of writing: ?They expected some
vigorous constructive teaching from you, but they complain that you use only quotation
marks.?  Since he still had responsibilities with his Atlanta church, and had not yet moved to
Nashville, Boles understood that Goodpasture did not have time to do much writing.  Even
so, Boles urged him, ?Prepare some very strong and vigorous editorials at your earliest
convenience.?  In a remark suggestive of increasingly prevalent sensibilities, Boles added
that the preachers who had expressed their disappointment ?do not expect, neither do they
want, any criticism or attacks on any evils of the day.?  But, he continued, they ?do want and
expect the editor to give vigor and strength to each issue of the Gospel Advocate.?   In101
response to Boles?s suggestion, perhaps, Goodpasture did write more in the ensuing weeks,
and the writing usually was ?vigorous? and ?constructive.?  Nonetheless, he did not cease
what would become his trademark practice of regularly filling the editorial page with
reprints, news items, and the writings of others.
That reservation aside, many leading figures expressed satisfaction with
Goodpasture?s changes to the Advocate.  Charles R. Brewer, a Nashville preacher and
brother to G. C. Brewer, welcomed Goodpasture to the city by letter, writing that he was
?pleased and grateful to God for the way in which you are conducting? the Advocate. 102
49
Allen Phy, a Glasgow, Kentucky, preacher, also offered words of encouragement.  ?I hate to
see anyone unjustly criticized as I think you are being,? he wrote, presumably having
Wallace?s public criticism in mind.  ?However,? he continued, ?your critics are few indeed,
compared with your many well-wishers.?   George S. Benson, president of Harding103
College, one of Wallace?s chief institutional targets in his war on premillennialism, wrote to
Goodpasture from his Searcy, Arkansas, campus ?to commend the fine attitude you are
maintaining in directing the policy of the Gospel Advocate.?  During his many travels
Benson had heard the paper?s new policy complimented many times, and had concluded that
?the great majority of the people are delighted with the paper, with its editor, and with the
work it is doing.?104
G. C. Brewer remarked to Goodpasture that ?there is a very noted improvement in
the paper both as to spirit and matter.  Others have noticed this and have mentioned it to
me.?  Brewer was elated by these developments because he ?had not heard a compliment of
the Gospel Advocate in five years,? but instead had been forced to ?defend the paper
everywhere.?  Goodpasture ?should not be discouraged? if the number of subscriptions was
not up yet.  ?It will take months to restore confidence in the minds of the people,? he
explained.  ?When the paper was filled with the kind of things it had in it for two or three
years, we cannot expect honest and right-thinking people to forget it at once.?   A fellow105
editor, premillennialist Don Carlos Janes, of the Louisville-based Missionary Messenger,
delivered good wishes to Goodpasture in June 1939: ?The improvement of the Gospel
Advocate since the first of the year has been very noticeable, and it has been much
appreciated.?  He further remarked, rather prophetically, that although Goodpasture might
50
have trouble following his ?high ideal? at all times, ?it is believed that it will meet with
increasing favor as time passes.?106
Goodpasture?s changes also got the attention of Jesse Sewell, who remarked to
Clinton Davidson in August 1939 that ?the Gospel Advocate has announced practically the
same policy [as the Leader] and selected an editor who seems not only disposed but
determined to carry that policy out.?   That December he voiced approval of Goodpasture107
to James P. Cox, president of Abilene Christian College: ?I Indorse [sic] Goodpasture as
editor and believe that his purpose is sincere, and that he is doing a good job.?   But Sewell108
also expressed concern.  He feared that the Advocate?s changes meant the Leader had less of
a niche to fill, with the likely result that many who had been ?giving their influence and
support to it? would lose their motivation to back it.  He was not surprised when G. C.
Brewer, an early supporter of the new Leader, suggested that the Advocate and the Leader
merge since they were serving the same purpose, in his opinion.  Sewell reminded E. W.
McMillan, editor of the Leader, that in the fall of 1938 he had warned of the Leader losing
support when the Advocate adopted the ?same program,? which he ?felt sure . . . would
happen.?  Now he was pessimistic about the Leader?s prospects for survival.  He advised
McMillan, as editor, to ?go right down the middle of the road in a clear, strong, vigorous,
confident, hopeful manner.?  McMillan should do this ?for the exultation of Jesus Christ, His
church and His truth,? and, presumably, for the survival of the Christian Leader.   The109
new Leader would not make it, however.  In late 1940 it was sold to G. H. P. Showalter,
editor and publisher of the Firm Foundation in Austin, Texas.110
51
But as historian Richard T. Hughes has argued, the new Leader did survive in a very
real sense.  During its brief existence it had ?pioneered a kind of journalism?and a kind of
theology? that together ?would move Churches of Christ further and further away from the
sectarian mentality of the nineteenth century and would increasingly celebrate the values of
conservative Protestant culture in the United States.?   Indeed, the ?new? Gospel Advocate111
was following the Leader?s lead, even if grudgingly.  Sewell and S. H. Hall, another new
Christian Leader supporter, believed that Clinton Davidson?s campaign to reform
journalism among Churches of Christ forced Leon McQuiddy to back away from Wallace
and commit the Advocate to constructive leadership.  Hall wrote to Davidson in December
1939 to thank him for his efforts and to congratulate him on the results: ?There has been the
greatest change in [the church] papers since you came on the scene of action than anything I
have ever known to take place.?   That same month, Sewell, writing to James Cox,112
remarked that ?Davidson has spent 8 or 10 thousand dollars in making McQuiddy see the
light.?  The greatest beneficiaries of Davidson?s activism thus far, according to Sewell, were
the church colleges.  Both the Advocate and the Firm Foundation exhibited an improved
?attitude toward the schools.?  In particular, McQuiddy was no longer trying to ?fight?
them.  With Goodpasture in the editor?s chair, the Advocate now seemed inclined to
cooperate rather than antagonize.113
Whatever motivated McQuiddy to take a reform approach and hire Goodpasture, the
ultimate result met with the expectations of H. Leo Boles.   Goodpasture would indeed114
?rise ?to the top?? among Churches of Christ.  By the end of his first year, having established
his way of conducting the Advocate, the rookie editor had also begun to establish himself. 
He would, in the coming years, steadily build influence.  He would form affiliations with
52
leading preachers, churches, and colleges.  He would promote church growth and unity.  He
would address one controversy after another.  He would, undoubtedly to the disappointment
of reformers like Jesse Sewell, occasionally and significantly break with policy and allow
undignified discussions of issues, and deal in ?bitter and offensive personalties.?  He would
make fierce enemies, but many more faithful friends.  He would encourage spiritual
formation and Christian commitment.  And, by the end of the 1940s, having gained the
confidence of both leading church figures and average church members, his name would
practically be synonymous with the Gospel Advocate, the oldest and most powerful
institution among them.
53
1. J. E. Choate, The Anchor That Holds: A Biography of Benton Cordell Goodpasture
(Nashville: Gospel Advocate Co., 1971), 36-50, 67.  H. Leo Boles, ?The New Editor, B. C.
Goodpasture,? Gospel Advocate, March 2, 1939, 197, 205.  Freddie Joan Armstrong Goetz
Goodpasture, From Neri to Nashville by the Providence of God, 1918-1998 (Nashville:
Pilcrow Publishing, 1998), 371-72.  Willard Collins, ?Advocate Editor Has Preached Sixty
Years,? Gospel Advocate, November 23, 1972, 745. 
2. On Lipscomb see Robert E. Hooper, Crying in the Wilderness: A Biography of David
Lipscomb (Nashville: David Lipscomb College, 1979); and Earl Irvin West, The Life and
Times of David Lipscomb (Henderson, Tenn.: Religious Book Service, 1954).  On Harding
see Lloyd Cline Sears, The Eyes of Jehovah: The Life and Faith of James Alexander
Harding (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Co., 1970).  On Nashville Bible School see Hooper,
304-07; West, 199-215; and Sears, 138-63.
3. On Boles see Leo Lipscomb Boles and J. E. Choate, I?ll Stand on the Rock: A Biography
of H. Leo Boles (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Co., 1965); Arthur Kay Gardner and John
Waddey, eds., Life and Lessons of H. Leo Boles (Delight, Ark.: Gospel Light Pub. Co.,
1987); and Fanning Yater Tant, ?Henry Leo Boles: Distinguished Preacher, Teacher,
Debater, Commentator (1874-1946),? in They Being Dead Yet Speak: Florida College
Annual Lectures, 1981, ed. Melvin D. Curry (Temple Terrace: Florida College Bookstore,
1981), 62-73.
4. Choate, The Anchor That Holds, 53-54, 68-69, 126.
5. Ibid., 81-82, 86-94.  Boles, ?The New Editor,? 197, 205.
6. Choate, The Anchor That Holds, 95-119.  Boles, ?The New Editor,? 197.  See also B. C.
Goodpasture, ?Fifty-Nine Years on the Firing Line,? lectures at Alabama Christian College,
Montgomery, March 23-25, 1971, transcription in Benton Cordell Goodpasture papers,
Disciples of Christ Historical Society, Nashville; and Ralph T. Henley, ?Benton Cordell
Goodpasture: Lover of Georgia,? Gospel Advocate, January 16, 1975, 34.
7. Choate, The Anchor That Holds, 113.  Boles, ?The New Editor,? 197.  His column also
appeared under the headings, ?The Old Path Pulpit? and ?Echoes from Pioneer Pulpits.?
8. Choate, The Anchor That Holds, 101-108, 111, 117.
9. Ibid., 104, 183, 216.  See also E. R. Harper, ?E. R. Harper Reporting,? Gospel Advocate,
October 23, 1980, 661.
10. Ibid., 113-15.  B. C. Goodpasture, ed., Biography and Sermons of Marshall Keeble,
Evangelist (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Co., 1931).  B. C. Goodpasture, comp., The
Sermon Outlines of M. C. Kurfees (Atlanta: B. C. Goodpasture, 1936).  As a source of
Notes
54
religious books for preachers, see also letter from Foy E. Wallace, Jr., to B. C. Goodpasture,
December 8, 1938, Goodpasture papers.  Goodpasture stated that he had ?some 20,000
volumes? in his collection in 1938.  See letter from B. C. Goodpasture to Mrs. D. S. Pooser,
August 6, 1938, Goodpasture papers.
11. B. C. Goodpasture, ?Introduction,? in H. Leo Boles, Biographical Sketches of Gospel
Preachers (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Co., 1932), 9-11.
12. Choate, The Anchor That Holds, 117; see also p. 123.
13. David Edwin Harrell, Jr., The Social Sources of Division in the Disciples of Christ,
1865-1900 (Atlanta: Publishing Systems, Inc., 1973), 21.
14. Robert E. Hooper, ?The Gospel Advocate: A Short History,? Gospel Advocate
[microfilm] (Nashville: Lipscomb University Microfilm, 1989), initial section of rolls 1-131.
15. Richard T. Hughes, ?The Editor-Bishop: David Lipscomb and the Gospel Advocate,? in
The Power of the Press: Studies of the Gospel Advocate, the Christian Standard, and The
Christian-Evangelist (Nashville: Disciples of Christ Historical Society, 1986), 1-34.
16. Ibid., 18-21.  See also Richard T. Hughes, Reviving the Ancient Faith: The Story of
Churches of Christ in America (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 119-23, 192-94.  See
also Hooper, A Distinct People, 21-23.
17. Earl Irvin West, The Search for the Ancient Order: A History of the Restoration
Movement, 1919-1950 (Germantown, Tenn.: Religious Book Service, 1987), 57.
18. David Edwin Harrell, Jr., The Churches of Christ in the Twentieth Century: Homer
Hailey?s Personal Journey of Faith (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2000), 93.
19. On Wallace see Noble Patterson and Terry J. Gardner, eds., Foy E. Wallace, Jr.:
Soldier of the Cross (Fort Worth: Wallace Memorial Fund, 1999); and James W. Adams,
?Foy E. Wallace, Jr.: Militant Warrior,? in Curry, They Being Dead Yet Speak, 171-86.
20. Terry J. Gardner, ?Young Foy: The Early Years, 1896-1938,? in Patterson, Foy E.
Wallace, Jr., 5-7.  Terry J. Gardner, ?Foy E. Wallace, Jr., The Bible Banner Years: Part
One, 1938-1945),? in Patterson, Foy E. Wallace, Jr., 55-56.  Harrell, The Churches of
Christ in the Twentieth Century, 93-94.
21. See Harrell, The Churches of Christ in the Twentieth Century, 57-71; Hughes,
Reviving the Ancient Faith; 137-67; Gardner, ?Young Foy,? 8-13; and L. C. Sears, For
Freedom: The Biography of John Nelson Armstrong (Austin: Sweet Publishing Co.,
1969), 274-99.
22. See Hughes, Reviving the Ancient Faith, 160-61, 194-200; Harrell, The Churches of
Christ in the Twentieth Century, 62-67, 92-94; Gardner, ?Young Foy,? 8-14; Wm. E.
55
Wallace, ?Thunder in the Thirties,? Vanguard, July 1982, 10-12; and Wm. E. Wallace,
?Widening the Breaches,? Vanguard, November 1982, 21.
23. ?John T. Hinds Passes,? Gospel Advocate, January 6, 1938, 4.  L. O. Sanderson and W.
E. Brightwell edited the paper in the interim before Goodpasture took over, a period of more
than a year.
24. Letter from H. Leo Boles to B. C. Goodpasture, September 3, 1938, Goodpasture
papers.  See also Choate, The Anchor That Holds, 123.
25. Hughes, Reviving the Ancient Faith, 196.
26. See ibid., 198-200; Harrell, The Churches of Christ, 95, 110; Gardner, ?Young Foy,?
18-19; Foy E. Wallace, Jr., ??Just the Facts,?? Bible Banner, May 1939, 8-9; Foy E.
Wallace, Jr., ?The Plain Facts Versus the N. B. Hardeman Falsehoods,? Bible Banner,
December 1947, 9-11; and Foy E. Wallace, Jr., The Present Truth (Fort Worth: Foy E.
Wallace Jr. Publications, 1977), vi-vii.  See also letter from Jesse P. Sewell to Clinton
Davidson, August 26, 1938, Sewell papers; and letter from Jesse P. Sewell to James F. Cox,
December 7, 1939, Sewell papers.  Sewell considered N. B. Hardeman to be aligned with
Wallace; he wrote of the ?Hardeman-Wallace group.?  Gardner, ?Young Foy,? 18, reported:
?In March of 1937, N. B. Hardeman approached Foy E. Wallace, Jr., with a plan to make
him editor of the Gospel Advocate again.?  See excerpts of letter from Foy E. Wallace, Jr.,
to N. B. Hardeman, January 31, 1939, enclosed with letter from N. B. Hardeman to B. C.
Goodpasture, January 30, 1947, Goodpasture papers; and letter from N. B. Hardeman to
Leon B. McQuiddy, January 26, 1948, Goodpasture papers.
27. See Hughes, Reviving the Ancient Faith, 190-216.
28. Letter from Jesse P. Sewell to Leon McQuiddy, undated, Jesse P. Sewell papers,
Archives, Brown Library Special Collections, Abilene Christian University, Abilene, Tex. 
Based on its context and the content of other letters, it was written sometime in the first four
months of 1938.
29. Letter from Jesse P. Sewell to Leon McQuiddy, May 5, 1938, Sewell papers.
30. Ibid.
31. Letter from Jesse P. Sewell to Leon McQuiddy, June 6, 1938, Sewell papers.  See also
Batsell Barrett Baxter, ?My Father Loved the Advocate,? Gospel Advocate, June 9, 1960,
359.
32. Ibid.
33. Letter from Jesse P. Sewell to Leon McQuiddy, undated, Sewell papers.
56
34. Letter from Clinton Davidson to all survey respondents, June 30, 1938, Sewell papers. 
See Clinton Davidson, ?Seeing Ourselves as Others See Us,? Christian Leader, December
6, 1938; questionnaire cover letter from Davidson to ?Preachers of the Church of Christ who
are not regular writers for religious papers,? undated, Sewell papers; circular letter from
Davidson to ?Dear Brother,? July 30, 1938, Goodpasture papers; and letter from Clinton
Davidson to G. H. P. Showalter, April 14, 1944, Reuel Lemmons papers, Center for
Restoration Studies, Brown Library Special Collections, Abilene Christian University,
Abilene, Tex.  See also letter from Clinton Davidson to G. H. P. Showalter, August 24,
1938, Lemmons papers: ?The majority of the questionnaires that we have received have
been opposed to unfair treatment of preachers by the papers, and many examples of
unfairness that would not be tolerated by the higher grade commercial journals have been
given.  I hardly believe however that these same men objected to exposing error by fair
methods.  The questionnaires also objected to the emphasis being upon the condemnation of
the individual rather than explaining what is wrong in the teaching, but again I am sure that
these same men are in favor of exposing error by fair means and in the proper spirit.?
35. Letter from Clinton Davidson to Jesse P. Sewell, August 29, 1938, Sewell papers.
36. Letter from Clinton Davidson to Jesse P. Sewell, August 24, 1938, Sewell papers.
37. Letter from Sewell to Davidson, August 26, 1938.
38. Letter from E. W. McMillan to Jesse P. Sewell, August 28, 1938, Sewell papers.  See
also letter from Clinton Davidson to Jesse P. Sewell, August 29, 1938, Sewell papers.
39. Letter from S. H. Hall, E. W. McMillan, E. H. Ijams, and B. D. Morehead to Jesse P.
Sewell and G. C. Brewer, September 14, 1938, Sewell papers.
40. Letter from E. W. McMillan to Jesse P. Sewell, September 14, 1938, Sewell papers.
41. Letter from Clinton Davidson to Jesse P. Sewell, October 1, 1938, Sewell papers.
42. Hughes, Reviving the Ancient Faith, 200.  See also E. W. McMillan, ?Editorial,?
Christian Leader, December 15, 1940, 7-8.
43. Letter from Don H. Morris to Jesse P. Sewell, August 23, 1938, Sewell papers.
44. Letter from James F. Cox to Jesse P. Sewell, August 25, 1938, Sewell papers.
45. Letter from A. R. Holton to Jesse P. Sewell, August 20, 1938, Sewell papers.
46. Letter from A. R. Holton to Jesse P. Sewell, August 31, 1938, Sewell papers.  See also
letter from Roy H. Lanier to Jesse P. Sewell, September 5, 1938, Sewell papers.
47. Letter from Holton to Sewell, August 31, 1938.
48. Letter from Jesse P. Sewell to Leon B. McQuiddy, undated, Sewell papers.
57
49. Letter from E. H. Ijams to Jesse P. Sewell, September 1, 1938, Sewell papers.  Ijams
stated that he would fully support Sewell if he was named Advocate editor, but was writing
to encourage him to accept editorial responsibilities for the new Christian Leader?s
educational materials, if plans came to fruition and the paper was launched.
50. Letter from Holton to Sewell, August 31, 1938.
51. Letter from Leon B. McQuiddy to Jesse P. Sewell, August 23, 1938, Sewell papers.
52. Letter from Leon B. McQuiddy to Jesse P. Sewell, August 27, 1938, Sewell papers.  See
letters from Clinton Davidson to Jesse P. Sewell, August 24, 1938, August 29, 1938, and
September 9, 1938, Sewell papers.
53. Letter from Jesse P. Sewell to Leon B. McQuiddy, September 1, 1938, Sewell papers.
54. Letter from Boles to Goodpasture, September 3, 1938.
55. Ibid.
56. Goodpasture, ?Fifty-Nine Years on the Firing Line,? 23.
57. Choate, The Anchor That Holds, 124.
58. Letter from H. Leo Boles to B. C. Goodpasture, November 27, 1938, Goodpasture
papers.
59. See letter from H. Leo Boles to N. B. Hardeman, January 26, 1939, Goodpasture
papers.  See also Choate, The Anchor That Holds, p. 123.  Choate explained that after
accepting the position a first time, Goodpasture?s Atlanta church persuaded him to change
his mind.  But McQuiddy and Boles ?were not easily put off,? and ultimately convinced him
to take the job.
60. Willard Collins, ?Goodpasture Completes Twenty Years with This Issue,? Gospel
Advocate, February 26, 1959, 137.  In this interview with Collins, Goodpasture described
his tentativeness about accepting the job and pressure from his church not to leave Atlanta.
61. Letter from Boles to Hardeman, January 26, 1939.
63. Letter from Boles to Goodpasture, September 3, 1938.  See also Choate, The Anchor
That Holds, 123.
63. B. C. Goodpasture, ?The Future Policy of the Gospel Advocate,? Gospel Advocate,
March 2, 1939, 196.  See [Leon B. McQuiddy], ?Advocate Will Carry On,? Gospel
Advocate, December 29, 1938, 1209.
64. And some readers might have seen Goodpasture as giving tacit approval to the goals of
the men who had launched the new Christian Leader two months earlier.  Other
58
circumstantial evidence suggests that he might also have been wary of the revamped paper. 
Foy E. Wallace, Jr., writing to Goodpasture about books for sale, and referring to their
recent ?visit? together, remarked on the impending launch of the new Leader.  He did this
with a bit of sarcasm and seemed to assume that Goodpasture shared his mistrust of this
??new deal? in journalism? (letter from Wallace to Goodpasture, December 8, 1938). 
Furthermore, H. Leo Boles displayed hostility toward Clinton Davidson.  See letter from H.
Leo Boles to Clinton Davidson, August 18, 1938, Goodpasture papers; and letters from H.
Leo Boles to F. L. Rowe, April 20 and May 6, 1939, Goodpasture papers.
65. ?Goodpasture to be Editor,? Gospel Advocate, February 2, 1939, 100.
66. ?Policy of the Gospel Advocate,? Gospel Advocate, March 9, 1939, 220-21.
67. E. W. McMillan, ?A Wise, Welcome Choice,? Christian Leader, April 1, 1939, 111.
68. As listed in the Advocate, the other committee members were L. L. Brigance,
Henderson, Tenn.; C. L. Overturf, Lebanon, Tenn.; A. R. Hill, Shelbyville, Tenn.; C. C.
Burns, Florence, Ala.; J. M. Powell, Louisville, Ky.; J. Leonard Jackson, Franklin, Tenn.; B.
L. Douthitt, Nashville, Tenn.; E. R. Harper, Little Rock, Ark.; C. D. Plum, Wheeling, W.
Va.; Allen Phy, Glasgow, Ky.; and Clarence Cooke, Cookeville, Tenn.
69. ?Policy of the Gospel Advocate,? 221.  The twelve-member committee, it seems, was
formed not only to develop editorial policy and strengthen the young editor?s credibility, but
also to reassure various constituencies, including Wallace supporters.  Committee member
E. R. Harper, for example, was Wallace?s chief lieutenant in Arkansas in the fight against
premillennialism, as he assailed Harding College in Searcy for sympathizing with avowed
premillennialists.
70. Ibid., 220-21.
71. Ibid., 220.  Choate, The Anchor That Holds, 125.
72. Cecil B. Douthitt, ??Dignified Religious Journalism,?? Bible Banner, July 1939, 14. 
Goodpasture apparently won Cooke over later, or at least his family, for he conducted his
funeral in 1947; see ?W. Clarence Cooke Passes,? Gospel Advocate, July 10, 1947, 496.
73. See G. C. Brewer, ?Premillennialism,? Gospel Advocate, February 2, 1939, 98, 107; G.
C. Brewer, ?Questions on Premillennialism,? Gospel Advocate, March 9, 1939, 224, 236;
and G. C. Brewer, ?Questions About ?Brother Brewer?s? Plan,? Gospel Advocate, March
23, 1939, 271, 279.  See also Hooper, A Distinct People, 150.
74. Douthitt, ??Dignified Religious Journalism,?? 15.
75. On the Boles-Goodpasture meetings, see Choate, The Anchor That Holds, 125.
59
76. B. C. Goodpasture, ?Peace and Good Will Among Men,? Gospel Advocate, March 16,
1939, 244.
77. See Gospel Advocate, April 27, 1939, 388; August 3, 1939, 716-17; and August 10,
1939, 740-41. 
78. B. C. Goodpasture, ?Unity,? Gospel Advocate, April 27, 1939, 389.
79. Genesis 13:1-13.
80. Galatians 5:15, King James Version.
81. B. C. Goodpasture, ??We Are Brethren,?? Gospel Advocate, August 10, 1939, 740-41.
82. H. Leo Boles, ?Commendations of the Editor,? Gospel Advocate, August 24, 1939,
789.
83. Foy E. Wallace, Jr., ?Abraham and Lot?An Ill-Timed Editorial on a Mis-Applied
Example,? Bible Banner, September 1939, 4.
84. F. W. Smith, ?Detrimental to the Truth,?and Foy E. Wallace, Jr., ?The Truth Between
Extremes,? Gospel Advocate, September 28, 1939, 908-09.
85. Goodpasture letting others use the editorial space was not a departure from the practice
of earlier Advocate editors.  Making frequent use of reprints and not publishing any word
from his own pen in another section of the Advocate (e.g. the front page) were departures.
86. B. C. Goodpasture, ?A Typical Letter,? Gospel Advocate, April 20, 1939, 364.
87. Gospel Advocate, December 28, 1939, 1230.
88. ?Some Commendations,? Gospel Advocate, December 21, 1939, 1204.
89. Boles, ?The New Editor,? 197, 205.
90. Letter from Jesse P. Sewell to Leon McQuiddy, May 5, 1938, Sewell papers.
91. On Hudson, see Hughes, Reviving the Ancient Faith, 245-46; and Hooper, A Distinct
People, 133-34.
92. John Allen Hudson, ?Province of Religious Papers,? Gospel Advocate, March 9, 1939,
222-23.  This article likely had been prepared and scheduled for publication before
Goodpasture took over editorial duties.
93. Eugene S. Smith, ?Deliverance Has Come,? Bible Banner, March 1939, 16.
94. Letter from G. C. Brewer to B. C. Goodpasture, June 29, 1939, Goodpasture papers.
60
95. Hugo McCord, ?There and Here,? Bible Banner, May 1939, 20.
96. Foy E. Wallace, Jr., ?The Fight That Has Checkmated the Premillennial Brethren,?
Bible Banner, April 1939, 2-4.
97. Foy E. Wallace, Jr., ?What Should Be Printed,? Bible Banner, May 1939, 3.
98. B. C. Goodpasture, ?Discussion of Issues,? Gospel Advocate, June 1, 1939, 500.
99. B. C. Goodpasture, ?We Make Mistakes,? Gospel Advocate, June 1, 1939, 500.
100. Foy E. Wallace, Jr., ?What the Church Must Do to Be Saved,? Bible Banner, July
1939, 2-5.
101. Letter from H. Leo Boles to B. C. Goodpasture, April 20, 1939, Goodpasture papers. 
Goodpasture and his family moved to Nashville June 1, 1939.  See Willard Collins and John
Cliett Goodpasture, comp., Sermons and Lectures of B. C. Goodpasture (Nashville: B. C.
Goodpasture, 1964), 9.
102. Letter from Charles R. Brewer to B. C. Goodpasture, undated, Goodpasture papers.
103. Letter from Allen Phy to B. C. Goodpasture, July 11, 1939, Goodpasture papers.
104. Letter from George S. Benson to B. C. Goodpasture, September 13, 1939, Goodpasture
papers.
105. Letter from Brewer to Goodpasture, June 29, 1939.
106. Letter from Don Carlos Janes to B. C. Goodpasture, June 3, 1939, Goodpasture papers.
107. Letter from Jesse P. Sewell to Clinton Davidson, August 3, 1939, Sewell papers.
108. Letter from Sewell to Cox, December 7, 1939.
109. Letter from Jesse P. Sewell to E. W. McMillan, August 2, 1939, Sewell papers.   See
also letter from Clinton Davidson to G. H. P. Showalter, August 23, 1939, Lemmons papers. 
In that letter, Davidson, without naming Sewell, alluded to Sewell?s suggestion of a merger
in his August 3 letter to Davidson.  He also quoted a letter received ?from one of the Central
states? recommending that Davidson ?merge? the Leader and the Advocate: ?B. C.
Goodpasture is doing his best to make the old G. A. just the kind of paper we want.  He is
now being attacked by the mad dogs among us.  The Leader is a heavy expense to you ? and
will be increasingly so ? now, therefore, my suggestion is to combine the Leader and the G.
A. and back B. C. Goodpasture up in his efforts.  You can make him succeed; whereas our
divided efforts may fail.  You have already accomplished a great work and when the radicals
completely fail ? as they must ? the lion?s share of the credit will go to ?Copyright?
Davidson.?
61
110. See G. H. P. Showalter, ?Future of Christian Leader,? Firm Foundation, December 10,
1940, 4; and McMillan, ?Editorial.?  See also Harrell, The Churches of Christ in the
Twentieth Century, 106; and Hughes, Reviving the Ancient Faith, 209.
111. Hughes, Reviving the Ancient Faith, 210.
112. Letter from S. H. Hall to Clinton Davidson, December 20, 1939, Sewell papers.  See
also letter from S. H. Hall to Jesse P. Sewell, December 18, 1939, Sewell papers.
113. Letter from Sewell to Cox, December 7, 1939.
114. On McQuiddy?s decision see Choate, The Anchor That Holds, 123-24; Boles and
Choate, I?ll Stand on the Rock, 171; and J. E. Choate, Roll Jordan Roll: A Biography of
Marshall Keeble (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Co., 1968), 87.
62
CHAPTER 3
THE FORTIES:
?SAFE IN YOUR HANDS?
As B. C. Goodpasture emerged from his first year as editor of the Gospel Advocate,
he was beginning to use his visible platform and inherently powerful position to establish
himself as an authoritative figure.  By the end of the 1940s he would replace Bible Banner
editor Foy E. Wallace, Jr., as the single most influential individual among Churches of
Christ.  In his second year, and in the years to follow, Goodpasture demonstrated skill at
managing controversies of various stripes and significance.  Foy Wallace was not far from
the center of any of these, and when he and the Advocate were at odds Goodpasture proved a
formidable adversary.  His deft handling of Wallace, in fact, would contribute to Wallace?s
eventual isolation.  Yet, even as Wallace?s influence faded, Goodpasture made new enemies,
many of whom took their cues from the Wallace legacy.
Goodpasture?s rising influence was not built solely upon a foundation of
controversy.  It was also constructed upon his service to a growing readership and, by
extension, the church.  As he and his stable of writers edified readers with news, information,
and instruction in the Bible, they also promoted the interests, activities, and institutions of 
Churches of Christ.  In so doing, Goodpasture developed alliances with leading preachers,
churches, and college officials.  Those relationships, while varying in depth and degree of
significance, enhanced his standing and the Advocate?s reach, not to mention church growth
63
and unity.  And while broadening the Advocate?s base he also strengthened the paper?s core
support.  Longtime subscribers who already looked to the Advocate for leadership came to
trust and respect the editor more with each passing year, and in partnership they went about
the business of teaching the gospel and building up their church.
Foes and Friends
After severely criticizing Goodpasture?s handling of the Advocate during his first
year as editor, Foy Wallace did not relent as Goodpasture entered his second year.  Wallace
continued to believe that the Advocate under Goodpasture?s guidance was becoming too
much like the new Christian Leader, a paper that he considered the epitome of ?softness?
and ?compromise.?  Like-minded individuals and periodicals looked to the Bible Banner to
lead the fight against such tendencies.  The Apostolic Times, edited by another former editor
of the Advocate, James A. Allen, praised the writing of Wallace and his brother Cled E.
Wallace.  As Allen put it, ?One Wallace is worth more than forty regiments of fawning,
sickly sycaphants [sic] who will proceed upon any policy that pays a big salary.?  He was
encouraged that Banner subscriptions were up, since ?no family in the whole brotherhood
can afford not to have the Bible Banner come to their home.  That is, if they are interested in
keeping apostacy [sic] and corruption out of the church.?1
The Wallace brothers had no intention of letting Goodpasture and the Advocate
?pass? with a soft approach to issues affecting Churches of Christ.  When Goodpasture
published ?A Restatement of Our Policy of Publication,? Foy Wallace asked: ?Why does the
Advocate keep stating its policy? . . . Is it not strange that a paper eighty years old must
ever-so-often restate its policy??  Wallace considered Goodpasture?s editorial policy a
64
?compromise [with] all classes of errorists among us? and an insult to those who were trying
to keep Churches of Christ from succumbing to doctrinal error.  It was becoming obvious to
Wallace that the Advocate could no longer be trusted to stand firm against ?false
movements.?  Even so, Wallace declared, ?if the Gospel Advocate, as big and powerful as it
is, persists in weakening the fight that is being made to save the church from depredating
men, who like wolves among us, would ravish the church, we humbly but grimly say of
them, the great Gospel Advocate, as of others?They Shall Not Pass!?2
Soon enough Goodpasture clarified that the restatement of policy had been written
by M. C. Kurfees and published in a 1912 issue of the Advocate.   A chagrined Wallace3
scolded him: ?Shame on you, Brother Goodpasture.?  To whom, he wanted to know, did the
?suave? and ?clever? editor direct the reprint?  Perhaps to ?some of his own staff writers
who do not indorse his editorials??  Wallace pointed out the irony of the frequent
restatements of policy, noting that they were an obvious attack on him, and thereby
deviations from Goodpasture?s stated resolve not to engage in ?bitter and offensive
personalities.?  As Wallace explained to his readers, it was not ?necessary to call names in
order to engage in personalities.  Brother Goodpasture is the best example of that.?  To add
credibility to his claim, he cited none other than the brother of M. C. Kurfees, J. F. Kurfees,
who wrote that Wallace ?would have to ?go some? in the use of bitter, harsh and ugly
language to beat the language [Goodpasture] used in describing those who are righting
error.?4
Goodpasture did not seem fazed by Wallace?s complaints.  He was in a position of
strength as Advocate editor, and standing up to Wallace?if obliquely?could only help him
rally the support of the growing number of Wallace detractors.  An assessment by one
65
contemporary epitomized what any number of people thought of the powerful Wallace
during the forties: ?I am not in accord with [Wallace] permitting his paper to be used to
further personal attacks upon individuals.  My idea is that if Foy had not been a preacher, he
would have been a ranger captain, wielding a big ?six shooter,? and hammering the head
[sic] of those he did not like personally.?   G. C. Brewer assured Goodpasture that Wallace?s5
treatment of him was purely personal: ?A man who is as small and as envious, and jealous as
he is certainly couldn?t see another man in the place he once occupied and not throw rocks at
him.  Nothing you do is going to be right with him.  He?ll criticize anything.?   Goodpasture,6
as one ?skeptical of the man who parades his goodness and soundness,? had his own
questions for Wallace: ?Are the defenders of truth more gifted and vigilant now than [in
David Lipscomb?s day]?  Or is it, sometimes, a matter of having to criticize something rather
than having something to criticize??  ?It is not difficult,? Goodpasture assured his readers,
?for people to find fault; it is one business which does not require large capital.?   As to the7
Advocate?s editorial policy, he was pleased that it could ?be expressed in the language of its
policy twenty-eight years ago.?  Therefore, ?to criticize the present policy of the Advocate is
to criticize its past policy as stated by M. C. Kurfees and endorsed by his colaborers.?  8
Moreover, he pointed out, the policy ?will limit the freedom of none except those who use
[bitter and offensive] personalities.?9
Wallace was not alone in criticizing Goodpasture.  Particularly severe was the
criticism of one of Goodpasture?s former staff writers, R. L. Whiteside, who left the
Advocate to write for the Banner, and whom H. Leo Boles suspected of trying ?to destroy
the Gospel Advocate? by creating friction between Goodpasture and Advocate publisher
Leon B. McQuiddy.   Whiteside was frustrated by Goodpasture throughout the forties,10
66
complaining that he regularly disregarded his own editorial policy.  He disapproved of the
?anger? that Goodpasture expressed toward others, especially Foy and Cled Wallace, and
was baffled by what he considered Goodpasture?s unfair treatment of some writers seeking
to publish in the Advocate.   Whiteside had no qualms with Advocate policy, especially ?as11
stated by M. C. Kurfees,? but he was greatly disappointed in ?Goodpasture?s miserable
failure to maintain that policy.?  The paper he had ?loved? for so long only distraught him
now.  ?How has the once great and mighty Advocate fallen!? he lamented to Leon
McQuiddy in 1947.  ?It is nauseating.?   In 1949, trying to comprehend Goodpasture?s12
unabated behavior, Whiteside surmised that ?some likely do not try to correct the editor,
fearing they will lose [his] favor.?  Nevertheless, he declared, ?the man who will shut his
eyes against wrong and kow-tow to men who he thinks are in position to grant him favors is
a sorry specimen of manhood.?13
One person that Whiteside might have had in mind when he made that statement was
Price Billingsley, a Texas preacher.  Billingsley was very much against Goodpasture in the
beginning, publicly calling him ?a panty-waist editor? in 1939.   As of 1942 his opinion14
remained unchanged.  He wrote to Goodpasture privately that year to complain of the
Advocate?s endorsement of A. R. Holton, who had just been named the minister at
Nashville?s Central Church of Christ.  Billingsley did not consider Holton ?a true gospel
preacher,? and lectured Goodpasture for giving him publicity.  ?It is just such
announcements,? he wrote, ?which deeply discourages the faithful of the Lord in what the
Advocate stands for.?  He did not expect his opinion to ?[mean] one thing to the unworthy
successor of the once-noble line of Gospel Advocate editors,? nor did he ?hope ever to see
much good come from [Goodpasture?s] pip-squeak voice.?15
67
But just four years later Billingsley had totally reformed his attitude toward the
editor.  ?Your facility to write and your unalterable stand for New Testament truth deeply
gratify me,? he informed Goodpasture in a 1946 letter.  ?I feel increasing delight in your
editorials, [and] feel that for the years ahead, the welfare of the cause of the Lord is
eminently safe in your hands.?   Three months later, retired but in need of income,16
Billingsley asked Goodpasture and Advocate publisher Leon McQuiddy for a job.   From17
that point he remained loyal and true to Goodpasture and the Advocate.  In 1956 he would
be named one of only ten members of the Gospel Advocate Five Hundred Club, a distinction
reserved for supporters securing at least 500 subscriptions for the Advocate during its
centennial year in 1955.18
Unlike Billingsley, many other preachers were in step with Goodpasture from the
very beginning of his editorship.  Like editors before him, Goodpasture relied on numerous
part-time staff writers and other contributors to supply the material for his paper each week. 
In fact, he often placed the fresh writings of these men in his editorial space.  When he
became editor, Goodpasture allowed some writers to stay on staff even when it was evident
that they were not necessarily friendly to his agenda.   At the same time, he added writers to19
the staff that presumably would uphold that agenda.  Before he had been on the job two
months he announced the addition of three staff writers, all of whom had already been
contributing to the Advocate.  These were Fred E. Dennis of Marietta, Ohio, B. L. Douthitt
of Nashville, and J. Roy Vaughan of Miami, who would become the news editor in 1949. 
Like almost all Advocate staff writers and contributors, these men were preachers.20
Being named a staff writer for the oldest periodical among Churches of Christ was an
honor for most preachers, as well as a career boost.  Roy H. Lanier, for instance, was pleased
68
to accept an offer in 1941 to write for the Advocate, informing Goodpasture ?that the
Advocate comes nearer expressing my views and reflecting my attitudes on all questions
than any other paper among us.?  Lanier hoped to retain his ?connections? to a couple of
small church papers, but would do as Goodpasture instructed, for he ?[did] not value either
of them as highly as . . . a connection with the Advocate.?   Announcements of staff21
additions continued throughout the decade as Goodpasture brought in preachers who would
prove important to him and the Advocate through the years.  Two of the most notable
additions were Guy N. Woods of Lubbock, Texas, in 1943, and Gus Nichols of Jasper,
Alabama, in 1944.22
The considerable importance of those writers and others notwithstanding, the two
most significant staff writers during the forties were H. Leo Boles and G. C. Brewer, while
the non-staff contributor of greatest prominence, if not production, was N. B. Hardeman. 
Each of these men had been involved in church affairs for decades and each carried weighty
reputations.  When they wrote for the Advocate they wrote with the authority of an editor
and their articles were always prominently placed.  Until his death in 1946, Boles,
Goodpasture?s mentor and confidant, partnered with the editor as the Advocate addressed
the various issues disturbing Churches of Christ.  Brewer was active in the Advocate during
that period, but, along with Hardeman, made his most significant contributions of the decade
after the death of Boles.
Premillennialism
One of the issues that Boles and Goodpasture approached in unison was the long-
running controversy over premillennial doctrine.  Since the early thirties Foy Wallace had
been leading a crusade against church leaders like R. H. Boll, of Louisville, Kentucky, who
69
openly taught premillennialism.  Millennial theories were nothing new among members of
Churches of Christ, and a few prominent individuals, including Nashville Bible School
cofounder and Boll mentor James A. Harding, were historic premillennialists.  But Boll,
influenced by the fundamentalist movement of the early twentieth century, came to accept
dispensational premillennialism, a complicated scheme that divided history into seven
dispensations.  Most church leaders considered dispensationalism useless speculation at best
and heretical doctrine at worst.  From 1909 to 1915 Boll was front-page editor of the Gospel
Advocate and was popular with readers.  By 1915 the senior staff of the paper, believing that
dispensationalism dangerously compromised the central importance of the church, precluded
Boll from teaching the doctrine in the Advocate.  He left the Advocate and began editing the
paper Word and Work.  Now free to espouse premillennialism, his advocacy of the doctrine
received increasing negative attention in the 1920s.
In 1927 H. Leo Boles debated Boll on the subject in the Advocate.   Boles, although23
in sharp disagreement with Boll, did not consider premillennialism a doctrine worth breaking
fellowship over.  The tone of the controversy soon turned much more negative, however. 
Foy Wallace, appalled by the dispensational view of the church, demanded that
premillennialists keep their views private or risk a break in fellowship.   In March 1934, in24
one of his last editorials for the Advocate, he called for ?war? against not only those who
taught premillennialism, but also those in ?sympathy? with them.  He urged ?a purging . . .
of teachers on the faculties of the schools, leaders in churches, and in journalism,? where
both premillennialists and their ?supporters? lurked.  He declared that any preacher
unwilling to join the fight, ?but who criticizes those who do, is not a safe leader.?25
70
Wallace?s frustration with Goodpasture?s handling of the Advocate had much to do
with this ?war? on premillennialism.  He was dismayed by Goodpasture?s refusal to take a
firm stand against the doctrine, and infuriated by his intimations that Wallace, by ?dwelling
on? premillennialism, was a ?rabid hobbyist.?   Goodpasture would in time show definite26
disapproval of premillennialists and their doctrine, recommending, for example, that local
churches take steps to ?safeguard [church] property from seizure by any premillennial
faction,? and advising that those who taught ?the heretical theory of premillennialism? be
publicly exposed.   Yet, unlike Wallace, he never declared ?war.?  In his first public notice27
of the controversy, in June 1939, he offered a rather staid historical overview of millennial
doctrines.  Observing that such teachings ?never became the faith of the church,? his remarks
constituted nothing more than a polite reprimand of R. H. Boll, who argued that
premillennialism was an ancient, and thus acceptable, doctrine.28
But Goodpasture soon became more direct, even caustic, about the issue.  When a
letter writer suggested that he use his editorial page to explain that the premillennial view
was in line with biblical teaching, Goodpasture scoffed: ?The editor cannot do the
impossible.?   And when it was revealed that Don Carlos Janes, a Louisville preacher and29
editor, had made funds available in his will for premillennialism to be taught as an
?orthodox? doctrine, Goodpasture jeered.  Noting Janes?s claim that many restoration
movement leaders of the past held the doctrine, Goodpasture remarked that he could ?recall
the name of no ?pioneer preacher? who thought enough of any premillennial theory to make
provisions in his will for its propagation.?30
Boles, also rejecting premillennial doctrine, longed for premillennialists to keep their
views to themselves, and he worked until his death to convince them to agree to do just
71
that.   Like Goodpasture, he had never heeded Wallace?s declaration of all-out war but did31
hold that both the premillennial ?theory? and justifications for teaching it were riddled with
?fallacies.?   He believed it dangerous to be ?in sympathy with the speculations of32
premillennialists,? reporting in 1941 that at least eight preachers taught by Boll had left ?the
churches of Christ? and were now ?affiliated with some denomination.?   Included in that33
number was the minister of a Horse Cave, Kentucky, church.  Boles had led in publicizing
the move by that ?church away from the fellowship of the churches of Christ and into the
fellowship of the Christian Church.?  Blaming premillennialism as a primary cause for this
?sad departure,? Boles explained that it was ?a well-known fact that those who are under the
influence of the premillennial theory have preferred the fellowship of sectarians rather than
the fellowship of those who oppose their theory.?34
By 1940 Wallace had already all but vanquished the ?Bollites? from fellowship with
mainstream Churches of Christ.   He considered his task unfinished, however, because he35
believed too much sympathy still existed for premillennialism and its teachers.  During one
particular episode, Goodpasture contributed to Wallace?s lingering crusade more than at any
other time.  In 1945, Norman Davidson, a Chicago businessman, asked Goodpasture to
publish a ?statement? from Boll, along with ?introductory remarks? from himself.  Like
others before him, Davidson was endeavoring to bring about grassroots support for an
amicable resolution to the controversy over premillennialism.  His proposal was unique in
two ways.  First, he was not a preacher or a national leader in any sense, and, second, he was
willing, as he wrote to Advocate publisher Leon McQuiddy, to ?by-pass? the ?religious
hierarchy in [the] Brotherhood,? if necessary.  Having been rebuffed by Goodpasture,
Davidson was imploring his friend McQuiddy to help clean up the ?ungodly mess? caused
72
by differences over millennial doctrines.  Knowing that Goodpasture, whom McQuiddy had
placed ?absolutely in charge of the Advocate,? would likely continue to resist requests to
publish the Boll statement, Davidson had readied himself to ?fight? the powerful editor. 
?And, in this,? Davidson informed McQuiddy, ?he will not be fighting preachers who are
afraid of him, and whom he can ruin, if he wishes to do so.?36
Most likely, Davidson?s plans became controversial only because McQuiddy shared
the letters with N. B. Hardeman.  Hardeman, in turn, without the permission or knowledge
of McQuiddy, provided copies of the letters to others, including Foy Wallace, who
subsequently printed them in the Banner.   To Wallace, Davidson?s plan boiled down to37
this: ?In order to restrict the preaching of error, by a compromise Norman would limit the
preaching of the truth.?   Wallace and his brother Cled devoted the entire July 1946 issue to38
?the Davidson by-pass,? filling it with ridicule and scorn for Davidson and his plan.  Cled
compared Norman Davidson to Clinton Davidson, the New York businessman who had
bankrolled the new Christian Leader and who had strong ties to premillennialists.   The39
?Davidson Twins,? he charged, had the same problem: ?unsoundness of doctrine.?  40
Goodpasture had little to say when the Davidson letters were published by the Banner.  He
dispensed with Davidson for the time being by suggesting that the premillennialists could
have ?peace? if they would ?give up the teaching of their speculative and heretical views and
hold them strictly as private opinions.?41
But the next year, 1947, Goodpasture?s hand was forced when Davidson convinced
McQuiddy to let him have access to the Advocate?s mailing list since Goodpasture would
not cooperate with him.  Because Goodpasture?s readers received the Boll statement and
Davidson?s comments in the mail ?courtesy of [the] Gospel Advocate,? Goodpasture felt
73
obliged to spend the next several weeks reviewing the two pieces.   Clearly displeased with42
the decision to mail the material, he belittled Davidson by almost exclusively referring to
him as the ?Furniture Designer,? a sarcastic allusion to his business, the implication being
that Davidson was unqualified to orchestrate any agreement between premillennialists and
those who opposed them.  Goodpasture further ridiculed Davidson for believing he could
?graft the dead bough of premillennialism to the living tree of divine truth and make it to
bloom.?  And in attempting ?to play the role of apologist for premillennialism, its supporters,
and sympathizers,? Davidson made ridiculous arguments, Goodpasture contended, in the
process misconstruing both Boll?s and his opposition?s historical conduct.   Now having43
stepped into ?the role of what he styles ?self-appointed leaders,?? Goodpasture thought it best
for Davidson to follow his own advice and quit ?meddling? in affairs he knew little about.44
With his scorching of Davidson, Goodpasture helped Foy Wallace all but finish off
premillennialism within Churches of Christ.  More significantly, though, he forcibly
demonstrated that he was an enemy, not a friend, to premillennialism.  Wallace had, after all,
made such a stance necessary for anyone in a place of leadership, including the editor of the
Gospel Advocate.  Goodpasture?s treatment of Norman Davidson, moreover, proved typical
of his treatment of anyone who stridently opposed him.  Davidson had not been?and would
not be?the only person unable to convince Goodpasture to let contrary perspectives get a fair
hearing in the Advocate.  Nor would he be the only one to receive a stinging and isolating
rebuke from the increasingly powerful editor.
Unity Movement
In 1936, conservative Christian Church leaders led by James DeForest Murch of the
Cincinnati-based Christian Standard approached some Church of Christ ministers with a
74
unity proposal.   Frustrated that the two groups remained divided despite sharing a common45
nineteenth-century heritage in the restoration movement, these men hoped to find enough
common ground to encourage local congregations to enter into fellowship with one another. 
Believing that only two historic issues barred the way?instrumental music in worship and
missionary societies?organizers in 1938 held the first of what would be four annual
?national unity meetings.?   Churches of Christ had long voiced strong opposition to46
missionary societies and instrumental music in worship because such practices were not
authorized by the New Testament.  Standing between Churches of Christ and liberal
Disciples of Christ, who accepted higher criticism of the Bible, were moderate Christian
Churches.  In the late 1920s these churches, which were not opposed to instrumental music,
missionary societies, and other ?innovations,? but were opposed to modernism, had
distanced themselves from liberal Disciples.   Attempts at rapprochement with the more47
like-minded Churches of Christ soon followed.
Just about the time that Goodpasture began editing the Advocate, Claud F. Witty, a
Detroit preacher and the lead Church of Christ figure in the unity movement, asked Boles, as
someone who could ?command the respect of [his] brethren,? to be on the program for the
1939 unity meeting at Indianapolis.   Boles agreed and gave a speech that likely did a great48
deal to kill the movement.  His speech demonstrated that Murch, Witty, and other organizers
had underestimated the commitment of most among Churches of Christ to strict adherence of
what they viewed as the New Testament pattern for church worship and practice.  Insisting
that unity could be achieved only if Christian Churches abandoned a number of unscriptural
practices?including use of instrumental music in worship and missionary societies?Boles
made it difficult for Church of Christ leaders to continue in the movement without appearing
75
open to compromise.   As Boles explained in the Advocate, ?No faithful Christian can49
cooperate in any union movement that involves one in recognizing any unscriptural
authority, any human authority.?50
Goodpasture made it clear from the beginning of his editorship that he had a low
opinion of the unity movement, and he affirmed his mentor?s position: ?Brother Boles has
presented the only safe and acceptable grounds of unity.?   Two years later, shortly before51
the 1941 national gathering, Goodpasture wrote that he had ?never been enthusiastic about
these ?unity meetings?? and ?never expected much good to come from them.?  Although ?no
one should fail to encourage any scriptural effort toward unity . . . it should be remembered
that any unity attained on grounds other than those revealed in the sacred oracles is not
worth the time involved in its attainment.?  Churches would be wiser to spend their time
?preaching the primitive gospel? than to participate in gatherings ?producing more problems
among us than they are solving.?52
When criticizing the movement, Goodpasture made only a few references to Claud
Witty.  Boles, on the other hand, scolded the Church of Christ preacher in the Advocate:
?How long,? he wrote in 1941, ?will it take you to tell Murch and associates that there can
be no unity until they give up the use of the instrument in worship and the missionary
society??  To Boles there were only two possible explanations for Witty?s continuing
involvement in the unity movement: ?Either he does not see the snare or trap of Murch
and associates into which he has been caught, or he is willfully attempting to lead the
brethren into the ranks of denominationalism.?53
Goodpasture directed most of his criticism toward Murch.  When Murch extolled the
progress of the movement in an issue of the Christian Standard in early 1942, Goodpasture
76
countered with a series of editorials filled with scorn for Murch?s appraisal.  Murch had
listed fifteen ?straws in the wind? that indicated progress between the two groups. 
Goodpasture dismissed these as irrelevant, insignificant, or inaccurate, and wrote of Murch:
?He is trying to salvage what he can from a sinking cause.  It is little wonder that he grabs at
straws.?  The straw that most chagrined Goodpasture was the fifteenth one, which Murch
described as
an encouraging independence of thought and action regarding unity . . . among the
younger ministers of the ?Churches of Christ.?  The present center of opposition is
among the older men who occupy places of prominence in the pulpit and press of the
brotherhood.  A small coterie of not more than a hundred self-appointed men exercise
a power over the rank and file of the ministers which is comparable to the power of
the bishops in the Methodist Churches.
Goodpasture dismissed these charges by responding that the ?older men? did indeed ?stand
firm for the ?old paths? against every innovation.?  As for the ?young preachers,? Murch was
right, they certainly were independent thinkers?independent enough not to ?bow the knee to
Baal? in ?compromise? with the Christian Church.   To back up his claim, Goodpasture54
printed excerpts from letters received from young ministers.  ?Rest assured that the younger
preachers of the church of Christ,? wrote Tom W. Butterfield of East Liverpool, Ohio, ?have
no intentions of letting the Witty-Murch movement get far. . . . It may sound Witty to some
folks, but it does not mean Murch to serious-minded preachers of the gospel, whether young
or old.?   Another young preacher, J. A. McNutt of Muskogee, Oklahoma, wrote55
Goodpasture that his editorial was ?one of the finest . . . from anybody?s pen in a long time. 
It is a concise and clear-cut answer to the kind of propaganda being issued by the Witty and
Murch board of strategy.?  C. A. Norred of Fort Worth, Texas, responded to the editorial by
writing that he was ?profoundly grateful to God for the influence of the Gospel Advocate.?56
77
Goodpasture was pleased when a few months later he could report that Murch and
Witty had announced that no more meetings would be scheduled ?until after the war.?  57
Very little happened when World War II ended, however, making the last substantial unity
gathering the one at Columbus, Ohio, in May 1941.   As in the premillennial controversy,58
Goodpasture used a combination of reason and ridicule to undermine a movement he
considered unscriptural and threatening to Churches of Christ.  His view was espoused in
virtually all Church of Christ papers and it did not take a lot of effort to break the will of this
particular minority movement.  Additionally, as with the premillennial controversy,
Goodpasture risked little by criticizing movement leaders, who essentially were outsiders. 
Murch, of course, belonged to another fellowship and some Church of Christ participants,
like Don Carlos Janes, of Louisville, Kentucky, were premillennialists.  The issue gave the
editor an early opportunity to demonstrate that he was not one to compromise on biblical
truth, and he took advantage.
The War Question
A third issue affecting Churches of Christ in the early forties was the ?war question.? 
Pacifism had a long history among Churches of Christ, due in part to the influence of
cultural separatists like David Lipscomb and his Nashville Bible School cofounder James A.
Harding.  Although the doctrine probably never was held by a majority of church members,
it became much less prevalent as a result of World War I.  With the advent of World War II,
pacifism lost even more favor as Churches of Christ increasingly left behind attitudes of
cultural separation.   Goodpasture, however, remained committed to pacifism, a teaching he59
would have picked up when a student of Boles at Nashville Bible School, if not before, and
during World War II he had no greater ally on the issue than Boles.   Some Advocate60
78
readers also maintained their pacifist views.  One thanked Goodpasture for ?stand[ing] with
the Bible on teaching against a Christian killing in the name of his government and with
those who are conscientiously opposed to killing.?   Most church members, however, were61
no longer enamored with pacifism.  Foy Wallace was among those who switched from a
pacifist to patriot position during World War II.   Boles attempted to engage Wallace, his62
brother Cled Wallace, and others in formal debate on the issue, but to no avail.   As the war63
progressed, however, an ample amount of informal debate took place between the Banner
and the Advocate on the question of Christian participation in warfare.
Goodpasture, aware that his position was increasingly in the minority, steered a
middle course on the issue.  Rather than insist on his view, he chose to make the Advocate
useful to non-combatants and conscientious objectors by providing them with information
and otherwise coming to their aid.  In November 1939 he printed two forms on the editorial
page that could be used to apply for non-combatant service or exemption from military
service of any kind ?in case this nation should be drawn into war.?  The applications had
?been used by many of the churches of Christ? and were written specifically for them.  64
Goodpasture more obviously indicated his bias toward the pacifist position a few months
later when he wrote, ?So long as [the conscientious objector] accepts the teaching of Christ
as the supreme and final source of authority in his life, he must believe that he owes his first
and chief allegiance to a King whose kingdom is not of this world.?   Boles expressed65
similar sentiments, explaining to one reader that he did ?not see how a Christian can destroy
property and kill anyone in war.?   In the Advocate he advised ?young Christian men [to]66
ponder seriously these things and make up their minds and do as the Lord teaches them to
do.?  He left no doubt as to what he believed the Lord?s teaching to be: ?If one engages in
79
the business of a soldier and trains to practice the destruction of his fellows, he cannot walk
in the footsteps of Christ at the same time.?67
Once the United States entered the war, Civilian Public Service Camps were
established for religious conscientious objectors.  The men in these camps did various kinds
of work and were required to pay thirty-five dollars a month for their upkeep.  Goodpasture68
encouraged Advocate readers to provide financial support for the relatively few Church of
Christ members assigned to these camps.  On his editorial page he printed a letter from an
Arkansas preacher who reported that at least nine young men from Churches of Christ were
in a nearby camp and were ?being supported by the United Brethren Church? because their
families could not provide funds.  Goodpasture, remarking that ?it is our responsibility,?
agreed with the preacher that the young men should receive financial support from the
churches, preferably their home congregations.   Boles also concurred, complaining that69
?some of the treatment that they are receiving from professed church members is shameful.? 
Hearing that a church elder had called the conscientious objectors ?cowards,? Boles
remarked, ?It takes greater courage to suffer as these young men are doing than it does to
persecute them.?  And Boles thought it ?strange that the churches of Christ would let some
denomination support its members? in the camps.  In his opinion, ?the home churches of
these boys should . . . help support them.  A church that will not help one of its members . . .
is unworthy of the name of a church of Christ.?70
In March 1943, Goodpasture printed a letter reporting that three pacifist groups
(Society of Friends, United Brethren, and Mennonites) had spent approximately $11,500
through October 31, 1942, to care for seventy-three Church of Christ men in camps across
the country.  Goodpasture later printed a list of seventy-eight names from twenty-three
80
camps.   He then published an announcement on the editorial page from the Service71
Committee for Conscientious Objectors.  Formed in Los Angeles, the committee?s purpose
was to facilitate the delivery of funds ?in a businesslike manner? to members of Churches of
Christ in the camps, and to clear the ?stigma? of letting ?the denominations support our
boys.?  The committee pledged ?to keep the church informed? of the number of men in the
camps and the amount of support they needed so that ?all interested persons? could help.72
Goodpasture became increasingly perturbed at church members who questioned the
sincerity of the conscientious objectors.  While agreeing that some ?cowards and hypocrites?
without sincere beliefs applied for conscientious objector status, he contended that,
nevertheless, ?there are persons who have well-grounded convictions against taking human
life.?   Cled Wallace, writing in the Bible Banner, antagonized Goodpasture by suggesting73
that the Church of Christ ?boys? in the camps should be cared for by those ?responsible for
teaching? them ?the kind of impractical idealism that put them where they are.?   Incensed,74
Goodpasture pointed out that just a few years before the war Foy Wallace had criticized the
patriot position.  From Wallace?s earlier paper, the Gospel Guardian, Goodpasture retrieved
this damning statement: ?It is to be greatly deplored that some brethren will write articles
that even point in the direction of Christians engaging in carnal warfare.?  Goodpasture
noted, sarcastically, that perhaps some of those in the camps were ?made ?conscientious
objectors? by such sentiments.?   G. C. Brewer, a patriot, reckoned that perhaps75
Goodpasture?s ?editorial notice? of the Wallace brothers ?was more honor than these scamps
deserve.?  Even so, the editorial ?put the B.B. where it belongs.?   Foy Wallace, on the76
other hand, reasoned that Goodpasture hoped ?to discredit those who still fight . . . for the
truth and for the church.?77
81
Wallace may have been right that Goodpasture was attempting to discredit him. 
Goodpasture seemed to be following advice that he had received a year earlier from one
observer of the developing controversy.  Seeing that Goodpasture had ?fallen into the hands
of that pack of Texas coyottes [sic],? meaning Foy and Cled Wallace, a ?J. H. S.? wrote the
editor confidentially from Jacksonville, Florida, offering ?assistance.?  Obviously known to
Goodpasture, he advised his friend to ?take advantage? of a recent article by Foy Wallace
and ?put him on the defensive and keep him there.?  To do this, he should not appeal to
scripture since ?a large per cent of the church members take the combatant side of this
question.?  Rather, ?ridicule and sarcasm? would be his ?fort,? and would allow him to
?beat the tar out of [Wallace].?78
Goodpasture would fully heed this advice in May 1943, penning an editorial that
?was just what [Foy and Cled Wallace] needed,? according to G. C. Brewer.  It was proper
to highlight their ?chameleon character,? he claimed, since ?war is only the latest subject
on which they have swapped sides.?   Clearly attempting to impugn Foy Wallace?s79
integrity, Goodpasture documented how Wallace had changed his position only after the
Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.  Goodpasture claimed that since Wallace ?never expressed
himself in stronger terms on any question than he did on the ?war question,? some are
wondering if he will ?retract? on the premillennial question. . . . In time of peace he had his
1936 policy; in time of war he has another; what will be his policy six years hence?? 
Goodpasture did not doubt that Wallace was ?on the popular side of the ?war question,?? but
not being so unstable himself, Goodpasture would ?not retract and join the popular side
when the going becomes hard.?   Wallace responded by accusing Goodpasture of forsaking80
his editorial policy; he had no doubt that the editorial ?descended to the plane of low
82
personalities.?   Cled agreed with his brother: ?The habitually calm and gentlemanly editor81
of the Gospel Advocate has shed his meticulous decorum and gone after us with hammer
and tongs.?82
The episode made such an impression on R. L. Whiteside that some years later he
still held out hope that the pacifist editor would apologize for doing his ?best to kill two
preachers.?  Regrettably, ?in trying to destroy the influence of the Wallaces,? he wrote his
former editor, ?you injured yourself.?   But Whiteside?s judgment was most likely in error. 83
Goodpasture?s attempt at discrediting and isolating Wallace probably hurt the increasingly
unpopular Wallace more than it hurt the increasingly influential Advocate editor. 
Goodpasture tolerated the patriot position, just as his pacifism was largely tolerated, and
although he supported conscientious objectors and non-combatants, he did not condemn the
young men who chose to fight.   He was not so moderate with Foy Wallace, but the tack he84
took with him only enhanced his influence with consensus-oriented church leaders.
Institutional Issues
After Boles died in 1946, and Goodpasture no longer had his mentor and confidant
by his side, the issue of the decade emerged.  Known as the institutional controversy, it
would lead to a significant schism by 1960.   The controversy revolved around two related,85
intertwining issues: the proper, biblical relationship of congregations to church-related
institutions, and the proper, biblical limits of congregational cooperation.  In a fellowship
which required biblical authority for all aspects of church work and worship, and which
placed great value on congregational autonomy, and which shunned denominational
behavior, these were questions of great import.  In the case of the first issue, the turmoil
centered on colleges and schools before expanding to orphanages and other benevolent
83
institutions.  In the second instance, the commotion initially concerned mission works but
would come to include media ventures.  The issues were not completely new, but large-scale
efforts to fund colleges and postwar missions brought them to the fore.
Although Goodpasture wrote little about the institutional controversy during the
forties, he nevertheless set the Advocate?s direction on the issues by giving space to G. C.
Brewer and N. B. Hardeman, both of whom wrote significant articles on the issues from an
institutional viewpoint.  Brewer, born in 1884, was an outspoken preacher who during his
career held prominent pulpit positions at some of the largest churches in Tennessee and
Texas, and who was well-known for promoting progressive attitudes and methods.   When86
Goodpasture became editor of the Advocate, Brewer began courting his favor.  He had
appeared in the Advocate only sporadically since 1934, the year he and then-editor Foy
Wallace had publicly sparred over their respective approaches to premillennialists.   Thus87
he was anxious ?to put the brethren right in regard to me and my teaching,? as he explained
to Goodpasture in 1940.  Ever since Wallace had declared him ?unsound,? not to mention
his ?rather desultory appearance? in the Advocate, there had been ?a decrease in the things?
coming to him.  Hoping that Goodpasture would allow him ?the opportunity of getting
back,? Brewer made a fervent request of the editor: ?I want to write a number of articles on
very basic and fundamental principles, and I want to appear in the Gospel Advocate every
week for at least eight, ten, or twelve weeks. . . . There is no reason why my writing should
not be as widely read again, or that my discussion of points might not be as much in
demand.?88
After Boles?s death, Brewer campaigned to become heir to his prominent place in the
Advocate.  ?The death of Bro. Boles has indeed left a gap,? he wrote to Goodpasture.  ?If I
84
can help in any way to carry apart [sic] of the responsibility that he laid down I shall be
happy to do so. . . . I once wrote a double page - full opening each week [for the Advocate]. 
I was also once first page editor.  I have lost none of my interest and I now have the added
interest in my desire to help you.?   Goodpasture was glad to make Brewer a mainstay of89
the Advocate, even to the point of imploring him not to cut back his writing just because of a
busy schedule, reminding him that it was ?reaching more people and doing more good than
at any time in your life.?90
Although Brewer wrote on many subjects in the Advocate in the forties?including
important articles on the premillennial controversy?his most significant writings promoted
institutional attitudes.   In 1943, he published a series urging churches to follow his91
congregation?s lead in preparing for postwar missions.   Publishing in both the Advocate92
and the Firm Foundation?a leading weekly out of Austin, Texas?Brewer agitated for vastly
expanded mission efforts, which had always been small in scale among Churches of Christ.  93
Not shy to espouse grand ideas, Brewer was convinced that the postwar world would provide
the opportunity to carry out ?such a campaign of missionary work as the world has never
known.?  But if Churches of Christ were going to accomplish this ?within twenty-five years
after peace has come,? they must ?now begin to get ready.?  To that end, Brewer?s church,
the prominent Broadway congregation in Lubbock, Texas, tried to set the standard for long-
range planning by agreeing to ?sponsor? this new vision for Churches of Christ.  While
continuing to support the foreign and domestic mission work that it was already committed
to, Broadway was setting aside funds for additional ventures when the war was over.  In this
sense, Brewer explained, Broadway was ?[taking] the lead in asking churches everywhere to
begin preparing and planning for the postwar effort.?  He encouraged churches ?to sponsor
85
and support? willing ?young men and young women? so that when the war ended ?two
thousand? could be sent abroad.94
Although vague on just how Broadway would go about sponsoring missions after the
war, Brewer?s articles raised red flags at the Bible Banner.  One writer, Ted W. McElroy,
judged Brewer?s ?plan? to be ?contrary to the New Testament.?  He recognized in the plan
an arrangement akin to a missionary society.  Just as McElroy did not want a centralized
agency determining his congregation?s mission work, he did not want his church ?to be
under the sponsorship of the Lubbock church in any way.?  Since it was ?a scriptural
principle that one church cannot sponsor another regardless of how small or how large,?
McElroy charged that ?whatever? the design of Brewer?s plan, ?it will be unscriptural.?  95
Cled Wallace also took a negative view of Brewer?s postwar plan: ?It invariably puts me on
my guard when somebody introduces a Committee, a Plan or a Sponsor and begins to cross-
question the brethren and the churches on a ?nation-wide scale.?? And since it appeared ?as
though the Advocate were minded to furnish both the race-track and the gallery for such a
race as ?the world has never known,?? Wallace?s misgivings about Goodpasture?s reliability
as a defender of scriptural truth grew more profound.  The Advocate had been ?traditionally
conservative? on sponsoring-church arrangements, in which one congregation received funds
from other churches and forwarded them to a mission field, but Wallace was not sure what to
think about the paper?s stance now.   For the rest of the decade, however, not much was96
written in the Advocate or the Banner about Brewer?s plan or even sponsoring-church plans
in general.  The timelier institutional topic became congregational support of the church-
affiliated colleges.
86
Among Churches of Christ there had long existed a small minority of members who
took a principled stand against even the existence of colleges in which the Bible was taught. 
Their recognized leader was Daniel Sommer, a Midwest editor born in 1850.   He reasoned97
that just as missionary societies were ?human organizations? carrying out a duty of the
church, in this instance the propagation of the gospel, colleges that taught the Bible likewise
usurped a central function of the church.  In the late forties some inheritors of Sommer?s
views, like Carl Ketcherside of St. Louis, kindled some interest in the issue.  The question
more often debated, however, was the financial support of such schools, not their existence.
Few church members opposed individuals establishing Christian-oriented schools
and colleges, but supporting private institutions directly out of the congregational treasury
was another question altogether.  To most, such a practice constituted an unscriptural use of
a congregation?s funds, and did indeed make the colleges agencies of the church (that is,
tantamount to missionary societies).  Instead, schools and colleges owned and operated by
church members were to be funded by individual Christians, as each saw fit.   But in 193398
G. C. Brewer wrote a lengthy series of articles in the Advocate arguing the opposite.  He
claimed that it was scriptural for churches to donate money to the colleges, and that there
was plenty of precedent for such a practice.  He also asserted that the schools were worthy of
congregational support for the simple reason that they were beneficial to the church.   At99
that point the issue smoldered.  The following years witnessed occasional flare-ups, but not
until after the war did an actual conflagration threaten to break out.
When Abilene Christian College, of Abilene, Texas, kicked off a major capital
campaign immediately after the war, it actively and publicly solicited financial contributions
from churches.  Such a breaking of precedent helped set off another round of discussions on
87
the relationship between local congregations and the colleges.  Although schools had in the
past accepted money offered by congregations, and even quietly asked churches for funds
from time to time, Abilene?s campaign flagrantly challenged the traditional understanding
that funds should be raised through individual contributions only.  As enrollment figures
ballooned and the colleges sought full accreditation or senior college status, school leaders
were under increasing pressure to find additional sources of revenue.   Congregational100
treasuries became the logical place to look.
N. B. Hardeman, cofounder and longtime president of Freed-Hardeman College, was
one school leader who softened his stance on church contributions to colleges in the years
after World War II.  Although he rarely published in the church papers, Hardeman took over
Goodpasture?s editorial column in a February 1947 issue and made this controversial
statement: If ?a church desires to help [a] school exist, it has the right to do so.?   Such a101
remark, especially in the context of Abilene Christian College?s fundraising campaign, was
likely to get attention, and this one did.  Cled Wallace, writing in the Bible Banner, offered a
rejoinder.  Hardeman, he argued, had forsaken the position he once held and had ?taken a
step in the wrong direction which is not for the good of either the churches or the schools.? 
Wallace saw ?trouble? on the horizon, contending that ?the church?s business is to edify
itself, look after the poor, and preach the gospel and that business should keep its budget too
full to leave room for human organizations like papers and colleges.?   W. W. Otey saw102
trouble too.  The veteran preacher correctly predicted ?division in this generation? over the
issue.103
Hardeman, responding to Wallace, Otey, and others in the Advocate and the Firm
Foundation complained of their legalism: ?It seems that most anything can be done with the
88
Lord?s money except to make a donation to a school in which the Bible is taught.  If we are
not careful, we will be straining out gnats and swallowing camels.?  He also complained of
their inconsistency, noting that they did not denounce church contributions to orphanages
affiliated with Churches of Christ, which were owned and operated in much the same way as
the colleges.   Wallace responded by ridiculing the notion that such institutions were104
?parallel? institutions to the colleges, noting that ?the orphan?s home has never raised any
serious issues.?  None had ever been accused of ?control of the churches? or called a
?dangerous influence.?  Therefore, Wallace claimed, ?if we have just got to have some
institutionalism . . . homes for orphans and old people seem to be the most innocuous kind
we can have.?105
The fight was on.  As 1947 progressed the rhetoric heightened and proponents of
both positions spent less time arguing doctrinal points and more time attacking one another
personally.  The Bible Banner devoted a great deal of ink, including entire issues, to the
controversy.  Brewer, already a part of the fray, upped his production of articles somewhat,
publishing in both the Advocate and the Firm Foundation.  He also began negotiating for a
formal debate on the issue.  Hardeman broke from his usual practice and published a number
of articles in the papers.  And Goodpasture, with a few editorials and the Hardeman and
Brewer writings, clearly cast the Advocate?s lot with the institutional viewpoint.
Hardeman, whose relationship with his friend Foy Wallace had recently deteriorated,
was determined to meet Wallace and his Banner writers on the issue of church contributions
to colleges.  Hardeman had grown weary, as he indicated to Goodpasture, of Wallace ?trying
to wage war on anybody who does not line up with him.?   Hardeman?s arguments,106
however, were not as strong as his personal attacks.  He reserved his sharpest barbs for Foy
89
Wallace, but also went after Cled Wallace and new Banner publisher Roy E. Cogdill.  He
justified congregational donations to colleges on the grounds of ?expediency.?  Just as a
congregation could choose to erect a church building with treasury funds, he argued, it could
give money to a college; neither action had strict biblical sanction, but both could help the
church carry out biblical commands.  Hardeman accused the Wallace brothers and Cogdill
of being inconsistent on this point, both in what they preached and in what they practiced.
Hardeman employed tactics reminiscent of Goodpasture?s approach to Foy Wallace
when he switched from a pacifist to patriot position.  Portraying the Banner editor as
unreliable, he contrasted past with present.  ?Due to [Wallace?s] radical change on these
important issues, he must be considered unstable, unsafe, and unsound,? Hardeman wrote in
the Advocate.  ?Who knows but that with the passing of more years he may change his
attitude toward premillennialism and preach the very doctrine he has so strongly
condemned??  No longer could Wallace be taken seriously, Hardeman suggested, a fate that
Wallace had brought upon himself.  Hardeman dismissed his old friend, with a slyly
sympathetic tone: ?Brother Foy?s radical changes, his personal attacks, abuses, and insults,
with a disposition to count every man who does not agree with him his personal enemy, are
indeed unfortunate.?107
Foy Wallace responded in kind to Hardeman, as the Banner dedicated most of an
expanded issue to the ?church-college question.?  He accused Hardeman of distorting the
historical record, and went to great lengths to show that Hardeman was the one who had
changed on the issue.  He also claimed that it was Hardeman who was espousing
inconsistencies, not the Banner.  Wallace then stooped down and uncovered some dirt on his
former friend.  He revealed that Hardeman had secretly encouraged Wallace to ?publish
90
unfavorable reports against other schools? and preachers, including Brewer, with whom
Hardeman had only recently become amicable.  Wallace quoted from numerous Hardeman
letters and summarized the picture of Hardeman that he saw emerge: ?N. B. Hardeman has
never been a friend to any man beyond the use that he can make of that man.?  Wallace was
convinced that Hardeman, who had expressed friendship and appreciation to Wallace only
the year before, had so viciously gone after the Banner only because it had ?dared to point
out his own mistakes on the church-college question, and criticise [sic] his own
inconsistencies.?108
Writing from Shawnee, Oklahoma, after Wallace?s response to him appeared in the
Banner, Hardeman reported to Goodpasture what he was hearing: ?Brethren here tell me
that Foy has lost a number of friends.  About 25 cancelled subscriptions to his paper.?  109
Therefore, Hardeman surmised, ?if brethren here and a lot of preachers from nearby are an
index, surely Foy?s stock is below par.?   Hardeman continued to criticize the Banner110
publicly for taking inconsistent positions on contributions to orphanages and colleges.  To
Hardeman the institutions were ?parallel.?  Like the Christian college, ?the orphan home is a
human institution; it has a board of directors; it teaches secular branches [of education] in
connection with the Bible.?  If a church can scripturally donate money to a Christian
orphanage, it can scripturally donate money to a Christian school.  ?They must stand or fall
together.?  Hardeman also focused attention on Wallace?s tirade against him, asserting that
Wallace was ?desperate? and willing to ?say almost anything to discredit one he has turned
against.?  Depicting him as an ?isolationist,? Hardeman quite accurately suggested that
Wallace had cut himself off from ?all of our schools, our papers, our editors, and many of
91
our ablest preachers.?  Could it really be, Hardeman intoned, that they ?are all in the wrong
and Foy alone is in the right?  Truly the whole army is out of step and only Foy is in line.?111
Like Wallace, Hardeman attempted to embarrass and humiliate his adversary by
dredging up the past and quoting from an old personal letter.  Hardeman reminded his
readers that in 1937 Wallace?s ?sinful extravagance and utter lack of business judgment
forced him to take an oath of insolvency and to hide from his creditors behind the bankrupt
law.?  At that time, Hardeman noted, Wallace wrote to him ?begging and pleading for help.? 
So why, Hardeman conjectured, had Wallace changed his attitude toward him?  It was not,
he contended, ?due to a difference on the church-college question,? as Wallace claimed. 
Rather, it was because Hardeman would not go along with Wallace and reverse his ?attitude
toward a Christian?s engaging in carnal warfare.?  Hardeman ended his ?part of the
discussion? at that point, explaining that ?no reason has been assigned why a church cannot
contribute to one of our schools [and] I anticipate nothing new.?112
Returning insult for insult, Wallace responded by accusing Hardeman of attempting
to ?crush us and destroy us by wholesale assault in an onslaught of slime and slush and
slander.?  He further charged that Hardeman was ?backed by the two oldest periodicals
among us,? the Advocate and the Firm Foundation.   Cled Wallace agreed with his113
brother?s assessment, as did Banner contributor R. L. Whiteside.  Cled accused Firm
Foundation editor G. H. P. Showalter of partnering with the Advocate ?in an effort to
destroy Foy?s influence.?   Whiteside gave credence to the theory put forth by ?one114
influential preacher? who ?[suggested] that there is a concerted move on the part of
Hardeman, Brewer, Goopasture, and Showalter to destroy the Wallaces.?   There was at115
least some truth to these assertions, at least in regard to Hardeman and Goodpasture. 
92
Hardeman, corresponding with Goodpasture about publishing his criticism of Wallace for
declaring bankruptcy, wrote of Wallace: ?I am inclined to think the publication would finish
him with many sober-minded brethren.?   Hardeman overstated the potential of his article,116
but for a variety of reasons, including the Advocate?s judicious assaults on Wallace and his
own behavior, Wallace was fast losing his power over Churches of Christ.117
While Hardeman was doing battle with the Bible Banner, G. C. Brewer was
carrying on his own fight with the paper in the Gospel Advocate and the Firm Foundation. 
But whereas Hardeman stopped sparring with the Banner in 1947, Brewer continued to
write on the relationship between churches and related institutions.  Much of the back and
forth between Brewer and the Banner mirrored that of Hardeman?s tussle with the paper,
including a good bit of the nastiness and accusations and denials of inconsistent positions. 
Brewer, in part to explain apparent contradictions in his own position, published a pamphlet
reviewing the controversy from the time of his 1933 series in the Advocate.118
One main difference existed between Brewer?s and Hardeman?s approach to the
issue.  Hardeman, like his Banner opponents, argued the issue more legalistically than
Brewer.  Although Hardeman and the Banner reached different conclusions, they each based
their positions on rather narrow argumentation.  Brewer, on the other hand, while making
some legal arguments, took a broader approach when contending for the right of churches to
give money to colleges.  He argued that the colleges and churches could not be kept
completely separate, for an undeniable ?spiritual relationship [did] exist? between them. 
After all, ?Christians patronize such schools because they want their children taught truth
and not error, because they want them guided in the paths of righteousness and peace; they
want them instructed in principles of honor, honesty, decency, and Christianity.  This is the
93
sole reason for the existence of such schools and this is the reason that Christians patronize
the schools.?  Furthermore, Brewer argued, ?when the schools announce that they will
employ no teacher who is not a member of [a Church of Christ] and that they will not teach
any principle except that which is acceptable to, and is endorsed by, the brotherhood . . .
[there] is a tacit recognition of the relationship that exists between the church and the school. 
I see no use denying that this relationship exists.?119
Gospel Guardian
A new phase of the institutional fight began in May 1949 when the Banner was
succeeded by the Gospel Guardian, also published by Roy Cogdill, but weekly instead of
monthly.  The editor was Fanning Yater Tant, a forty-year-old Texas preacher and son of the
legendary J. D. Tant, a cantankerous and outspoken preacher.   Cled Wallace continued120
for a few years as one of the leading writers, but Foy Wallace, named co-editor, would have
only a brief association with the Guardian, which took its name from a paper he published
for a brief period in the mid-thirties.  Wallace wrote for Tant for the first few issues, helping
to define the purpose and direction of the paper, but due to personal differences with Tant he
soon ended his affiliation.   Tant announced that the policy of the Guardian would be no121
different from the policy of the Banner.  He also indicated what the main issues of the paper
would be: ?We are unalterably opposed to the unscriptural idea of having the college
supported out of the church treasury. . . . We view with considerable apprehension the
apparent drift toward an ?institutional conscious? missionary program?the feeling that we
cannot preach the gospel without an elaborate institutional set-up.?  To combat such
?apostacies,? Tant declared, churches needed to be ?militant and aggressive.?  The
Guardian pledged, therefore, to ?not only fight error,? but also ?tendencies toward error.?122
94
The appearance of the Gospel Guardian worried N. B. Hardeman.  He wrote an
ailing Goodpasture: ?I can?t help but have some fears regarding the Advocate.  I have read
the Gospel Guardian?s announcement and it seems to me that it is almost largely directed
against the Advocate.  If you can recover and continue with it, all will be well that long at
least.?   Goodpasture did recover?perhaps from a severe asthmatic reaction?and within a123
few weeks of the Guardian?s first issue published some of his first comments on the
institutional controversy, writing editorials in two consecutive issues.  He did not address
doctrinal arguments, however, but rather men ?who pose as leaders and guardians of
orthodoxy.?  Although he did not list names, it was clear he had Guardian staffers in mind,
including Foy Wallace.
Sounding familiar themes, Goodpasture wrote of their ?spirit of vacillation and
instability? in regard to pacifist doctrine and the ?church-college question.?  ?When
professed teachers and leaders show such instability,? he asserted, ?the effect on the rank and
file of the church is most disheartening and injurious.  It is a bit upsetting for people to be led
in one direction for a while, and then discover that their trusted leaders have deserted them
and gone in the opposite direction.  This destroys confidence in leadership.?   By this time124
Hardeman was more optimistic.  He predicted to Goodpasture that Tant and Cogdill ?will be
greatly disappointed in their ambition and their continued agitation of the church-school
question will do the [Guardian] no good.?  He believed the issue would ?soon pass away,?
forcing the Guardian ?to get up other issues to fuss about.?   Hardeman did not prove an125
accurate prophet; the issue did not ?soon pass away.?
Brewer, unlike Hardeman, indicated that the Guardian was being relatively well-
received.  Cautioning Goodpasture, he wrote: ?You said you didn?t think the Guardian
95
would succeed, and I don?t think so either, but I do know that a great many brethren say that
we need the paper if it would be just a little less bitter in its personal attacks, because they
think it is standing against some evils and evil tendencies.?  In order to help negate
Guardian criticism of the Advocate, Brewer advised Goodpasture to demonstrate that the
Advocate did not blindly support the colleges.  He suggested publishing a warning to the
colleges against ?showing a tendency to dominate churches,? a trait that Goodpasture,
according to Brewer, had lately observed in Nashville?s David Lipscomb College.  ?Let
them know that the Gospel Advocate considers this not only unscriptural . . . but [also]
factional.?  One way or another, Brewer insisted, Goodpasture needed to speak out more,
reporting that many friendly observers feared that the Advocate was ?losing its distinctive
position because it does not handle issues that are disturbing the brethren.?126
Brewer, for one, was not willing to be passive with the ?faction? led by the
Guardian, and he outlined a plan of action to Goodpasture: ?It is my opinion that we should
hit this thing a death blow. . . . We [should] condemn any effort to create an issue, where no
issue has ever before existed, and to start a faction.  This is wrong and we should expose the
thing and condemn it.?   Two months later an article from Brewer appeared in the127
Advocate following his own advice.  He claimed the Guardian irresponsibly criticized long-
accepted and defensible practices, thereby creating false issues, and that the Guardian was
nothing more than a divisive minority faction, which, he hinted, should ?be marked and
avoided.?  Brewer, like Hardeman and others, made church contributions to colleges parallel
to church contributions to orphanages and any other ?enterprises carried on by Christians in
the practice and for the promotion of Christian principles.?128
96
Yater Tant and the Guardian took issue with Brewer by denying that congregational
donations to the colleges had ever been widely practiced or accepted.  Tant argued that the
issue had come to a head not because the Banner and the Guardian forced it, but because
men like Brewer, who were ?dangerous to the peace and soundness of the brotherhood,?
were advocating unscriptural practices.  Tant and Brewer began negotiations for a written
debate between Brewer and a representative from the Guardian.  Tant deemed a debate
essential: ?For the sake of the church, and for the sake of those who shall follow us, I believe
this question deserves the closest and most earnest study and exposition that careful Bible
students can give it.?   Brewer concurred, but he wanted to ensure that he was not put in a129
position where the debate seemed to be ?between a group of brethren . . . and an individual,
an innovator.?  He therefore proposed that details of the debate be worked out by
committees from both sides.  ?If this is only my position,? he stated, ?and not the past and
present practice of the brethren, then there will be no discussion.?  Brewer nominated
Goodpasture to chair his committee, which would have nine members, including Hardeman. 
His plan, as he informed Goodpasture, was to use the credibility of his committee to ?force
the G.G. boys into taking the blame for this agitation.?  If this could be done, he hoped
Goodpasture would find the debate ?worth carrying? in the Advocate.130
Hardeman, who was privy to Brewer?s correspondence with Tant, was pleased at the
possibility of an extended discussion about the college issue.  He wrote Goodpasture that he
saw it as an opportunity to see ?some of those [Gospel Guardian] fellows drawn out so that
their real sentiments regarding contribution[s] to orphan homes may be in the open.?   The131
proposed debate never took place, but Guardian writers continued to voice disapproval of
church contributions to orphanages, except those directed by the eldership of a single
97
congregation.  While not necessarily conceding that an orphanage was parallel to a college,
they did conclude that any other organizational arrangement would make the orphanage a
?human organization.?  This was unacceptable by scriptural standards because it meant that
Christians would be accomplishing a biblical directive?the care of orphans?through an
entity other than the divinely ordained local church.   But while Hardeman, Brewer, and132
others succeeded in making orphanages part of the issue, Guardian writers increasingly
articulated the fight that was underway as one that was about more than specific practices. 
The common threads running through their objections were concerns about ?centralization,?
?institutionalism,? and ?denominationalism.?   As the 1950s dawned they intensified their133
protests, with Goodpasture and the Advocate bearing the brunt of their attacks.
Collaboration
Despite all the turmoil that engulfed the Gospel Advocate during the decade of the
1940s, B. C. Goodpasture was making more friends than enemies.  Despite the fact that he
violated his own editorial policies on several significant occasions, he filled the Advocate
with constructive material.  Readers valued that, just as they valued the Advocate?s doctrinal
orthodoxy.  One reader, early in the forties, judged the Advocate to be ?a fine example of
high-type journalism.  It is dignified in manner and style, yet well-balanced, firm, and
sound.?   Another reader, late in the decade, expressed a similar opinion, stating that the134
Advocate was ?sound in teaching and aggressive in action for the truth.  The radicalism is
lacking, and that is well.?   The Advocate also made friends, as it long had, simply by135
being a trusted point of contact and source of information.  Goodpasture, however, greatly
enhanced this role.  Whether suggesting books for preachers, listing the radio broadcasts and
addresses of churches, directing travelers or newcomers to a congregation in a particular
98
location, serving as a place to ?warn the churches against [a troublemaker],? or helping
churches that needed a preacher find one (and vice versa), Goodpasture made the Advocate
a source of centralized assistance like never before.136
Goodpasture also made friends by promoting most any interest or activity of
Churches of Christ.  This, too, was not a new function of the Advocate, but one that
Goodpasture also carried out to a greater degree than any editor before him.  As he put it,
The Gospel Advocate is always ready to help put any worthy work before its readers.
. . . We are glad to keep the names and work of faithful preachers before our readers
who, in turn, are encouraged to know of the accomplishments of loyal brethren,
especially of those with whom they are personally acquainted.  Our columns are
open to the colleges and orphan homes.  We desire to encourage and help every good
work.137
Goodpasture also made a point to publicize local churches and mission works, whether
foreign or domestic.  He kept both their needs and their accomplishments before readers by
way of the ?News and Notes? section, the editorial page, and special issues.
The Advocate also participated in a campaign to have Churches of Christ fully
counted in the 1946 census of religious bodies, begun in 1947 by the U.S. Census Bureau,
although never completed.  In the first half of 1947 Goodpasture published at least thirteen
exhortations by various writers, including himself, strongly encouraging churches to
complete their schedules and return them to the Census Bureau.  The Broadway Church of
Christ in Lubbock, Texas, volunteered to spearhead the effort to collect addresses for the
government and encourage churches to report, something which many had failed to do
during the 1936 census.  The undercounting had bothered many progressive leaders,
including Broadway?s minister, M. Norvel Young, who had succeeded G. C. Brewer. 
Explaining why it was important for churches to participate in the census, Young reiterated
99
what many others were saying: ?A full report will mean more radio time, more favor from
the government in doing the foreign-mission work, encouragement to faithful Christians
everywhere, and even more respect from the outsiders in our local communities.  Respect is
not enough, but it is a doorway through which we may pass to capture the hearts of
unbelievers.?   Young?s statement, like the census campaign itself, reflected the group?s138
growing denominational consciousness, as did Goodpasture?s resolve to encourage ?any
worthy work.?
Preachers received publicity in the Advocate in a variety of ways.  As always, most
of the staff writers and contributors occupied pulpits each Sunday.  Goodpasture also
continued to publish reports that preachers made of their activities, including gospel
meetings conducted and debates held.  These reports appeared in the ?News and Notes,?
where Goodpasture in the second half of the forties also began listing the names of
?Preachers Who Called? at the Advocate offices each week.  A feature added in 1940, and
retained for several years, gave highly visible publicity to a different preacher each week.  It
included a photograph of that week?s ?faithful gospel preacher,? a biographical sketch, and a
sermon outline.   Goodpasture also continued to utilize preachers to write most of the139
Uniform Bible School lessons that appeared each week for use in Sunday school.
Goodpasture likewise publicized the church colleges, carrying their news reports and
advertisements.  He steadily built ties with the schools, and the schools with him.  College
leaders received exposure for their institutions by publishing articles in the Advocate, and
they reciprocated in kind.  In 1942, for example, Goodpasture asked the president of Abilene
Christian College, Don H. Morris, to prepare a Uniform Bible School lesson.   Morris140
accepted and at the same time provided Goodpasture with an opportunity to speak at the
100
college?s annual lectureship.   Goodpasture invited N. B. Hardeman to submit articles as141
regularly as he wished.  Although he declined, with the notable exceptions described above,
he did promote the paper.  For one instance, he invited the editor to the Freed-Hardeman
campus in 1942 to make a presentation on the Advocate.   When Florida Christian142
College, located near Tampa, was founded in 1945, Goodpasture gave it and President L. R.
Wilson plenty of press, doing everything he could to help it get established.   He printed143
Wilson?s speech accepting the presidency of the college, prefacing it with remarks on why he
supported the colleges: ?The Gospel Advocate is glad to add its commendation and support
to Brother Wilson and the college, as to all other brethren and colleges that are loyal to the
truth.  At no time in our history have we stood more in need of Christian education than
now. . . . We are building wisely and securely for the future only as we instill in the minds of
the young people the principles of the Sermon on the Mount.?144
Goodpasture helped Rex A. Turner, president and co-founder of Montgomery Bible
School, identify funding sources for his infant enterprise.  Founded in 1942, the school was
renamed Alabama Christian College in 1953, the same year Goodpasture made Turner a
staff writer.  Turner later recalled that Goodpasture offered ?suggestions relative to Christian
businessmen who might be persuaded to make financial donations to the school. . . . I
shudder to think what my task would have been like if I had not been so favored by B. C.
Goodpasture.?   Goodpasture also assisted Nashville Christian Institute.  Headed by145
Marshall Keeble, a renowned African American preacher and old friend of Goodpasture, the
school trained black students for ministry.  The December 9, 1948, issue of the Advocate
was largely devoted to NCI, publicity for which Keeble was grateful.  ?Such friends as you
have proven to be are hard to find,? he told the editor.  Sharing that remark with readers,
101
Goodpasture reminded them just ?how much preachers and institutions are dependent upon
papers to get before the brotherhood.?146
David Lipscomb College, of all the schools, had the strongest claim on Goodpasture. 
The successor to Nashville Bible School, it was named for its cofounder and the Advocate?s
longest serving editor.  Since both the college and the paper were located in Nashville, it was
natural for the two institutions?and leading churches in the area?to interact frequently with
one another.  As his alma mater, Goodpasture had maintained close ties with Lipscomb and
in the forties was serving on the alumni association?s ?standing committee.?   The147
Advocate was a friend to the college from the beginning of Goodpasture?s tenure, but the
friendship intensified after the Second World War as Lipscomb moved toward senior college
status and Athens Clay Pullias became president.  In 1946 the Advocate was being provided
to ?every boarding student? at the school.   In 1947 Goodpasture used his editorial space to148
print the Pullias speech marking Lipscomb?s transition to senior college status, and it was
Goodpasture who, the next spring, delivered the baccalaureate sermon to the first senior class
to graduate from Lipscomb.149
Goodpasture also promoted the Advocate.  He frequently suggested its importance to
the spread of the gospel and to the edification of church members.  When recommending gift
subscriptions one Christmas season, he urged readers to ?think of the fine articles and the
world-wide brotherhood news coverage? provided by the Advocate.  ?Many have been
brought to Christ through the columns of the Advocate,? he noted, and an untold number of
Christians ?have been instructed in the most holy faith.?   Readers could trust the ?The Old150
Reliable,? a common nickname for the Advocate, because, since 1855, it had not changed
102
and would not change: ?It will continue to champion all truth and oppose all error. . . . This
policy has been, and will be, the secret of its strength and the source of its life.?151
Goodpasture gave others opportunities to echo his sentiments and encourage support
of the Advocate.  Commendations came in a variety of forms, from articles to excerpted
letters.  Staff writer J. Roy Vaughan, for example, praised ?the great good the Gospel
Advocate has done in preaching the gospel,? and claimed that it had ?been a blessing to
thousands of gospel preachers.?  Those preachers, Vaughan continued, ?will recall how often
they called upon the Gospel Advocate to publish reports of their labors as a young preacher.
. . . In every report published they were receiving publicity that could not be valued in gold
and silver.  And even the older preachers, who no longer feel the need to be advertised,
nevertheless do not fail to use the Gospel Advocate when they want to be heard by the
churches.?  Vaughan was disconcerted, however, by the attitudes of some preachers who had
benefitted from the ?free of charge? reports in the Advocate.  In addition to those few who
criticized the Advocate at every opportunity, even while using it ?to advance their own
cause,? there were many who exhibited ?an ungrateful spirit? since they did not ?ever take
the time and effort to place the paper in Christian homes and those of people who are not
Christians.?  This applied to many churches, too, who regularly sent in reports of their
activities.  Vaughan was thankful, however, for ?the thousands upon thousands of loyal
friends who love the paper for its work?s sake.?  They, like Vaughan, recognized that the
Advocate was a ?good means to preach Christ.? 152
Likewise, Goodpasture maintained, ?if a paper helps to keep a preacher before the
brotherhood, it is fair, consistent, and right that he should help extend the circulation of that
paper.?  Indeed, ?any gospel preacher should be ashamed to berate a religious paper and
103
then seek the publicity it can give him.?   Via subscription campaigns, Goodpasture gave153
preachers, as well as other readers, several opportunities to help extend the Advocate?s
circulation.  When Goodpasture became editor in 1939 the Advocate carried about 12,500
subscribers.  By the late forties that figure apparently had doubled to approximately
25,000.   Subscription drives were a regular occurrence under Goodpasture, and often154
involved cash prizes for the volunteer ?workers? who collected the most subscriptions,
including renewals.  Goodpasture thoroughly publicized one prolonged campaign, in
particular.  From November 1948 to December 1949 he made it a regular practice to list the
names of workers on his editorial page.  He did this twenty-seven times, with the ?rolls of
honor? ranging from a handful of readers sending in five to twenty subscriptions each, to one
list of 265 workers submitting a total of 2,755 subscriptions.   Preachers were the most155
active workers, but other readers?both men and women?received recognition as ?highly-
cherished and worthy fellow workers in extending the kingdom of Christ among men.?156
Goodpasture?s steady expansion of the Advocate?s circulation indicated, if nothing
else, that he possessed good business skills.  His business acumen was also suggested by the
willingness of the McQuiddy Printing Company to let him be ?pretty much his own boss,?
and, in 1950, to name him president of the Gospel Advocate Company.   But perhaps the157
more significant indicator of Goodpasture?s success was his ability, as demonstrated by the
1948-1949 subscription campaign, to involve hundreds of readers in extending the influence
of the Advocate.  Despite steady criticism from the Bible Banner and the Gospel Guardian,
he was producing a paper that pleased most of his readers, including average, everyday
church members.  At the same time he was developing into a powerful figure, his influence
growing with opinion leaders and power centers.  As the forties drew to a close, Price
104
Billingsley would not have been alone in saying to Goodpasture, ?The cause of the Lord is
eminently safe in your hands.?158
105
1. James A. Allen, ?Good Work of Bible Banner,? Apostolic Times, June 1940, 127.
2. ?A Restatement of Our Policy of Publication,? Gospel Advocate, November 28, 1940,
1132.  Foy E. Wallace, Jr., ?The Gospel Advocate?s Restated Policy,? Bible Banner,
December 1940, 2-3.
3. See B. C. Goodpasture, ?Restatement of Our Policy of Publication Commended,? Gospel
Advocate, January 2, 1941, 4.
4. Foy E. Wallace, Jr., ?Developments on All Fronts,? Bible Banner, January 1941, 2-4.
5. Letter from R. O. Kenley to Roy E. Cogdill, January 4, 1946, Benton Cordell
Goodpasture papers, Disciples of Christ Historical Society, Nashville.
6. Letter from G. C. Brewer to B. C. Goodpasture, December 30, 1940, Goodpasture papers.
7. B. C. Goodpasture, ??Were They Sound??? Gospel Advocate, December 5, 1940, 1156-
57.
8. Goodpasture, ?Restatement of Our Policy of Publication Commended.?
9. B. C. Goodpasture, ?What About Calling Names?? Gospel Advocate, December 19,
1940, 1204.
10. Letter from H. Leo Boles to B. C. Goodpasture, October 8, 1943, Goodpasture papers. 
On Whiteside see Almon L. Williams, ?Robertson Lafayette Whiteside: Bible Student Par
Excellence,? in They Being Dead Yet Speak: Florida College Annual Lectures, 1981, ed.
Melvin D. Curry (Temple Terrace: Florida College Bookstore, 1981), 86-104.
11. Letter from R. L. Whiteside to Leon B. McQuiddy, undated (probably written late in
1947), transcription in author?s possession, original in private hands.  R. L. Whiteside,
?Consistency,? Bible Banner, January 1948, 14-16; R. L. Whiteside, ?Refused
Publication,? Bible Banner, September 1948, 12, 15; R. L. Whiteside, ?The Editor,? Bible
Banner, March 1949, 2-3.
12. Letter from Whiteside to McQuiddy.
13. Whiteside, ?The Editor,? 2.
14. Price Billingsley, ?Betrayal Plus Bad Business: An Open Letter [to] L. B. McQuiddy,?
May 17, 1939, Price Billingsley vertical file, Center for Restoration Studies, Brown Library
Special Collections, Abilene Christian University, Abilene, Tex.  Also printed in Apostolic
Times, July 1939, 155.
Notes
106
15. Letter from Price Billingsley to B. C. Goodpasture, April 1, 1942, Goodpasture papers.
16. Letter from Price Billingsley to B. C. Goodpasture, August 9, 1946, Goodpasture
papers.
17. Letter from Price Billingsley to Leon B. McQuiddy and B. C. Goodpasture, November
7, 1946, Goodpasture papers.
18. ?Members of the Gospel Advocate Five Hundred Club,? in The Gospel Advocate
Centennial Volume, comp.  B. C. Goodpasture (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Co., 1956),
279-80.
19. See Wallace, ?Developments on All Fronts,? 3; and letter from Boles to Goodpasture.
20. B. C. Goodpasture, ?New Writers for the Gospel Advocate,? Gospel Advocate, April
20, 1939, 364; B. C. Goodpasture, ?Our News Editor,? Gospel Advocate, September 22,
1949, 594.  Goodpasture was not always personally well-acquainted with writers he added
to the staff, and Fred Dennis was a case in point.  Although he wrote more than 400 articles
in twenty years on staff, he was ?never intimately associated? with the editor and only
?heard him preach a time or two.?  See Fred E. Dennis, ?B. C. Goodpasture,? Gospel
Advocate, April 21, 1977, 255.
21. Letter from Roy H. Lanier to B. C. Goodpasture, July 7, 1941, Goodpasture papers.  See
also letter from Frank Pack to Mrs. B. C. Goodpasture, May 17, 1977, Frank Pack papers,
box 6, Center for Restoration Studies, Brown Library Special Collections, Abilene Christian
University, Abilene, Tex.: ?I feel that he signally honored me in asking me to join the staff of
the Gospel Advocate back in 1951.?
22. B. C. Goodpasture, ?Brother Woods Joins Our Staff,? Gospel Advocate, December 9,
1943, 1116.  B. C. Goodpasture, ?Brother Nichols to Write for the Advocate,? Gospel
Advocate, April 27, 1944, 282.
23. See H. Leo Boles and R. H. Boll, Unfulfilled Prophecy: A Discussion on Prophetic
Themes (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Co., 1928).
24. See David Edwin Harrell, Jr., The Churches of Christ in the Twentieth Century:
Homer Hailey?s Personal Journey of Faith (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press,
2000), 57-71; and Hans Rollman, ??Our Steadfastness and Perseverance Depends on
Perpetual Expectation of Our Lord?: The Development of Robert Henry Boll?s
Premillennialism (1895-1915),? Discipliana 59 (Winter 1999): 113-126.  For a somewhat
different interpretation of the premillennial controversy than Harrell, see Richard T. Hughes,
Reviving the Ancient Faith: The Story of Churches of Christ in America (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1996), 137-67.  On the fundamentalist movement and dispensational
premillennialism see George M. Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture: The
Shaping of Twentieth-Century Evangelicalism, 1870-1925 (New York: Oxford University
Press, 1980), 48-71.
107
25. Foy E. Wallace, ?The Widened Breach,? Gospel Advocate, March 29, 1934, 308-09.
26. Goodpasture, ??Were They Sound???  See, for example, Wallace, ?The Gospel
Advocate?s Restated Policy,? 2.
27. B. C. Goodpasture, addendum to David Lipscomb, ?The Creed in the Deed,? Gospel
Advocate, January 29, 1942, 100.  B. C. Goodpasture, ??Receive Ye One Another,??
Gospel Advocate, May 1, 1947, 306.
28. B. C. Goodpasture, ?Premillennialism, the Apostolic Fathers, and the Creeds,? Gospel
Advocate, June 15, 1939, 548-49, and June 22, 1939, 572-73.
29. B. C. Goodpasture, ?The Editor is Unable to Do It,? Gospel Advocate, July 10, 1941,
652.
30. B. C. Goodpasture, addendum to J. N. Armstrong, ?Don Carlos Janes,? Gospel
Advocate, March 23, 1944, 202-03.
31. See H. Leo Boles?s correspondence with Claud F. Witty and N. B. Hardeman from May
6 to June 26, 1939, Goodpasture papers; Boles?s correspondence with E. R. Harper from
October 19, 1944, to April 25, 1945, Goodpasture papers; and ?The Davidson Letters,?
Bible Banner, July 1946, 18-21.
32. H. Leo Boles, ?Fallacies of Premillennialists,? Gospel Advocate, April 24, 1941, 389.
33. H. Leo Boles, ?Another Premillennialist Gone,? Gospel Advocate, February 6, 1941,
125.
34. H. Leo Boles, ?Horse Cave Church Gone Wrong,? Gospel Advocate, April 18, 1940,
365, 373.  See also, H. Leo Boles, ??Concerning Horse Cave Church,?? Gospel Advocate,
August 8, 1940, 748-49.
35. See Harrell, The Churches of Christ in the Twentieth Century, 63.
36. ?The Davidson Letters.?
37. See Terry J. Gardner, ?Foy E. Wallace, Jr.: The Bible Banner Years, Part Two (1945-
1949),? in Foy E. Wallace, Jr.: Soldier of the Cross, ed. Noble Patterson and Terry J.
Gardner (Fort Worth: Wallace Memorial Fund, 1999), 77-81.
38. Foy E. Wallace, Jr., ?The New Davidson Movement,? Bible Banner, July 1946, 9.
39. See Hughes, Reviving the Ancient Faith, 156-60, 203-09.
40. Cled E. Wallace, ?The Davidson By-Pass,? Bible Banner, July 1946, 1-3.
108
41. B. C. Goodpasture, ?Grounds of Christian Unity and Fellowship,? Gospel Advocate,
August 8, 1946, 740, 749.
42. B. C. Goodpasture, ??A Businessman?s Slant on Premillennial Question,?? Gospel
Advocate, July 31, 1947, 556.  The four subsequent editorials were each titled ??A Christian
Businessman Writes His Brethren.?? See issues of August 7, 14, 28, and September 11.  See
Davidson?s remarks and Boll?s statement in Norman Davidson, ?A Christian Businessman
Writes His Brethren,? Firm Foundation, July 22, 1947, 9-13.
43. Goodpasture, ??A Businessman?s Slant on Premillennial Question.??
44. Goodpasture, ??A Christian Businessman Writes His Brethren,?? August 14, 1947.
45. On Murch see James DeForest Murch, Adventuring for Christ in Changing Times: An
Autobiography of James Deforest Murch (Louisville: Restoration Press, 1973).
46. See ibid., 126-33; James DeForest Murch, Christians Only: A History of the
Restoration Movement (Cincinnati: Standard Publishing Co., 1962), 274-77; Robert E.
Hooper, A Distinct People: A History of the Churches of Christ in the 20th Century (West
Monroe, La.: Howard Publishing Co.), 158-64; and Earl Irvin West, The Search for the
Ancient Order: A History of the Restoration Movement, Vol. IV, 1919-1950 (Germantown,
Tenn.: Religious Book Service, 1987), 228-34.
47. See Winfred Ernest Garrison and Alfred T. DeGroot, The Disciples of Christ: A
History, revised edition (St. Louis: The Bethany Press, 1958). 432-40.
48. Letter from Claud F. Witty to H. Leo Boles, March 8, 1939, Goodpasture papers.
49. See H. Leo Boles, ?The Way of Unity Between ?Christian Church? and Churches of
Christ,? Gospel Advocate, May 25, 1939, 476-77, for the first printed installment of the
speech.  See also H. Leo. Boles, The Way of Unity Between ?Christian Church? and
Churches of Christ (Memphis: Getwell Church of Christ, 1984).
50. H. Leo Boles, ?Unity Movements,? Gospel Advocate, July 25, 1940, 701.
51. B. C. Goodpasture, ?H. Leo Boles? Speech at the ?Unity Meeting,?? Gospel Advocate,
May 25, 1939.
52. B. C. Goodpasture, ?The Columbus (Ohio) ?Unity Meeting,?? Gospel Advocate, May 8,
1941, 436.  See also B. C. Goodpasture, ?Unity Meetings Suspended,? Gospel Advocate,
July 23, 1942, 700.
53. H. Leo Boles, ??The Unity Fiasco? Again,? Gospel Advocate, May 22, 1941, 485.  See
also letter from H. Leo Boles to Claud F. Witty, May 6, 1939, Goodpasture papers, wherein
Boles, following the 1939 unity meeting, and with reference to the premillennial
controversy, asked Witty, ?Would it not be better for us to be interested in ?unity?, not only
109
with the ?Christian Church?, but also with the factions in our own ranks??
54. B. C. Goodpasture, ?Counting the Straws,? Gospel Advocate, February 26, 1942, 196.
55. B. C. Goodpasture, ??Straw Fifteen? and the ?Younger Ministers,? Again,? Gospel
Advocate, April 2, 1942, 316.
56. B. C. Goodpasture, ??Straw Fifteen? and Some of the ?Younger Ministers,?? Gospel
Advocate, March 19, 1942, 268.
57. B. C. Goodpasture, ?Unity Meetings Suspended,? Gospel Advocate, July 23, 1942,
700.
58. See B. C. Goodpasture, ?The Columbus (Ohio) ?Unity Meeting,?? Gospel Advocate,
May 8, 1941, 436; and B. C. Goodpasture, ??Pursuing Peace,?? Gospel Advocate, May 15,
1947, 338.
59. See Harrell, The Churches of Christ in the Twentieth Century, 51-57; Hughes,
Reviving the Ancient Faith, 145-51; Hooper, A Distinct People, 120-29; Michael W.
Casey, ?From Religious Outsiders to Insiders: The Rise and Fall of Pacifism in the Churches
of Christ,? Journal of Church and State 44 (Summer 2002): 455-75.  Lingering pacifist
attitudes in the inter-war period are evident in a statement sent to the U.S. Secretary of War
by the two congregations in Searcy, Arkansas, the home of Harding College.  It was sent
with a cover letter on college stationery by J. N. Armstrong, Dean of Bible, dated October
13, 1935.  The membership of each congregation adopted the statement unanimously,
?go[ing] on record as steadfastly, conscientiously opposed to carnal warfare,? while also
expressing a willingness to serve the United States as non-combatants.  See T. B. Larimore
papers, box 1, Center for Restoration Studies, Brown Library Special Collections, Abilene
Christian University, Abilene, Tex.
60. West, Search for the Ancient Order, 347.  See H. Leo. Boles, The New Testament
Teaching on War (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Co., n.d.).
61. Letter from Howard Justiss to B. C. Goodpasture, October 15, 1944, Goodpasture
papers.
62. Terry J. Gardner, ?Foy E. Wallace, Jr.: The Bible Banner Years, Part One (1938-
1945),? in Foy E. Wallace, Jr., ed. Patterson and Gardner, 66.
63. See B. C. Goodpasture, ?The Brother ?Has Something,?? Gospel Advocate, February
18, 1943, 148; Cled E. Wallace, ?Some Editorial Charity,? Bible Banner, March 1943, 1;
and letter from H. Leo Boles to T. B. Wilkinson, January 16, 1945, Goodpasture papers.
64. B. C. Goodpasture, ?Declaration of Attitude on War,? Gospel Advocate, November 16,
1939, 1076.  See also, ?Pretheological Students,? Gospel Advocate, August 6, 1942, 748-
49; and B. C. Goodpasture, ?Concerning Students Preparing to Preach,? Gospel Advocate,
110
June 22, 1944, 410.
65. B. C. Goodpasture, ?The Conscientious Objector,? Gospel Advocate, June 27, 1940,
604.
66. Letter from H. Leo Boles to Mrs. Oscar Foy, September 18, 1944, Goodpasture papers.
67. H. Leo Boles, ?Christians and the Draft,? Gospel Advocate, February 27, 1941, 197,
209.
68. See Michael Casey, ?Warriors Against War: The Pacifists of the Churches of Christ in
World War II,? Restoration Quarterly 35 (Third Quarter 1993): 170-71; and West, Search
for the Ancient Order, 348-50.
69. B. C. Goodpasture, ?Concerning Conscientious Objectors,? Gospel Advocate, February
5, 1942, 124.
70. H. Leo Boles, ?Helping Christians in Camps,? Gospel Advocate,? March 12, 1942,
245, 253.
71. B. C. Goodpasture, ?Two Letters,? Gospel Advocate, March 11, 1943, 220 (see the
original ?two letters? in the Goodpasture papers: E. LeRoy Dakin to James P. Miller,
February 1, 1943; and James P. Miller to B. C. Goodpasture, February 18, 1943).  B. C.
Goodpasture, ?Church of Christ Boys in the Civilian Public Service Camps,? Gospel
Advocate, May 6, 1943, 412.  Hooper, A Distinct People, 127-28, counted a total of 199
men from Churches of Christ who reported to the camps during the war.  See also letter from
James D. Bales to B. C. Goodpasture, February 27, 1943, James D. Bales papers, Special
Collections, University of Arkansas Libraries, Fayetteville.  Bales was to report to the
Coleville, California, Civilian Public Service Camp on March 19; he hoped to finish a book
manuscript on ?the war question? before then.
72. ?Service Committee for Conscientious Objectors,? Gospel Advocate, June 3, 1943, 506. 
See also B. C. Goodpasture, ?The ?Ace Writer? and ?A Mirage,?? Gospel Advocate, August
12, 1943, 709, wherein Goodpasture made it clear that he was not a member of the
committee and that Jimmie Lovell had written the announcement, although Goodpasture
failed to give him credit.  On the service committee see James L. Lovell papers, box 3,
Center for Restoration Studies, Brown Library Special Collections, Abilene Christian
University, Abilene, Tex.
73. B. C. Goodpasture, ?Mrs. Roosevelt and the Conscientious Objector,? Gospel Advocate,
August 6, 1942, 748.
74. Cled E. Wallace, ?Who is Doing the Agitating?? Bible Banner, November 1942, 1-3.
75. B. C. Goodpasture, ?Support for the Conscientious Objector,? Gospel Advocate,
February 4, 1943, 100.
111
76. Letter from G. C. Brewer to B. C. Goodpasture, February 15, 1943, Goodpasture
papers.
77. Foy E. Wallace, Jr., ?The Advocate Editor and the Texas Brother,? Bible Banner,
March 1943, 15.  See also Foy E. Wallace, Jr., ?The Advocate?s Adamant Attitude,? Bible
Banner, June 1943, 14-16.
78. Letter from J. H. S. to B. C. Goodpasture, March 16, 1942, Goodpasture papers.  J. H.
S. was associated with the Jacksonville Paper Company.  On his identity, see letters from J.
H. S. to A. M. Burton, undated and March 5, 1958, A. M. Burton papers (1950s letters from
individuals), Beaman Library Special Collections, Lipscomb University, Nashville.
79. Letter from G. C. Brewer to B. C. Goodpasture, June 22, 1943, Goodpasture papers.
80. B. C. Goodpasture, ?Support for the Conscientious Objectors, Etc.,? Gospel Advocate,
May 13, 1943, 436-37, 440.
81. Wallace, ?The Advocate?s Adamant Attitude.?
82. Cled E. Wallace, ?Irritation Spread Over Three Pages,? Bible Banner, May 1943, 1.
83. Letter from R. L. Whiteside to B. C. Goodpasture, January 16, 1947, quoted in letter
from Whiteside to McQuiddy.  See also letter from N. B. Hardeman to Goodpasture,
January 30, 1947, Goodpasture papers.
84. As Terry J. Gardner has noted, among the young men in the American armed forces
were Goodpasture?s oldest son, Cordell, and two sons of Cled Wallace.  See Gardner, ?Foy
E. Wallace, Jr.: The Bible Banner Years, Part One,? in Foy E. Wallace, Jr., ed. Patterson
and Gardner, 66.  See also David Lipscomb McQuiddy, Jr., interview by Terry J. Gardner,
July 29, 1996, unpublished transcript in author?s possession.  McQuiddy had a distinct
memory of Cordell, who served in the Marines, visiting Hillsboro Church of Christ during
World War II in his dress blues.
85. For a brief overview of the institutional controversy see David Edwin Harrell, Jr.,
?Noninstitutional Movement,? in Douglas A. Foster, et al., eds., The Encyclopedia of the
Stone-Campbell Movement (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 567-69; and Steve
Wolfgang, ?History and Background of the Institutional Controversy,? Parts 1-4, Guardian
of Truth, April 6, April 20, May 4, and May 18, 1989.
86. On Brewer see G. C. Brewer, A Story of Toil and Tears, of Love and Laughter: Being
the Autobiography of G. C. Brewer, 1884-1956 (Murfreesboro, Tenn.: DeHoff
Publications, 1957); Ron Halbrook, ?G. C. Brewer: Perennial Protagonist,? in Curry, They
Being Dead Yet Speak, 198-219; and Norman L. Parks,  ?G. C. Brewer, Controversalist,?
Discipliana 44 (Spring 1984): 55-58.
112
87. See Terry J. Gardner, ?Young Foy: The Early Years, 1896-1938,? in Foy E. Wallace,
Jr., ed. Patterson and Gardner, 10-16.
88. Letter from Brewer to Goodpasture, December 30, 1940.
89. Letter from G. C. Brewer to B. C. Goodpasture, February 11, 1946, Goodpasture
papers.
90. Letter from G. C. Brewer to B. C. Goodpasture, November 3, 1946, Goodpasture
papers; Letter from B. C. Goodpasture to G. C. Brewer, November 7, 1946, Goodpasture
papers.
91. On premillennialism see, for example, G. C. Brewer, ?Echoes of ?The Jerusalem
Conference,?? Gospel Advocate, December 28, 1944, 845-47.
92. G. C. Brewer, ?Evangelizing the World in the Postwar Period,? Gospel Advocate,
February 18, 1943, 154-55; ?Postwar Problems,? Gospel Advocate, July 22, 1943, 642-43;
?More Illustrative Items,? Gospel Advocate, August 5, 1943, 687, 695.  See also George S.
Benson, ??Evangelizing the World in the Postwar Period,?? Gospel Advocate, May 27,
1943, 491.
93. See letter from G. C. Brewer to B. C. Goodpasture, February 15, 1943, Goodpasture
papers.  On missions see West, The Search for the Ancient Order, 257-398.
94. Brewer, ?Evangelizing the World in the Postwar Period.?
95. Ted W. McElroy, ?Another Uncertain Sound,? Bible Banner, June 1943, 11, 13.
96. Cled E. Wallace, ?Such As the World Has Never Known,? Bible Banner, August 1943,
8-9.
97. On Sommer see Matthew Clifton Morrison, Like a Lion: Daniel Sommer?s Seventy
Years of Preaching (Murfreesboro, Tenn.: DeHoff Publications, 1975).
98. See Hughes, Reviving the Ancient Faith, 228-30.
99. See G. C. Brewer, Congregations and Colleges.  n.p., [1947].  See also G. C. Brewer,
Contending for the Faith (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Co., 1941), 199-288.
100. See Hooper, A Distinct People, 177-78, 199-205; and Hughes, Reviving the Ancient
Faith, 232.  The other church-related colleges in existence at the time were David Lipscomb
College, Nashville; Florida Christian College, Tampa, which did not accept donations from
churches; Freed-Hardeman College, Henderson, Tenn.; George Pepperdine College, Los
Angeles; Harding College, Searcy, Ark.; and Montgomery Bible School, Montgomery, Ala. 
For background information on each of these see M. Norvel Young, A History of Colleges
Established and Controlled by Members of the Churches of Christ (Kansas City: Old
113
Paths Book Club, 1949), 82-109, 135-47, 170-202.
101. N. B. Hardeman, ?Position of Freed-Hardeman College Regarding ?Bible Schools,??
Gospel Advocate, February 13, 1947, 132, 144.  See James R. Cope, ?N. B. Hardeman:
Orator, Evangelist, Educator, and Debater,? in They Being Dead Yet Speak: Florida
College Annual Lectures, 1981, ed. Melvin D. Curry (Temple Terrace: Florida College
Bookstore, 1981), 145-52.
102. Cled E. Wallace, ?Putting the Schools Where They Belong,? Bible Banner, March
1947, 2-3.
103. W. W. Otey, ?From an Octogenarian Veteran of War,? Bible Banner, May 1947, 1. 
On Otey see Cecil Willis, W. W. Otey, Contender for the Faith: A History of Controversies
in the Church of Christ from 1860-1960 (Akron, Ohio: Cecil Willis, 1964).  See also W.
W. Otey, ?The Question Stated,? Gospel Advocate, July 10, 1947, 496.
104. N. B. Hardeman, ?Spending the Lord?s Money,? Gospel Advocate, May 29, 1947,
371, 376.
105. Cled Wallace, ?The Gnat in the Cup,? Bible Banner, June 1947, 2-5.  Wallace also
stated, in reference to the colleges? role in supplying preachers, that he had never heard
anyone ?ask where the church would be today if it had not been for the orphans? homes.?
106. Letter from N. B. Hardeman to B. C. Goodpasture, January 29, 1947, Goodpasture
papers.
107. N. B. Hardeman, ?Foy Versus Roy, Cled, and Himself,? Gospel Advocate, August 28,
1947, 656-57, 661.  See also N. B. Hardeman, ?The ?Ace Writer? Flounders and Flutters,?
Gospel Advocate, August 28, 1947, 661.
108. Foy E. Wallace, Jr., ?Reply to the N. B. Hardeman ?Hit and Run? Attacks,? Bible
Banner, October 1947, 12-24.
109. Letter from N. B. Hardeman to B. C. Goodpasture, October 25, 1947, Goodpasture
papers.
110. Letter from N. B. Hardeman to B. C. Goodpasture, October 28, 1947, Goodpasture
papers.
111. N. B. Hardeman, ?The Banner Boys Become Enraged,? Gospel Advocate, October 23,
1947, 844-45, 848.  On Wallace as an ?isolationist,? see Harrell, The Churches of Christ in
the Twentieth Century, 91-103.
112. N. B. Hardeman, ?Then and Now,? Gospel Advocate, November 6, 1947, 893. 
Hardeman sent Goodpasture a transcript copy of Wallace?s letter, dated March 26, 1937, in
Goodpasture papers.  Wallace would give another reason for the strained relationship with
114
Hardeman: the controversy over the Norman Davidson letters in 1946; see Foy E. Wallace,
Jr., ?The Plain Facts Versus the N. B. Hardeman Falsehoods,? Bible Banner, December
1947, 9-16.  See also letters from Hardeman to Goodpasture, January 25, 29, 30 (with
enclosures) and February 4, 1947; and letter from Goodpasture to Hardeman, February 1,
1947, Goodpasture papers.
113. Wallace, ?The Plain Facts Versus the N. B. Hardeman Falsehoods.?
114. Cled E. Wallace, ?Brother Hardeman?s ?Apology,?? Bible Banner, December 1947, 2-
3.
115. Letter from Whiteside to McQuiddy.
116. Letter from N. B. Hardeman to B. C. Goodpasture, October 29, 1947, Goodpasture
papers.  See also letters from Hardeman to Goodpasture of October 25 and 28, 1947.
117. During the 1960s and 1970s, Wallace regained a substantial amount of influence,
primarily among mainstream conservatives.  See Harrell, The Churches of Christ in the
Twentieth Century, 176-78; and Terry J. Gardner, ?Into the Sunset: Foy E. Wallace, Jr,
1960-1969,? in Foy E. Wallace, Jr., ed. Patterson and Gardner, 109-20.
118. The pamphlet was Brewer, Congregations and Colleges.
119. G. C. Brewer, ?Things to Consider,? Gospel Advocate, August 14, 1947, 610-11.
120. On Tant see Fanning Yater Tant, J. D. Tant?Texas Preacher: A Biography (Erlanger,
Ky.: Faith and Facts Press, 1958).
121. See Gardner, ?Young Foy,? 17-18; Terry J. Gardner, ?Foy E. Wallace, Jr.: The
Critical Decade (1949-1959),? in Foy E. Wallace, Jr., ed. Patterson and Gardner, 95-96;
and Foy E. Wallace, Jr., The Present Truth (Fort Worth: Foy E. Wallace Jr. Publications,
1977), ix-xii.
122. Fanning Yater Tant, ?Policy of the Gospel Guardian,? Bible Banner, April 1949, 2.
123. Letter from N. B. Hardeman to B. C. Goodpasture, April 21, 1949, Goodpasture
papers.
124. B. C. Goodpasture, ??Unstable as Water,?? Gospel Advocate, July 7, 1949, 418.  See
also Goodpasture, ?Galatian Instability,? Gospel Advocate, July 14, 1949, 434.
125. Letter from N. B. Hardeman to B. C. Goodpasture, July 27, 1949, Goodpasture papers.
126. Letter from G. C. Brewer to B. C. Goodpasture, August 13, 1949, Goodpasture papers.
127. Ibid.
115
128. G. C. Brewer, ?What Doctrine Have We Learned with Reference to Schools and
Orphan Homes?? Gospel Advocate, October 13, 1949, 643-47.
129. Letter from Fanning Yater Tant to G. C. Brewer, November 8, 1949, Goodpasture
papers.
130. Letter from G. C. Brewer to B. C. Goodpasture, November 14, 1949, Goodpasture
papers.
131. Letter from N. B. Hardeman to B. C. Goodpasture, November 1, 1949, Goodpasture
papers.
132. See G. K. Wallace, ?Orphan Homes,? Gospel Guardian, November 17, 1949, 1, 3.
133. See, for example, Cled E. Wallace, ?Is it Growth or Apostasy?? Gospel Guardian,
June 2, 1949, 1, 7; Fanning Yater Tant, ?Dawn of a New Era?? Gospel Guardian, August
18, 1949, 2; and Tant, ?A Hopeful Sign,? Gospel Guardian, October 6, 1949, 2.
134. Gardner S. Hall, Gospel Advocate, December 31, 1942, 1228 (no heading).
135. R. C. Walker, ?Commends Gospel Advocate,? Gospel Advocate, November 27, 1947,
973.
136. B. C. Goodpasture, ?One Hundred Items for the Preacher?s Library,? Gospel
Advocate, February 6, 1947, 108; B. C. Goodpasture, ?A Day?s Mail,? Gospel Advocate,
November 23, 1944, 762-63; letter from John W. Kurfees to B. C. Goodpasture, August 31,
1941, Goodpasture papers; letter from A. S. Landiss to B. C. Goodpasture, May 5, 1942,
Goodpasture papers; letter from Batsell Baxter to B. C. Goodpasture, November 13, 1940,
Goodpasture papers.
137. B. C. Goodpasture, ?The Lengthening Roll of Workers,? Gospel Advocate, November
17, 1949, 722.
138. M. Norvel Young, ?Appeal for Cooperation from Colored Congregations,? Gospel
Advocate, February 20, 1947, 174.  On Young see Hooper, A Distinct People, 183-87.
139. B. C. Goodpasture, ?New Features for 1940,? Gospel Advocate, December 28, 1939,
1230; see also B. C. Goodpasture, ?Be Patient With Us, Brethren!? Gospel Advocate,
December 12, 1940, 1180.
140. Letter from B. C. Goodpasture to Don H. Morris, January 1, 1942, Don H. Morris
papers, Archives, Brown Library Special Collections, Abilene Christian University, Abilene,
Tex.
141. Letters from Morris to Goodpasture, January 14, 1942, and January 9, 1942, Morris
papers.
116
142. Letter from N. B. Hardeman to B. C. Goodpasture, January 2, 1942, Goodpasture
papers; see also letter from Hardeman to Goodpasture, November 9, 1943, Goodpasture
papers.
143. From the founding of Florida Christian College in 1945 to the end of the decade,
Goodpasture published, exclusive of advertisements, at least twelve prominently placed
reports or articles on the college.  Ironically, from its beginning the college announced that it
would accept donations from individuals only, a policy that by 1960 would lead to a
breaking of ties between the college and the Advocate.
144. L. R. Wilson, ?Program for Florida Christian College,? Gospel Advocate, December
27, 1945, 731-33.
145. Rex A. Turner, ?This I Remember About B. C. Goodpasture,? Sound Doctrine,
July/August 1977, 2-3.  See also Rex A. Turner, ?I Remember B. C. Goodpasture,? Gospel
Advocate, July 1992, 44-45; and ?Dedication of B. C. Goodpasture Library, Alabama
Christian School of Religion,? undated, 4, Goodpasture papers.
146. ?In Appreciaton,? Gospel Advocate, December 23, 1948, 1229.  On Keeble see J. E.
Choate, Roll Jordan Roll: A Biography of Marshall Keeble (Nashville: Gospel Advocate
Co., 1968).
147. See memorandum, with attachments, from W. G. Mullican to Members of David
Lipscomb College Alumni Committee, January 21, 1944, Goodpasture papers.
148. Letter from Goodpasture to Brewer, November 7, 1946.
149. Athens Clay Pullias, ?Principles to Which David Lipscomb College is Committed,?
Gospel Advocate, October 9, 1947, 796-97; ?Goodpasture to Preach the First College
Commencement,? Gospel Advocate, March 4, 1948, 232.
150. B. C. Goodpasture, ?The Gospel Advocate an Ideal Gift, ? Gospel Advocate,
December 11, 1947, 1012.
151. B. C. Goodpasture, ?The Old Year Passes,? Gospel Advocate, December 28, 1944,
842.
152. J. Roy Vaughan, ?Is the Gospel Advocate Appreciated??  Gospel Advocate, September
19, 1946, 884, 901.
153. Goodpasture, ?The Lengthening Roll of Workers.?
154. See Willard Collins, ??Capable, Cultured, and Conscientious??This is B. C.
Goodpasture As I Know Him,? Gospel Advocate, July 14, 1955, 584; Willard Collins, ?B.
C. Goodpasture,? in The Gospel Advocate Centennial Volume, comp. B. C. Goodpasture
(Nashville: Gospel Advocate Co., 1956), 88; letter from G. C. Brewer to B. C. Goodpasture,
117
June 29, 1939, Goodpasture papers; and letter from Goodpasture to Brewer, November 7,
1946.  See also Foy E. Wallace, Jr., ?A Word of Appreciation to Friends and Subscribers,?
Gospel Advocate, December 18, 1930, 1216; Foy E. Wallace, Jr., ?The Advocate for
1934,? Gospel Advocate, January 4, 1934, 16.
155. B. C. Goodpasture, ?Our Roll of Honor,? Gospel Advocate, November 25, 1948,
1132; B. C. Goodpasture, ?Finally (?) ?Our Longest Roll,?? Gospel Advocate, January 13,
1949, 18-19.
156. B. C. Goodpasture, ?Brethren, We Thank You,? Gospel Advocate, April 24, 1941,
388.
157. McQuiddy interview; letter from Violet DeVaney to Guy N. Woods, August 31, 1950,
Guy N. Woods papers, box 5, Loden-Daniel Library, Freed-Hardeman University,
Henderson, Tennessee.
158. Letter from Billingsley to Goodpasture, August 9, 1946.
118
CHAPTER 4
THE FIFTIES:
?ON THE MARCH?
In the collective opinion of his supporters, B. C. Goodpasture managed the Gospel
Advocate without sacrificing biblical truth.  In unison they held firmly to the notion that
Churches of Christ were the legitimate heirs of the nineteenth-century restoration movement,
and that other Christian communities fell short in their understanding and practice of the
whole counsel of God.  They also believed that Churches of Christ were ?on the march? as
they entered the 1950s, making phenomenal gains not only in souls saved and churches
established, but in respectability and influence within their communities and beyond.  More
intent than ever on promoting growth, Goodpasture reinforced his endorsement of modern
methods and attitudes, and strengthened his alliances with like-minded preachers, churches,
and institutions.
To his noninstitutional critics, however, Goodpasture and his cohorts were trampling
the New Testament underfoot as they marched, and they accused the Advocate editor of
wielding power unfairly and unwisely.  They also bemoaned the tendency of the Advocate,
other institutions, and many congregations to think and act denominationally.  They further
admonished them for compromising with broader society, both in its religious and its secular
manifestations.  In their rapidly intensifying attacks, therefore, anti-institutional
conservatives assailed more than institutionalism.  Their finely honed arguments against
119
certain practices, and in favor of others, were based on minute assessments of the words of
scripture, as were responses from the institutional side of the debate.  Their discourses on the
consequences of unscriptural practices, however, did not consist merely of chapter-and-verse
warnings against testing God.  Accompanying, for instance, their studied conclusions
regarding the scriptural limits of church cooperation were broader formulations warning
against centralized power and the loss of congregational independence.  Goodpasture, at the
center of a nexus of institutional power, served increasingly as their primary target.
For his part, the influential editor worried about the consequences of the extreme
legalism and downright contrariness he saw driving the arguments and motivations of
noninstitutional leaders.  Like many others, he believed they threatened all that Churches of
Christ had gained, and it was he who led a vigorous and devastating response to their
activism.  Intent on maintaining unity among the vast majority of the churches, he went
about the task of enforcing consensus, impelling many preachers and congregations to
choose sides.  Only a small minority of churches aligned with the noninstitutional movement
in the end, a result that Advocate supporters credited to Goodpasture?s decisive leadership.
Rock Fights
At the very outset of the fifties, the plight of a group of American missionaries in
Italy led to an episode stateside that highlighted the old and new attitudes uneasily coexisting
among Churches of Christ.  Thirteen missionaries arrived in Italy in January 1949 under the
sponsorship of the Crescent Hill Church of Christ in Brownfield, Texas.  Operating on
temporary visas, they preached in towns near Rome, established an orphanage at Frascati,
and distributed aid of various kinds.  But their attempts to proselytize native Italians in an
overwhelmingly Roman Catholic country met with resistance and a measure of violence. 
120
Crowds threw stones at the missionaries in four towns, succeeding at driving them out in
each instance, albeit uninjured.  A more daring group of local residents dynamited a Jeep
belonging to the orphanage.  Others physically harassed some of the more than 200 converts
gained by the Americans.  A stoning incident in December 1949 at Castel Gandolfo, the
location of the papal summer residence, led to mainstream press reports, including an
Associated Press story that made the front page of the New York Times.  The missionaries,
claiming that local priests had incited young parishioners against them, accused the Italian
government of caving in to Catholic demands to deny them permanent visas, stop their
distribution of aid packages, and close their orphanage.1
Many members of Churches of Christ, especially in Texas, expressed outrage with
the Italian government and the Roman Catholic Church for their treatment of the
missionaries.  Imploring the American government to address the situation, they formed
committees, drafted resolutions, held rallies in Dallas and Houston, wrote congressmen,
made appeals to the State Department, and sent a mass telegram to President Truman.  2
Publicity in the national press continued, which in addition to intensifying the indignation
brought out a certain amount of denominational pride and optimism.  On the front page of
the Gospel Advocate prominent Texas preacher M. Norvel Young wrote, ?Evidently more
people have heard of the churches of Christ through this means than any such event in our
generation.  The most widely-read news magazines are carrying stories on it.?3
Other church members, however, considered the overt denominational response to
the reports from Italy both disappointing and alarming.  Cled E. Wallace, staff writer for the
Gospel Guardian, satirized the entire episode in a front-page article, ?That Rock Fight in
Italy.?  His disparagement of both the protestors and the missionaries created a firestorm of
121
controversy.  Wallace?s doctrinal point was mostly overlooked.  Criticizing the
denominational reaction of supposedly undenominational Christians, he remarked, ?Maybe
if we keep our shirts on and our hats on straight, ?our? denomination may be able to appoint
enough committees and draft enough resolutions to influence the pope to call off his rock
throwing.?   Later defining ?denomination? for his readers, Wallace gave expression to an4
anti-institutional mindset that in years past had been more prevalent: ?A denomination, as
commonly accepted, is something in the way of a religious organization, which is smaller
than the ?church in the universal sense? and larger than ?a local congregation.?  There isn?t
anything like it in the New Testament.  This ?mass-meeting? in Dallas certainly cannot
qualify as ?the church in a universal sense? nor as ?a local congregation.??5
In its reaction to the Italy situation, the Advocate, like other church papers, typified
the kind of denominational consciousness that Wallace found distasteful.  Warning of ?the
encroachments of Romanism in this country,? B. C. Goodpasture decried ?the outrageous
treatment of our brethren in Italy.?   He praised those Christians ?who have gone to Rome to6
preach the gospel in that priest-ridden and benighted city [and who] have manifested a
Pauline courage.?  He pounced on Wallace?s attack in a response to the writer that was
representative of many others.  Alluding to accounts of persecution by stoning recorded in
the book of Acts, he wrote, ?If the stoning of these young men in Italy by a Romish mob may
be dubbed a ?rock fight,? then may we think of Paul as having been ?knocked out? and
Stephen as having been killed in a ?rock fight?? . . . We prefer to sympathize with these
brethren and pray for them rather than ridicule them in their persecution.?7
Caught off guard by the backlash, Wallace attempted to clarify his concerns.  ?An
innocent looking expedient like a ?mass meeting? of churches to handle an emergency can
122
whip up a party spirit that may get out of hand,? he explained.  ?We may be mad at the Pope
this time.  The next time we may be madder about something else, and decide that
organization may help us do something about it.?   Further defending himself, he homed in8
on the sponsoring-church arrangement used to fund the Italian missionaries.  ?I?m a bit
worried,? he wrote, referring to the Crescent Hill congregation?s sponsorship of the mission,
?about a church?s right to plan a big program that it can?t pay for . . . and line up
?contributing churches? to work through ?the sponsoring church.??   Guardian editor9
Fanning Yater Tant came to Wallace?s defense, observing that he rightfully ?shocked many
brethren into taking a ?breather? in their wild rush toward a typical denominational pressure
campaign on our State Department.?10
Like Wallace, Tant tried to turn the controversy toward scrutiny of the limits of
congregational cooperation: ?Is there a scriptural precedent for, or an example of, the elders
of one ?sponsoring? church becoming the controlling and directing medium through which
many other churches may spend their money and discharge their responsibility in a foreign
field??   Definitely not, he answered.  The entire arrangement looked suspiciously like a11
missionary society, but with a single eldership calling the shots rather than a mission board. 
Guardian publisher Roy E. Cogdill offered his opinion too, making the stark declaration
that the sponsoring-church issue boiled down to ?whether we follow God?s way or follow
our own way.?  Clearly, Cogdill asserted, ?God did not provide for any concentration of
power in one congregation, but gave the same jurisdiction to all, and made each responsible
for its own work.  No congregation has the right to delegate that responsibility to another
church.?  Likewise, he continued, ?centralization of power [is not] to be assumed by one
congregation.?12
123
Fearing that the Guardian stood ?alone? in its opposition to sponsoring-church
arrangements, Tant questioned why papers like the Advocate and the Firm Foundation did
not recognize the ?developing? danger.  He conjectured that they did not understand the
?nature of the threat? and that their editors had ?a general desire not to rock the boat when
things are going well.?  In particular, the Advocate?s growing ?popularity? seemed ?to blind
her eyes to the dangers ahead.?  At any rate, Tant declared, if some were ?set on leading the
church into apostasy,? the Guardian was determined to lead a ?battle . . . waged without
restraint,? even if it meant suffering ?the agony of . . . division.?13
In opposition to the Guardian?s militant mindset and its position on church
cooperation stood Goodpasture and the Advocate.  Many church leaders, including
Goodpasture, showed little patience with the Guardian from the time of its founding in
1949.  The controversy over the Italian mission and the sponsoring-church arrangement that
funded it intensified their impatience.  Testy in their responses to the Guardian?s assault,
they simply did not agree with the Guardian that the method contradicted scripture,
threatened congregational autonomy, or turned the sponsoring church?s eldership into a
missionary society board.  Rather, they rejoined, the set-up was a voluntary and efficient
form of congregational cooperation conducted in full accordance with the New Testament.
Denver preacher Cecil Wright hoped that the Guardian?s talk of division over the
issue was ?just so much bluster.?  He could not see how the paper could justify an attack on
the unassailable ?principle of ?sponsored? cooperation.?   G. C. Brewer was similarly14
dismissive of the Guardian?s rant.  Churches of Christ, he claimed, ?accomplished more in
the mission fields? in the five years since the end of World War II than in any other five-year
124
period, ?quibblers? like the Guardian notwithstanding.   Goodpasture, seemingly doing his15
best to ignore the Guardian, ran out of patience when Yater Tant cited a 1940 Advocate
article in favor of his position.  It had been authored by Goodpasture?s now-deceased
mentor, H. Leo Boles.  The Guardian, Tant suggested, merely held the same position on
congregational cooperation as the venerable Boles.   Incensed by the Guardian?s gall,16
Goodpasture reprinted the Boles article in full, accusing Tant of having ?garbled? the
piece.17
Marching Onward
Generally not alarmed by the Guardian?s warnings, fifties-era progressives kept
busily ?on the march,? a phrase they regularly applied to Churches of Christ.  18
Goodpasture, in fact, employed the metaphor in three editorials in the space of three months
in 1952.  Exhorting readers to ?let our lights shine,? he proudly announced that ?the
brotherhood is on the march.?  Its ?influence . . . for good is being extended and recognized
in this generation.?   He took special delight in citing the positive appraisals of outsiders. 19
Their assessments were ?proof that the influence of the churches of Christ is being felt in this
country.  The churches are awakening to a new sense of responsibility.  They are on the
march.?   Goodpasture also found it20
gratifying to see the rapid growth of the church in our generation.  The hosts of the
Lord are bestirring themselves.  A mighty army is on the march.  The gospel is being
preached in the neglected sections of our own country and to the far ends of the earth. 
May this be only the beginning of a movement that will soon carry the primitive
gospel to every creature in the whole world.21
Goodpasture?s statements captured the euphoria of an expanding church.  Like other
religious groups in the United States, Churches of Christ experienced rapid growth following
the Second World War.  Indeed, some believed they were growing the fastest of all.  In
125
1947, Norvel Young conservatively estimated that the fellowship contained 680,000
members in 10,000 congregations, figures that alone indicated significant gains since the
1920s.  By 1960, liberal estimates had the membership figure more than doubling to
2,000,000 or more.  Such estimates were bloated, based more on rosy perceptions than data. 
Yet, whatever its rate, numerical growth was occurring at home and abroad and feeding the
group?s robust optimism.  Engaging in local outreach and benevolence, churches were also
sending record numbers of missionaries to foreign and domestic fields to establish new
congregations.  All the activity was having an effect.  Precious souls were being baptized and
added to the church.22
Factors other than the foundational act of making converts also fed the good feelings. 
Extensive congregational building projects, college expansion and accreditation, and large-
scale cooperative ventures signaled a church not just on the march but on the make.  From a
temporal standpoint, increasing levels of education, affluence, and aspiration were making
all these things possible.  Churches of Christ had always been known for their unquestioning
faith in God, their zeal for the scriptures, and their dedication to the primitive gospel.  Now,
more than ever, these erstwhile cultural separatists showed a keen interest in also being
recognized as the influential members of American society that they had become.  Leaders
and lay members alike pushed and prodded each other to engage the modern world in
modern ways?in order to spread the truth far and wide, of course, but also to keep pace with
their religious neighbors and earn the respect of the broader population.
Churches of Christ, in short, were proudly?and literally?raising their profile.  The
establishment of a national radio and television program, the Herald of Truth, was the most
ambitious, apparent, and enduring example of this from the fifties.   More fleetingly,23
126
enterprising individuals founded the Gospel Press, which placed ads in national magazines
on behalf of Churches of Christ.   Not coming fully to fruition until the late sixties was a24
thoroughly advertised cooperative building campaign for the Manhattan Church of Christ,
motivated by a desire for Churches of Christ to establish a visible, respectable, and effective
presence in ?the capital of the world.?   On the civil religion front, a new periodical25
appeared in 1953 with G. C. Brewer as editor.  Anti-Catholic, anti-communist, and pro-
American, the inaugural issue of the Voice of Freedom coincided with the inauguration of
Dwight D. Eisenhower as president and signaled that Churches of Christ were daring to take
their ?place under the canopy of America?s patriotic civil religion.?   It was the26
denominational identity buttressing all of these endeavors that took offense at Cled
Wallace?s ?rock fight? article and that expressed itself in Goodpasture?s ?on the march?
language.27
Advocate staff writers and contributors shared the editor?s ?on the march? mindset. 
Most were affiliated with large and progressive congregations or church colleges or both. 
Staff writer Ira North exemplified the kinds of alliances Goodpasture built among the
churches and the colleges, and he represented the new mindset as well as anyone in the entire
fellowship.   Author of the aptly titled, You Can March For The Master, published by the28
Gospel Advocate Company in 1959, North?s writings in the Advocate were almost always
positive; unlike many other Advocate writers, he usually stayed away from controversial
topics.  In a typical article, published in December 1954, North touted the potential of
Churches of Christ during the upcoming year.  ?Probably not since the first century have
there been so many open doors for New Testament Christianity,? he declared.  ?The future is
bright.  The church of our Lord is on the march.  Let?s be alive in ?55!?   North?s regular29
127
feature column, ?A Local Church On the March,? also exuded a booster spirit.  Usually
appearing on the front page, the column highlighted the accomplishments of congregations
small and large, rural and urban, well-known and unknown, newly founded and long-
established.   As one of three members of the Advocate?s centennial committee, North30
helped coordinate a massive circulation drive during 1955 as the paper celebrated its 100th
anniversary.  Along with nine others he was named a member of the Five Hundred Club for
securing at least 500 subscriptions during the campaign.31
North preached for the large and growing Madison Church of Christ, just north of
Nashville.   Taking that job in 1952, when he was just thirty years old, he demonstrated32
great creativity in his efforts to increase the congregation?s membership and attendance.  In
1954, Madison had a one-day attendance of 2,317 for Sunday school, an achievement for
which the church received substantial local media attention.  ?So far as we know,?
Goodpasture noted, ?this is an all-time record? for Churches of Christ.  Challenging other
congregations to break the Madison record, the editor called North ?an energetic and tireless
worker,? whose church of 900 members ?is not asleep.?   Madison was not reluctant to33
apply innovative methods to its work.  It developed ten year plans, divided member families
into geographical zones in order to administer programs, and sponsored broadcasts hosted by
North on two Nashville television and radio stations.  In 1955 the church announced plans to
complete a one-hundred classroom educational wing, to place ten new missionaries in the
field, and to grow to 2,000 members by 1965.  The Advocate proudly published Madison?s
guiding slogan: ?One thing is certain?our Lord thought big, planned big, and commanded
big.?  Madison made the Advocate a partner in its big plans by having the paper sent to
128
every member family, convinced that this would be ?equivalent to another full-time
preacher? going from house to house.34
North had his third sphere of responsibility in Nashville with David Lipscomb
College, where he taught speech and Bible.  North secured a Ph.D. in speech from Louisiana
State University, after earning degrees from Lipscomb, Abilene Christian College, and the
University of Illinois.   As a Lipscomb faculty member he promoted his alma mater with as35
much fervor as he did the Madison church, the Advocate, and Churches of Christ.   His36
commitment to Lipscomb was expressed, for example, in much of what he published in the
papers, by his regular appearances in advertisements for the college, and in his stated goal to
have at least 100 students from his congregation enrolled there.   The classrooms at37
Lipscomb?like the Madison pulpit, the columns of the Advocate, and the Nashville
airwaves?provided a venue for North to share his vision for a church on the march.  The
dean of the college, J. P. Sanders, remarked on North?s ?contagious optimism and
enthusiasm.?  He called him ?a gospel preacher on the march for Christ? who challenged his
students to ?plan great things for God [so that] great things will result.?38
North fully appreciated that Nashville was an ideal location for influencing Churches
of Christ.  In 1957, he received a job offer that would necessarily take him away from the
area, even if it kept him in ministry and higher education.  After mulling it over, he informed
Goodpasture that he was declining the opportunity: ?I?m taking your advice and staying at
Madison, Lipscomb, and with the GA.?  Explaining his reasoning, North simultaneously
captured (1) the booster mentality of progressives like himself; (2) the interconnections
between the Advocate, the schools, and the churches; and (3) Goodpasture and the Advocate
as a nexus of influence in Churches of Christ.  ?From Middle Tennessee,? he wrote, ?we
129
have great opportunities to do things for the Cause.  With B.C. Goodpasture in the drivers
[sic] seat and G. Willard [Collins], Bro. Gus [Nichols], Ira North and others really shoveling
on the gospel coal we are going to roll on for the Master.?   Collins, young like North, was39
an Advocate staff writer, Nashville preacher, and vice president of Lipscomb.   Nichols,40
who was of Goodpasture?s generation, was an influential north Alabama preacher and
Advocate staff writer.  Widely recognized for his preaching and Bible knowledge, he was
also known for his loyalty to the Advocate, perhaps best demonstrated by his unceasing
efforts to collect subscriptions.   Goodpasture was visiting Nichols in his hometown of41
Jasper when North wrote to him.  Like the editor, Nichols endorsed the energy and methods
that younger leaders like Collins and North brought to ?the Cause.?
Collins, thirty-five years old in 1950, joined North on the Advocate?s centennial
committee and in the Five Hundred Club.  Although not as dynamic a personality as North,
he too was a skillful promoter, administrator, and preacher.  Moreover, his contributions to
the Advocate, positive and encouraging as they were, also attested to an emphasis on action
and a preference for consensus over controversy.  One of his regular columns, ?Outstanding
Christian Families,? showcased commendable families and their good works in an effort to
?inspire thousands of . . . families to live a more devoted Christian life.?   A feature42
prepared with his wife Ruth, ?It?s a Good Idea,? sought to ?promote the Lord?s work? by
publicizing methods used in local church work.   Both columns also served to give highly43
valued exposure to lesser known preachers and churches.
Other young builders also wrote for Goodpasture and helped define the Advocate of
the 1950s.  One was Alan M. Bryan, born in 1925.  Serving as education minister during the
first half of the decade for the innovative Broadway Church of Christ in Lubbock, Texas,
130
Bryan wrote frequently about the importance of effective Sunday schools and other teaching
programs.   He joined North and Collins on the Advocate?s centennial committee, and his44
regular column, ?Daily Guide for Family Bible Study,? like theirs, was constructive and
motivational.   Bryan likewise exemplified a booster mentality.  In 1956 he wrote of being45
?amazed . . . at the progress being made among congregations.?  They were filled, he
explained, with increasing numbers of ?dedicated, consecrated souls ready, not only to die
for the Lord, but willing to live for his cause.?   Goodpasture also encouraged non-staff46
contributors possessing a progressive outlook.  In 1959 he published a five-part series by
Bonds Stocks, a preacher from Florence, Alabama, who had flirted with noninstitutional
views, on ?The Greatness of Christianity.?  Since ?Christianity is big,? Stocks insisted, ?Let
us have big ideas!  Let us make big plans!  Let us do big things!?  Just like the first century
church, he argued, the church of the twentieth century, as ?led by the great Spirit of God,?
can and should be ?a church on the march.?47
Editorial Notice
Goodpasture contributed to the doing of big things primarily by lending his
considerable influence to projects he deemed worthy of support.  To the Gospel Press
company, for instance, he provided ample space for publicizing its national advertising
campaign, which needed substantial funding to succeed.   He tirelessly hyped the48
?Manhattan project,? an affectionate name for the crusade to acquire property in the heart of
Manhattan on behalf of the fledgling congregation there.   He served as the founding49
president of Freedom Press, publisher of the religious-political magazine, the Voice of
Freedom.   Most significantly, however, Goodpasture unreservedly endorsed the Herald of50
Truth.  In this, as with other undertakings of the period, he was not alone.  In 1951, the
131
Highland church in Abilene, Texas, agreed to sponsor a national radio program, one that
would be under the oversight of the Highland elders but receive funding from churches
across the land.  It would not solicit donations from listeners.  The program, besides bringing
credit to Churches of Christ, would give the restoration plea and the New Testament plan of
salvation a wide hearing.  The Herald of Truth first aired in February 1952 on 31 stations of
the ABC Radio Network.  A year later it could be heard on 250 network stations, a number
that eventually grew to almost 600.  Highland began airing a television version in 1954. 
The Advocate?s support for the ministry was unstinting from the start.  In addition to
advertising its needs and successes, the paper vigorously defended it against noninstitutional
attacks.51
An adept booster of big things, Goodpasture also talked up not-so-big things and all
things in between.  As a conscientious promoter of foreign missions, he published articles
and news announcements on a wide array of initiatives.  From his editorial page he reported
on selected mission works, including an attempt at ?re-establishing the church? in Jerusalem,
and in 1956 he devoted all of an issue to missions in Europe.   Stateside congregations,52
especially ones located in areas of weakness for Churches of Christ, also benefitted from
Goodpasture?s activism.   While not giving any domestic work the substantial publicity that53
he gave Manhattan, he did urge support for a great many, including efforts to establish or
strengthen African American churches and institutions.   C. E. McGaughey, a prominent54
preacher in Washington D. C., sang the praises of the Advocate for assisting in what
amounted to a mission field for Churches of Christ.  ?The editorial endorsement and
approval of B. C. Goodpasture,? he claimed, helped his congregation ?beyond measure? as it
raised funds for ?a meetinghouse adequate and appropriate for the nation?s capital.? 
132
Moreover, McGaughey continued, the Advocate?s ?influence,? combined with the
?publicity? it gave to ?the needs of the east and the northeast,? resulted in increased numbers
of preachers ?willing to go there and more churches . . . willing to send them.?55
Goodpasture did not neglect congregations located in areas of strength for Churches
of Christ.  Besides advertising local churches by way of news reports, editorials, and articles,
including regular columns like Ira North?s ?A Local Church on the March,? he occasionally
produced issues highlighting all the congregations in a single locale.  Dallas-area churches,
for example, were featured with the November 17, 1955, issue, while Detroit congregations
were recognized August 30, 1956.  Ministers, of course, received attention whenever their
churches did, and, as always, could report on their activities in the ?News and Notes?
section, where the listing of ?Preachers Who Called? at the Advocate offices the previous
week could also be found.  Additionally, articles contributed by preachers, including sermon
outlines and Bible lessons, regularly made their way into the Advocate.
In addition to publicizing preachers, churches, mission efforts, and projects large and
small, Goodpasture promoted church-related colleges, schools, and orphanages.  Indeed, he
showed a particular fondness for any establishment involved in training young people.  His
support was such that everyone knew to ?put this editor down on the side of Christian
education.?   He printed the advertisements and news reports of these institutions, ran56
articles about them, and gave them editorial notice.  As to the colleges, in one form or
another he raised awareness of their lectureships, Bible faculties, construction programs,
capital campaigns, and urgent financial needs.  Additional publicity accrued to the schools
by virtue of the many Advocate staff writers with connections to one or another of them.  Of
the thirty-five men enlisted to write for the paper over the course of the decade, fully half
133
were college employees, while several of the others identified themselves with one or more of
the schools, usually as alumni.   The Advocate also regularly used material from non-staff57
contributors with college affiliations, including school presidents.
Perhaps the most salient publicity for the colleges came in the form of special issues,
by which Goodpasture reinforced an oft-stated claim: ?The work at the Christian colleges is
a great work.?   He devoted all of a 1951 number to David Lipscomb College in58
recognition of its sixtieth anniversary, urging readers to ?support Christian education.?59
Featuring Abilene Christian College on the occasion of its fiftieth anniversary in 1956,
Goodpasture wished the Texas institution ?every success which it can use for the good of
young people and for the glory of God.?   Freed-Hardeman College in Henderson,60
Tennessee, was the focus of an anniversary issue in 1958, as Goodpasture applauded the
school?s ?fifty years of faithful service to young men and women.?   Fittingly, these and61
other colleges helped the Advocate fill up a special issue in celebration of it own milestone. 
The 100  anniversary issue of July 14, 1955, carried college profiles as well as tributes fromth
college leaders to the ?Ol? Reliable? and her present editor.62
Goodpasture also demonstrated his commitment to Christian education beyond the
pages of the Advocate.  He presented a series of ten special lectures to ministerial students at
Abilene Christian in 1953, and about the same time began providing 450 copies of the
Advocate for free weekly distribution on the Abilene campus.   In 1959 he delivered the63
commencement address to the Lipscomb graduating class.   In addition to monetary gifts,64
Goodpasture regularly gave books to the schools from his massive personal library.   In65
1958, in the first installment of a planned 5,000 book donation, he supplied Lipscomb with
1,000 volumes and paid for the furnishings in the room set aside for them.   He specified66
134
why he made the gifts: ?(1) as a slight expression of my appreciation to my esteemed Alma
Mater; (2) as an endorsement of the fine work being done by the present administration; and
(3) as a token of my faith in the future of David Lipscomb College.?   Goodpasture67
presented Alabama Christian College in Montgomery with ?hundreds? of books, while an
orphanage and school near Orlando, the Christian Home and Bible School, received books
from the editor for its own ?Goodpasture Collection.?   Freed-Hardeman accepted more68
than 3,000 volumes from the editor, and like Lipscomb established a ?Goodpasture Room?
in the library to house the collection.69
Goodpasture?s support for these institutions was particularly important because of
the attacks of noninstitutional critics.  As the Advocate promoted them and came to their
defense with numerous editorials and articles, their leaders expressed gratitude.  Don H.
Morris, president of Abilene Christian, thanked Goodpasture for his ?interest in A.C.C. and
the many ways in which you have helped the school.?   Willard Collins, likewise, thanked70
the editor ?for all you do in helping us at Lipscomb.?   The president of Christian Home and71
Bible School, Orvel Boyd, informed Goodpasture that he would ?never forget the kindness
you have shown us in our work here,? while orphan home superintendents, at their annual
meeting, ?unanimously resolved to thank [Goodpasture] for [his] wholehearted and
enthusiastic support.?   Both Harding College, located in Searcy, Arkansas, and George72
Pepperdine College, located in Los Angeles, awarded honorary doctorates to Goodpasture in
1959.   That same year Freed-Hardeman named Goodpasture to its Advisory Committee73
and not long after celebrated ?Goodpasture Day? on campus in acknowledgment of his book
donations.   Also in 1959, during the Lipscomb annual lectureship, school officials and74
faculty honored Goodpasture for his twenty years as editor of the Advocate.  Festivities
135
culminated with a testimonial banquet, at which Batsell Barrett Baxter, head of the
Lipscomb Bible department, served as toastmaster.75
In a more practical show of support, college administrators expressed their
appreciation to the Advocate by going to great lengths to help extend its circulation.  But
gratitude was not their only motivation in these efforts.  Partly, they took an interest in the
Advocate?s ongoing success because they understood that it and other church papers were
the primary means by which they communicated with prospective donors and students.  At
the same time, however, college leaders worked for the prosperity of the Advocate because
they believed it was in the best interest of Churches of Christ.  Just as they regarded their
institutions vitally important to the cause of Christ, they considered the papers essential to
the church?s future.
100 Years and Counting
The network built between the colleges and the papers provided a surrogate
denominational framework for the loose-knit movement, and that sense of denominational
identity came through loud and clear during 1955 and 1956 as the colleges helped the
Advocate celebrate the centennial of its founding.  Lipscomb and Abilene Christian were
especially instrumental in carrying out the central feature of the centennial celebration, an
enormous subscription drive.  Lipscomb kicked off the drive in January 1955 at its annual
lectureship with a special program for the Advocate.  Before the lectureship ended attendees
had pledged to secure a total of 12,500 subscriptions.   Meanwhile, plans were made to76
promote the drive in February at Abilene?s annual lectureship.   Faculty member and77
lectureship director J. D. Thomas wrote Goodpasture about those plans: ?I hope that the
program which we have worked out honoring the Gospel Advocate will do much good for
136
the Advocate, for other religious journals, and consequently for the cause of our Lord.?  78
After much special notice during the lectureship?including a luncheon in the Advocate?s
honor where Goodpasture received a standing ovation, ?a magnificent plaque? from the
college, and a desk pen set from editors of three other church papers?11,700 subscriptions
were pledged.   Goodpasture was thrilled that the campaign was ?succeeding beyond79
anything that [he] expected.?   Originally hoping to have a total of 50,000 subscribers on80
the rolls by the end of 1955, he announced a new goal of 100,000 subscribers by April
1956.   Harding College joined the effort in November 1955 at its lectureship and collected81
more than 2,000 subscriptions.  Freed-Hardeman College achieved similar success during its
January 1956 lectures.  Central Christian College, located at Bartlesville, Oklahoma, also
honored the Advocate in 1956 and urged lectureship attendees to become subscribers.82
College presidents, among other college officials and faculty, helped Goodpasture by
personally soliciting subscriptions.  Lipscomb?s Athens Clay Pullias and Harding?s George
S. Benson secured at least 500 each, while Abilene?s Don Morris, Freed-Hardeman?s H. A.
Dixon, and Alabama Christian College?s Rex A. Turner each collected at least 100
subscriptions.   Pullias, Willard Collins, Batsell Barrett Baxter, and Ira North further83
demonstrated Lipscomb?s commitment to the Advocate by writing fifty preachers each and
asking them to gather 100 subscriptions each.   Lipscomb wrapped up the ?Centennial84
Drive? at its 1956 lectureship by hosting the Gospel Advocate Centennial Dinner, where it
was announced that the Advocate had reached its goal of 100,000 subscribers.  85
Goodpasture was honored at the dinner with a standing ovation, a resolution ?in appreciation
of his work? from the Lipscomb Board of Directors, and a plaque from President Pullias ?in
memory of the centennial year and in gratitude of [his] work and [his] life.?86
137
Goodpasture did not leave promotion of the centennial drive solely up to the
colleges.  He and his staff kept the drive before readers, and other preachers and readers
worked tirelessly.  From the last few issues of 1954 to the end of the centennial celebration
in 1956, at least one article, editorial, or blurb promoting the campaign appeared in every
issue.  The Advocate was praised for its century of service, its continuity with the past, its
present editor, its usefulness as an evangelistic tool, and its ability to edify the Christian
reader.   In a typical article, staff writer Roy H. Lanier explained in detail the many87
advantages of the paper.  Church members who read it, he claimed, learned more Bible, kept
abreast of mission activity, became familiar ?with the successful methods of other
congregations,? were introduced to ?church leaders throughout the world,? attended church
services more regularly, developed ?deeper spirituality,? and gave more of their ?time and
money.?  Non-members, on the other hand, learned ?what to do to be saved? and about the
?doctrines? and ?practices? of Churches of Christ.  When enlightened about the ?world-wide
activities? of Churches of Christ these readers began to view the group more favorably and
became interested in visiting a local congregation.   Goodpasture echoed Lanier, telling88
readers of the centennial issue, ?It is our constant purpose to improve the paper and make it
more useful in converting sinners to Christ and in building up the saints in the faith.? 
Although ?not perfect,? he continued, ?we try always to do the thing that will be best for the
cause to which we have dedicated our energies and resources.?89
Advocate supporters were urged to subscribe for their friends, while elders were
encouraged to send the paper to each family in their respective congregations and to order
extra copies for weekly ?distribution among those who are not Christians.?   Preachers were90
asked to collect subscriptions and thereby pay their debt to the Advocate for ?placing their
138
name and work before the brotherhood? for so many years.   To reward and motivate91
readers, Goodpasture, according to his custom, regularly listed the names of ?workers? and
the number of subscriptions turned in by each one.   Congregations that provided the92
Advocate to their members likewise received recognition.   Goodpasture published93
comments from readers, especially in response to the special anniversary issue, which was
oversized with a slick cover in glittering color and widely distributed to non-subscribers.  94
Dozens of compliments on that issue were printed for several weeks after its publication,
usually on the editorial page.  The remarks came from preachers, elders, lay readers, college
presidents, orphan home superintendents, newspaper editors, fellow church paper editors,
businessmen, and even high-ranking government officials, including the mayor of Nashville,
the governor of Tennessee, and the state?s two U.S. senators.   Goodpasture further whipped95
up excitement about the campaign by establishing the One Hundred Club for workers who
garnered at least 100 subscriptions; 162 men ended up in this group, with ten of them
securing at least 500 subscriptions to be named to the Five Hundred Club.  Among other
inducements, workers aspiring to club status were promised special recognition for their
work in The Gospel Advocate Centennial Volume and at the Centennial Dinner hosted by
Lipscomb.96
Despite the great number of supporters working to bring in subscriptions, not
everyone in sympathy with the Gospel Advocate was pleased with the nature of the
centennial campaign.  In October 1955 Leon C. Burns, a forty-eight-year-old minister from
Columbia, Tennessee, wrote to Goodpasture ?as a friend? who stood with the Advocate on
?major issues now confronting the brotherhood.?  Letting the editor know that he was not
139
alone in his concerns, Burns voiced his displeasure with both the subscription drive and the
Advocate?s booster mentality:
The manner in which your present campaign is carried on disturbes [sic] me much. It
seems that the management and the policies of the Advocate have been turned over
to David Lipscomb College. . . . I have been disappointed in the manner in which
you and the Advocate seem to have fallen so completely in line with the high-
pressure schemes and methods advocated by Ira North and the Madison church. . . .
The whole thing is little short of cheap side-show ballyhoo, and far beneath the
dignity of the Lord?s church.97
Burns surmised, hopefully but not very prophetically, that ?this wave of misguided
enthusiasm? would not ?sweep the brotherhood.?  He apparently failed to see?in the middle
of a decade in which a new kind of enthusiasm was sweeping Churches of Christ?that the
Advocate was a rapidly modernizing institution within a rapidly modernizing church.  Its
extravagant self-promotion was a perfect demonstration of that, for it mirrored the kinds of
modern methods and approaches that institutions and congregations?such as David
Lipscomb College and Madison Church of Christ?were increasingly adopting.
The trumpeting of the Advocate?s growing circulation inevitably was overblown. 
Although the paper met its goal of 100,000 total subscribers, that number, predictably, was
short-lived.  In January 1955, the Advocate had in the vicinity of 25,000 subscribers, a level
not substantially different from that of eight or ten years earlier.   A decade later, in 1964,98
Goodpasture listed a paid circulation just under 30,000.   The Advocate might have99
experienced some permanent growth during 1955 and 1956, but a circulation of 100,000,
although an impressive accomplishment, was not sustainable.  That figure was reached
because individuals and churches did just what Goodpasture asked them to do: they bought
subscriptions for their friends and for their memberships and convinced others with little
sustained interest to take the paper for a year.  As these new subscriptions expired, only a
140
small percentage were renewed.  Nonetheless, the centennial drive demonstrated that the
success of the Advocate meant a great deal to a great many.  Staff writers, college leaders,
preachers, elders, and lay readers worked hard for Goodpasture for the simple reason that the
Advocate really did play an important role in their lives.  They believed in its power to
strengthen the faithful and spread the true gospel to the unsaved; they coveted the publicity it
provided to their interests and activities; and, not insignificantly, they took pride in it as an
institution that represented them well to outsiders, even eliciting compliments from mayors,
governors, and senators.
Edification
The Advocate filled a variety of less political roles in edifying members of Churches
of Christ.  As one contributor put it, ?The ?G.A.? keeps us informed so that we can know
something of other worthy works and workers.?  Such knowledge, he reported, helped
church members realize their ?part in the great team play of kindred hearts and minds, to
know that we are all on the same team, God?s team.?   The Advocate?s ?News and Notes,?100
in particular, carried out this dual function of edification and information.  In that section
readers learned of many things, including the number of converts at recent gospel meetings
(and how many were from other denominations), preachers who were available to hold
gospel meetings, the establishment of new congregations, church building programs,
attendance records at Vacation Bible School, debates, missionary activity, deaths of
prominent church members, the needs of orphanages and homes for the elderly, news from
the colleges, and the total number of baptisms reported that week.
Goodpasture often highlighted reports on church members who achieved
extraordinary secular success or recognition.  In 1955 he announced a new monthly feature,
141
?What the Religion of Jesus Means to Me,? which showcased prominent individuals like
?the executive assistant to the Mayor of Los Angeles,? and ?a faithful elder who is a
professor at the third largest university in our country.?   In 1956 Goodpasture devoted101
most of an issue to A. M. and Lillie Burton.  Mr. Burton was a longtime member of
Lipscomb?s board of directors and the founder of Life and Casualty Insurance Company
headquartered in Nashville.  Both he and his wife were well-known for their philanthropy. 
Goodpasture believed that readers would ?gather encouragement and inspiration? from
reading about such successful Christians.   In a similar vein, Goodpasture turned the102
spotlight on N. B. Hardeman when his eighty-fifth birthday was celebrated with much pomp
and circumstance at a Memphis banquet in 1959.  Among the 700 people paying tribute to
the orator and educator were Texas senator Lyndon Johnson, Tennessee senator Albert Gore,
Tennessee governor Buford Ellington, and Memphis mayor Edmund Orgill.  By honoring
Hardeman these dignitaries were also honoring Churches of Christ.  The Advocate proudly
published a group photograph of the men posed around Hardeman.103
The Advocate also played a strong educational role for its readers, whether
preachers, elders, lay members, or even non-members.  Many of the Advocate?s regular
features and special issues during the fifties were typical of the educational content it
provided.  Features included sermon outlines, Sunday school lessons, answers to doctrinal
questions, ?Daily Guide for Family Bible Study,? ?It?s A Good Idea,? ?Know Your Bible
Family Quiz,? ?The Pioneer Pulpit,? and ?The Gospel Advocate?s Book of the Week.? 
Special issues covered such topics as the Church, Sunday school, Vacation Bible School,
gospel meetings, the Bible, preaching, and salvation.   Goodpasture also furnished104
educational material to preachers and churches via the Gospel Advocate Company, for
142
which he began serving as president in 1950.   Besides publishing the Advocate, the105
company produced Bible class literature, Bible commentaries, books, tracts, and, beginning
in 1955, the Minister?s Monthly, a magazine designed as a resource for preachers and other
church leaders.106
Goodpasture displayed a special interest in helping fellow preachers, his most
attentive readers.  Although he retired from the pulpit of Hillsboro Church of Christ when he
was named president of the Gospel Advocate Company (subsequently Hillsboro named him
an elder), Goodpasture never stopped preaching.  He filled in at Hillsboro occasionally and
preached regularly in gospel meetings and at special events across much of the country.  107
Beyond the typical educational content of the Advocate, much of it designed specifically for
preachers, the editor served ministers by educating them on a variety of topics ranging from
developments in social security laws to books appropriate for their libraries.   Hundreds of108
preachers visited the Advocate offices each year and he talked with all he could, doling out
wisdom and encouragement.  From his private collection he provided free and discounted
books to an untold number of preachers, especially younger ones, thus better equipping them
for ministry.109
Cherished Leader
The Advocate, then, was important to its supporters because it publicized, edified,
informed, and educated?and because it performed these functions as an institution that they
could take pride in.  By the mid-fifties Goodpasture?s name was synonymous with the
Advocate and he and the paper had won unprecedented popularity and prestige among
church members.  Supporters heaped personal adulation upon the editor during the
centennial year.  The exuberant commentary of two staff writers recorded in the 100th
143
anniversary issue expressed the sentiments of many readers.  According to Guy N. Woods,
the Advocate was ?at its zenith? of service:
Under the masterly hand of B. C. Goodpasture, its cultured, genial editor, the 
Advocate recognizes its obligation to the Lord and its responsibility to his people. . . .
As its circulation rises to unprecedented heights, its potentialities increase and its
possibilities for good become immeasurable.  The faithful everywhere will rejoice
that such is so; and thank God for this powerful medium through which and by
which the truth is sent out to the world.110
Willard Collins offered even more effusive praise: ?May we rejoice that B. C. Goodpasture
occupies the editor?s chair of the Gospel Advocate, that he serves as president of the entire
Gospel Advocate Company, and that he is an elder in one of the largest congregations in the
brotherhood, because in these positions he can do so much for Christ and his church.?111
By 1959, a year in which readers were encouraged to collect at least twenty
subscriptions in recognition of Goodpasture?s twentieth anniversary as editor, the acclaim for
this ?renowned scholar, preacher, lecturer, writer, and editor? had escalated.   Batsell112
Barrett Baxter, head of the Lipscomb Bible department, called Goodpasture ?the Alexander
Campbell of our day.?  He noted that both men were highly intelligent scholars; both were
book collectors, editors, and preachers; both promoted Christian education; and both were
?unusually influential . . . for the cause of Christ.?   Several tributes emphasized the claim113
that Goodpasture was a scholar.  In addition to his ?cultured? persona, the editor had a
reputation for being adept at biblical Greek, for being widely read, and for incorporating his
learning into his writing and preaching.   He thus was hailed as a ?man of great breadth114
and depth of scholarship.?   Admirers also appreciated his many redeeming personal traits. 115
In addition to noting his ?rich sense of humor,? they described him as noble, humble, affable,
forbearing, congenial, and kind.116
144
Writer after writer expressed gratitude for Goodpasture?s contributions to Churches
of Christ, especially in the ongoing institutional controversy.  Veteran preacher and educator
L. R. Wilson praised him for his steady hand of leadership ?during these past twenty years of
growth and disturbance.?  Goodpasture had ?kept a level head,? he observed, ?and
encouraged every good work among us, while adhering to the same principles that have
characterized our work since the beginning of the Restoration Movement.?   Noted117
preacher G. K. Wallace considered Goodpasture ?the man for the moment in these turbulent
years? of institutional controversy.  He was thankful for the editor?s ?wisdom and
magnificent service.?   Goodpasture himself sized up his contributions in much the same118
way.  When asked about his ?major accomplishments? from 1939 to 1959 he listed three:
(1) I have been able to encourage and help the preaching of the gospel in all the
countries of the English-speaking world through the Advocate.  (2) The editorship
has afforded me an opportunity to help stabilize a brotherhood torn by hobby riders
and factionists.  (3) I hope that I have made a major contribution in indoctrinating
and strengthening churches wherever the Advocate has been read.119
Maintaining Unity
That Goodpasture and his supporters had begun to speak of the institutional
controversy in the past tense by 1959 was noteworthy.  L. R. Wilson was of the opinion that
?the crest which threatened all of our work has now passed.?   G. K. Wallace, although120
speaking in the present tense of ?an actual state of mutiny,? also observed that ?the waters
are now becoming calm.?  They were correct.  Fighting over institutional issues was on the
wane and institutional and noninstitutional churches were beginning to go their separate
ways.  Wilson and Wallace were also right that it had been a stormy time.  The fighting,
which was not entirely at an end, had been intense and it had indeed threatened the stability
of Churches of Christ.121
145
The commotion caused by Cled Wallace?s ?rock fight? article in 1950 turned out to
be only a mild precursor of what was to come.  The remainder of the decade was marked by
increasingly bitter debate.  The Gospel Guardian led the way in attacking the growing
institutional structures within Churches of Christ, decrying what its writers viewed as
unscriptural practices and methods and an undue emphasis on ?bigness? and
?respectability.?  The paper also led the way in attacking what Guardian publisher Roy
Cogdill called Goodpasture?s ?dictatorial attitude.?   Some writers went so far as to make122
the extreme accusation that the Advocate was guilty of ?modernism.?  In short, these critics
believed that Churches of Christ were rapidly succumbing to ?institutionalism,?
?denominationalism,? and ?secularism.?  Of course, many of those fighting institutionalism
saw the issues in simple biblical terms, arguing that there was no authority for church
support of colleges and orphanages, or sponsoring-church evangelism.  The Gospel
Advocate and its writers also often presented the issues as simplistic biblical arguments.  But
deeper investigation laid bare two diverging mindsets.   By the end of the decade, after123
much wrangling over issues and personalities, a schism was evident.
In the Advocate, the response to the ?anti?s? (a derogatory label applied to those who
were anti-institutional) was a coordinated attack; Goodpasture led the way, but numerous
staff writers and contributors flanked him on either side.  Considering that he had the
editorial page at his disposal fifty-two weeks a year, Goodpasture did not write
voluminously on the controversy, but what he did write got attention.  He also let
others?living and dead?address the issues using his space.  Pieces from David Lipscomb, H.
Leo Boles, and other notables of the past regularly appeared, all in support of current
methods of funding institutions and evangelism.  In this way, Goodpasture attempted to
146
demonstrate that the Advocate had not changed on any important matters.  When he did
address the controversy himself?sometimes in a full-length editorial, other times by
appending his remarks to someone else?s?he rarely discussed the specifics of the issues. 
Staff writers and other contributors argued the fine points of doctrine and fought most of the
pitched battles over Bible meanings.
Others also contributed to efforts to discredit noninstitutional spokesmen, but
Goodpasture relished that job himself.  He also skillfully pressured preachers and others to
line up with the Advocate?s positions.  Goodpasture?s role during the institutional debate,
then, was to keep order within Churches of Christ.  And to keep order was to maintain a
rapidly crystallizing consensus on matters of doctrine, method, and sensibility.  And to
maintain consensus was to allow for the doing of ?big? things.  And to do big things was to
gain wider recognition and greater credibility from outsiders.  Historian David Edwin
Harrell, Jr., has compared Goodpasture?s role to that of a manager, and has written that his
actions during the institutional fight signaled that he had ?blossomed as a man with
masterful managerial skills.?124
Many others helped Goodpasture codify and keep this order in Churches of Christ. 
G. C. Brewer and N. B. Hardeman were two of the most important of them.  Brewer?s role,
until his death in 1956, was much the same as it had been in the late forties.  As a staff writer
he published numerous articles on the issues, and he continued to write with the authority of
an editor.  He deftly and belligerently defended the methods he had done much to promote. 
Hardeman?s role changed somewhat.  Submitting few articles, he chose not to embroil
himself in public controversy, as he had in his exchanges with Foy Wallace in 1947.   But125
in letters to Goodpasture that spanned the decade he continued to comment on the
147
noninstitutional movement and offer advice.  Among the Advocate staff writers the most
prolific writer on the institutional issues was Guy N. Woods, a preacher and debater
stationed in Memphis.  Like Brewer, he wrote with the authority of an editor and was always
ready to back up and defend Goodpasture?s editorial policies.126
Aside from Brewer?s writings, the first significant contribution to the institutional
debate to appear on the pages of the Advocate came from a non-staff contributor, Denver
preacher Cecil N. Wright.  In 1950 and 1951 he wrote more than a dozen lengthy articles
defending the sponsoring-church method of funding missions.  Published in both the
Advocate and the Firm Foundation, an influential Texas paper edited by G. H. P.
Showalter, Wright?s articles provided a platform which others would use to defend activities
funded by this method, including the Herald of Truth radio and television programs.  127
Wright rejected the Guardian charge that sponsoring-church arrangements were relatively
new among Churches of Christ.  He accused the Guardian leadership of being inconsistent
and contradictory.  Besides pointing to contradictory statements made by the Guardian
leadership, he introduced as evidence a cooperative gospel meeting that Houston churches
held in 1945.  Foy Wallace preached at the meeting and the Norhill Church of Christ
sponsored it.  Norhill?s preacher at the time was Roy Cogdill, publisher of the Guardian. 
To Wright, it was ?a rather strange irony that now Brother Cogdill condemns other
cooperative efforts carried out on the same [principle]? as the Houston meeting.   Wright128
also noted that the Guardian did not make sponsoring-church missions a big issue until after
the uproar over the ?rock fight? articles.  Once on the ?defensive,? he accused, the Guardian
abruptly changed the subject from the Italian mission to its funding?and then had the gall to
threaten division.   He supposed that Paul?s directive in Romans 16:17 ?to mark them129
148
which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned? might
properly apply to the Guardian if it did not renounce ?its threat to press its fight to the point
of division.?130
While Wright and others published doctrinal responses to the Guardian,
Goodpasture tried to isolate the paper using his editorial page.  Reprinting long excerpts
from David Lipscomb on church cooperation, he portrayed Guardian supporters as divisive
?hobbyists? and ?radicals? out of line with the Bible and history.   In the tragic manner of131
earlier ?factionists,? he argued, they were isolating themselves by imposing their doctrinal
quirks on the church as a whole.   Premillennialists represented one such ?faction,? but132
there were others.  Goodpasture favored making comparisons to splinter groups known for
opposing generally accepted practices, including Sunday school, multiple cups in
communion, ?located? preachers, and schools that taught the Bible.  ?Sommerites? held to
this last point, contending that such schools usurped a responsibility of the church.133
Although Goodpasture worked to convince his readers that the Guardian-led
noninstitutional movement was comparable to these other minority movements, especially
the early movement led by Daniel Sommer, with its antagonism toward Christian colleges,
there were significant differences.  First, the Guardian represented the views of a much
larger segment of Churches of Christ?at least ten percent?than did the premillennial, non-
class, one-cup, mutual edification, and Sommerite churches combined.   Second, although134
noninstitutional adherents, in the words of historian Richard T. Hughes, ?shared a common
rejection of modernization? with such groups, their doctrinal positions, firmly rooted in the
movement?s past, only began to be considered radical in the context of mainstream Churches
of Christ at mid-century.135
149
Nevertheless, Goodpasture successfully depicted the noninstitutional movement as
extreme, and he regularly questioned the motives of its leading proponents.  ?Sometimes
men arise in the church who have an overweening ambition for first place,? he wrote in
1951.  ?They would rather lead a faction than serve the church.?   These men ?place136
restrictions where the Lord? did not, and so it was imperative that a stand be taken against
?their hurtful extremes and hobbies.?   Goodpasture saw himself and his paper as the137
leaders in this effort, and even drew parallels between the Advocate?s work and the apostle
Paul?s.  ?Paul stood like a stone wall against the Judiazers,? he observed, and ?the value of
his work in exposing their methods, answering their arguments, and staying their progress is
incalculable.?138
N. B. Hardeman and other church leaders also saw Goodpasture as the man to lead
the fight against the ?anti?s.?  Late in the decade, Hardeman wrote an ailing Goodpasture:
?You must stay well if possible.  The Cause needs you as we fight the opposition.?  139
Hardeman developed an even lower opinion than Goodpasture of the noninstitutional
leadership.  He once labeled Guardian editor Yater Tant ?a degenerate son of a noble sire,?
a reference to his father, renowned Texas preacher J. D. Tant.  Hardeman also believed the
younger Tant to be ?deceptive and dishonest.?  He urged Goodpasture to ?show every honest
person how sinful is the Guardian.?140
The Lufkin Affair
In 1951, in an effort to highlight the divisive spirit of the ?anti?s,? Goodpasture
publicized a church split in Lufkin, Texas, where the Guardian was published.  A bitter
division had split the Fourth and Groesbeck congregation in the city.  When the dust settled,
Guardian publisher Roy Cogdill was preaching at the breakaway congregation, while
150
Guardian staff writer Cled Wallace was preaching at the established church.   The split141
had nothing to do with the institutional issues, but Goodpasture took advantage of it to
ridicule leaders of the noninstitutional movement for their inability to maintain peace among
themselves.  He employed sarcasm in his first mention of Lufkin, raising the question of
where editor Tant would worship when visiting the city, with staff writer Wallace or
publisher Cogdill?  And just what were ?the details of ?the Lufkin plan? for starting new
congregations??142
Next, after conferring with N. B. Hardeman, Goodpasture reprinted a guest editorial
from a 1933 issue of the Advocate, when Foy Wallace was editor.  He did not reveal that he,
Goodpasture, as an Advocate staff writer, authored the piece.  The editorial upheld the
?responsibility? of even a ?religious paper to ?mark? and ?avoid? them that cause divisions,?
and Goodpasture introduced it with an obvious reference to the Lufkin trouble: ?There
seems to be a recurring need for just such an article.?   Hardeman judged that the reprint,143
applied within the new context, would ?stop the bragging and the extravagant statements? of
anti-institutional leaders.   A month later Goodpasture added insult to injury by publishing144
a statement from the elders of the established congregation that placed responsibility for the
division on Cogdill.145
Publisher Cogdill and editor Tant published a stream of articles on ?institutionalism?
each week and they were chagrined that Goodpasture had introduced the local church
controversy.  They believed it was a calculated effort to divert attention from the issues. 
Their cause was seriously injured during those months because both Cled and Foy Wallace
?dropped out of the fight against institutionalism.?   Foy Wallace had already abandoned146
the Guardian months earlier and had begun to quietly and gradually align himself with
151
institutional Churches of Christ.  The Fourth and Groesbeck episode pushed Cled in the
same direction.   Cogdill and Tant called Goodpasture to task in their issue of August 2,147
1951.  They criticized him for ?meddling? in the Lufkin affair; for his attempts to
?disparage, slur, belittle, and otherwise discredit? the Guardian; for ?carrying a constant
flood of articles, advertisements, and news reports that promote and encourage?
institutionalism; and for ?refusing a fair discussion of both sides? of the institutional
issues.148
Goodpasture?s reply was sharp.  He belittled Cogdill, suggesting that he was ?the
victim of some strange and distracting complex,? and he accused Tant and Cogdill of
constantly shifting positions: ?The publisher and editor of the Guardian study so hard, learn
so fast, and change so quickly that it is hard for some of their readers to keep up with them!? 
He labeled the noninstitutional leaders hypocrites for protesting his publicity of the Lufkin
church split, since in the same issue Tant publicized the purely local troubles of a Dallas
church.  ?If the editor of the Advocate were meddling when he referred to conditions in
Lufkin,? Goodpasture inquired, ?what was the publisher of the Guardian doing when he
attacked certain things in the church at Brownfield, Texas, Lubbock, Texas, and Union
Avenue in Memphis, Tenn.??  On the issue of ?allowing both sides to be heard,?
Goodpasture challenged Tant and Cogdill to ?live up to their boasted policy? and publish
the Cecil Wright articles then running in the Advocate and the Firm Foundation.149
After this exchange the controversy became more personal and ugly.  The Guardian
leadership understood that Goodpasture was using the Lufkin church split to discredit them,
as well as the entire noninstitutional movement, and they explained this to their readers. 
?Prodigious efforts are being made to be-cloud the issue,? Tant asserted.  Assuring his
152
readers that doctrine was at issue, not ?personalities,? he published a ?re-statement of
convictions? that more or less defined the parameters of the institutional division.  He
stressed that schools and colleges ?are not the work of the church . . . and, hence, cannot
be rightfully supported from the church treasury.?  Regarding orphanages, he argued that
?the organization of a ?board of benevolence? composed of members of various
congregations, acting independently of . . . the local congregation is . . . without authority in
God?s word.?  On congregational cooperation in mission work, he asserted that ?whenever
any ?sponsoring church? seeks in any way at all to exercise oversight over a . . . church in a
foreign field, or to relieve other churches . . . of their responsibility in foreign evangelism by
spending their money for them, there is a clear violation of New Testament principles.? 
?These are the positions,? Tant continued, ?that have brought down upon us the wrath . . . of
brother Goodpasture.?150
Cogdill charged that Goodpasture had ?seized upon the tragic situation at Lufkin as
a golden opportunity to discredit persons? in an attempt to ?destroy the principles for which
those persons have fought.?  After writing several pages defending his role in the Lufkin
division and calling into question Goodpasture?s character, he assured the Advocate editor
that his ?slimy tactic will not succeed.?  Even if Goodpasture somehow managed to silence
the Guardian, ?thousands upon multiplied thousands of the Lord?s people . . . will stand
against the tide of human institutionalism which is sweeping the church.?151
N. B. Hardeman confided to Goodpasture that Cogdill?s response was an ?outburst?
full of ?venom, envy, and jealousy? that ?very few will endorse.?  He advised Goodpasture
to resist ?the temptation to make [a] full reply,? which would only provide fodder for the
Guardian.  He suggested making ?only a brief statement?or none at all.?   Goodpasture152
153
chose to reply but limited his response to a single aspect of Cogdill?s article.  Cogdill had
given impetus to a rumor that one of the Advocate staff writers had ?a standing offer of a
$25.00 reward for anyone who visits the Advocate office and hears brother Goodpasture
mention any preacher in conversation without trying to knife said preacher in the back
before the conversation ends.?   In refuting the rumor, Goodpasture printed statements153
from each staff writer denying the charge, and published letters from readers who wrote in to
claim the twenty-five dollars.154
In the months that followed, the Advocate, and especially the editorial page, was
relatively quiet on the institutional controversy.  Goodpasture made a concerted effort to
keep negatives to a minimum and to give as little attention as possible to the Guardian.  In a
handful of editorials he did address the growing criticism of his policy not to allow, in the
words of former Advocate editor James A. Allen, ?both sides of every question [to] be fully
and freely discussed by competent and representative men.?  Allen, who edited the Advocate
in the late 1920s and subsequently published a conservative monthly, the Apostolic Times,
complained that Goodpasture?s policy was an inexcusable departure from the standard
practice of previous Advocate editors.  Goodpasture allotted Allen an entire page to lodge
his complaint, and then proceeded to refute and discredit him.   He clearly intended to155
stand by the policy he had reiterated just a few months earlier: ?We do not feel that we are
obligated to furnish a medium for radicals and hobbyists to ventilate their hobbies, nor are
we obligated to become an agency for the dissemination of error. . . . When the farmer gets
ready to sow a bushel of wheat, it is not necessary for him to sow a bushel of weeds in order
to be fair.?156
154
Such an attitude irked others, even some who did not support noninstitutional views. 
An anonymous correspondent from Birmingham, Alabama, wrote Goodpasture to inform
him that his ?editorial policy, of allowing only one side of an issue to appear in the
Advocate, has become very nauseating.?  Like Allen, he found the practice unacceptable and
unwise.  ?I believe your unscrupulous dealing will catch up with you one of these days,? he
predicted.   Goodpasture did allow the publication of a few articles that flirted with157
noninstitutional views, perhaps as many as twenty.   Most of these were published between158
1950 and 1953.  There was one aberration.  A 1955 article on church cooperation by Luther
W. Martin, written in a moderate tone, was promptly answered by another Advocate
contributor, J. W. Roberts, a Bible professor at Abilene Christian.159
The Quarantine
By 1954 Goodpasture?s attitude was hardening.  In November of that year he printed
a letter from an unnamed elder suggesting that the Advocate ?publish a list of the preachers
who have been chronic church-busters.?  The preacher at the elder?s congregation had ?just
left, after stirring up no little trouble,? the letter explained.  To the membership?s dismay,
?he turned out to be a rank hairsplitter and hobby rider??another way of saying he was
?anti??and they ?were rather disposed to think that he came with the hidden intention of
?converting the church? to his particular hobbies.?  The elder believed that a public list such
as the one he was proposing would prevent his church and others from making more hiring
mistakes.  Goodpasture called this ?letter typical of an increasing number coming to our
attention.?  While not endorsing the specific suggestion of publishing a list of troublesome
preachers, he was pleased that elders ?are more careful . . . to check the records of preachers
who may be under consideration for any given work.?   In an editorial six months earlier,160
155
he had recommended that churches exercise care in hiring preachers.  Describing New
Testament Judaizers as being ?among the earliest hobby riders to afflict the church,?
Goodpasture warned elders to watch out for their ?modern successors.?  Do not be blind to
the wiles of preachers who ?[seek] to disturb and take over churches,? he counseled.161
The elder?s November letter, and Goodpasture?s commendation of it, led directly to a
milestone in the institutional controversy.  Three weeks after the letter?s publication,
Goodpasture printed comments from readers supporting the concept of marking anti-
institutional preachers.  Ira North, for example, surmised that if such a step were taken,
young preachers would ?think twice before devoting their energy and talents to causing
confusion and division.?  Another letter, from an unnamed ?faithful brother who has stood
like a stone wall against innovations and false doctrines,? proved to be especially significant. 
Goodpasture introduced it with care: ?Study carefully what he writes.  He is not alone in the
treatment he suggests for those who disturb churches with their hobbies.?  The ?faithful
brother? suggested that the Advocate ?might wisely spearhead a movement to ?quarantine?
those preachers who today are sowing the seeds of discord among the brotherhood.?  ?The
exposure of such men,? he reasoned, ?may yet prevent many congregations from being
disturbed and divided.?  As a precedent for this measure he pointed to the church?s eventual
approach to another divisive issue.  ?Premillennialism,? he noted, ?was practically stopped
when those responsible for teaching and pressing their hurtful theories were publicly
?quarantined.??162
Not surprisingly, the Guardian howled in response to the suggestion of a preacher
?quarantine.?  Yater Tant and other writers joined Roy Cogdill in denouncing Goodpasture
as a ?little man? dangerously ?bloated . . . with his own power and importance.?  For many
156
years, Goodpasture had all but shut the noninstitutional viewpoint out of the Advocate; now
he was endorsing a plan to shut preachers out of the churches.  The growing wedge between
the two sides of the institutional debate manifested itself in hyperbole from Cogdill: ?Our
brother [Goodpasture] has assumed the attitude of a ?communistic Stalin? and has sought to
enclose his ?kingdom? behind an iron curtain. . . . Now he seeks to institute a ?purge? of all
who disagree with him and will not ?bow the knee to Baal??his institutional god.?   As for163
Tant, he was flabbergasted at the Advocate?s call for ?division,? and he believed he was not
alone.  ?With shock and dismay,? he announced, ?brethren all over the nation . . . read in the
Gospel Advocate what amounted to an open declaration of intent . . . to divide the Lord?s
church over the ?institutional? question.?   Guardian writer Cecil B. Douthitt also164
expressed amazement at the Advocate?s desire to ?start pinning the yellow tag of quarantine
on one another.?  Apparently, Douthitt speculated, the editor of the Gospel Advocate had
not fully weighed the consequences of ?a quarantine campaign against all who do not agree
with him on the way the churches should do their work.?  If he had, he would have realized
that it would ?produce a multiple split among his own supporters.?  Even some of
Goodpasture?s own writers, Douthitt charged, had expressed contradictory opinions on some
of the burning questions of the day.165
Almost three decades later Tant still expressed anger over Goodpasture?s quarantine
policy.  Writing in Vanguard, in 1982, he declared: ?Surely Brother Goodpasture?s tragic
decision [to endorse the quarantine] was one of the most egregious blunders ever made by
any editor of a gospel journal in Restoration history!?  Tant contended that Goodpasture?s
approach to doctrinal disagreement held no resemblance to the policies of earlier Advocate
editors, and thereby caused lines of communication to be broken in a way that inevitably led
157
to division.   On the other hand, as David Harrell has suggested, Goodpasture did what he166
thought necessary to keep order in Churches of Christ and sustain the group?s progress. 
?From B. C. Goodpasture?s point of view,? Harrell wrote, ?his actions were a reasonable
and responsible effort to save the churches from the pillaging of radicals and extremists.?167
Several months after the recommendation of the quarantine, Goodpasture reported
on its progress, and in effect issued another warning: ?Elders in particular, and congregations
in general, are steering clear of preachers who have the reputation of splitting the churches
by their disposition to ?take over? and to ?ventilate? their hobbies.?   N. B. Hardeman168
agreed that the quarantine was working and that many were losing patience with the ?anti
movement.?  After returning from an extended trip to various parts of Texas, he reported to
Goodpasture: ?The Guardian crowd doesn?t seem to be very popular where I have been.?  169
In fact, judging that the movement had turned ?desperate,? he advised Goodpasture not to
give the Guardian any more free publicity.  ?If I were editor,? he insisted, Tant?s ?name
would never appear again.?170
Other evidence that leaders in institutional Churches of Christ had lost patience with
the ?anti?s? appeared in 1954 and 1955.  Increasing numbers of articles by staff writers and
contributors appeared in the Advocate challenging noninstitutional views.  As Guy Woods
put it, the Advocate?s ?columns [were] opened to us to expose the movement in minute
detail.?   Woods, moreover, was the one who led this charge.  Devoting several lengthy171
articles in 1954 to ?Orphanages and Homes for the Aged,? Woods addressed a subject now
central to the institutional debate.   Since the late forties many had argued that orphans,172
widows, and others in need should not be cared for in church-related institutions because,
according to the New Testament, it was the responsibility of individuals in local
158
congregations to carry out such benevolence.  Woods denied that there was only one
scriptural way for Christians to care for the needy, and asserted that the orphanages and
nursing homes among Churches of Christ were scripturally authorized, organized, and
funded.
Woods?s many writings and debates throughout the decade prompted expressions of
appreciation for his work.   Gayle Oler, superintendent of a Texas children?s home,173
addressed these words to Woods in 1957: ?Whatever your accomplishments in life may have
been, I think one of the greatest contributions you have made, or ever will be able to make, is
[your] contribution toward the stemming of anti-ism.?   Woods believed that the deluge of174
articles from him and others created ?an informed brotherhood,? which once ?alerted to [the]
aims and methods? of the noninstitutional movement ?isolated? it.   He may have175
overstated the case, but the barrage of articles combined with the quarantine produced
visible effects, one being the efforts of many preachers to demonstrate clearly which side of
the issues they occupied.  As Freed-Hardeman dean E. Claude Gardner observed, preachers
accomplished this ?through sundry means.?176
The Confessional
Goodpasture provided one of those sundry means beginning in 1957, as he took an
additional step to isolate the anti-institutional movement.  He began to publish ?statements?
on the editorial page from preachers who had changed their views on the institutional issues,
subtly pressuring others to make similar announcements.  The statements indicated that
many preachers feared becoming isolated from the mainstream.  For a preacher to announce
in the Advocate that he had changed his views?or that after much study he had finally settled
his convictions on the issues?was to ensure that he would not be excluded from the pulpits of
159
mainstream churches, the lectureships of mainstream colleges, and the columns of
mainstream papers.  Goodpasture had already printed, in 1955, a statement from Foy
Wallace disclaiming ?any connection at all with the present Gospel Guardian.?   But the177
first statement in what the Guardian would come to call the ?confessional? did not appear
until 1957.  In August of that year, John D. Cox, a Florence, Alabama, preacher, explained
to Advocate readers that he had arrived at an important conclusion.  ?It is possible,? he
declared, ?to have congregational cooperation without inter-congregational organization.?
Goodpasture ?congratulated [Cox] on making this clear and forthright statement of
his convictions on a vital subject,? and he encouraged more of the same from other
preachers.  ?It is heartening to hear reports from every section of the country concerning able
preachers who are making similar announcements,? he wrote.  ?It would be fine if more of
these brethren, like our able and highly esteemed Brother Cox, would send us articles and
statements.?   They did.  Goodpasture published another twenty statements over the next178
few years.  Especially telling was his introduction to the statement of Charles E. Crouch, a
Columbus, Mississippi, preacher.  In addition to receiving positive exposure in the
Advocate, Crouch, apparently out of a job, received an added bonus when announcing the
change in his views: a sterling recommendation for employment.  Calling Crouch ?one of
our best young preachers,? Goodpasture announced his availability and suitability for some
fortunate church?s pulpit: ?Any congregation needing an able and successful preacher would
do well to get in touch with Brother Crouch.?   Later that year, Crouch began a stint with179
the Riverwood Church of Christ in Nashville, doubtless providing Roy Cogdill with a
perfect example of preachers ?willing to sell the truth short and barter away their spiritual
birthright for a mere mess of pottage.?180
160
Many of the ?confessional? statements reflected the fact that the controversies over
orphan homes and the Herald of Truth broadcast ministry had taken center stage by the late
fifties.  Crouch, for example, focused entirely on those two issues when explaining why he
had ?renounced? his earlier views.  ?Recent debates, articles which have appeared in the
Gospel Advocate, and more mature study? had allowed him ?to see the inconsistency and
error involved in [his] positions.?  No longer did he believe that ?the Herald of Truth type of
cooperation? infringed on ?congregational autonomy,? and, furthermore, he concluded,
?The idea that the orphan home is parallel to the Missionary Society is clearly wrong.?  181
Advocate staff writer Thomas B. Warren reckoned that statements like those from Cox and
Crouch were ?a manifestation of the fact that the anti movement is losing ground.?  He
expressed gratitude to those who made the statements, and to Goodpasture for publishing
them, and ?pray[ed] from the heart that every man and woman now connected with the anti
movement might also change their minds.?  The benefit ?to the cause of Christ in this and
succeeding generations? would be inestimable if they would.182
To Speak the Same Thing
An unexpected setback in the Advocate?s effort to crush noninstitutionalism came in
1957 when former Advocate staff writer Roy H. Lanier, who had only recently resigned,
published a series of articles in the Firm Foundation seeking middle ground in the
orphanage controversy.   Until then, the Firm Foundation and the Gospel Advocate had183
appeared to be of one mind on the institutional issues.  Lanier revealed that he had come to
the conclusion that for a church-related orphan home to be scripturally organized it had to be
under the oversight of a single eldership, not a board; otherwise it was parallel to a
missionary society?an entity larger than the local church carrying out the work of the
161
church.  Reuel Lemmons, editor of the Firm Foundation since 1955, expressed agreement
with Lanier, increasing the sense of crisis for the Advocate.   Guy Woods responded184
forcefully?and from the Advocate?s editorial page?once again denying that the orphanages
and other benevolent institutions among Churches of Christ had any parallel whatsoever to
missionary societies.   He also made something of a threat to Lanier and Lemmons: ?We185
are sorry that Brother Lanier has seen fit to raise this issue at this juncture.  We believe his
articles will result in harm to himself, to the journal in which it appeared, and to the cause of
Christ.?186
This dangerous rift in the ranks of those trying to quarantine the ?anti?s? persisted. 
A year later Lemmons wrote an editorial restating Lanier?s arguments.   On the187
Advocate?s editorial page Woods called the piece ?shocking.?  ?Radicals and extremists
among us,? he lamented, ?will gleefully hail it as evidence of divided sentiment among those
who have hitherto presented a solid phalanx against those troublers in Israel.?   N. B.188
Hardeman judged that ?Bro. Guy has certainly fixed Bro. Lemmons,? but it was another
year before Goodpasture was able to announce that the two influential papers had closed
ranks.   In March 1959, he published a statement signed by several men, himself included. 189
It revealed that in January at the Freed-Hardeman College lectureship Lemmons had
expressed a view on the orphan home issue in line with the views of institutional leaders.  190
One of the signatories, Freed-Hardeman president H. A. Dixon, explained that Lemmons had
?stated that in his judgment it was better to establish [orphan] homes under the oversight of
elders, but that he did not make this the law governing such endeavors.?  Dixon was pleased
that Lemmons held ?the view that the organization of these homes, and their support by
churches lie in the realm of human judgment,? and he knew that others would likewise
162
?rejoice? and ?join [him] in sending new and renewal subscriptions? to Lemmons in honor
of the Firm Foundation?s seventy-fifth anniversary.   Dixon was not putting words in191
Lemmons?s mouth.  In a letter to Goodpasture shortly after the Freed-Hardeman lectures,
Lemmons confirmed that he had indeed closed ranks with the Advocate and other
institutional leaders.  He encouraged Goodpasture to be present at the upcoming Abilene
Christian College lectureship in order to help celebrate the Firm Foundation?s anniversary. 
?I think it would mean a great deal,? he wrote, ?to demonstrate the solidarity and unity we
mention if we could present about the same group at the Firm Foundation luncheon [as]
presented a few years ago at the Gospel Advocate dinner during the Lectures.?192
From the early fifties Goodpasture had demonstrated a willingness to write off the
most zealous and cantankerous of the ?anti?s,? especially the leaders of the Gospel
Guardian.  By the end of the decade, during the breach with the Firm Foundation, he was
also ready to be done with some of the movement?s more moderate leaders, including the
administration and faculty of Florida Christian College (FCC) in Tampa.  Like his earlier
encounters with controversy, his handling of FCC at the end of the decade was an example of
his skillful use of what Richard Hughes has described as ?the efficiency of [the] informal
political structures? of Churches of Christ.   Although FCC had leaned toward193
noninstitutional positions since the late forties, its leadership, particularly President James R.
Cope and Bible department head Homer Hailey, had ?sustained a strained relationship? with
the Advocate.   By the late fifties that relationship had become virtually nonexistent.194
The Advocate?s final break from FCC began with the defection of one of its Bible
faculty members, Pat Hardeman, nephew of N. B. Hardeman.  In March 1958 the young
Hardeman published a statement in the Advocate ?confessional? column in which he called
163
on his ?former colleagues? to follow his example and ?abandon their extreme views.?  195
Over the next several months Hardeman wrote more articles criticizing FCC and the
Guardian.   His uncle predicted that those writings would ?cause Tant and Cope no little196
trouble,? and that ?it may turn out that it was good for him to have been one of them and
now knows whereof he speaks.?   Then Pat Hardeman unexpectedly became a liability to197
Goodpasture when he left Churches of Christ altogether, affiliating with the liberal Unitarian
Fellowship of Tampa.  Goodpasture had no choice but to distance the Advocate from
Hardeman, but not before suggesting that the severe treatment he received from ?his
erstwhile companions in hobbyism? may have pushed him to his ?present condition.?198
Nevertheless, with Hardeman?s articles against FCC, the isolation of the college had
begun.  In July 1958 Goodpasture caused a stir when he published a full-page advertisement
for FCC.   The ad did not mention the institutional issues, but many loyal readers were199
shocked and disappointed that Goodpasture let it appear, and wrote to tell him so.  The
editor provided ?a glimpse of the letters? by publishing ten.  One correspondent wrote,
?Personally, I would not use my influence to urge a young man or woman to attend Florida
Christian College.?  Another remarked that FCC ?has become among our colleges what the
Gospel Guardian has among the papers.?  Yet another related a conversation with an elder
in north Alabama who ?told [him] with grief and a broken heart that Florida Christian
College had made an ?anti? out of his boy.?  Goodpasture acknowledged that he had been
unsure about running the ad, but explained, ?As long as there is reasonable hope of rescuing
a college from its unsound teaching, it has been our policy to carry its advertisements.?  He
stated his ?hope that enough of the board members [would] wake up to what is happening in
time to save the college,? but at the same time made it clear that he agreed with the letters to
164
the editor.  Church members would be wise to avoid FCC, he warned: ?Congregations again
and again, when seeking a preacher, have told me that they would not consider a preacher
who had attended FCC.?200
The attack on FCC had the intended effect.  Eddie G. Couch, minister of the
prestigious San Jose Church of Christ in Jacksonville, Florida, offered to help Goodpasture
apply political pressure against the college.  He asked for 100 copies of the issue so that he
could distribute it to church leaders in Jacksonville, a city with ?at least two churches . . .
served by preachers from Florida Christian College who hold to anti-cooperation views.?  201
More skirmishing was to come, but with the isolation of FCC and the Guardian, the
institutional division was virtually complete.  Thanks in no small measure to B. C.
Goodpasture and the Gospel Advocate, Churches of Christ remained ?on the march.?
Looking back in 1959 on his twenty years as editor of the Gospel Advocate, B. C.
Goodpasture made what many would have regarded a disingenuous statement: ?Frequently I
have said that I was the only person in the brotherhood who did not know how to run it!?  202
As a matter of fact, for a number of years Goodpasture?insofar as any one person could
exercise such power in such a diffuse movement?had rather effectively been ?running?
Churches of Christ as a quintessential ?editor-bishop.?   In 1955, two Advocate203
contributors accurately described the informal but highly influential role of the editor and his
paper.  According to John E. Kirk, since Churches of Christ ?have no conventions or
convocations,? papers like the Advocate serve the ?brotherhood? by ?acting as a
clearinghouse for news regarding the growth, location, and activities of the church in the
various parts of the world.?  This ?function? was in addition to a paper?s role in ?spreading,
defending and vindicating the gospel? and ?warn[ing] brethren of impending dangers.?204
165
James D. Groves similarly pointed out that ?a paper like the Advocate keeps
Christians in touch with kindred activities,? while delivering ?the unceasing truth.? 
Moreover, he asserted, quoting I Corinthians 1:10, ?a good, true, gospel paper will help the
church to ?speak the same thing.?  There is no apostle, no Jerusalem church to guide with
wisdom, only the word to speak with authority, hence the clear word of God must be
explained, must be made clear by the finest minds willing to write.  It must be trumpeted
abroad and the preaching of far-flung messengers measured by the word.  A paper helps to
keep order and unity.?  In fact, Groves continued, ?many a weakling is kept in line and his
teaching kept straight by fear of exposure in the religious press. . . . It saves the church much
trouble and embarrassment when Johnny Upfront is kept low.?205
Kirk, furthermore, reminded readers that Goodpasture was the driving force behind
the Advocate as it carried out its functions.  The editor had ?faithfully and successfully
directed the course of this paper? from the beginning and to him ?should go the sincere
thanks and gratitude of the entire brotherhood.?  In a time of both tremendous growth and
tremendous challenges, ?Brother Goodpasture has given us a publication abundant in words
of wisdom and edification, and representative of the highest type of Christian journalism.? 
Of course, the gratitude of the entirety of Churches of Christ for Goodpasture?s leadership
was too much to hope for.  This held true even in the unlikely event that Kirk was excluding
noninstitutional churches from his conception of the ?brotherhood.?  Mainstream churches,
the near future would reveal, were not as unified as they might have appeared.206
166
1. The Associated Press, ?U. S. Evangelists Stoned in Italy; Charge That Priests Incited
Mobs,? New York Times, January 8, 1950, 1, 20; B. C. Goodpasture, ?Our Brethren
Persecuted By Catholics in Italy,? Gospel Advocate, January 19, 1950, 34-35; B. C.
Goodpasture, ??Catholic Pressure Closes Orphan Home,?? Gospel Advocate, January 26,
1950, 50; B. C. Goodpasture, ?The Situation in Italy,? Gospel Advocate, March 9, 1950,
146; Orville McDonald, ?Report of Trip to Rome,? no date (probably 1951), Reuel
Lemmons papers, box 1, Center for Restoration Studies, Brown Library Special Collections,
Abilene Christian University, Abilene, Tex.; Gerald Paden, ?Italy: Defeating the
Opposition,? Gospel Advocate, October 1997, 14-17; David Edwin Harrell, Jr., The
Churches of Christ in the Twentieth Century: Homer Hailey?s Personal Journey of Faith
(Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2000), 117-20.  See also the Christian
Chronicle for extensive coverage of the Italian mission.
2. Ibid.
3. M. Norvel Young, ?Why We Are Being Persecuted in Italy,? Gospel Advocate, February
2, 1950, 65.
4. Cled E. Wallace, ?That Rock Fight in Italy,? Gospel Guardian, January 19, 1950, 1, 5.
5. Cled E. Wallace, ?Getting Me Straightened Out,? Gospel Guardian, March 2, 1950, 1,
6.
6. B. C. Goodpasture, ??The Pope?s Back Yard,?? Gospel Advocate, February 16, 1950,
98.
7. B. C. Goodpasture, ?Editor?s Note,? appended to Harvey W. Riggs, ?Be Wise and
Harmless (Matt. 10:16),? Gospel Advocate, February 9, 1950, 82.
8. Cled E. Wallace, ?The Best Place to Stop,? Gospel Guardian, February 23, 1950, 3.
9. Cled E. Wallace, ?In the Middle of the Rock Fight,? Gospel Guardian, February 2,
1950, 1, 6.
10. Fanning Yater Tant, ?Surveying the Scene,? Gospel Guardian, February 23, 1950, 2.
11. Fanning Yater Tant, ?Let Us Study the Question,? Gospel Guardian, April 6, 1950, 4.
12. Roy E. Cogdill, ?Centralized Control and Oversight,? Gospel Guardian, April 20,
1950, 1, 5.
13. Fanning Yater Tant, ?Not Alone?We Hope,? Gospel Guardian, April 20, 1950, 2, 4.
Notes
167
14. Cecil N. Wright, ?Cooperation on a Scriptural Basis,? Gospel Advocate, May 11, 1950,
299-300.
15. G. C. Brewer, ?Missionaries Ready for the Field: Who ?Sponsors? ?Sponsoring???
Gospel Advocate, April 13, 1950, 228-29.  See also G. C. Brewer, ?My Visit with a
Guardian Angel,? Gospel Advocate, June 22, 1950, 396-97.
16. Fanning Yater Tant, ?The Overflow,? Gospel Guardian, April 27, 1950, 7. 
17. B. C. Goodpasture, ?More ?Gospel Advocate?1940 Style,?? Gospel Advocate, May 4,
1950, 282-83.
18. See, for example, letter from Don H. Morris to B. C. Goodpasture, March 5, 1952, Don
H. Morris papers, Archives, Brown Library Special Collections, Abilene Christian
University, Abilene, Tex.
19. B. C. Goodpasture, ??Another Phenomenon,?? Gospel Advocate, July 17, 1952, 458.
20. B. C. Goodpasture, ??What I Like About the Churches of Christ,?? Gospel Advocate,
June 5, 1952, 362-63.
21. B. C. Goodpasture, ?As Others See Us,? Gospel Advocate, April 24, 1952, 258.
22. See Robert E. Hooper, A Distinct People: A History of the Churches of Christ in the
20th Century (West Monroe, La.: Howard Publishing Co., 1993), 132-34, 172-180, 282-
86; Richard T. Hughes, Reviving the Ancient Faith: The Story of Churches of Christ in
America (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 221-50; and David Edwin Harrell, Jr., The
Churches of Christ in the Twentieth Century: Homer Hailey?s Personal Journey of Faith
(Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2000), 151-75; William Woodson, Standing for
Their Faith (A history of churches of Christ in Tennessee, 1900-1950) (Henderson, Tenn.:
J & W Publications, 1979), 131-34; and Michael Casey, ?Church Growth: New
Information,? Parts 1-2, Image, May 1 and May 15, 1987.
23. See Tim Sensing, ?Herald of Truth,? in Douglas A. Foster, et al., eds., The
Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 383-84;
Hooper, A Distinct People, 187-90, 284-86; Hughes, Reviving the Ancient Faith, 239-44;
and Harrell, The Churches of Christ in the Twentieth Century, 158-60.
24. See John H. Banister and M. Norvel Young, ?Another Door of Opportunity Is Open
Before Us,? Gospel Advocate, September 15, 1955, 817-18.
25. See Harrell, The Churches of Christ in the Twentieth Century, 156-57.
26. See Harrell, The Churches of Christ in the Twentieth Century, 164-167 (quotation
from 167); Hughes, Reviving the Ancient Faith, 261-63; Michael W. Casey, Saddlebags,
City Streets, and Cyberspace: A History of Preaching in the Churches of Christ (Abilene,
168
Tex.: ACU Press, 1995), 97; and Mark L. McCallon, ?Voice of Freedom, The,? in Foster,
Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement, 763.
27. Ibid.
28. On North see Hooper, A Distinct People, 194-99; and Robert E. Hooper, ?North, Ira
Lutts (1922-1984),? 569-70.
29. Ira North, ??Let?s Be Alive in ?55,?? Gospel Advocate, December 23, 1954, 1016.
30. The first ?A Local Church on the March? column appeared June 9, 1955.  ?Know Your
Bible Family Quiz,? which first appeared June 2, 1955, was another regular feature by
North. 
31. Ira North, ?History of the Gospel Advocate?s Centennial Drive,? in The Gospel
Advocate Centennial Volume, comp. B. C. Goodpasture (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Co.,
1956), 239-43.
32. See Madison Church of Christ, The Madison Story: 90 Successful Church Growth
Programs of the Madison Church of Christ (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Co., 1987), 100-
07; and Hooper, A Distinct People, 194-99.
33. B. C. Goodpasture, ?Congratulations, Madison!? Gospel Advocate, May 13, 1954, 362.
34. Willard Collins, ?A Local Church On the March: Church of Christ, Madison, Tenn.?
Gospel Advocate, October 13, 1955, 909, 923-24.
35. J. P. Sanders, ?Ira North,? in The Gospel Advocate Centennial Volume, comp.  B. C.
Goodpasture (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Co., 1956), 285.
36. See Ira North, ?A Former Student and Faculty Member Tells ?What Lipscomb Means to
Me,?? Gospel Advocate, May 3, 1951, 277, 283.
37. Willard Collins, ?Madison Plans Two Sunday Schools and a Home for Homeless
Children,? Gospel Advocate, October 16, 1958, 661.  For a sample article promoting
Lipscomb see Ira North, ?Wanted: One Hundred Chartered Buses and/or Motorcades,?
Gospel Advocate, March 8, 1956, 218.  For a sample advertisement see Gospel Advocate,
October 8, 1959, 656.
38. Sanders, ?Ira North,? 283-84.
39. Letter from Ira North to B. C. Goodpasture, postmarked July 26, 1957, Benton Cordell
Goodpasture papers, Disciples of Christ Historical Society, Nashville.  North?s job offer
came apparently from George S. Benson, president of Harding College, Searcy, Arkansas.
169
40. On Collins see Robert E. Hooper and Jim Turner, G. Willard Collins: The People
Person (Nashville: 20  Century Christian, 1986).th
41. See for example B. C. Goodpasture, ?Gus Nichols Promises to Get Two Thousand
Subscriptions,? Gospel Advocate, May 12, 1955, 362.
42. Willard Collins, ?An Outstanding Christian Family?The Gus Nichols, of Jasper, Ala.?
Gospel Advocate, May 19, 1955, 387.
43. The first ?It?s a Good Idea? feature appeared July 21, 1955.
44. See, for example, Alan M. Bryan, ?What Is Wrong With Our Bible Schools?? Gospel
Advocate, March 17, 1955, 213-14.  See also Alan M. Bryan, Ideas for Bible School
Growth, Gadsden, Ala.: Christian Teacher, 1957.
45. The first ?Daily Guide for Family Bible Study? feature appeared June 2, 1955.
46. Alan M. Bryan, ?I?m Amazed, Brethren!? Gospel Advocate, January 12, 1956, 39.
47. Bonds Stocks, ?The Greatness of Christianity (No. 3),? Gospel Advocate, October 22,
1959, 676-77.
48. See John H. Banister and M. Norvel Young, ?Another Door of Opportunity Is Open
Before Us,? Gospel Advocate, September 15, 1955, 817-18.  For an example of a full-page
Gospel Press ad see the November 24, 1955, issue.
49. See the Gospel Advocate?s special issue on the Manhattan church, December 8, 1955;
and ?Manhattan Receives $106,000 in 1957,? Gospel Advocate, July 25, 1957, 466.  For a
year-by-year account of the Manhattan project, see James Burton Coffman, Tales of
Coffman: An Autobiography (Abilene, Tex.: Abilene Christian University Press, 1992).
50. See B. C. Goodpasture, ?Freedom Press Incorporated,? Gospel Advocate, December 25,
1952, 834; and McCallon, ?Voice of Freedom, The.?  See also letter from George S.
Benson to B. C. Goodpasture, September 17, 1952, Goodpasture papers.
51. See Sensing, ?Herald of Truth,? and the Gospel Advocate?s special issue on the
ministry, December 17, 1959.
52. B. C. Goodpasture, ?Brother Henley and the Proposed Work in Jerusalem,? Gospel
Advocate, October 16, 1958, 658; the issue on Europe appeared June 7, 1956.  On missions
after 1945 see Otis Gatewood, Preaching in the Footsteps of Hitler (Nashville: Williams
Printing Co., 1960); Howard L. Schug, J. W. Treat and Robert L. Johnston, Jr., eds. The
Harvest Field (Athens, Ala.: C. E. I. Publishing Co., 1958), 76-287; William S. Banowsky,
The Mirror of a Movement: Churches of Christ As Seen Through the Abilene Christian
College Lectureship (Dallas: Christian Publishing Co., 1965), 257-95; and Alan
Henderson, ?A Historical Review of Missions and Missionary Training in the Churches of
170
Christ,?  Restoration Quarterly 35 (Fourth Quarter 1993): 203-217.
53. On domestic missions see Schug, The Harvest Field, 10-75.
54. See, for example, B. C. Goodpasture, ?Work Among the Colored People,? Gospel
Advocate, December 7, 1950, 786; and B. C. Goodpasture, ?An Appeal from the ?Old
North State,?? Gospel Advocate, July 31, 1952, 490.
55. ?Greetings from Our Friends,? Gospel Advocate, July 14, 1955, 618.
56. B. C. Goodpasture, ?Christian Education?What About It?? Gospel Advocate,
November 19, 1959, 738.
57. See B. C. Goodpasture, ?It Is Time to Name the Man,? Gospel Advocate, November 1,
1951, 690; ?Our Staff Writers,? Gospel Advocate, July 14, 1955, 585; and B. C.
Goodpasture, ?Our New Staff Writers,? Gospel Advocate, October 2, 1958, 626.
58. B. C. Goodpasture, ?Fifty-Nine Years on the Firing Line,? lectures at Alabama Christian
College, Montgomery, March 23-25, 1971, transcription in Goodpasture papers.  See also
?Goodpasture keys Alabama Christian lectures on ministry,? Christian Chronicle, March
15, 1971, 1.
59. B. C. Goodpasture, ?How Can I Support Christian Education?? Gospel Advocate, May
3, 1951, 274, 283.
60. B. C. Goodpasture, ?Congratulations! Abilene Christian College,? Gospel Advocate,
February 2, 1956, 98.  Goodpasture provided this special publicity without charge to
Abilene Christian, a benefit he likely extended to other colleges so featured; see letter from
B. C. Goodpasture to Bill Teague, July 14, 1955, Morris papers.
61. B. C. Goodpasture, ?Congratulations! Freed-Hardeman College,? Gospel Advocate,
January 9, 1958, 18.
62. See letter from B. C. Goodpasture to Don H. Morris, May 27, 1955, Morris papers.
63. ?Goodpasture Lectures at ACC,? Abilene Reporter-News, December 6, 1953; letters
from Don H. Morris to B. C. Goodpasture, November 28, 1952, August 26, 1953, and
November 12, 1953, Morris papers.
64. ?B. C. Goodpasture Delivers 1959 Commencement Address,? The (Lipscomb) Babbler,
March 27, 1959, 1.
65. Goodpasture stated that he had ?some 20,000 volumes? in his collection in 1938.  See
letter from B. C. Goodpasture to Mrs. D. S. Pooser, August 6, 1938, Goodpasture papers. 
He had many thousands more at his death.  See Freddie Joan Armstrong Goetz Goodpasture,
From Neri to Nashville by the Providence of God (Nashville: Pilcrow Publishing, 1998),
171
374-76.
66. Athens Clay Pullias, ?B. C. Goodpasture Gives Collection of 5000 Volumes to
Lipscomb,? The Lipscomb Review 10, no. 1(Spring Quarter 1958): n.p.
67. Athens Clay Pullias, ?The B. C. Goodpasture Collection,? The Lipscomb Review 10,
no. 1 (Spring Quarter 1958): n.p.
68. ?Dedication of B. C. Goodpasture Library, Alabama Christian School of Religion,?
[March 24, 1970], Goodpasture papers; letter from Orvel Boyd to B. C. Goodpasture, April
22, 1958, Goodpasture papers.
69. H. A. Dixon, ?B. C. Goodpasture Becomes F.-H.C. Advisor,? Gospel Advocate,
September 3, 1959, 572; E. Claude Gardner, ?Goodpasture Day At Freed-Hardeman
College,? Gospel Advocate, November 24, 1960, 744-45.
70. Letter from Don H. Morris to B. C. Goodpasture, August 24, 1951, Morris papers.
71. Letter from Willard Collins to B. C. Goodpasture, August 11, 1961, Goodpasture
papers.
72. Letter from Boyd to Goodpasture, April 22, 1958.  ?From Our Friends,? Gospel
Advocate, January 22, 1959, 57 (comments of W. B. Richter, Spring Hill, Tennessee).
73. ?Goodpasture Receives Degree,? Gospel Advocate, June 11, 1959, 373; ?2 Church of
Christ Men To Get Honorary Degrees,? Nashville Tennessean, July 20, 1959; Ira North,
?A. M. Burton and B. C. Goodpasture Honored for Long Service,? Gospel Advocate,
September 10, 1959, 584-85.  A few years later the young Magic Valley Christian College
in Albion, Idaho, would also award Goodpasture an honorary doctorate (see ?Benton
Cordell Goodpasture,? n.d., Goodpasture papers). 
74. Dixon, ?B. C. Goodpasture Becomes F.-H.C. Advisor;? Gardner, ?Goodpasture Day At
Freed-Hardeman College.?
75. Willard Collins, ?B. C. Goodpasture Is Honored at Lipscomb Lectures For Twenty
Years as Editor of the GOSPEL ADVOCATE,? Gospel Advocate, May 14, 1959, 310-11.
76. B. C. Goodpasture, ?Advocate Opens Centennial Drive with 7,885 Subscriptions,?
Gospel Advocate, January 27, 1955, 66.
77. For a history of Abilene?s lectureship and its relationship to Churches of Christ see
Banowsky, The Mirror of a Movement.
78. Letter from J. D. Thomas to B. C. Goodpasture, February 9, 1955, Morris papers.
172
79. Ibid.; B. C. Goodpasture, ?Abilene, the Lectures, and Victory,? Gospel Advocate,
March 10, 1955, 186; Ira North, ?Abilene Banquet Honors Gospel Advocate,? Gospel
Advocate, March 10, 1955, 187-88.
80. Letter from B. C. Goodpasture to Don H. Morris, April 13, 1955, Morris papers.
81. B. C. Goodpasture, ?We Apologize and Raise Our Goal to 100,000,? Gospel Advocate,
April 7, 1955, 266.  An advertisement in the same issue (?Announcing Goal of 100,000
Subscriptions For The 100  Anniversary of The Gospel Advocate?) estimated that 350,000th
people would read an Advocate having 100,000 subscribers.
82. B. C. Goodpasture, ?The GA Centennial Drive at Harding College,? Gospel Advocate,
December 1, 1955, 1078; B. C. Goodpasture, ?The GA Centennial Drive at Freed-
Hardeman College,? Gospel Advocate, January 19, 1956, 50; B. C. Goodpasture, ?Central
Christian College Honors Gospel Advocate,? Gospel Advocate, April 19, 1956, 362.
83. B. C. Goodpasture, comp., The Gospel Advocate Centennial Volume (Nashville:
Gospel Advocate Co., 1956), 289-99.
84. B. C. Goodpasture, ?The GA Centennial Drive Gains Momentum,? Gospel Advocate,
February 17, 1955, 122.
85. B. C. Goodpasture, ?Centennial Drive Reaches Goal; 62,000 Already Pledged in New
Second Century Drive,? Gospel Advocate, May 3, 1956, 410.
86. Willard Collins, ?Standing Ovation Given B. C. Goodpasture,? Gospel Advocate, May
3, 1956, 428.
87. See, for example, M. Norvel Young, ?The Gospel Advocate Marches On,? Gospel
Advocate, February 24, 1955, 146; Willis G. Jernigan, ?The Gospel Advocate?A
Demonstrated Value,? Gospel Advocate, March 31, 1955, 242; and B. C. Goodpasture, ?A
Typical Letter,? Gospel Advocate, May 5, 1955, 346.
88. Roy H. Lanier, ?Gospel Advocate Centennial Plan,? Gospel Advocate, July 14, 1955,
590-91.
89. B. C. Goodpasture, ?A Word to Our Readers,? Gospel Advocate, July 14, 1955, 600. 
90. ?You Can Help Us Reach Our Goal,? in The Gospel Advocate Celebrates Its 100th
Anniversary (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Co., 1955), 30.
91. J. Roy Vaughan, ?A Time to Reciprocate, Help the Advocate,? Gospel Advocate,
January 27, 1955, 70-71; see also B. C. Goodpasture, ?A Good Example, Brethren,?
Gospel Advocate, January 13, 1955, 26.  Many preachers collected subscriptions as they
traveled; as an example see copies of subscription lists in the Guy N. Woods papers, box 5,
Loden-Daniel Library, Freed-Hardeman University, Henderson, Tennessee.
173
92. See, for example, ?Our Circulation Zooms!? Gospel Advocate, November 24, 1955,
1073.
93. See, for example, B. C. Goodpasture, ?Twenty-Seven Congregations Subscribe to
Advocate in Five Weeks,? Gospel Advocate, November 17, 1955, 1030.  Willard Collins
reported that about 150 churches subscribed for their members during the drive; see Willard
Collins, ?Introduction,? in The Gospel Advocate Centennial Volume, comp. B. C.
Goodpasture (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Co., 1956), vii. 
94. B. C. Goodpasture, ?The Centennial Issue Enthusiastically Received,? Gospel
Advocate, July 21, 1955, 622.
95. See Goodpasture editorials, each titled,?Congratulations, Gospel Advocate,? in issues of
July 28, August 4, 11, 18, 25, and September 29, 1955. 
96. ?Members of the Gospel Advocate Five Hundred Club? and ?Members of the Gospel
Advocate One Hundred Club,? in The Gospel Advocate Centennial Volume, comp. B. C.
Goodpasture (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Co., 1956), 274-99; Goodpasture, ?Centennial
Drive Reaches Goal.?
97. Letter from Leon C. Burns to B. C. Goodpasture, October 20, 1955, Goodpasture
papers.
98. Statements by Goodpasture and others imply a circulation of anywhere from 22,500 to
30,000 at the beginning of 1955; see B. C. Goodpasture, ?Be Sure to Read Brother Lanier?s
Article,? Gospel Advocate, September 30, 1954, 762; N. B. Hardeman, ?The Advocate?s
Centennial Anniversary,? Gospel Advocate, January 20, 1955, 42; and Goodpasture,
?Centennial Drive Reaches Goal; 62,000 Already Pledged in New Second Century Drive,?
410.
99. ?Statement of Ownership, Management and Circulation,? Gospel Advocate, December
17, 1964, 802.
100. James D. Groves, ?Send the ?Advocate? This Year!? Gospel Advocate, December 15,
1955, 1127.
101. B. C. Goodpasture, ?Another Feature Begins,? Gospel Advocate, November 10, 1955,
1007.
102. B. C. Goodpasture, ?The Burtons,? Gospel Advocate, January 26, 1956, 74.
103. See Guy N. Woods, ?A Marvelous Tribute to N. B. Hardeman,? Gospel Advocate,
July 9, 1959, 435-37; J. M. Powell, ?Hardeman Dinner, a Great Success,? Gospel
Advocate, July 9, 1959, 437-39; and James Marvin Powell and Mary Nelle Hardeman
Powers,  N. B. H.: A Biography of Nicholas Brodie Hardeman (Nashville: Gospel
Advocate Co., 1964), 1-9.
174
104. See issues of August 19, 1954; October 20, 1955; March 8, 1956; April 12, 1956;
February 28, 1957; May 2, 1957; and July 18, 1957.
105. See letter from Violet DeVaney to Guy N. Woods, August 31, 1950, Woods papers,
box 5.
106. B. C. Goodpasture, ?The Minister?s Monthly,? Gospel Advocate, September 29, 1955,
862.
107. L. E. Cranford, ?Goodpasture Appointed Elder,? Gospel Advocate, October 25, 1951,
686.
108. See, for example, B. C. Goodpasture, ?April 15?Deadline for Minister?s Social
Security,? Gospel Advocate, April 11, 1957, 226; and B. C. Goodpasture, ?Additional
Books for the ?Church Library,?? Gospel Advocate, May 28, 1959, 338.
109. See, for example, letter from L. E. Wishum to B. C. Goodpasture, May 27, 1958,
Goodpasture papers.  See also Goodpasture, From Neri to Nashville, 375.
110. Guy N. Woods, ?The Gospel Advocate and the Church Today,? Gospel Advocate,
July 14, 1955, 589.
111. Willard Collins, ??Capable, Cultured, and Conscientious??This is B. C. Goodpasture
As I Know Him,? Gospel Advocate, July 14, 1955, 614.
112. E. Claude Gardner, ?A Salute to Brother Goodpasture,? Gospel Advocate, January 1,
1959.
113. Batsell Barrett Baxter, ?The Alexander Campbell of Our Day,? Gospel Advocate,
May 14, 1959, 312.
114. Collins, ??Capable, Cultured, and Conscientious.??  J. E. Choate, The Anchor That
Holds: A Biography of Benton Cordell Goodpasture (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Co.,
1971), 115. 
115. Rex A. Turner, ?Congratulations! Brother Goodpasture,? Gospel Advocate, November
27, 1958, 757.
116. Ibid.; Gardner, ?A Salute to Brother Goodpasture;? H. A. Dixon, ?Twenty Years of
Service,? Gospel Advocate, December 11, 1958, 793; Guy N. Woods, ?A Memorable
Occasion,? Gospel Advocate, May 14, 1959, 313.
117. L. R. Wilson, ?The Man and the Hour,? Gospel Advocate, March 5, 1959, 149.
118. G. K. Wallace, ?B. C. Goodpasture,? Gospel Advocate, January 22, 1959, 52.
175
119. Willard Collins, ?Goodpasture Completes Twenty Years with This Issue,? Gospel
Advocate, February 26, 1959, 137.
120. Wilson, ?The Man and the Hour.?
121. For a brief overview of the institutional controversy see David Edwin Harrell, Jr.,
?Noninstitutional Movement,? in Foster, Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement,
567-69; and Steve Wolfgang, ?History and Background of the Institutional Controversy,?
Parts 1-4, Guardian of Truth, April 6, April 20, May 4, and May 18, 1989.
122. Roy E. Cogdill, ?Slander?Gospel Advocate Style,? Gospel Guardian, January 1,
1959, 4; in this editorial Cogdill listed a litany of ?dictatorial? offenses dating to the late
1940s that he believed Goodpasture had committed.
123. See Harrell, The Churches of Christ in the Twentieth Century, 173-74.
124. Ibid., 140.
125. For an exception see N. B. Hardeman, ?Dangers Facing the Church As I See Them,?
Gospel Advocate, April 3, 1958, 208, 217-18.
126. See, for example, Guy N. Woods, ?A Proposition to Our Reviewers and Critics,?
Gospel Advocate, February 3, 1955, 81, 95-96.
127. Wright wrote fourteen articles in three different series between May 11, 1950, and
December 27, 1951.  The first series, ?Cooperation on a Scriptural Basis,? had two
installments; the second, ?The Cooperation Controversy,? had nine installments and began
June 7, 1951; and the third, ?The Cooperation Controversy Again,? had three installments
and began December 6, 1951.  On defense of the Herald of Truth see, among many
examples, E. R. Harper, ?For the Record,? Gospel Advocate, July 8, 1954, 531-33.
128. Wright, ?Cooperation on a Scriptural Basis,? 200.
129. Cecil N. Wright, ?The Cooperation Controversy (No. 3),? Gospel Advocate, June 21,
1951, 391.
130. Cecil N. Wright, ?The Cooperation Controversy (No. 8),? Gospel Advocate, August
16, 1951, 520.
131. See, for example, B. C. Goodpasture, ?Lipscomb on Cooperation,? Gospel Advocate,
February 15, 1951, 98.
132. Besides doing this on a regular basis in his editorials, Goodpasture did it in a striking
way in a special sermon given in the late fifties at Grace Avenue Church of Christ in
Nashville; see transcript of B. C. Goodpasture, ?Problems or Dangers Confronting the
Church,? n.d., 24 pp., Goodpasture papers.  See also Wm. E. Wallace, ?A Glossary of
176
Terms,? Gospel Guardian, December 16, 1954, 6.
133. See Hughes, Reviving the Ancient Faith, 219, 228-30; Victor Knowles, The One Cup
Faith (Memoirs of a Movement), ([West Concord, Minn.]: Vanguard, 1976); Ronny F.
Wade, The Sun Will Shine Again, Someday: A history of the non-class, one cup Churches
of Christ (Springfield, Mo.: Yesterday?s Treasures, 1986); Kent Ellett, ?Non-Sunday School
Churches of Christ: Their Origins and Transformation,? Discipliana 60 (Summer 2000):
49-63; Thomas A. Langford, ?An Insider?s View of Non-Sunday School Churches of
Christ,? Restoration Quarterly 45 (Third Quarter 2003): 181-192; and James Stephen
Wolfgang, ?Sommer, Daniel (1850-1940),? in Foster, Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell
Movement, 692-94.
134. See Harrell, The Churches of Christ in the Twentieth Century, 45-46; and Mac Lynn,
comp., Churches of Christ in the United States, Inclusive of Her Commonwealth and
Territories, 1997 Edition (Nashville: 21  Century Christian, 1997), 11-12.st
135. Hughes, Reviving the Ancient Faith, 231.
136. B. C. Goodpasture, ?Diotrephes, Who Loved the Preeminence,? Gospel Advocate,
April 26, 1951, 258; see also B. C. Goodpasture, ??The Voice of the Turtle,?? Gospel
Advocate, July 12, 1951, 434-35.
137. B. C. Goodpasture, ?How Many Rooms in the Ark?? Gospel Advocate, February 10,
1955, 106; B. C. Goodpasture, ?Here and There,? Gospel Advocate, May 26, 1955, 410.
138. B. C. Goodpasture, ?Here and There,? Gospel Advocate, August 1, 1957, 482.
139. Letter from N. B. Hardeman to B. C. Goodpasture, September 9, 1958, Goodpasture
papers.
140. Letter from N. B. Hardeman to B. C. Goodpasture, December 21, 1957, Goodpasture
papers.
141. See Wm. E. Wallace, ?A Tributary of Bitterness,? Vanguard, November 1983, 11-12.
142. B. C. Goodpasture, ?Here and There,? Gospel Advocate, May 10, 1951, 290.
143. B. C. Goodpasture, ?Religious Papers and Divided Churches,? Gospel Advocate, June
14, 1951, 370.  See B. C. Goodpasture, ?Religious Papers and Divided Churches,? Gospel
Advocate, July 20, 1933, 684.
144. Letter from N. B. Hardeman to B. C. Goodpasture, June 1, 1951, Goodpasture papers.
145. Goodpasture, ??The Voice of the Turtle,?? 434.
177
146. Fanning Yater Tant, ?Cogdill, Lufkin, and Goodpasture,? Vanguard, February 1984,
4.  It was also about this time that the personal relationship between Wallace and
Goodpasture showed signs of improvement.  See Terry J. Gardner, ?Foy E. Wallace, Jr.: The
Critical Decade (1949-1959),? in Foy E. Wallace, Jr.: Soldier of the Cross, ed. Noble
Patterson and Terry J. Gardner (Fort Worth: Wallace Memorial Fund, 1999), 102.  By the
mid-sixties Goodpasture had published a series of articles and lectures by Wallace, and they
both had expressed admiration of one another.  See B. C. Goodpasture, ?Brother Wallace?s
Articles,? Gospel Advocate, May 21, 1964, 322 (introduction to ?The Party Spirit and the
Pseudo-Issues,? which ran in four installments); Carroll B. Ellis, ?Foy E. Wallace, Jr. Talks
to Young Lipscomb Preachers,? Gospel Advocate, March 31, April 7, and April 14, 1966;
Rex A. Turner, ?Foy E. Wallace, Jr., Honored at Appreciation Dinner,? Gospel Advocate,
April 14, 1966, 232-33; and letter from Foy E. Wallace, Jr., to B. C. Goodpasture, March
19, 1966, Goodpasture papers.  See also Chapter 6.
147. See Wallace, ?A Tributary of Bitterness,? 12; Wm. E. Wallace, ?New Beginning and
New Trouble,? Vanguard, June 1983, 12-13; Wm. E. Wallace, ?Unwarranted Editorial
Liberty,? Vanguard, August 1983, 11-12; Gardner, ?Foy E. Wallace, Jr.: The Critical
Decade,? 103-106; Terry J. Gardner, ?Cled E. Wallace: The Ace Writer,? in Patterson and
Gardner, Foy E. Wallace, Jr., 289; and Foy E. Wallace, Jr., The Present Truth (Fort Worth:
Foy E. Wallace Jr. Publications, 1977), ix-xii.
148. Roy E. Cogdill, ??What is That to Thee??? Gospel Guardian, August 2, 1951, 1, 12;
Fanning Yater Tant, ?An Open Letter to Brother Goodpasture,? Gospel Guardian, August
2, 1951, 4-5.
149. B. C. Goodpasture, ??What Is That to Thee,?? Gospel Advocate, August 23, 1951,
530-31.  With the Gospel Guardian issue of October 18, 1951, Tant began running?and
reviewing?Wright?s articles.
150. Fanning Yater Tant, ?Re-statement of Convictions,? Gospel Guardian, September 20,
1951, 4, 10.
151. Roy E. Cogdill, ?You Can See What I Meant,? Gospel Guardian, September 20,
1951, 5, 8-10.
152. Letter from N. B. Hardeman to B. C. Goodpasture, October 3, 1951, Goodpasture
papers.
153. Cogdill, ?You Can See What I Meant,? 5.
154. B. C. Goodpasture, ?It Is Time to Name the Man,? Gospel Advocate, November 1,
1951, 690; B. C. Goodpasture, ?They Want the $25,? Gospel Advocate, October 25, 1951,
674.
155. B. C. Goodpasture, ?Brother Allen?s Explanation,? Gospel Advocate, September 10,
1953, 570-72.
178
156. B. C. Goodpasture, ?Both Sides!? Gospel Advocate, March 19, 1953, 162.
157. Anonymous letter to B. C. Goodpasture, September 6, 1954, Goodpasture papers.
158. See, for example, a series by Earl West, ?Congregational Cooperation?A Historical
Study,? which began June 4, 1953, and ended July 30, 1953.
159. Luther W. Martin, ?New Testament Examples of Cooperation Between Churches,?
Gospel Advocate, May 19, 1955, 390-91; J. W. Roberts, ?New Testament Examples of
Cooperation Between Churches,? Gospel Advocate, June 23, 1955, 519-20.
160. B. C. Goodpasture, ?An Elder Writes,? Gospel Advocate, November 18, 1954, 906.
161. B. C. Goodpasture, ?Paul and the Judaizers,? Gospel Advocate, June 3, 1954, 426-27.
162. B. C. Goodpasture, ?They Commend the Elder Who Wrote,? Gospel Advocate,
December 9, 1954, 962.
163. Roy E. Cogdill, ?Institutional Pressure Control,? Gospel Guardian, February 17,
1955, 5.
164. Fanning Yater Tant, ?They Want Division?Now!? Gospel Guardian, February 17,
1955, 4.
165. Cecil B. Douthitt, ?The Yellow Tag of Quarantine,? Gospel Guardian, January 13,
1955, 1, 13.
166. Fanning Yater Tant, ?On Achieving Unity,? Vanguard, October 1982, 3.
167. Harrell, The Churches of Christ in the Twentieth Century, 143.
168. B. C. Goodpasture, ?Here and There,? Gospel Advocate, June 9, 1955, 458.
169. Letter from N. B. Hardeman to B. C. Goodpasture, December 15, 1954, Goodpasture
papers.
170. Letter from N. B. Hardeman to B. C. Goodpasture, March 15, 1955, Goodpasture
papers; letter from N. B. Hardeman to B. C. Goodpasture, March 29, 1955, Goodpasture
papers.
171. Guy N. Woods, ?The Noose Tightens!? Gospel Advocate, January 29, 1959, 70.
172. See Guy N. Woods, ?Orphanages and Homes for the Aged,? Gospel Advocate,
October 14, 1954, 808-09; six more installments followed under the same title, with the
series concluding December 16, 1954.
179
173. See, for example, Guy N. Woods and W. Curtis Porter, The Woods-Porter Debate on
Orphan Homes and Homes for the Aged (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Co., 1956); Guy N.
Woods, Cooperation in the Field of Benevolence and Evangelism (Nashville: Gospel
Advocate Co., 1957); and Guy N. Woods and Roy E. Cogdill, Woods-Cogdill Debate
(Nashville: Gospel Advocate Co., 1958).
174. Letter from Gayle Oler to Guy N. Woods, June 17, 1957, Goodpasture papers.  See
also F. L. Paisley, ?Invaluable Writings of Guy N. Woods,? Gospel Advocate, January 20,
1955, 54.
175. Woods, ?The Noose Tightens!? 70.
176. E. Claude Gardner, ?I Am Optimistic,? Gospel Advocate, February 27, 1958.
177. Foy E. Wallace, Jr., ?For General Information,? Gospel Advocate, November 24,
1955, 1056.  The Firm Foundation also published the statement, November 25, 1955.
178. B. C. Goodpasture and John D. Cox, ??Organization and Work of the Church,??
Gospel Advocate, August 8, 1957, 498-99.
179. B. C. Goodpasture, ?Brother Crouch?s Statement,? Gospel Advocate, July 24, 1958,
466.
180. Cogdill, ?Institutional Pressure Control.?  On Crouch, see Batsell Barrett Baxter and
M. Norvel Young, Preachers of Today: A Book of Brief Biographical Sketches and
Pictures of Living Gospel Preachers, vol. 2 (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Co., 1959), 97. 
Crouch, still in Tennessee in 1963, reported to Goodpasture that in ?appreciation of the
worth of your achievements? in twenty-five years  with the Advocate he intended to ?secure
a club of subscriptions in every meeting in which I preach this year? (?In Commendation,?
Gospel Advocate, September 12, 1963, 582-83).  See also Charles E. Crouch, ?One of
God?s Noblest Men Continues to Preach Christ,? Gospel Advocate, June 24, 1976, 410-11.
181. Charles E. Crouch, ?A Change of Viewpoint,? Gospel Advocate, July 24, 1958, 466-
67.
182. Thomas B. Warren, ?Anti Reaction to This Is More Strong Evidence That Their Ship
Is Sinking,? Gospel Advocate, October 16, 1958.
183. See Roy H. Lanier, ?Equality in Cooperation,? Gospel Advocate, March 1, 1956, 198-
200.  Lanier?s series on orphan homes, ?The Middle of the Road,? was published in the Firm
Foundation in five installments beginning with the issue of February 12, 1957, and ending
with the issue of March 12, 1957.
184. Reuel Lemmons, ?Read Roy Lanier?s Articles,? Firm Foundation, February 12, 1957,
98.  On Lemmons as editor, see Reuel Lemmons, ?A Statement of Policy,? Firm
Foundation, January 4, 1955, 2; and T. Wesley Crawford, ?Lemmons, Reuel Gordon
180
(1912-1989),? in Foster, Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement, 469.
185. Guy N. Woods, ?Lanier?In the Middle of the Wrong Road!? Gospel Advocate, April
11, 1957, 226-29.
186. Guy N. Woods, ?Lanier?In the Middle of the Wrong Road! (No. 2),? Gospel
Advocate, April 18, 1957, 248.  See subsequent letters (ca. October-November 1957) from
Lanier to Woods, Lemmons papers, box 16.
187. Reuel Lemmons, ?Is The Home A Divine Institution?? Firm Foundation, February 4,
1958, 66.  See also letter from Guy N. Woods to H. E. Winkler, April 19, 1959; and reply
from H. E. Winkler to Guy N. Woods, April 24, 1959, Woods papers, box 2.
188. Guy N. Woods, ?A Shocking Editorial,? Gospel Advocate, March 27, 1958, 194.
189. Letter from N. B. Hardeman to Violet DeVaney, April 11, 1958, Goodpasture papers.
190. ?Brother Lemmons and the Orphan Homes,? Gospel Advocate, March 19, 1959, 179;
see also letter from Willard Collins to B. C. Goodpasture, March 14, 1959, Goodpasture
papers.
191. H. A. Dixon, ?Firm Foundation?s Seventy-Fifth Anniversary,? Gospel Advocate,
March 19, 1959, 178-79.
192. Letter from Reuel Lemmons to B. C. Goodpasture, January 20, 1959, Goodpasture
papers.
193. Hughes, Reviving the Ancient Faith, 341.
194. Harrell, The Churches of Christ in the Twentieth Century, 139.  See ?A Letter from
the Board of Directors of Florida Christian College Concerning R. C. Walker?s ?Open
Letter,?? Gospel Advocate, September 27, 1951, 610-11;  B. C. Goodpasture, ?Remarks on
the Foregoing,? Gospel Advocate, September 27, 1951, 611; and Homer Hailey, ?Clubs
Unwittingly Loosed,? Gospel Advocate, July 10, 1952, 441, 447.
195. Pat Hardeman, ?A Statement of Conviction,? Gospel Advocate, March 13, 1958, 162.
196. See, for example, Pat Hardeman, ?The Gospel Versus Dogmatism,? Gospel Advocate,
August 21, 1958, 529, 539.
197. Letter from Hardeman to Goodpasture, September 9, 1958.
198. B. C. Goodpasture, ?Concerning Pat Hardeman,? Gospel Advocate, October 29, 1959,
690-91.
181
199. The ?Paid Advertisement? carried author and title: James R. Cope, ?Florida Christian
College: Retrospect and Prospect,? Gospel Advocate, July 17, 1958, 463.
200. B. C. Goodpasture, ?That Florida Christian College Advertisement,? Gospel
Advocate, August 21, 1958, 530-31.
201. Letter from Eddie G. Couch to B. C. Goodpasture, August 28, 1958, Goodpasture
papers.
202. B. C. Goodpasture, ?Twenty Years,? Gospel Advocate, February 26, 1959, 130.
203. See Hughes, Reviving the Ancient Faith, 10, 239.
204. John E. Kirk, ?A Free Press Under Christ,? Gospel Advocate, February 10, 1955, 111.
205. James D. Groves, ?Send the ?Advocate? This Year!? Gospel Advocate, December 15,
1955, 1126-27.
206. Kirk, ?A Free Press Under Christ,? 111-12.
182
CHAPTER 5
THE SIXTIES:
?FORCES OF LIBERALISM?
Both the exuberance and the controversy of the 1950s continued well into the 1960s
for Churches of Christ.  But times were changing.  Although battles continued over the
institutional issues, especially on the local level, most leaders by 1960 generally recognized
that division over institutionalism had become the new reality.  The mainstream leadership
shed few tears over this, and in fact were glad that the controversy was on the wane.  They
continued to be much more focused on winning the world to Christ and to their version of
New Testament Christianity, while at the same time enlarging the profile of Churches of
Christ on the religious landscape.  They fondly spoke of their growing numbers, energetic
local congregations, improving colleges, increased benevolence, and innovative missionary
activity.  As Gospel Advocate staff writer and consummate booster Ira North put it in 1963,
?Brethren, let us face it?we are growing, going, marching, moving!  Clear the tracks, tie
down the throttle, and let us march for the Master!?1
Unfortunately for these boosters, problems were on the rise.  Indeed, the coming
troubles doubtless caused many to wish for the days when controversy centered around
seemingly narrow issues like how to care for orphans or the methods of funding missions. 
As the institutional debate faded, the specter of ?liberalism? appeared.  For the first time
within Churches of Christ a sizable number of dissenting voices began to speak out from the
183
left, and soon traditional leaders were deploying defenses at a new battlefront.  An increasing
number of more liberal preachers, professors, and other leaders across the country decried a
range of sins and shortcomings among mainstream Churches of Christ.  Some did this
quietly, others straightforwardly, with the list of indictments eventually growing to include
accusations of legalism, sectarianism, exclusivism, authoritarianism, racism, political
conservatism, and anti-intellectualism.  Traditional leaders reacted by declaring that
?digressives,? ?liberals,? and ?modernists? had worked their way into the fold, and they
needed to be confronted and stymied before they destroyed the church.  Although liberalism
was not rampant, some departures from Church of Christ orthodoxy were apparent.  Some of
these resulted from increasing interaction with evangelicalism, some from engagement with
modern biblical scholarship and science, and some from the unstable cultural milieu of the
sixties.  Mixing together, these influences manifested themselves in adoption of evangelical
language, styles of preaching, and evangelistic methods; new approaches to biblical
interpretation; renegade teaching on fellowship, grace, and the Holy Spirit; and varying
degrees of sympathy with counterculturalism.
In short, a new mix of generational, sociological, and theological differences were
making for a new set of controversies within mainstream Churches of Christ.  As an
emerging generation of leaders searched the heart and soul of the church of their youth and
found it wanting, they sought reforms to make its doctrine more biblical, as they saw it, and
its words and deeds more relevant to a rapidly changing world.  Due in part to stiff and able
resistance, the sixties reformers made limited progress toward their various goals at the time;
not until the late eighties did their tenets begin to gain substantial acceptance.
184
Advocating the Advocate
The Gospel Advocate of the 1960s defended the consensus of the 1950s.  B. C.
Goodpasture dismissed and discredited the emerging minority left, much as he had the
minority right in the forties and fifties.  Differences existed, however, between the two
periods.  First, Goodpasture did not give as much attention to the left in the sixties as he had
to the right during the fifties.  Second, the insurgents of the sixties paid less heed to
Goodpasture than did their counterpart dissidents of the fifties.  Third, although the
Advocate editor still wielded power within an influential network of preachers, elders,
editors, college administrators, and other institutional leaders, by 1970 that network was
becoming more diffuse and his prominence within it was slowly beginning to wane. 
Although a great many continued to give absolute loyalty to the oldest periodical among
Churches of Christ, others were at a point of merely giving it a respectful hearing, while still
others began to ignore it altogether.
It was the latter set that Advocate staff writer Guy N. Woods would have had most
in mind when he penned a letter to Goodpasture in 1965.  ?Brother Goodpasture,? he wrote,
?I have come to believe that YOU and the GOSPEL ADVOCATE are the only real
dependable influence brotherhood wide today to block the gathering forces of liberalism.?  2
Indeed, by 1965 the institutional controversy had all but disappeared from the Advocate?s
pages, and the various issues collectively labeled liberalism were coming to the fore.  But, as
in the fifties, controversy had to share the spotlight with the Advocate?s promotion of itself,
its editor, and all manner of activities and institutions of Churches of Christ.
?Religious papers are not money-making affairs. . . . The Advocate is published for
the good it can do,? Goodpasture wrote in 1964.  ?It is published to teach the truth of the
185
gospel and expose error.?   Goodpasture no doubt believed this statement?he was firm in his3
convictions?but as president and part owner of the Gospel Advocate Company he naturally
had to concern himself with the financial management of his paper.  During the sixties, as in
the forties and fifties, Goodpasture launched successful subscription drives, thanks to readers
who heeded his calls to help increase circulation.  Finances aside, that mobilization indicated
that many readers agreed with the editor that the greater the extent of the Advocate?s
influence, the greater the health of the church.  Paid circulation figures fluctuated during the
sixties, with a low of about 27,500 in 1963 (the first year the Advocate published a
circulation statement), and a high in 1967 of approximately 43,000.   Even with the4
increase, the bulk of avid readers probably continued to be preachers, elders, Sunday school
teachers, missionaries, and others with influence in church circles.  Accordingly, no matter
the effect on subscription levels, the drives served to build loyalty and a sense of common
purpose among Advocate enthusiasts, while also buttressing denominational identity.
Perhaps the most memorable subscription drive of the sixties was known as the
?North-Nichols Contest,? which pitted staff writers Ira North and Gus Nichols against one
another in friendly competition.  The winner would be the one to collect the most
subscriptions during 1961.  Each contestant received credit for subscriptions personally
secured and any that other campaign participants chose to designate to them.  Staff writer
Willard Collins served as ?umpire.?  The contest was promoted throughout the year, with
regular updates on the ?score.?   As with other subscription drives, this one was usually a5
lighthearted affair.   At times, however, the tone turned rather serious?not between the6
contestants but in the arguments made for increasing the reach of the Advocate.  One
186
Goodpasture editorial promoting the contest indicated his growing concern about trends
within both society and the church:
The need for good reading in the home was never greater than now.  Although
church membership is at an all-time high in this country, crime also set a new record
in 1960.  There is too much religion of the barren-fig-tree-type?profession without
production.  The forces of evil are using every possible means to invade the homes of
our country.  Television, radio, magazines?these are all being used to advertise beer,
glamorize crime, and glorify sex. . . . It is time the Bible and the religious paper were
given proper consideration and restored to their rightful place in the life of the
average family.7
At the end of the North-Nichols contest, Collins declared North the winner with
4,761 subscriptions to 3,838 for Nichols.  He further announced that North would use the
$100 prize to start a travel fund for his fellow competitor.  Goodpasture had already
contributed $100 to the fund, and Collins encouraged readers to follow suit so that Nichols,
the long-time preacher at the Sixth Avenue Church of Christ in Jasper, Alabama, could take
his first ever tour of the Holy Land.  The response was good enough to allow Nichols? wife
to join him on the trip of a lifetime.   Driven by the personalities of two popular preachers,8
and with the added feature of a love-offering to the revered Nichols, this subscription drive,
in particular, hinted at not only the loyalty of readers to the Advocate, but also their loyalty
to men representing all the right things in life and religion.  As had been the case many times
during Goodpasture?s long tenure, a vibrant group identity was plainly evident on the pages
of the oldest paper among Churches of Christ.
Formal subscription drives were not the only way that the Advocate promoted itself. 
Goodpasture regularly editorialized about the benefits of his paper.  When appealing to
readers during the sixties to increase their support of the ?Old Reliable,? he stressed three
points.  First, as he had in the context of the North-Nichols contest, he argued that the
187
Advocate was an effective counterbalance against immoral society and the publications it
sent into American homes.  Second, Goodpasture emphasized the Advocate?s role in
teaching the scriptures to both the faithful and the untaught.  ?We of the Gospel Advocate
desire to encourage and help those everywhere who are seeking to make known the
unsearchable riches of Christ,? he declared in 1963.   He asked readers to recruit new9
subscribers at every opportunity so that the Advocate could increase its ?opportunities to
teach the truth? and do ?the greatest possible amount of good.?   The Advocate was well-10
suited for sending to friends who readers ?hope to convert to Christ.?   On one occasion,11
Goodpasture encouraged readers to buy extra copies of a special issue on the unity of the
church as ?an ideal gift for the prospective church member.?  Only a few weeks had elapsed
since its publication and ?already conversions have been reported as a result of reading this
particular issue.?   Third, Goodpasture stressed to church elders the advantages of sending12
the Advocate to each family in a congregation.  Elders who were already doing so, he
reported, ?found this to be one of the most effective ways to ?feed the flock.??  And in
addition to being an inexpensive ?means of instruction? that paid spiritual dividends, the
congregational subscription plan was a good investment otherwise: ?It does not cost to send
the Advocate; it pays.  Many congregations, after sending the Advocate to the families of
their memberships report an increase in contributions well above the cost of sending the
paper.?13
Staff writers and other contributors echoed the editor?s calls for unstinting support of
the Advocate.  Promotional articles and blurbs from men other than Goodpasture were
constant.  Many of these were published in conjunction with subscription drives, but not all. 
In any case, they complemented the editor?s promotional efforts, often emphasizing the same
188
points.  Staff writer Basil Overton explained that he put forth his very best efforts when
writing for the Advocate because he recognized that it was in competition with secular
publications ?satanically designed to turn souls [to] error and immorality.?   Charles R.14
Brewer contributed a piece in 1960 that demonstrated supreme confidence in the ability of
the Advocate to enhance the teaching program of the local church.  A veteran preacher who
delivered his first sermon in 1907, Brewer encouraged congregations to make ?more special
and intensive use of the Advocate? by designing ?a course of study with the Advocate as
literature for class use.?   As others noted, the Advocate also benefitted the unsaved.  Paul15
Hunton, a preacher in Huntsville, Alabama, quoted a woman whose sister gave her a single
copy of the Advocate while in the hospital: ?I read every word of that Gospel Advocate and
I am ready to be baptized.?   After relating a similar conversion story credited to the16
Advocate, John Waddey, a preacher in Knoxville, Tennessee, added this commentary:
?Never underestimate the power of the printed page to carry the saving gospel to the lost
masses.?17
Like Goodpasture, writers regularly encouraged elders to have the Advocate sent to
each member family in their congregation.  Ira North sounded this call more than anyone. 
The elders at the church where he ministered, Madison Church of Christ in suburban
Nashville, began subscribing to the Advocate on behalf of the entire congregation in the
early fifties.  According to North, that wise decision had bore much fruit.  As of 1960, it had
?influenced the growth of the church? and ?contributed to the wholesome spirit of love,
unity, peace, and harmony which exists.?  Three years later he stated that he was unaware of
any other way ?to insure weak members receiving literature in their home advocating New
Testament Christianity,? and that all members become more interested in ?the work of the
189
church in other places? by reading the news printed in the Advocate.  In 1967, he cited a
survey of the Madison congregation which revealed that ?most of our members read, profit
from, and desire to continue to receive the Advocate.?  Other churches should avail
themselves of this inexpensive aid, he added, because it goes into the home and edifies
members ?throughout the year.?18
Goodpasture also utilized selected comments from readers to highlight the
Advocate?s worth.  Mrs. C. E. Laws of Virginia demonstrated her reliance on the Advocate
by remarking, ?I do not see how anyone could afford doing without such a guide to
Christian living.?   In another letter, a former ?denominational preacher,? Dennis L. Moss,19
explained that his conversion to ?the Lord?s church? began when he ?became a reader of the
Gospel Advocate? while preaching in New Mexico.  ?Through the reading of the many
good articles and purchasing of good books and other material advertised in its pages,? he
wrote, ?I became convinced of the plea of the restoration of New Testament Christianity.?  20
The words of an African missionary, Glenn Martin, undoubtedly were indicative of the
degree to which many church members abroad relied on the Advocate for news and
edification: ?Even though they are three months old by the time they reach Nigeria, the
Advocates are read completely by all the missionaries here?even to all the field reports from
preachers known to us.?   Indeed, Mrs. G. C. Lynch of Oklahoma likely expressed the21
feelings of a host of readers, home and abroad, when she stated, ?No words I write fully
express my deep appreciation for the Advocate.  For more than fifty years this paper has
been a great aid and inspiration to me, and all my family.?22
Goodpasture took pleasure in sharing such effusive praise, believing it went far in
reinforcing the worth of the Advocate with the average reader.  On occasion, however, he
190
turned negative in order to motivate support for the Advocate, signaling a strong expectation
of support from those who benefitted financially or professionally from the paper.  He
considered it only fair and proper that the Advocate receive something in return for the wide-
ranging service that it rendered.  ?There is scarcely a congregation, college, orphan home, or
righteous undertaking of any kind that has not in some way been served by the Advocate,?
he once wrote.  And since the Advocate ?never received one cent? of the money it helped
raise through publicity efforts, ?we are dependent upon our readers and friends for legitimate
business.?   Likewise, during a 1963 subscription drive, he noted, ?Again and again23
preachers and churches have told us that congregations could not have been established and
meetinghouses built without the help of the Advocate.?  After listing a myriad of other ways
that the Advocate had served the church, he concluded, ?Yes, we are grateful to the faithful
readers who are helping to extend the circulation of the Gospel Advocate.  Men who do not
forget.?24
These appeals to the conscience had an effect on at least some recipients of
Goodpasture?s assistance.  A Florida preacher, J. Edward Bacigalupo, Sr., was one who
reinforced the editor?s calls for reciprocity.  When encouraging his congregation to support
the Advocate with subscriptions, he put forward a rationale that was simple and to the point:
?The free advertising we get in the Gospel Advocate from week to week costs the church
nothing, but it costs the Advocate Company to favor us and other churches with their
generosity.?   A letter that Goodpasture shared with readers made much the same point. 25
Lloyd E. Wheeler, an Arkansas preacher, thanked the editor for publicizing the ?Stadium
Meeting in the Ozarks,? and revealed that he and another event organizer were recruiting
subscribers ?in appreciation for the wonderful service you have done in getting this
191
evangelistic effort before the brotherhood.?  Goodpasture called this display of ?gratitude?
for the Advocate?s services ?unusual? but ?refreshing.?26
The extensive promotion of the Advocate by its editor, staff writers, and others paled
in comparison to the esteem heaped upon editor Goodpasture in this period.  Goodpasture
had allowed effusive praise of himself to appear within the pages of the Advocate for many
years, and the frequency and intensity of that acclaim increased until the time of his death in
1977.  Many kind things were also said and written outside the pages of the Advocate. 
While the specifics changed over time, the accolades typically focused on Goodpasture as a
godly gentleman with numerous enviable qualities who protected the church from radicalism
while also furthering its many good works.
Even the most general comments?perhaps those especially?provide a sense of the
extremely high regard that many had for the editor.  Such appeared in the Advocate
throughout the sixties: ?To him the whole brotherhood owes a profound debt of gratitude for
his guidance of this great paper? (1960).  ?Eternity alone will reveal the good that you have
accomplished? (1963).  ?My deep appreciation for your consistent, dependable service to the
brotherhood in your management of the Advocate and in your editorials? (1966).  ?I truly
believe that his years as editor will stand out as a golden age in the history of the Gospel
Advocate? (1968).27
Similar remarks also appeared beyond the pages of the Advocate, privately and
publicly: ?My prayer is that you?ll be with us many years yet to look after [the Advocate].  I
know that my prayer is also the prayer of hundreds of other brethren? (1960).  ?He has
discharged his editorial responsibilities in such a spiritual, dignified, and common-sense
192
manner so as to contribute immeasurably to the spiritual welfare of a great brotherhood of
Christians? (1963).  ?May the good Lord continue to sustain you that you may continue to
be the inspiration and guide for our Brotherhood? (1965).  ?Brother Goodpasture has
exercised an influence for Biblical truth in the brotherhood probably as much, or more, than
any other man? (1967).28
Further flattery came Goodpasture?s way in 1968 when officials of the two-year-old
East Nashville Christian School re-christened it the B. C. Goodpasture Christian School. 
Goodpasture had joined the school?s board the year before, and school president William F.
Ruhl considered his presence vital to the school?s stability and expansion.  As he remarked at
the naming ceremony, ?The board knew this school should wear the name of a great man
and they saw in this man all the qualities a great man should have.?  For himself,
Goodpasture was ?proud? to have his name on a school that taught ?the Bible as God?s
Word.?   And as Ira North noted in the Advocate, Nashville now had ?the distinction of29
having two Christian Schools named for great gospel preachers?David Lipscomb and
Benton Cordell Goodpasture.?30
But why did Goodpasture?s admirers consider him so worthy of honor and praise? 
Clearly, whatever it was that he represented to his admirers during the 1960s, it was central
to their own self-identity, both individually and corporately.  As they had since World War
II, the men and women who supported, even revered, Goodpasture and the Advocate
continued to see themselves as both restorers of first-century Christianity and as a twentieth-
century church ?on the march.?  As the sixties wore on, however, it became apparent that
such an identity was under assault?albeit often indirectly?and from sources wholly
unconnected to the noninstitutional movement.  But as with the institutional controversy,
193
Advocate supporters were confident that Goodpasture, his writers, and their allies were fully
capable of meeting the challenge.
Staying on the March
In an editorial at mid-decade, Goodpasture took the opportunity to inform readers of
some of the many exciting things scheduled to take place in the Nashville area during the
thirteen months from September 1965 to October 1966.  He ticked off a list comprising one
church founding, one groundbreaking, two anniversary celebrations, two evangelistic efforts,
and three grand openings.  In addition to three churches, the bustle of activity involved three
institutions: East Nashville Christian School, David Lipscomb College, and the Advocate. 
?This might be called,? he wrote, ?a continuous campaign to advance the cause of Christ.?  31
From the perspective of many church members, Goodpasture could rightly have made that
statement about the entire period since the Second World War.  The group euphoria of the
fifties, and its attendant ambitions and activities, carried into the second half of the sixties.
Advocate staff writer Ira North continued in the sixties to speak the language of
progress with as much enthusiasm as anyone.  In particular, he promoted the improvement
and growth of the local congregation?in size, in facilities, and in ?faith and zeal and good
works.?  When reporting on a visit to Detroit he was pleased to announce that the Trenton
congregation had a new building that ?could not be better located.?  He was encouraged ?to
note that gone is the day when our brethren selected a lot on the other side of the tracks on a
dead-end street, where it would take an Indian guide to find the place.?   On another32
occasion, he praised the merging of two churches in Ypsilanti, Michigan, as an ?example of
faith and vision? that others might emulate.  ?If by consolidating the small congregations in
your community,? he wrote, ?you can have a church that will wield a greater influence for
194
Christ and have more money for the spread of the gospel, more resources for benevolent
work, and a greater potential for a dynamic teaching program, then do not delay.?33
North and his congregation, the large and vibrant Madison Church of Christ, were
widely recognized as pacesetters for other preachers and churches.  The Advocate regularly
highlighted their many good works and Madison?s impressive growth.  In the sixties alone,
readers learned of Madison?s ambitious twenty-year plans, record-breaking Sunday school
attendance, innovative teacher workshops, new 3,000 seat auditorium, innumerable
benevolent programs, and extensive involvement in missions.   The April 1966 dedication34
of the new auditorium, the Advocate implied, was a big day for Madison, but not Madison
alone.  The more than 6,600 who attended the morning?s two services were visible proof that
Churches of Christ remained healthy in these turbulent times.   Pride in the Madison church35
swelled in 1968 when Guideposts magazine named it the ?Church of the Year.?   That36
same year, Batsell Barrett Baxter and M. Norvel Young showed their appreciation for
Madison by dedicating the Gospel Advocate Company?s New Testament Churches of
Today to the congregation.  After listing Madison?s many good works, the co-editors
expressed their enthusiasm for its role among the churches: ?We salute Madison for their
encouragement to churches of Christ around the world!  May the strength of their faith, the
bigness of their spirit spread like wildfire!?37
Goodpasture likewise demonstrated his interest in strengthening local churches,
including those on foreign soil.  In addition to providing free publicity in the Advocate?s
news section, he regularly ran articles of practical use to preachers, elders, Sunday school
teachers, missionaries, and other church workers.  This was in addition to other literature
published by the Gospel Advocate Company, much of which circulated widely and aided
195
congregations and their leaders in a variety of ways.  One of the Advocate?s best-received
special issues focused on the local church.  Caleb J. Kirkpatrick, a Maryland preacher,
offered his compliments to Goodpasture: ?I have been reading the Gospel Advocate for a
long time, as well as several other good papers, but don?t remember receiving anything that
has encouraged me as much as the March 3 Special Issue on the theme??The Challenge of
the Local Congregation.??   Goodpasture also lent considerable support to local churches in38
areas of relative weakness for Churches of Christ.  Having preached in Atlanta for almost
twenty years, he took particular interest in planting and strengthening churches in Georgia. 
In his introduction to an issue on ?the cause of Christ in Georgia,? he voiced great
satisfaction in the progress of Churches of Christ in the state: ?Forty years ago, there was one
congregation on the highway from Atlanta to Chattanooga.  Now there is a congregation in
every town of any size.?39
Goodpasture also continued to support the Herald of Truth radio and television
ministry sponsored by the Highland Church of Christ in Abilene, Texas.  Although his
support would later slacken, during the sixties he regularly carried articles and
advertisements on its behalf.  Batsell Barrett Baxter, whose ties to Goodpasture could not
have been much stronger, became the main television speaker in 1960.  In addition to
teaching Bible at David Lipscomb College, Baxter wrote a regular column for the Advocate
and preached for the Hillsboro Church of Christ, where Goodpasture served as an elder.  40
The Herald of Truth envisioned ?world saturation with the gospel of Christ? via its ministry,
a vision that Goodpasture seemed to share.  In 1964, he called the rapidly expanding set of
programs ?one of the quickest, as well as one of the most effective, means of preaching the
gospel to every creature in this generation.?   He could have added that it was also a means41
196
of spreading the restorationist vision of Churches of Christ.  As an ad for the programs
stated, ?We must turn the full effectiveness of twentieth-century skills to the task of restoring
first-century Christianity to the world.?42
That same attitude marked other ventures during the sixties, especially a series of
projects in the northeastern United States, where the presence of Churches of Christ was
especially small.  One of those, the ?Manhattan Project,? had gotten its start in the mid-
fifties.   By 1960, the Manhattan Church of Christ, led by minister Burton Coffman, had43
raised the funds necessary to buy property adjoining their cramped quarters on East 80th
Street.  A portion of the property fronted Madison Avenue, Park Avenue ran nearby, and
Central Park lay a short distance away.  The congregation had an opportunity not only to
build an adequate church facility, but to build it in a highly visible area.  However, raising
the money to erect a building in the heart of Manhattan proved even more difficult than
acquiring the property, and it was mid-1968 before the congregation inhabited a new
structure.  Throughout the project the rate at which the church raised funds lagged behind
rising construction costs, forcing it more than once to increase the campaign goal amount,
modify the building?s design, and delay groundbreaking.  Even after construction began,
Manhattan found itself making urgent appeals to churches across the country.44
Goodpasture publicized and gave his unqualified support to the project.  Like many
others, he considered a suitable facility and visible presence in Manhattan of utmost
importance to the spread of the gospel throughout the Northeast and around the globe.   In45
June 1967, with construction well underway, Goodpasture made an impassioned plea to
readers on behalf of the congregation:
197
We do not believe inflation should be allowed to defeat the Lord?s work in New
York City. . . . Failure to finish this would cast a world-wide shadow over the
mission program of churches of Christ.  The whole world sees what will be done on
that certain Madison Avenue corner; and any failure would be the most conspicuous
and damaging failure that could possibly be imagined. . . . Brethren, wake up before
it is too late!?46
Goodpasture, no doubt, was unusually pleased to help dedicate the new building a year later,
preaching to ?the largest single audience ever assembled by churches of Christ in
Manhattan.?   Fundraising did not end in 1968, but from the inception of the Manhattan47
project in 1955 to the opening of the building, more than1,600 congregations and numerous
individuals made more than 25,000 separate contributions totaling $1.3 million.   That was48
a small price to pay, Goodpasture argued, in order to establish an ?effective? and stable
?witness at the crossroads of the whole world.?49
Manhattan was not the only location in the Northeast where Churches of Christ
sought to establish a visible and vigorous presence during the sixties.  In 1962, eight church
families in Texas announced their intention to relocate en masse to Bay Shore, Long Island. 
Led by Dwain Evans, the dynamic young preacher for the Parkway Church of Christ in
Lubbock, the group hoped to recruit several more families.  This ?bold idea in evangelism?
was dubbed ?Exodus Bay Shore.?   By the time of the move in the summer of 1963, eighty50
families had enlisted in the ?group missionary effort,? taking jobs and buying homes in the
area.  With funds raised ahead of the move, the families soon erected a building a few miles
outside of Bay Shore and designated themselves the West Islip Church of Christ.51
Tom Yates, an elder at a church in Midland, Texas, believed that similar endeavors
would become ?the trend of the future as we go in to the large cities as Paul and his co-
workers did.?   He was right.  Exodus Bay Shore served as a catalyst for several more52
198
exoduses to metropolitan areas in the Northeast during the sixties.  Families from the South
and Southwest banded together to establish or strengthen churches in Somerset County, New
Jersey; Stamford, Connecticut; Rochester, New York; Burlington, Massachusetts; and
Newark, Delaware.  As an Exodus New Jersey participant told a Newsweek reporter, church
members intended to bring area citizens ?back to the Bible and away from other books
written by men.?   In the Advocate, Ira North summarized eight advantages that the exodus53
method held for accomplishing that objective:  ?It means immediately, in a strong
metropolitan area, the following: (1) A strong and stable congregation; (2) qualified
leadership; (3) sufficient land; (4) an adequate building; (5) a fully-equipped Bible school;
(6) a good advertising program; (7) an energetic evangelistic program; and (8) a mission
point which soon becomes a mission center.?   Despite such optimism, the exodus54
congregations, while establishing themselves permanently, did not live up to the growth
expectations implicit in such declarations.
They did, however, make a lasting impact on their respective communities and bring
credit to Churches of Christ.  At least some officials in the destination areas welcomed the
?first-class citizens? with open arms.   In New Jersey, the Somerset County Superintendent55
of Schools, E. L. Gilliland, was especially glad to get almost forty teachers from Exodus
New Jersey into his rapidly expanding system for the 1966 school year.  He hoped to employ
more teachers from Texas the following year, and flattered potential hires in a recruitment
letter: ?The Church of Christ and its congregation has contributed immensely to our
religious activities in Somerset as well as making a definite impact on our charitable
institutions, our homes and our people.?   Such compliments surely made church members56
beam with pride and satisfaction.  Similarly, coverage in the national press likely enlivened
199
the spirits of the missionary families and their supporters back home.  Outlets including the
New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Newsweek, and Time ran exodus stories that on the
whole provided positive publicity.   Regardless of the number of converts won by these57
pilgrims, they were at the very least gaining some measure of respect and credibility for
Churches of Christ in a region where they were little-known.
Both the Manhattan project and the exodus movement dovetailed with yet another
group effort in the Northeast, one that perhaps represented the penultimate moment of
denominational pride and activity for Churches of Christ during the sixties.  At the 1964-
1965 World?s Fair in New York, church members from around the nation joined together to
create and staff an exhibit that informed a broad range of people about Churches of Christ
and created opportunities for evangelism.  The highly coordinated project also provided
another means by which church members could reinforce their group identity as a
respectable religious body that other groups must reckon with.
As of 1962, however, some leaders were not confident that Churches of Christ were
even going to have a presence at the World?s Fair.  Otis Gatewood, a pioneering missionary
to Europe after World War II and president of Michigan Christian College, berated his
fellow church members for their lack of initiative: ?The Catholics are investing $2,000,000
in an effort to sell Catholicism to the world [at the fair].  And what are we, the people of
God, investing??   Gatewood might have been a little harsh on a group not nearly as58
organized and wealthy as the Roman Catholic Church, but he was not a voice crying in the
wilderness.  In April 1963, he was one of three dozen preachers, elders, and other church
leaders from across the country who met in New York with the leadership of the Queens
Church of Christ to discuss the fair.   Soon thereafter, a nationwide fundraising campaign59
200
was underway.  As one of the campaign organizers expressed to Goodpasture, ?There are
months of work ahead for hundreds of Christians if we are to make this campaign the
success it has to be.?60
Many others must have felt a similar sense of urgency, for by September of that year
planning for the exhibit was rather far along.  George W. Bailey, a popular Texas preacher,
provided details about the exhibit and related evangelistic efforts.  He told of plans for
pamphlets and filmstrips, ?a world-wide directory and yearbook of churches of Christ,?
special Herald of Truth broadcasts, a system for following up with visitors to the exhibit, and
?a computer machine [that] will automatically eject cards with Bible quotations in answer to
over five hundred commonly asked Bible questions.?   These plans required money, and61
funds were raised for the duration of the fair.   By the beginning of the fair?s second season
in 1965, approximately 1,500 churches and 2,650 individuals had donated to the project.62
Goodpasture, who in 1965 published a World?s Fair edition of the Advocate
complete with color cover on slick paper, regularly carried appeals for support of the
Churches of Christ exhibit as well as reports on its progress and related evangelistic
activities.   As those appeals and reports demonstrated, church leaders still held strongly to63
the contention that their movement had a unique?and correct?understanding of Christian
truth, particularly of the non-denominational nature of the church.  Their comments further
demonstrated the great extent to which they relied on and believed in organized and
modernized methods for spreading their message.  Leading up to the fair?s first season,
Batsell Barrett Baxter made a telling statement:
When the millions come to New York next year they will not come with the idea of
being converted to undenominational New Testament Christianity, but if we are
there with proper personnel, appropriate printed materials, an attractive display area,
201
and the other devices that are planned to attract and hold the attention of the people,
some of them will go home Christians. . . . All of us can pray that this opportunity
will not be lost.  After all, the Roman Catholics, the Mormons, the Seventh-Day
Adventists, and the Protestant denominations will be there.  Surely we must not
abandon the millions of visitors to those who do not know Christ in the
undenominational New Testament way.64
Once the fair was underway, on-site reports informed readers that the exhibit was
being well-received and having a positive impact on a range of visitors.  One Advocate staff
writer, P. D. Wilmeth, exuberantly reported that the Churches of Christ exhibit was ?literally
the talk of the fair.?  It was drawing visitors from around the world and from many different
religions, many of whom were accepting brochures, signing up for correspondence Bible
courses, and using the computerized Bible ?teacher.?  Moreover, on the fifth day of the fair,
almost three thousand listened to George Bailey preach, and ?many hundreds of these were
not members of the Lord?s church.?  To Wilmeth, the fair represented ?the most exciting and
most staggering opportunity God has provided for his people in this century. . . . The church
has an unusual opportunity to present our plea of the Restoration Movement to religious
leaders of the nation and world.?65
At the end of the first six-month season, the Queens Church of Christ reported that
850,000 visitors were exposed to the exhibit, with more than 42,000 registering their names
and addresses.  The Queens congregation, which officially sponsored the exhibit, reminded
church members across the nation that substantial funds would again be required if the 1965
season were to match ?the deep and eternal good accomplished in this first season.?  The
Queens church?s appeals for funds were emotional and sincere:
Think of the unity of our brethren across this land which has been strengthened by
mutual labor and success.  Think of the example we have shown to the Fairgoers,
and to the denominational leaders at the Fair themselves.  These things cannot be
measured.66
202
Yes, the Fair is an evangelistic tool.  A wonderful, unbelievably powerful instrument
which God has placed in our hands to use.  Dare we bury our talent?  Dare we refuse
to meet this opportunity?  Dare we shun from asking your prayers, your time, your
money?67
Churches of Christ did meet the opportunity provided by the fair?s second season. 
The primary addition to the 1965 effort was an evangelistic campaign in the Northeast
coordinated by the Queens church in which approximately 1,150 workers participated.  The
campaign?s centerpiece was a July 4 service on the fairgrounds at the Singer Bowl outdoor
arena.  Jimmy Allen, a Bible instructor at Harding College in Searcy, Arkansas, and a well-
known preacher, delivered a sermon that the Herald of Truth broadcast over the ABC Radio
Network.  Ten persons out of the estimated 7,000 in attendance heeded his call for
immediate obedience to Christ by coming forward for baptism in a portable baptistry
brought in for the service.  These were ?the first baptisms ever performed at a World?s Fair.? 
Although such modest success surely paled in comparison to that of renowned evangelists
like Billy Graham in similar services at the fair, the minister of the Queens church was
?thrilled with the Singer Bowl response.?  Another organizer, Walter E. Burch, called the
service ?a high point? of World?s Fair efforts.  To church members, spreading the message
of primitive Christianity was an incremental process, and success was not counted merely by
the number of baptisms.  In addition to the ?millions? who listened to the service over ABC,
Burch reported, ?many visitors?some of them representing about twenty-five denominational
bodies in the New York City area?attended the meeting and were exposed for the first time
to the plea for a return to simple New Testament Christianity.?   Indeed, the various efforts68
of Churches of Christ in the Northeast signified to many church members?if not as many
outsiders?that they were still on the march.
203
Unwelcome Developments
Despite the exuberance generated by the World?s Fair, Churches of Christ were not
as monolithic as the ?on the march? metaphor suggested.  Consensus, in fact, was at that
very time taking some rather sharp blows.  In July 1964, during the first season of the
World?s Fair, Goodpasture wrote an editorial warning of the ?possibility and danger of
apostasy? in the church.  He noted among the Disciples of Christ, restorationist cousins of
Churches of Christ, ?men who denied the verbal inspiration of the Bible, the virgin birth of
Christ, and the essentiality of baptism,? among other ?grievous departures of the faith.?  He
feared that similar departures threatened Churches of Christ:
In the thinking of many well informed brethren, there are trends ?among us? that do
not augur well for the church.  There is a disposition in some quarters to get away
from plain, solid gospel preaching.  There is the tendency to preach that which will
please men; that which will condemn the practices of no one present; that which will
not draw the line between truth and error.69
A short time later, Guy Woods vigorously reinforced Goodpasture?s editorial, declaring his
?complete agreement? with it:
We of the Gospel Advocate are just as much opposed to liberalism, modernism,
digression and worldliness in the church as we are of anti ism, and we shall oppose
all such with the same vigor which characterized our successful effort against
hobbyists.  That movement, dead in many places and dormant in most others, is no
longer a threat to the peace and harmony of the church. . . . We are far more
concerned now with the ever-present problem of liberalism which poses a greater
threat to present-day Christianity than hobbyism and anti ism.  Anti ism would, if it
could, put an end to the work of Christianity; liberalism will lead to the elimination
of Christianity itself!70
The liberalistic trends that worried Goodpasture and Woods also caused concern among
many others associated with the Advocate.  By 1966, articles assailing ?liberalism,
modernism, digression and worldliness in the church? had proliferated to a point
comparable to the outpouring against ?anti ism? a decade earlier.
204
During this period, Advocate writers offered a variety of definitions of ?liberal? and
?liberalism.?  Some used the terms primarily in reference to unacceptable stances toward
historic Church of Christ teachings, while others emphasized and sometimes exaggerated
genuine aspects of theological liberalism.  Still others confused the two.  In 1962, Vance
Carruth described an ?extreme liberal? as someone accepting of other Christian groups,
derisive of legalistic approaches to church doctrine, and questioning of opposition to
missionary societies and instrumental music.  Although he considered people with ?loose
views of Biblical inspiration, miracles, etc.? liberal, they were not his primary target.  He did
believe, however, that the liberalism he described ?tends to lead to modernism.?   By71
contrast, Alan E. Highers defined liberalism as ?a lax attitude toward the inspiration and
authority of the Scriptures.?  Writing in 1965, he urged congregations and their leaders to
?beware of liberalism? because it was ?showing signs of growth even within the
brotherhood.?72
In 1967, John Waddey warned readers of the dangers of liberalism, describing a
liberal as ?an unbeliever who seeks to destroy the faith of others, especially believers in
Christ and of the Bible, and to change the church and the faith.?  Furthermore, he continued,
?liberals place the most emphasis of their religious efforts on the physical and material needs
of man and society? to the exclusion of the spiritual.  Waddey summarized by calling
liberals ?enemies of Christ and servants of Satan.?  He did not indicate that Churches of
Christ were rampant with liberals, but he did declare that wherever liberals were found ?they
should be exposed, rejected and driven out of the churches they seek to corrupt.?73
In 1969, Foster L. Ramsey, Sr., warned that liberals were ?becoming more and more
prevalent among members of the church.?  In general terms, according to Ramsey, a liberal
205
was someone who ?does not want to be bound by the authority of the Scriptures? and ?is so
broad-minded that he is willing to tolerate the popular sins of the day.?  More specifically, a
?liberalist? takes an allegorical view of the first eleven chapters of Genesis; casts doubt on
the virgin birth of Jesus, his perfect life, his miracles, his resurrection, and his ascension;
suggests that much of what the church considers scriptural practice is merely traditional; ?is
afflicted with an advanced case of a superiority complex? as seen by his touting of
intellectualism and his denigration of pioneering stalwarts among Churches of Christ; and
?thinks the church of Christ should meet denominationalism halfway for the sake of
ecumenical unity.?74
In a front page article in 1968, Batsell Barrett Baxter attempted to establish a limited
definition and description of ?liberalism among us.?  He agreed with others that liberalism
existed in Churches of Christ, that it needed to be actively opposed, and that it was much
more dangerous than the noninstitutional movement.  But, he noted, ?some are quick to
brand almost anything that is different from the habits and customs of our past as
liberalism.?  He implored readers not to use the term in this way.  He explained that ?real
liberalism? denies basic doctrines like ?the inspiration and authority of the Bible? and ?the
divinity and the messiahship of Christ.?  To use the term more broadly, Baxter argued, was
counterproductive to identifying and opposing authentic liberalism.75
Based on Baxter?s definition, few real liberals existed among Churches of Christ in
the sixties.  Certainly several professors, preachers, and others were liberal in the sense that
they challenged traditional thinking on various questions and tried to come to grips with the
modern world, modern science, and modern biblical scholarship?not to mention the social
upheavals of the sixties.  But few of those who stayed with Churches of Christ, especially in
206
the pulpits of its congregations or in the classrooms of its colleges, could accurately be
characterized as having succumbed to ?liberalism? or ?modernism.?  Based on more broadly
constructed definitions, however, there were more than a few liberals among Churches of
Christ in the sixties, and many of them were in pulpits and in classrooms, as well as in the
columns of church publications.  Though they were a small group, they nevertheless were in
positions where they could wield a great deal of influence, especially with young people. 
Their emergence dismayed a great many traditionalists.
Baxter?s pleadings, which came as tensions were escalating, probably came too late
to make much of an impact, and thus were not particularly heeded, even in the Advocate. 
Most writers used the terms liberal and liberalism in a broader sense than Baxter
recommended, although the most careful writers were relatively discerning, and often used
the word ?digressive? to describe teachings and practices they feared would eventually lead
to full-fledged liberalism.
At least a couple of ironies developed in the sixties.  Several leaders from the fifties
who had been considered ?progressive? suddenly took the offensive against progressive
teachings and practices of a different ilk.  Many of these leaders continued to be labeled
liberal themselves by the noninstitutional leadership.  Goodpasture, in fact, was regularly
called a liberal.  In 1965, Eugene Britnell, the preacher for a noninstitutional church in Little
Rock, skewered Goodpasture, Woods, Baxter, North, Nichols, and other institutional leaders
in an issue of The Sower.  To Britnell, Goodpasture was at the helm of ?the old ?ship of
Zion??the church?as she plows a troubled sea under the influence of liberal men.?  Those
who Britnell pictured?literally?steering the ship with Goodpasture were ?representative of a
?boat load? of liberal preachers who could be listed.?  Britnell, however, did not accuse
207
Goodpasture of being liberal because he questioned the miracles of Jesus or denied his
resurrection.  He considered him liberal because he was ?determined to tie human
institutions to the church.?76
But if Goodpasture was liberal it was in that sense only.  Theologically, politically,
and socially he was conservative.  One of his best known and most often preached sermons,
which was printed in a variety of forms, presented a traditional view of the inspiration of the
Bible.  During the 1960 presidential race, Goodpasture came out strongly against Roman
Catholic candidate John F. Kennedy?one of the few occasions he commented on politics.  On
the social revolutions taking place in the sixties, Goodpasture made little direct comment,
but when he did his stance was unmistakably conservative.  Yet, in the context of 1960s
mainstream Churches of Christ, because he was more accommodating than some and less
militant than others, Goodpasture did stand closer to the middle than to the right.
Although ?liberal? issues did not become seriously divisive until the second half of
the sixties, several developments in the first half perturbed mainstream leaders and
foreshadowed later disturbances.  Advocate writers chose to address directly two preachers
who had formerly been factional and right-wing extremists, W. Carl Ketcherside and Leroy
Garrett.  After repenting of sectarianism in the fifties, Ketcherside, who lived in Missouri,
and Garrett, who was from Texas, began to advocate a broader concept and practice of
fellowship.  Appealing to the founding ideals of the restoration movement, they emphasized
the unity of all believers and condemned factional and exclusive attitudes.  In support of
their message of unity, they stressed the biblical message of grace and denounced legalism.  77
Others held these broader views, but Ketcherside and Garrett were the only ones who edited
papers?Ketcherside had his Mission Messenger, Garrett produced the Restoration Review.78
208
The Advocate did not give a great deal of attention to Ketcherside and Garrett.  In
1962, Goodpasture likely had in mind the ?folly? of the pair?s unity platform when he wrote,
?In some quarters today there is a tendency toward relaxing our attitudes toward
denominationalism and religious error,? but he did not name them or anyone else.   A79
month later, Batsell Barrett Baxter made a stronger allusion to their unity movement in ?an
open letter,? but he also did not name anyone.  ?Dear brethren,? he implored, ?if the organ in
worship is no longer to be opposed but tolerated as a mere matter of opinion, where can you
logically stop? . . . Will it not be equally defensible to fellowship those who believe in
salvation by faith (without baptism) because they are such earnest, dedicated people? . . . In
short, is not the end of the road down which you have begun to go, open membership with all
people who profess to be believers in Christ??80
One significant exception to the pattern of not naming the guilty came in early 1963. 
J. D. Thomas, a Bible professor at Abilene Christian College in Abilene, Texas, who wrote a
regular column for the Advocate, named Ketcherside in the title to an article.  Demonstrating
grave concern about the effect of his ideas on Churches of Christ, Thomas stated that
Ketcherside?s ?bid for unity of all immersed believers in full fellowship, without regard for
doctrinal differences? was wrong in the light of scripture.  Thomas was no reactionary, and
indeed was one of the Advocate?s most progressive writers.   But Ketcherside disturbed81
him.  According to Thomas, since Ketcherside was ?exercising considerable influence today
through his personal appearances and his little paper,? church members should be made
aware of the illogical and unbiblical nature of his preaching on unity ?before they get swept
away by a ?zeal without knowledge.??82
209
Ketcherside first responded to Thomas?s piece privately.  He asked Goodpasture for
space to make a reply in the Advocate, and suggested to Thomas that they hold a forum in
Abilene to discuss the limits of fellowship.  Goodpasture refused the former request, and
Thomas curtly rejected the latter.   Ketcherside, therefore, made his reply in the Mission83
Messenger, to which Thomas responded in the Advocate.   It seemed that an ongoing84
debate was about to materialize, but it did not.  Although their ideas continued to be
attacked, Ketcherside and Garrett received scant mention in the Advocate from that point
forward.  Goodpasture and others clearly decided that silence was the best policy.
Ironically, Ketcherside, Garrett, and Thomas each played a role in the emergence of
sixties progressivism.  As Ketcherside and Garrett were transforming themselves into grace-
oriented ecumenists, Thomas, as an Abilene Christian professor of Bible, was participating
in the rapid formation of a ?scholarly tradition? among Churches of Christ.   Historian85
Richard T. Hughes has attributed, in part, the founding of the sixties progressive movement
to Ketcherside and Garrett.  Additionally, he and others credit the movement to church
colleges that transformed their Bible faculties during the forties and fifties.86
In those years, more than ever before, the colleges urged their most promising
graduates to seek terminal degrees and return to their alma maters to teach.  Many did, thus
helping their schools expand programs, gain prestige, and achieve accreditation.   This87
pattern was especially significant within religious fields of study?for the colleges as well as
the congregations for whom their graduates would preach.  According to James W.
Thompson, in reference to the Bible department at Abilene, ?The new emphasis on academic
credentials brought a new dimension to scholarship, classroom instruction, and intellectual
leadership for the churches in the 1950s.?  A new generation of scholars with doctorates
210
from prestigious schools ?demonstrated an appreciation for intellectual activity to a
constituency that had been wary of higher education in religion.?   By 1953, Pepperdine88
College, Harding College, and Abilene Christian were offering master?s degrees in biblical
studies, thereby engaging ministerial students in ever higher and broader levels of
theological study.  By this method, writes Michael W. Casey, Bible professors in this period
?introduced the methods of historical criticism and exegesis into [the] preaching? of
Churches of Christ.89
Perpetuating this new scholarly tradition, professors like Abilene?s Thomas, JW
Roberts, Frank Pack, and Lemoine G. Lewis?who earned doctorates at the University of
Chicago, the University of Texas, the University of Southern California, and Harvard
University, respectively?guided a steady stream of students into top-rated graduate
programs.  Like their mentors, according to Thompson, these students carefully ?mediated a
knowledge of the world of scholarship? to the church.  Unlike their mentors, though, they
regularly ?interacted with critical theological scholarship outside the Churches of Christ,?
and, while remaining theologically conservative, directly challenged consensus doctrinal and
ideological views within the group.   Meanwhile, teaching in Abilene?s graduate and90
undergraduate programs, both generations taught the next generation of church scholars as
well as students who would graduate to the pulpits and pews of Churches of Christ.  91
In 1957, Abilene Christian graduates Abraham J. Malherbe and Pat E. Harrell,
pursuing doctorates at Harvard and Boston University, respectively, started Restoration
Quarterly, an academic journal.  Created for religion scholars in Churches of Christ, it was
designed ?to enrich the theological agenda of Churches of Christ with ideas from the larger
world of biblical and theological scholarship.?   Although most RQ contributors came to92
211
essentially conservative conclusions, especially in the first several years of publication,93
many nevertheless applied the methods of historical criticism to their scholarship, an
approach ultimately at odds with the dominant Church of Christ hermeneutic.   Most church94
members, believing the New Testament provided a divinely inspired blueprint or pattern for
Christians to follow, searched the scriptures for ?direct commands, apostolic examples, and
necessary inferences? to guide all aspects of their work and worship.95
Such an approach to biblical interpretation emphasized logic, as Advocate writers
like Guy Woods and Thomas B. Warren regularly made clear.   Of course, the historical-96
critical approach used by most RQ authors was also grounded in logic.  But from different
assumptions come different conclusions, as illustrated by Thomas H. Olbricht, a member of
the RQ editorial board, in a speech at the 1966 Abilene lectureship.  ?The unity of the
Bible,? he declared, ?does not derive from the individual commands and examples
considered as separated, loose facts, but rather from the grand scheme of redemption of
which they are a part.?    But although RQ ?raised some flags,? it circulated primarily97
among scholars and thus did not receive wide notice.   Goodpasture did not comment on the98
new journal in the Advocate.  He did, however, give it his tacit approval since four Advocate
staff writers were involved in the venture at its outset: J. D. Thomas, Frank Pack, Batsell
Barrett Baxter, and Joe Sanders.99
Whatever the degree of Goodpasture?s support of scholarly endeavors as of 1957,
another irony was developing.  Numerous admirers over the years had hailed Goodpasture
as an intellectual and a Bible scholar.  Most such admirers were not trained scholars, but
even J. D. Thomas noted a scholarly bent in the editor, albeit in subdued language, calling
him ?a well-educated gospel preacher of great experience? and ?a student and scholar in his
212
own right.?   Nevertheless, a sharp contrast was becoming apparent between the100
intellectualism of Goodpasture (and similar leaders) and that of professors and preachers
with advanced degrees from prestigious schools.101
In the early sixties, Goodpasture began to express frustration and display impatience
with the preaching and pronouncements of a new generation of college-educated pulpiteers. 
The professors who trained these preachers and the congregations who hired them also
received a few lashings.  Besides wondering at the wisdom of these young preachers,
Goodpasture called into question their loyalty to the Bible and their dedication to the church
of the New Testament.  He usually disparaged and discredited them not as individuals but as
an unquantified group, apparently reckoning that sufficient to equip the average
congregation to withstand any ?digressives? they might encounter.
In 1963, Goodpasture complained of ?a distinct trend toward professionalism among
us.?  He offered as proof the example of a certain congregation that had come to his
attention.  In advertising for a preacher, the church had made clear its intention to hire
someone with special training, listing a masters degree as a minimum requirement. 
Promising a good salary, the church also wanted ?a good mixer? who would ?appear well in
the eyes of outsiders.?  This congregation, according to Goodpasture, ?had been bitten by the
bug of professionalism.?  He noted that ?consecration to the Lord, godliness of life, and
soundness in the faith were not mentioned? as qualifications.  But the blame for this
unfortunate trend lay not only with congregations like this one.  Far too many ministers
sought positions with ?fat salaries? at large churches instead of opportunities to ?suffer
hardship as good soldiers of Christ Jesus . . . planting the cause in hard places.?  The editor
also had a word for the schools producing these preachers.  ?Some colleges may not be
213
without blame at this point,? he wrote, ?in that they feature the ?special? type of training
which may result in ?professional preachers? and ?ecclesiastical sissies.?  Certainly, preachers
should be prepared for the greatest of all callings, . . . but they are not helped by ?special?
training cast along denominational seminary lines.?102
In a subsequent issue, Goodpasture published several positive comments on that
editorial.  Basil Overton, a staff writer, thought it ?especially timely,? stating that he too
found the growing emphasis on hiring degree-holding preachers disconcerting.  ?We should
thank Brother Goodpasture,? he declared, ?for emphasizing that churches should be
conscious of the degree of a preacher?s soundness in the faith and his degree of practicing
what he preaches.?  He encouraged the editor to ?bring forth more and more of his pertinent,
priceless, and piercing points.?   Hobart E. Ashby, of Missouri, believed that the editorial103
should be ?read and re-read? as a reminder that ?we will never carry the gospel to all the
world with a ?professionalism ministry.??  William E. Woodson, a young Bible instructor at
Freed-Hardeman College, considered Goodpasture?s words a ?refreshing breeze.?  He had
?spoken of the article to fellow teachers? and ?heard several comments from some of the
students.?  He was pleased to report ?genuine approval? of the piece.104
In that same issue, Goodpasture gently pleaded with emerging young leaders not to
forsake the wisdom and guidance of his generation.  He called to mind the story of King
Rehoboam in I Kings 12.  Upon taking his father Solomon?s throne, the young king, in the
words of Goodpasture, ?forsook the advice of the old men and sought for the counsel of the
young men.?  Instead of serving his subjects so that they would in turn serve him, as the
older men advised, he chose to rule harshly, as his young comrades urged.  A divided and
fallen kingdom was the tragic result.  ?But it might have been otherwise,? Goodpasture
214
observed, if Rehoboam had heeded the counsel of his elders.  Although ?Israel paid the price
of his folly and stubbornness,? Churches of Christ did not have to suffer a similar fate:
It is a fine thing when young men can work with old men as Timothy labored with
Paul.  The world and the church need the best efforts of both. . . . It is fine when the
energy of the young can be seasoned with the wisdom of the old.105
A short time later, in June 1963, Goodpasture employed a different tactic to get the
attention of young, progressive preachers.  Instead of gentle persuasion, he resorted to
caricature.  ?Not long since,? he wrote, ?we heard a young preacher who criticized an older
preacher because he filled his sermons with quotations from the Bible,? an ?old fashioned?
practice.  If so, Goodpasture chided, the old preacher was ?as ?old fashioned? as Christ and
his apostles.?  Such a remark ?betrays a woeful lack of knowledge of, and respect for, the
?living oracles.??  He then suggested that any preacher who harbored similar opinions might
already have succumbed to liberal theology: ?If he is not a modernist, he is speaking the
language and serving the purpose of the modernist.?  At minimum, he is haughty and
delusional: ?He who thinks that he can express the thoughts of God in language superior to
that of the sacred texts thinks too highly of himself.?106
Goodpasture also felt uneasy in the early sixties about the future of preaching in
Churches of Christ for another reason.  There were not enough preachers to fill existing
pulpits and the number of students preparing themselves to preach was inadequate and
trending downward.  Dozens of articles on the preacher shortage appeared in the Advocate
over the course of the decade.  Batsell Barrett Baxter, in particular, began alerting readers to
the crisis as early as 1962, and for many years published reports in the papers on the number
of men in ministerial training.  An inadequate number of preachers to serve local
congregations, he warned, portended stagnant growth at best.  To Baxter, the solution to the
215
crisis lay in the local church.  ?Conscious efforts,? he wrote, ?should be made by teachers,
preachers, elders, and others to enlist more young men for full-time service in the preaching
of the gospel.?  If churches could spend ?hundreds of millions of dollars? on their facilities,
then surely they could invest in training for their young men.  Baxter summed up his fears by
quoting a ?thoughtful young preacher? of his acquaintance: ?I?m afraid that in the next
twenty-five years there will be hundreds of beautiful church buildings, without anyone in the
pulpit.?107
Goodpasture likewise considered the preacher shortage ?alarming.?  He believed
?the future growth of the church? was at stake.  The crisis would be met only ?when more
fathers and mothers want their sons to preach? and when local churches recognize their
responsibility to help parents train ?messengers of the cross.?   Like Baxter, Goodpasture108
promoted congregational training classes for school-age boys, and even college and young
married men.  He emphasized preparation in public speaking, judging that many young men
would decide to become preachers once they learned to be comfortable in the pulpit. 
Considering that ?the results will live on into eternity,? churches should not hesitate to
implement training programs consistent with their resources.109
Although training classes probably did increase in popularity, a new trend developed
to address the preacher shortage: preacher training schools for men beyond college age. 
Typically established and operated by a single congregation, the average ?school of
preaching? offered a definite course of study, but not a degree.  Nor did it charge tuition or
seek accreditation.  It offered classes in Bible and closely related subjects only.  Most of its
faculty members were seasoned local preachers who emphasized textual study and practical
216
preaching, and who freely provided their services.  By 1970, about a dozen preaching
schools had been established in seven states and several more were being planned.110
Goodpasture participated in the founding of one such school, the Nashville School of
Preaching, which opened in February 1966 as a part-time school providing instruction three
nights a week.  Unlike most other preaching schools, it was founded not by a congregation
but by a committee, which Goodpasture chaired from its inception until his death. 
Committee members comprised the permanent faculty; other volunteer teachers were drawn
from the Nashville area.  Offering a two-year course of study, the school graduated twenty-
two students in its first class in December 1967.111
Although the school was not Goodpasture?s idea, when a group of local preachers
approached him about establishing one, ?he recognized the need for such a school and gave
his endorsement to it.?   In light of his concerns about the preacher shortage and the college112
training of many young preachers, it was perfectly logical that he was approached about the
school and that he agreed to lend his considerable support to the endeavor.  He emphasized
to readers, however, that the school was not for young men in college or able to go to
college.  ?It was not started, nor is it operated, to compete with our Christian schools and
colleges,? he wrote.  Its ?prime appeal? was to men ?unable, for one reason or another, to
attend college.  It is designed to furnish instruction for those who, otherwise, would not be
able to obtain it.?113
That Goodpasture was sincere in this statement is virtually beyond question.  He was
still a friend to the colleges, especially Lipscomb in Nashville, and had no apparent motive to
hurt enrollments.  Moreover, Batsell Barrett Baxter, head of the Lipscomb Bible department,
voiced support for the school.   The school followed Goodpasture?s prescription of114
217
providing practical instruction in fields like public speaking in addition to study of the
Bible.   He also enjoyed teaching in the school.  For ten years, he taught Genesis and Acts115
on Monday nights.  E. Ray Jerkins, one of the school?s co-founders, reported that
Goodpasture considered the opportunity to teach the school?s eager students ?one of the most
rewarding works of his life.?116
These circumstances, however, did not preclude an additional, albeit unspoken,
motivation for Goodpasture?s involvement with the school, namely, a desire for more men to
prepare for the pulpit by thoroughly traditional means in an environment controlled by
thoroughly traditional instructors.  According to Goodpasture, as reported in the Nashville
Banner, the school sought ?only to prepare men to preach the word,? and hence courses
offered in addition to Bible were limited to ?sermon preparations and delivery, basic Greek,
public speaking, practical English, and church history.?   Such a model for training117
preachers was not so much falling out of favor in the colleges as being supplemented in an
increasing number of classrooms with instruction informed by modern scholarship and
conforming to contemporary styles of preaching.
Several observers, noting that ?the Schools of Preaching were born in an era of
growing distrust of the Christian Colleges? Bible departments,? have argued that the
preacher shortage was not the only motivating force behind the preaching school
phenomenon.   According to James Thompson, ?numerous preacher schools were founded118
to offer an alternative to a university education that was no longer insulated from the larger
world of scholarship.?   And Richard Hughes notes that the preaching schools were119
founded by ?conservatives [who] had largely lost faith in the ability of colleges . . . to
produce acceptable pulpit preachers.?   David Edwin Harrell, Jr., makes a similar point: 120
218
?By the middle of the 1960s, many conservatives believed that they were being excluded
from policy decisions in the colleges and given no voice in the schools? prestigious
lectureships, so they founded a parallel set of institutions.?   Robert E. Hooper, in order to121
illustrate the reactionary nature of many of the preaching schools, quoted Roy J. Hearn on
the pioneering Sunset School of Preaching in Lubbock, Texas.   Writing in the Advocate in122
1965, Hearn contrasted the training of preachers at Sunset with the education received by
Bible majors at the church colleges: ?In two years [at Sunset] a student gets four times as
much Bible as he would get in a four year college, and in most cases the study is much more
intense. . . . The emphasis is fully on the Bible and such related work as will well equip men
for preaching sound doctrine, rather than what Barth, Brunner, ?Kant and Kompany? think
about it.?123
Within a few months of writing those words, Hearn helped get the Nashville School
of Preaching off the ground, serving briefly as its initial director before moving to Memphis
to start the full-time Getwell Road (later Memphis) School of Preaching.  The Memphis
school, unlike the Nashville one, was unapologetically militant.  In a 1968 Advocate article,
Hearn highlighted certain ?objectives? of the Memphis school: ?Exalt the Bible as the
verbally inspired word of God. . . . Place strong emphasis upon textual study of the Bible,
and greatly stress the need for Bible preaching. . . . Emphasize the principles of the
Restoration Movement, giving due honor to the men who launched it. . . . Train men to be
truly ?men of the Book,? dedicated to preaching the full gospel of Christ.?  The inference that
Hearn intended readers to draw from this list was evident:  Although the colleges? Bible
departments purported to have similar objectives, not a few of their professors and graduates
were giving the lie to such claims.124
219
Despite Hearn?s militancy, Goodpasture showed him strong support.   Indeed,125
although Goodpasture showed favoritism toward the Nashville School of Preaching, he
endorsed the entire preaching school movement.  His willingness to become an ally to the
schools did not go unnoticed or unappreciated.  Hearn, in 1968, offered ?genuine
appreciation? for the Advocate?s support of not only his school but all of the preaching
schools.   In 1965, Roy Deaver of the Brown Trail School of Preaching in Hurst, Texas,126
also expressed deep gratitude to the influential editor:
The elders of the Brown Trail church join me in expressing our thanks to you for
carrying the announcement about the Preacher Training School in the Gospel
Advocate.  We appreciate this so very, very much. . . . I have a special request: I
would like very much to have a statement from you indicating your attitude toward
this work. . . . I will never be able to tell you adequately how much I appreciate
you?your great work and your great life.127
Although Goodpasture did not cut ties to the colleges when he embraced the preaching
school movement, they now had to share space in the Advocate with a ?parallel set of
institutions.?   Significantly, whereas Goodpasture had nurtured progressive initiatives in128
years past, he was now embracing a trend that at its base was reactionary.
Relevance
In 1961 anonymous wits produced a professional-grade handbill promoting two
imaginary books, the Gosple Advocate Joke Book and the Gosple Advocate Record Book. 
They quietly distributed copies on literature tables at the Lipscomb June Lecture Series. 
?Whether you?re a minister who needs to enliven his sermons,? the flyer announced, ?or a
layman who likes to stay one jump ahead of the preacher you?ll want to be the first in your
faction to own the Gosple Advocate Joke Book.?  The ad included testimonials from
satisfied readers.  Bro. Elmore Purvey, of Burning Bush, Alabama, happily declared, ?Since
220
reading the G. A. Joke Book my income has already tripled,? while Bro. Ezra Bunch,
Skagway, Arkansas, giddily explained that he was ?now the life of the congregation? thanks
to the same book.  For its part, the Gosple Advocate Record Book contained a wealth of
useful information.  Collected in one handy volume were answers to important questions
like, ?Who has split the most congregations on a single issue?? and ?Who quoted 120
scriptures and gave 25 illustrations in one 33 minute sermon??  Additionally, the ad assured,
readers would ?enjoy? three special sections.  The first provided ?the latest report on the big
subscription contest between Brother Gus and Firey Irey,? another listed ?100 of the most
popular preachers as to position on 10 big issues,? while the third, ?10 Ways To Prove The
Church of Christ Is Not A Denomination,? included ?statistics on the size of
congregations.?129
Soon revealed to be the handiwork of four recent Lipscomb graduates, the hoax went
over well with some attendees but not others.  The four young men ?had not meant harm to
the Advocate,? but Goodpasture and top Lipscomb officials found no humor whatsoever in
the handout.  Vice President Willard Collins made it known that had the culprits still been
students they would have been expelled.  Although the authors ?just put together some of the
stuff we?d laughed about over the years,? their light satire obviously made some ?Serious
Gosple Advocate Students? uncomfortable.   Moreover, they were poking fun not only at130
the Advocate but also preachers and churches of the kind closely affiliated with the
Advocate.
For all its humor, the parody raised serious points.  In particular, the ?Church of
Christ Is Not A Denomination? quip would have drawn laughs from few Advocate loyalists. 
Any church member who referred to Churches of Christ as a denomination went against the
221
grain of the consensus position that Jesus built only one church, and that church was not a
denomination.  Guy Woods argued the point in a 1960 Advocate article:
The church of which one reads in the New Testament (Matt. 16:18), often identified
by the sacred writers as the ?body of Christ? (Col. 1:18), and whose membership is
the sum of all the saved who have since its formation on the first Pentecost day
following our Lord?s resurrection (Acts 2:47), is not a denomination!
Following his argument to its logical?or, depending on the perspective, its ironic?end,
Woods declared,
It is most significant that no denomination, however aggressive and ambitious for
success it may be, would dare to identify itself with the church of which one reads in
the Bible.  Denominational devotees unhesitatingly concede that their respective
communions do not include the whole of Christendom; it is freely admitted by them
all that no one denomination, or all of them combined, represents the total number
of the saved of this generation.
Therefore, Woods explained, it logically follows that ?the church of the New Testament?
cannot be a denomination.  Now, he asked rhetorically, ?how may the church be identified
today and its blessings obtained??  Again, the application of basic logic would lead one to
the proper answer.  Since the church that Jesus established ?possessed recognizable
characteristics,? one need only ?determine those characteristics, and then seek for that
religious body which reproduces them without exception today.?  Objective observers,
Woods strongly implied, could not help but see that Churches of Christ were that body.  In
short, since Churches of Christ were properly identified with the church found in the Bible,
and since a part (denomination) cannot be a whole (the church), then Churches of Christ
could not be a denomination.131
As the sixties progressed, an increasing number of church members considered such
conclusions ludicrous and not in keeping with the founding ideals of the restoration
movement.  For them, if not most others, the Advocate?s relevance was waning; indeed, they
222
would not have even bothered to parody the Advocate in the manner of the Joke Book
pranksters.  Mirroring the broader American society, progressives made relevance a central
theme in the discourse of the sixties.  They feared that misplaced priorities, frivolous
preoccupations, stagnant preaching, exclusive attitudes, inadequate understandings of
doctrine, and a general inability and unwillingness to engage the problems of modern society
were making Churches of Christ irrelevant to contemporary times.  A majority of church
members of the period, however, rejected their notions of relevance.
In the second half of the decade, an increasing number of developments disturbed
Goodpasture and other traditional leaders, and made them ever more suspicious of some
?brethren.?  The Ketcherside and Garrett unity movement attracted a growing number of
followers.  Differences over the role of the Holy Spirit, influenced in part by the broader
charismatic movement, came to a head in 1966 and grew progressively intense in years
following.  Also in 1966, Carl Ketcherside published a book of essays written by seventeen
men and women called Voices of Concern: Critical Studies in Church of Christism; it was
dedicated to ?the thousands of concerned ones in the Churches of Christ whose voices can
never be heard.?  Campus Evangelism, an evangelical-inspired ministry targeting state
college campuses, went from the planning stage in 1966 to the center of controversy by
1969.  In 1967, several progressives, including many scholars, began a new publication,
Mission, which had enemies even before its first issue appeared.  Another progressive
publication, Integrity, appeared in 1969.  The Christian Chronicle, a weekly paper in
Abilene that had provided news to Churches of Christ since 1943, caused a stir in 1966
under a longtime editor, and gained a reputation for being liberal when it changed ownership
223
in 1967.  A number of professors at church colleges were dismissed for being liberal. 
Finally, differing attitudes over race relations and other social issues increased tensions.
Goodpasture and the Advocate, when not being ignored altogether, drew criticism
from various progressive sources.  Unlike noninstitutional leaders, progressives rarely
mentioned Goodpasture?s name.  Besides usually not having combative personalities, most
had either too much respect for him as a person or too little interest in him as a leader to
disparage him publicly.  This did not keep them from voicing their criticisms in more general
terms, making references to ?our most influential papers? or the ?power structure,? phrases
which subsumed the Advocate and its editor.   Nevertheless, criticism specific to both the132
paper and Goodpasture appeared throughout the decade.
In 1960, a Chicago church member and Advocate subscriber, Van Allen Bradley,
penned a letter to Goodpasture to offer him some ?constructive criticism.?  An editorial
writer for the Chicago Daily News, he wished the Advocate would set a higher standard.  ?I
get terribly tired of the petty bickering that goes on in the columns,? he wrote.  ?And I long
for some informed, high level commentary by a leader in the Church of Christ on the great
national and international problems that confront us.  The Advocate is a barren waste of
mediocrity most of the time, and I really can?t believe you want it that way.?   In 1966,133
former missionary Logan J. Fox, member at the Vermont Avenue Church of Christ in Los
Angeles, complained, ?What I miss most of all in such papers as our brotherhood
publications (e. g. The Gospel Advocate and The Firm Foundation) is a friendliness to
tentative positions.  How I long for a free forum among us where ideas can be advanced,
tested, and then either pursued or withdrawn, depending on how they stand up.?   The same134
year, referring to the Advocate and Firm Foundation, New Jersey minister Mack Langford
224
gave this criticism: ?Our two leading journals still reflect the style, mores, and outlook of 50
years ago.  One can hardly tell the difference between an issued dated July 1900 and July
1966. . . . These journals, so irrelevant for our time, so detached from the burning issues of
today, are living examples of how traditions are born and transmitted? unchanged over
time.135
Excluding noninstitutional critics, perhaps the most public and direct criticism of the
Advocate in the sixties emanated from James L. Lovell.  In fact, if Goodpasture had a
personal protagonist in the sixties it was Jimmie Lovell.   Verbose and exuberant, Lovell136
grew up in Tennessee at the same time as Goodpasture.  Beginning in 1936, while working
for DuPont, he started the first of five self-published papers he would edit in his lifetime.  He
was passionate about missions, in particular, but promoted a range of church projects, and
was important to the growth of Churches of Christ in the West.   The irenic Lovell137
qualified as a progressive, but was independent and inconsistent, even enigmatic.  In Action,
a paper he began in 1962, he occasionally made remarks about Goodpasture and the
Advocate.  In his July 1966 issue, a month after describing Goodpasture as ?possibly the
most respected voice in the church today,? he expressed keen disappointment with him.  138
While observing that several power brokers were failing to provide Churches of Christ with
positive leadership, he reserved most of his barbs for the Advocate editor.  Lovell was hard-
pressed to understand why Goodpasture complained about liberalism without ever saying
anything substantive or constructive on the subject.  ?It appears to me,? Lovell wrote, ?that
he is more concerned with the [Advocate?s] circulation . . . than the dangers which he
sees?and are?among us.?  Assuring his readers that he had ?more feeling concerning [the
225
Advocate?s] influence and future than any person I know,? he continued his evaluation of
the paper, sprinkling in phrases from Goodpasture?s May 26 editorial:
Just as sure as God made green apples [the Advocate] is going to suffer unless it
makes some changes in respect to combatting [sic] these ?evil times? . . . . Nothing
can live on the past, no matter how good it was, and the editorials of this journal, in
my estimation, in no way compare with those of by-gone days in facing ?softness,
compromise, indifference and unbelief.? . . . This is a new generation and the sooner
we become aware of it the better off we will be.139
Goodpasture at first offered no response to Lovell, but when the August issue of Action
included similar rhetoric, Goodpasture struck back, excoriating ?the garrulous editor of
Action? in an editorial running more than two pages.140
Even one of Goodpasture?s staff writers voiced dissatisfaction with the Advocate in
this period, albeit much less publicly and directly.  John Allen Chalk, a Tennessee native,
was featured on the Advocate?s cover the first week of January 1966, the same week he
became the first full-time radio speaker for the Herald of Truth.  Later that month he would
deliver the main address at the Advocate?s 111  Anniversary Dinner.   Chalk genuinelyth 141
respected Goodpasture and strongly supported the Advocate, but was not blind to its
imperfections.   The next month, February 1966, in reply to a letter from George Gurganus142
of Harding?s Graduate School of Religion, the young preacher shared this honest opinion:
?Our present publications are ?closed corporations? which, for the most part, do not allow for
crucial questions and discussion of sensitive topics.?143
Although not meant for the Advocate alone, this critique?besides indicating that not
all Advocate staff writers marched in lockstep with the editor?suggested that Chalk
considered the Advocate?s influence limited by its lack of engagement with current issues.  It
also suggested disagreement with Goodpasture?s most notorious policy.  Almost without
226
exception since 1939, and in contrast to David Lipscomb?s editorial legacy, Goodpasture
had kept to a policy that excluded viewpoints from the Advocate he deemed unacceptable. 
Like Chalk, this policy frustrated others affiliated with Goodpasture.  For instance, later in
1966 Goodpasture rejected a series of articles on the Holy Spirit by one of his primary
columnists, J. D. Thomas, forcing Thomas to turn to the more accommodating Reuel
Lemmons, editor of the Firm Foundation.  Although Lemmons, like Goodpasture, disagreed
with certain points that Thomas made, he published the series and waited until after the
appearance of the eleventh and final installment to offer a rebuttal.144
Chalk had offered his critique to Gurganus in reference to an upcoming, invitation-
only meeting in Abilene to discuss a proposal to create a new journal for Churches of Christ. 
To his earlier remark he added this statement: ?If at all possible, I would like to see this new
journal provide a responsible yet courageous approach to today?s church.?   Eighteen145
months later the journal would be launched, and though Gurganus hoped that it would focus
on traditional mission work, it took an emphasis more akin to Chalk?s wishes.   Indeed,146
although Chalk pulled out of the project, several progressives wanted the kind of publication
he described.   A June 1966 proposal for the journal included this statement from a147
committee member:
Most would admit that our present religious journals cater to the reader with a
?Church of Christ? background, mentality and perspective. . . . The case for pure,
primitive New Testament Christianity needs to be made without depending upon the
particular historical, cultural, and social heritage represented by and identified with
our conception of the church of Christ.148
In a summary statement, Walter Burch noted that the committee, almost unanimously,
?wanted an openness and a freedom in the new journal that would allow divergent
viewpoints to be expressed.?  The journal should of course avoid a stance that would not
227
allow scrutiny of long-held beliefs, but neither ?should it be reactionary as though we
[Churches of Christ] had done nothing right.?149
The committee named the journal Mission, having in mind the church?s mission in
the broadest possible sense, and published the first issue in July 1967.  In its statement of
policy, the editorial board underscored Mission?s goal to be relevant.  In order to
communicate the gospel effectively, the church must use language and concepts
?understood? by contemporary society.  Those to whom the church speaks must comprehend
the words spoken in order to comprehend the ?true power and relevance? of Christianity. 
Stated another way, ?The church is committed to the fact that the old message is, in fact,
relevant in the modern world and in every culture of the modern world.  But that relevance
can be hidden and obscured unless the church translates it in a fresh and transparent
way.?150
Clearly implying that the core message of the gospel was getting lost in translation in
the columns of the church?s existing papers, Mission?s editors made equally clear their belief
that the same was happening to the basic ideals of the restoration movement.  Thomas
Olbricht, a speech professor at Penn State soon to join the Bible department at Abilene
Christian, argued in the first issue that restoration is an ongoing process that every
generation must ?adapt? to its times.  Calling for a ?focus . . . on the New Testament faith,
not on our past battles to establish it,? he presented a succinct statement of the progressive
movement?s concept of restorationism.  In his remarks Olbricht also capsulized Mission?s
stance toward the journalistic establishment in Churches of Christ:
The idea [in some quarters] appears to be that the church is on the brink of disaster
and the only way to prevent it is for the editors of the journals to screen what the
people read and control the news so that minds will not be contaminated.  This
228
appears to be a loss of confidence that people other than editors and certain church
leaders can discern the true from the false.  But this is not the restoration of the sort
envisioned by our forefathers.  Theirs was a restoration of believers, of men and
women as equally competent and committed to the faith as the leaders. . . . A
Christian who follows a preacher or editor around like a sheep has little claim to be a
disciple of Jesus Christ.151
Such forthrightness did not endear Mission to established leaders.  As Olbricht
would later remark, Mission?s critics assigned sinister motives to its founders, believing that
?they wanted to change the church through criticism of traditional views and approaches, to
depart from the standard foundational perspectives, and lead the way in new and more
liberal directions.?   Those were in fact the sentiments of many, including the journal?s152
foremost critic, Ira Y. Rice, Jr., though he did not always express his opinions quite so
mildly.   After many years as a missionary in Asia, Rice returned to the U.S. in the early153
sixties for language study at Yale.  Appalled by liberal attitudes he encountered at a local
congregation, Rice determined to expose liberalism in the church through a series of books,
which he provocatively titled Axe on the Root.  In the second volume he attempted to
discredit Mission before the first issue even appeared.  Particularly chagrined at Mission?s
stated intention to welcome outsiders onto its pages, Rice criticized the ?compromising
spirit? of the project and concluded, ?Like the Israelites of old, who wanted a king instead
of Judges, like their neighbors around them, we now have Burch & Company wanting a
journal like the sects around them rather than like the word of God.?154
Unlike Rice, Goodpasture paid Mission little attention.  His clearest reference to the
journal did not mention it by name.  In August 1967 he announced that Roy Hearn and other
?faithful brethren? had started a new monthly paper, First Century Christian, designed to
defend ?the pure gospel.?  He wished them the best in this ?worthy aspiration,? and
229
commended them for not casting aspersions on other papers when launching theirs.  Quoting
from Mission?s earliest proposal statement, he wrote: ?At least these good brethren did not
say that ?No extant publication is speaking to our brotherhood in bold, fresh and relevant
terms.  No periodical exists which deals with the most pertinent issues of the day.??155
The talk about relevance definitely irked Goodpasture.  ?We hear much these days,?
he wrote in 1966, ?about ?making the Bible relevant.??  He surmised that for many this had
more to do with molding doctrine to fit modern sensibilities than it did with Paul?s dictum to
?become all things to all men.?  Such attempts to make the Bible relevant actually signified
a willingness to ?reject? it, thereby truly making it irrelevant.   Goodpasture placed much156
of the blame for this erroneous concept of relevancy at the feet of ?conceited? men who
misused scholarship.  ?The church and the Bible are ?relevant? to every generation,? he
asserted in 1967, but any scholarship other than ?dedicated scholarship? most surely ?puffs
up and makes one self-sufficient.?   Goodpasture also blamed ?dialogue with the157
denominations? for the spread of the relevancy infection.   He found its effect on pulpit158
preaching especially disconcerting:
Men may speak of ?the new day,? the ?changing times,? and ?the enlightened age?;
but the world has not outgrown the need for simple gospel preaching. . . . New
Testament evangelism and not modern denominationalism furnishes us the true
pattern for modern preaching.  Our ministry cannot pillow its head on the lap of
sectarianism without being shorn of its power.159
Similarly, Goodpasture judged that some ?brethren? were guilty of ?drinking at the
fountains of denominational error.?160
Goodpasture accused the relevancy generation of compromising the gospel by
putting social issues ahead of salvation issues.  Since Jesus commanded his disciples to
preach ?the gospel to all nations unto the end of the world,? and since ?he was not unaware
230
of the changes, of every kind, that would take place before the end of the age,? then ?the
gospel is ?relevant? to every generation.?  The good news of salvation from personal sin had
remained as unchanged as ?human needs? over the centuries.  Noting that God sent Paul ?to
preach the gospel,? Goodpasture declared that the apostle ?never planned to ?involve?
himself primarily in ?slum clearance? or ?ghetto problems.??  Paul likewise ?never delivered
any ?manifestos? on ?racism? nor pronounced any ?ultimatums? on the evils of slavery.?  In
short, ?his idea of preaching the gospel? involved nothing more or less than ?declaring
?Christ, and him crucified.??  As in the first century, that kind of preaching still saved people
from sin.  ?But it will do more,? Goodpasture claimed.  ?It will save men from the social and
racial evils that afflict them.?  He offered the evil of slavery as an example: ?Slavery was
prevalent in the first century; yet, Christianity did not meet slavery ?head on?; but rather
dealt with it indirectly.  It has destroyed slavery where it has gone.?161
Goodpasture was not the only one perfunctorily dismissing ministries attempting to
face social problems ?head on,? but by the late sixties a growing minority of church
members were seeking souls and social change.  John Allen Chalk was one of those.  In the
summer of 1968, in a series called ?Three American Revolutions,? he preached thirteen
hard-hitting sermons over Herald of Truth radio on ?crime, race, and sex.?   His decision to162
speak on race relations displeased some, including Batsell Barrett Baxter, the genial Herald
of Truth television speaker whom Chalk later described as being ?not happy that I did those
race sermons.?   Addressing various aspects of racial prejudice, the sermons did cause163
controversy.   Meanwhile that summer Goodpasture brought out a special issue in memory164
of Marshall Keeble, a legendary black preacher who had died in April at the age of eighty-
nine.  Much-loved by black and white church members, Keeble had relied on white
231
support?financial and otherwise?for the greater part of his long and extensive ministry. 
Goodpasture, who performed Keeble?s second marriage ceremony in 1934 and co-conducted
his funeral service, was one of his biggest admirers as well as a key personal and financial
supporter.165
When introducing the memorial issue, Goodpasture reflected on the ?humble and
modest? Keeble and the ?noble influence? of his seventy-year preaching career.  Remarking
that ?this generation needs the qualities that made Marshall Keeble great,? Goodpasture
listed several of those qualities, including his deferential approach to race relations: ?He
loved his fellowman, regardless of race or color.  They all heard him gladly.  He never
listened to alien voices which would array race against race.  He was too wise to be
influenced by those who would exploit his people to foment strife and trouble.  He loved
peace and always sought to promote it.?166
The memorial issue ?hurt and saddened? Chalk, and he drafted a passionate letter to
Goodpasture detailing his ?heart?s deepest reactions? to it.  Chalk considered the front page
article by Karl W. Pettus ?not a memorial to Brother Keeble but a backhanded slap at
Martin Luther King, Jr.?  Goodpasture?s words also made him cringe: ?Your editorial will
not be appreciated by Negro brethren I know personally in Los Angeles, Chicago, Newark,
New York, Atlanta, Abilene, Dallas, Dayton, and other places . . . . who today are not about
to ?array race against race? . . . but who refuse to take Brother Keeble?s [deferential] stance
toward white church members.?  Like Keeble, these preachers were ?reaching lost men too,?
but the tone of the entire memorial issue and its use of the term ?colored? instead of ?Negro?
or ?Black? only ?further alienates Black brethren from the Advocate and from you
personally.?167
232
While forthright, Chalk?s letter was respectful.  Upon further reflection, however, he
decided not to send it to Goodpasture.  In fact, as he remarked decades later, his ?deep
respect for Brother Goodpasture? played into his decision to hold the letter, as did his
?awareness of the deep divide between us on the race issue,? a divide that he assumed
Goodpasture recognized.   Two weeks before his radio sermons on race began airing,168
Chalk participated in an Atlanta conference that brought black and white leaders together to
address racial problems in the church, thus his progressive position on ?the race issue? was
well-known by the time the Keeble issue appeared.   In this period, Chalk privately169
challenged Reuel Lemmons, the comparatively amenable editor of the Firm Foundation, on
racial attitudes similar to Goodpasture?s.   However, he ?felt like there were other170
constructive ways [to] encourage better race relations within the Churches of Christ than to
tackle the issue with Goodpasture and the Advocate.?  At any rate, Chalk?s aborted letter
expressed, as he described it, ?frustration with the failure of the white church to recognize
the social and cultural implications of the gospel.?171
Heresy in the Colleges
In April 1969, an internal crisis at Harding College in Searcy, Arkansas, came to a
head, resulting in the departure of English professor James L. Atteberry for Pepperdine
College in Los Angeles.  Atteberry had taught at Harding since 1953, but in recent months
had come under increasing scrutiny from school officials and fellow faculty members,
especially Bible professor James D. Bales, who named him ?the central problem? in a trend
toward ?apostasy? at Harding.  The Harding Board of Trustees called a special meeting to
investigate the Atteberry matter in April and by the end of May he had resigned.   As a part172
of its investigation, the board met with Bales and other faculty members, including W. Joe
233
Hacker, Jr., the Bible department chairman.  Over the course of the decade, Hacker argued
in extensive remarks to the board, several professors, including Attebery, had ?created a
polarization among faculty members and among students.?  The existing differences were
?fundamental,? not merely social or generational, and were rooted in incompatible
?attitudes.?173
Hacker, who was born in Oklahoma in 1930, earned degrees at Harding and
Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary before being tapped to lead the Bible
department in 1961.  Sounding more irenic than reactionary, he offered the Harding board
several examples of polarization on campus.  He drew part of his evidence from a discussion
held at his Searcy home earlier in the decade on ?attitudes toward the church.?  Engaging
him in conversation that day were three men of his generation: Harding Bible professor Jim
Zink, Searcy preacher Ray Chester, and Exodus Bay Shore leader Dwain Evans.  The
conversation, Hacker reported, ?indicated to me that there were people here in places of
responsibility and leadership who held basic views of the Scripture and of the restoration
plea which were different from mine.?  The apparent eagerness of the trio, especially the two
local men, to jettison their ecclesiastical inheritance distressed Hacker:
I was told by them that we should no longer look upon ?BC and the Boys,? meaning
B. C. Goodpasture and the Gospel Advocate, for leadership in the church. The time
had come for us to redefine what we mean by the church and what is meant by the
mission of the church.
Hacker explained that he countered this line of thinking by granting that today?s generation
might use different communication methods than a G. C. Brewer or a Guy Woods, ?but that
the fundamentals for which we stood and the understanding that we had of the church was
essentially the same.?  Zink and Chester, to his dismay, flatly rejected this assertion.  They
234
?were very strong in their statements that this was not the case but that in fact we had
misunderstood the essential nature of the church.?  As Hacker reminded the board, Zink was
no longer with Harding and Chester was no longer in Searcy.  Hacker took some credit for
the latter development: ?I felt it was my responsibility to help make it possible for Mr.
Chester to exert his influence at some other place.?  174
Indeed, many would have thought Hacker?s response to the troubles at Harding not
strong enough.  By the end of the decade, Ira Rice and others were calling for a boycott of
doctrinally questionable institutions, including colleges.  In addition to other strategies for
dealing with liberalism, Rice supported this one: ?Find out which of ?our? schools retain . . .
only such teachers and administrators whose doctrinal soundness is beyond question,
allowing our children to go to such schools exclusively.?   Goodpasture gave no indication175
of wanting to go that far, but in the immediate aftermath of the Atteberry affair he voiced
definite concern about the schools: ?Of late, some [?professors?] have been dropped from the
faculties of some of ?our? colleges, because of their liberal views.  Those in charge are to be
commended for this decisive and courageous step.  If a man does not have the backbone to
stand up and be counted in this fight against liberalism he is not qualified to be president of a
college or head of a Bible department.?176
By 1969 it should have shocked no one, including the Harding trustees, to hear that
some, like Zink, Chester, and Evans, wished to minimize the influence of leaders like
Goodpasture and institutions like the Advocate.  Similarly, it should have come as no
surprise that others, like Hacker, worked to lessen the influence of such men.  In fact, despite
the voices critical of Goodpasture and other consensus leaders, a majority of church
members still considered the Advocate and similar papers like the Firm Foundation relevant
235
to their lives and the well-being of ?the Lord?s church.?  As reader T. J. Ward, a Texan,
stated to Goodpasture in a 1966 letter, the Advocate ?has remained a paper of great value to
the church, preachers, and to Christians generally.?177
Not as clear to many church members was the value of the colleges.  This was also
true of essentially conservative leaders like Goodpasture, who for decades had nurtured the
schools.  Goodpasture showed little inclination to take a hard line against colleges at which
trouble erupted, apparently because he considered their problems limited and trusted their
leaders to handle them.  Isolated cases of professors taking the wrong stance on the
inspiration of scripture, evolution, or the nature of truth, for instance, were not enough for
him to withdraw his support.  Yet the dismay of Goodpasture and other Advocate writers
over some of the preachers coming out of the colleges continued.  Ross W. Dye, minister at
the 16  and Decatur Church of Christ in Washington, D. C., demonstrated this in a front-th
page article in 1968.  With withering sarcasm he instructed readers how to reverse the
growth of Churches of Christ.  It was his answer to ?those who think we need some radical
changes so that we can become more ?relevant? and stop ?answering questions no one is
asking.??   His ?waybill for decline? centered on education and the pulpit:
First of all, let the preachers become intellectual snobs.  Most educated people will
not respect this, and the common man will turn away empty. . . . I think that no one
would suggest that merely educating our ministers will bring on a decline; we must
have a certain kind of educated man. . . . Degrees must be made a status symbol, and
learning must be an end within itself. . . . It is not education that does the job, but
intellectual snobbery.
Secondly, confuse the people; in other words, ?fuzz up? their beliefs. . . . Sermons
filled with quotations from Niebuhr, Barth, Cox, Bonhoeffer and such like will stir
up the young to look beyond the Bible for the answers to the questions of their
hearts.  This will greatly assist the preacher who is tired of sermons on sin, grace,
redemption, repentance, baptisms [sic], sanctification and godly living.  This will
enable him to be ?relevant,? and thus empty the church buildings in a generation.
236
Thirdly, preach on problems. . . . meaning the socio-economic problems of the
nation. . . . The working man who wants food for his soul will go away hungry; so if
you want to bring on a decline, I am sure this will do it.178
In short, Dye and many others not only resented accusations of irrelevance, they believed
that their accusers, blinded by so-called theological education, were actually the ones
irrelevant to the modern world.  Their confidence in at least some of the church?s educational
institutions had been shaken.
By contrast, preachers like Dye still considered the Advocate the ?Old Reliable?
among church institutions.  Not only was it relevant because it upheld saving truth and
delivered it to the modern world, but also because it met the needs of average members and
their congregations.  Despite its critics, the Advocate still edified untold numbers of readers,
and they did not want the paper to change.  Wilma Wilson of Pulaski, Tennessee, wrote to
Goodpasture in 1968, informing him, ?Your editorials in the Gospel Advocate each week
are worth so much to me.?   Oklahoma preacher Waymon D. Miller, in a 1967 letter,179
thanked the editor ?for the emphasis you are giving to the church remaining loyal to the
eternal Word.?   Australian missionary Claude A. Guild wrote to Goodpasture in 1968 to180
report on the Advocate?s significant role in his work: ?Many of the converts have come from
sectarianism.  They love to read the articles in the Advocate and note how many of the
writers are using the Bible as the basis of all they say or write. . . . They are hungry, and they
take hold of every morsel of nourishment they can get.  Please, Brother Goodpasture, never
become weary in your great work. . . . Keep the Advocate just like it is.?181
Goodpasture had every intention of doing just that, for he agreed that the Advocate
was needed more than ever.  He also believed that he was not the only one coming to this
conclusion.  Attendance at the Advocate?s 1967 annual dinner, hosted as usual on the
237
Lipscomb campus during the school?s lectureship, was substantially higher than the year
before.  Goodpasture attributed this to ?increased interest in the Gospel Advocate
throughout the country.?  In the year previous he had ?received more letters in
commendation of the Advocate? than in any other year during his editorship, evidence that
readers appreciated ?what we are trying to do through this publication.?   Goodpasture182
reported that new subscriptions were pouring in so fast that the office staff was struggling to
get them started in a timely manner.  The surge in circulation was due to the hard work of
many Advocate supporters, proving that ?a loyal brotherhood appreciates its stand for the
?old paths,? as opposed to digression, anti-ism, and liberalism.?  This vote of confidence
further suggested to Goodpasture that ?brethren are becoming more aware of the dangers of
modernism in all of its insidious forms.?  He encouraged readers to help the Advocate ?drive
on to an ever-larger circulation.?  As he often stated, ?the larger our circulation, the more
good we can do.?   A decade earlier doing good had been focused on ?marching for the183
Master? and fighting the ?anti?s.?  Now great energy was being expended to ?block the
gathering forces of liberalism? so that the marching might continue.  In another decade,
Goodpasture?s long tenure as editor would come to an end.
238
1. Ira North, ?What?s Happening?? Gospel Advocate, September 19, 1963, 602.
2. Letter from Guy N. Woods to B. C. Goodpasture, July 20, 1965, Benton Cordell
Goodpasture papers, Disciples of Christ Historical Society, Nashville; in the letter Woods
mistyped ?brotherhood? as ?brotherwood.?  The sentence preceding the one quoted revealed
discontent with the church colleges: ?This points up the fact that our colleges are not famous
for preserving the truth to succeeding generations; and there are developments among us
today that suggest a duplication of what happened at Bethany, the College of the Bible, etc.?
3. B. C. Goodpasture, ?We Are Grateful for the Cooperation,? Gospel Advocate, May 7,
1964, 290.
4. See Gospel Advocate, October 24, 1963, and December 21, 1967.
5. See Willard Collins, ?Ira North Challenges Gus Nichols in Securing Advocate
Subscriptions,? Gospel Advocate, January 19, 1961, 40; Willard Collins, ?Gus Nichols
Accepts Challenge from Ira North in Securing Advocate Subscriptions,? Gospel Advocate,
February 9, 1961, 87; and Willard Collins, ?Rules for Advocate Contest,? Gospel
Advocate, 117-18.
6. See, for example, ?B. C. Goodpasture, ?The Contestants Appeal to Our Readers,? Gospel
Advocate, April 6, 1961, 210.
7. B. C. Goodpasture, ?Welcome to Hundreds of New Subscribers,? Gospel Advocate,
March 9, 1961, 146.
8. Willard Collins, ?Ira North Becomes Champion Subscription Man for Advocate,? Gospel
Advocate, January 11, 1962, 19.  Mr. and Mrs. Gus Nichols, ?Thank You, Every One,?
Gospel Advocate, October 4, 1962, 629-30.
9. B. C. Goodpasture, ?This Twenty-fifth Year,? Gospel Advocate, March 7, 1963, 146.
10. B. C. Goodpasture, ?We Are Grateful to Many,? Gospel Advocate, February 16, 1967,
98.
11. B. C. Goodpasture, ?Now Is the Time,? Gospel Advocate, October 6, 1960, 626.
12. B. C. Goodpasture, ?Special Number Reprinted Again? and ?A Commendable
Example,? Gospel Advocate, January 28, 1965, 50.  See special issue of December 3, 1964.
13. B. C. Goodpasture, ?Our Thanks to the Preachers and the Elders,? Gospel Advocate,
September 17, 1964, 594.
14. Basil Overton, ?A Great Opportunity and a Bargain,? Gospel Advocate, March 10,
1966, 145.
15. Charles R. Brewer, ?Thoughts About the Gospel Advocate,? Gospel Advocate, January
14, 1960, 21.
Notes
239
16. Paul Hunton, ?One Advocate, One Conversion,? Gospel Advocate, March 25, 1965,
183.
17. John Waddey, ?The Fruit of a Good Tree,? Gospel Advocate, January 2, 1969, 4.
18. Ira North, ?Suggestions to Elders for the New Year,? Gospel Advocate, January 7,
1960, 6.  Willard Collins, ?Help Increase the Gospel Advocate Circulation by 25,000 in
1963,? Gospel Advocate, December 20, 1963, 802.  ?Brother North?s Open Letter to
Elders,? Gospel Advocate, October 5, 1967, 635.
19. ?They Like the Advocate,? Gospel Advocate, February 25, 1960, 116.
20. ?An Interesting Letter,? Gospel Advocate, March 3, 1960, 134.
21. ?The Brethren Speak,? Gospel Advocate, June 21, 1962, 396.
22. ?From the Mail,? Gospel Advocate, April 27, 1967, 265.
23. Goodpasture, ?We Are Grateful for the Cooperation.?
24. B. C. Goodpasture, ?Thanks for the Prompt and Impressive Response,? Gospel
Advocate, September 5, 1963, 562.
25. ?A Good Suggestion,? Gospel Advocate, February 2, 1961, 66.
26. B. C. Goodpasture, ?Genuine Appreciation,? Gospel Advocate, May 21, 1964, 322.
27. Jack Meyer, Sr., ?Two Fatal Extremes (No. 6),? Gospel Advocate, September 1, 1960,
549.  Leslie G. Thomas in Willard Collins, ?Goodpasture Receives Congratulations from
Readers in 15 States and District of Columbia,? Gospel Advocate, August 15, 1963, 518. 
Gayle Oler in ?In Commendation,? Gospel Advocate, March 10, 1966, 150.  Allen Phy,
?The Gospel Advocate,? Gospel Advocate, June 13, 1968, 374.
28. Letter from Dean Clutter to B. C. Goodpasture, November 8, 1960, Goodpasture papers. 
Rex A. Turner, ?The Editor,? remarks at the Advocate?s 108th Anniversary Dinner, June
18, 1963, printed in Willard Collins and John Cliett Goodpasture, eds.  Sermons and
Lectures of B. C. Goodpasture (Nashville: B. C. Goodpasture, 1964), 15 (see also Willard
Collins, ?Gospel Advocate Editor Honored at Lipscomb Lectureship,? Gospel Advocate,
July 18, 1963, 456-58).  Letter from Paul Hunton to B. C. Goodpasture, June 16, 1965,
Goodpasture papers.  J. D. Thomas, ed., Sermons of B. C. Goodpasture,  Great Preachers of
Today Series (Abilene, Tex.: Biblical Research Press, 1967), v.
29. Frances Meeker, ?Church of Christ School Officially Named For Goodpasture,?
Nashville Banner, January 26, 1968, 9.  See also Freddie Joan Armstrong Goetz
Goodpasture, From Neri to Nashville by the Providence of God, 1918-1998 (Nashville:
Pilcrow Publishing, 1998), 378-79, where Ruhl is quoted: ?The day after brother
Goodpasture?s picture and an announcement of him coming on the board was printed in the
morning newspaper, applications for enrollment came pouring in.  So many of the school
founders were not well known, but the community knew the character and integrity of B. C.
Goodpasture.?
240
30. Ira North, ?A Historic Moment,? Gospel Advocate, February 15, 1968, 105.  See also
Frances Meeker, ?Church of Christ School Officially Named For Goodpasture,? Nashville
Banner, January 26, 1968; Meeker reported that several congratulatory telegrams received
from dignitaries were read at the naming ceremony, including one from Tennessee governor
Buford Ellington.
31. B. C. Goodpasture, ?A Year of Many Activities in Davidson County,? Gospel
Advocate, September 9, 1965, 583.
32. Ira North, ?Go North, Young Man, Go North,? Gospel Advocate, January 19, 1961,
41.
33. Ira North, ?What?s Happening?? Gospel Advocate, June 4, 1964, 362.
34. See Willard Collins, ?Madison Congregation Plans Auditorium to Seat 3,000,? Gospel
Advocate, December 7, 1961, 776; ?Madison Church of Christ, Madison, Tennessee Shares
?Know-How? With Texas,? Gospel Advocate, August 30, 1962, 552-53; Lloyd McKelvey,
?Madison Church Sets New Sunday School Attendance Record 4,394,? Gospel Advocate,
June 10, 1965, 377; Fred A. Mosley, ?Madison Church Completes Auditorium With
Seating Capacity of 3000,? Gospel Advocate, March 24, 1966, 184-85; and Willard
Collins, ?5,508 Attend Sunday School at Madison, Tenn.,? Gospel Advocate, April 21,
1966, 247.
35. Collins, ?5,508 Attend Sunday School at Madison, Tenn.? 
36. Willard Collins, ?Madison Church to Be Featured in February Guidepost,? Gospel
Advocate, December 19, 1968, 806-07.
37. Willard Collins, ?Dedicate Book to Madison Church,? Gospel Advocate, January 16,
1969, 39-40.  See Batsell Barrett Baxter and M. Norvel Young, eds., New Testament
Churches of Today: A Book of Brief Sketches and Pictures of Twentieth Century
Churches of Christ (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Co., 1968).
38. B. C. Goodpasture, ?Special Number Commended,? Gospel Advocate, March 24, 1966,
178.
39. B. C. Goodpasture, ?The Special Issue of the Gospel Advocate,? Gospel Advocate, June
3, 1965, 354.
40. The Hillsboro elders, especially Goodpasture, were key supporters of the Herald of
Truth.  See, for example, letter from John F. Reese to the Elders, Hillsboro Church of Christ,
January 26, 1961, Goodpasture papers.
41. B. C. Goodpasture, ?The Great Commission and the Herald of Truth,? Gospel
Advocate, October 1, 1964, 632.
42. Herald of Truth, ?What are we, as Christians armed with the truth and trust of Jesus
Christ to save the world, going to do about it?? Gospel Advocate, January 20, 1966, 48.
43. For an instance of the use of that moniker, see Burton Coffman, ?Manhattan Project,?
Gospel Advocate, January 26, 1967, 56.
241
44. For a year-by-year account of the Manhattan project, see James Burton Coffman, Tales
of Coffman: An Autobiography (Abilene, Tex.: Abilene Christian University Press, 1992).
45. See B. C. Goodpasture, ?Now Is the Time?To Help Manhattan,? Gospel Advocate,
March 1, 1962, 130; ?Help Manhattan Now,? Gospel Advocate, May 2, 1963, 276;
?Manhattan to Build,? Gospel Advocate, December 9, 1965, 788; B. C. Goodpasture,
?Manhattan Church of Christ,? Gospel Advocate, January 26, 1967, 50; and Burton
Coffman, ?The Manhattan Church,? Gospel Advocate, April 18, 1968, 243-44.
46. B. C. Goodpasture, ?House or Half a House in Manhattan?? Gospel Advocate, June 15,
1967, 370.
47. Burton Coffman, ?Manhattan Church of Christ,? Gospel Advocate, July 25, 1968, 472.
48. Ibid.  Campaign advertisement, Gospel Advocate, July 15, 1967, 383.
49. B. C. Goodpasture, ?Help Manhattan,? Gospel Advocate, July 25, 1968, 466.
50. Jack W. Bates, ?Exodus/Bay Shore,? Gospel Advocate, March 8, 1962, 153.  See P.
Kent Smith, ?Exodus Movement of the 1960s,? in Douglas A. Foster, et al., eds.,
Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 324-25;
and Warren Lewis and Hans Rollman, eds., Restoring the First-century Church in the
Twenty-first Century: Essays on the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement (Eugene,
Oregon: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2005), 452-500.
51. ?Invest in one of the Greatest Missionary Efforts of Our Time,? Gospel Advocate,
November 21, 1963, 752.
52. Letter from Tom Yates to John Allen Chalk, December 22, 1964, John Allen Chalk
Papers, Harding University Graduate School of Religion Library, Memphis.
53. ?Exodus to New Jersey,? Newsweek, July 4, 1966.
54. Ira North, ?What?s Happening?? Gospel Advocate, October 21, 1965, 682.
55. Letter from John N. Shearn to Tom Yates, January 11, 1967, Exodus/New Jersey
collection, box 1, Center for Restoration Studies, Brown Library Special Collections,
Abilene Christian University, Abilene, Tex.
56. E. L. Gilliland, ?Welcome to New Jersey,? Exodus/New Jersey collection, box 1.
57. See the New York Times, July 12, 1966; Wall Street Journal, May 26, 1966;
Newsweek, July 4, 1966; and Time, February 15, 1963, and January 20, 1967.
58. ?Catholics Investing in New York World?s Fair Pavilion!? Gospel Advocate, December
20, 1962, 813.
59. George W. Bailey, ?Exhibition at World?s Fair,? Gospel Advocate, September 26,
1963, 614-15.
60. Letter from James W. Nichols to B. C. Goodpasture, May 16, 1963, Goodpasture
papers.
242
61. Bailey, ?Exhibition at World?s Fair,? 615.
62. Lane Cubstead, ?The World?s Fair,? Gospel Advocate, April 8, 1965, 214.
63. On the special issue, see Gospel Advocate, May 27, 1965.
64. Batsell Barrett Baxter, ?Commendation of World Fair Project,? Gospel Advocate,
January 16, 1964, 41.
65. P. D. Wilmeth, ?We Visited the World?s Fair,? Gospel Advocate, July 2, 1964, 421-22.
66. Queens Church of Christ, ?You hold the other half . . .? Gospel Advocate, December 3,
1964, 784.
67. Queens Church of Christ, ?They have the right to know. . .? Gospel Advocate, January
7, 1965, 15.
68. Walter E. Burch, ?World?s Fair Service,? Gospel Advocate, July 29, 1965, 484-85.
69. B. C. Goodpasture, ?Here and There,? Gospel Advocate, July 30, 1964, 482.
70. Guy N. Woods, ?Our Strength and Our Weakness,? Gospel Advocate, September 17,
1964, 600.
71. Vance Carruth, ?Extreme Conservative and Extreme Liberal Tendencies,? Gospel
Advocate, July 12, 1962, 438-39,443.
72. Alan E. Highers, ?The Dangerous Threat of Liberalism,? Gospel Advocate, November
4, 1965, 711-12.
73. John Waddey, ?Christianity versus Liberalism,? Gospel Advocate, November 2, 1967,
699-700.
74. Foster L. Ramsey, Sr., ?What Is ?Liberalism???  Gospel Advocate, January 9, 1969, 22-
23.
75. Batsell Barrett Baxter, ?That ?Liberalism Among Us,?? Gospel Advocate, October 17,
1968, 657, 665.
76. Eugene Britnell, untitled editorial, The Sower, July 1965 (vol. 11, no. 7); copy in B. C.
Goodpasture vertical file, Disciples of Christ Historical Society, Nashville).
77. Hughes, 313-16.  Harrell, 178-80.
78. On grace, for example, see Paul M. Blowers and William J. Richardson, ?Grace,
Doctrine of,? in Foster, Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement, 364-67; John
Mark Hicks, ?K. C. Moser and Churches of Christ: An Historical Perspective,? Restoration
Quarterly 37 (1995): 139-57; Batsell Barrett Baxter, ?The Man and the Plan,? Gospel
Advocate, September 27, 1962, 609, 616; and Thomas H. Olbricht, Hearing God?s Voice:
My Life with Scripture in the Churches of Christ (Abilene, Tex.: ACU Press, 1996), 165-
78.
243
79. B. C. Goodpasture, ?Can Protestantism Be Saved?? Gospel Advocate, October 18,
1962, 658.  Similarly, in a 1963 editorial, Goodpasture likely had reference to Ketcherside
and Garrett: ?Those who try to fellowship truth and error at the same time will find much in
the examples of Jesus and Paul to shock their delicate sensibilities.?  See ??Beware of the
Leaven,?? Gospel Advocate, February 14, 1963, 98.
80. Batsell Barrett Baxter, ?An Open Letter,? Gospel Advocate, November 8, 1962, 705.
81. Only months earlier, in fact, Thomas had demonstrated his progressivism on one of
Ketcherside?s favorite issues, grace, when he served as guest editor for the April 1962 issue
of the Minister?s Monthly, a Gospel Advocate Company publication.  The issue?s theme was
?The Doctrinal Heart of Christianity? and contained several articles on grace.
82. J. D. Thomas, ?Brother Ketcherside?s New Fallacy,? Gospel Advocate, January 31,
1963, 70.
83. See Carl Ketcherside, ?My Defense,? Mission Messenger, March 1963, 44-45; Carl
Ketcherside, ?Reply to Brother Thomas,? Mission Messenger, April 1963, 51-59; and Carl
Ketcherside, ?The Reason Why,? Mission Messenger, December 1970, 188-89.
84. See Carl Ketcherside, ?Reply to Brother Thomas,? Mission Messenger, April 1963, 51-
59 ; and J. D. Thomas, ?Reply to Ketcherside,? Gospel Advocate, June 27, 1963, 405-06. 
See also J. D. Thomas, ??Fellowship and Endorsement,?? Gospel Advocate, March 21,
1963, 184-85.
85. Casey, Saddlebags, City Streets, And Cyberspace, 125.
86. Hughes, Reviving the Ancient Faith, 310-18.  Harrell, Churches of Christ, 182-83.
87. Harrell, Churches of Christ, 270.  Casey, Saddlebags, 127-28.
88. James W. Thompson, ?The Formation of an Academic Tradition in Biblical Studies at
Abilene Christian University,? Restoration Quarterly 45 (First/Second Quarter 2003): 18.
89. Casey, Saddlebags, City Streets, And Cyberspace, 130, referring especially to ACC
professors Frank Pack and Lemoine G. Lewis.
90. Thompson, ?The Formation of an Academic Tradition,? 22-24.
91. Ibid., 15-28.  James W. Thompson, ?Reflections on the Last Fifty Years,? Restoration
Quarterly 46 (2004), 131-38.  Everett Ferguson, ?Higher Education in Religious Studies
among Members of Churches of Christ, 1957-1982,? Restoration Quarterly 25 (1982):
205-212.  Casey, Saddlebags, 125-35.
92. Hughes, Reviving the Ancient Faith, 317.  John T. Fitzgerald, ?Abraham J. Malherbe as
a New Testament Scholar: An Analysis and Appreciation, Part I: The Early Years,?
Restoration Quarterly 46 (2004): 167-73.
93. On this point, see Fitzgerald, ?Abraham J. Malherbe,? 177.
94. Thomas H. Olbricht, ?New Journals for the Sixties: Restoration Quarterly and
Mission,? unpublished paper, copy in author?s possession.
244
95. For example, see Gus Nichols, ?Queries and Answers,? Gospel Advocate, October 3,
1968, 632-33.
96. See, for instance, Thomas B. Warren, ?Christianity versus Relativism, Neutralism, and
Compromise (No. 4),? Gospel Advocate, January 24, 1963, 55-56; and Guy N. Woods,
?Logic and the Lord,? Gospel Advocate, September 26, 1968, 609, 616.
97. Quoted in ?Some Brotherhood Voices,? Action, March 1966, 1.
98. Lindy Adams, ?A Conversation with Abraham Malherbe,? Christian Chronicle,
February 2002, 20.  Hughes, Reviving the Ancient Faith, 317.  A decade after Restoration
Quarterly?s establishment, however, many progressive scholars would use two new journals,
Mission and Integrity, to reach a broader readership.  To a lesser degree, and for a shorter
time, they also used Kerygma, a quarterly journal started in 1965 by Pat E. Harrell, co-
founder of Restoration Quarterly.  Kerygma ended publication in 1967.
99. Baxter and Sanders were on the board until 1963, but were not involved with the journal
to extent that Thomas and Pack were.  See Olbricht, ?New Journals for the Sixties,? and
Fitzgerald, ?Abraham J. Malherbe,? 169-72.  See also Restoration Quarterly 2 (1958): 70,
for an ad from the Gospel Advocate Company for The Minister?s Monthly.
100. Thomas, ed., Sermons of B. C. Goodpasture, v.
101. See Ed Harrell, ?B. C. Goodpasture: Leader of Institutional Thought,? in Melvin D.
Curry, ed., They Being Dead Yet Speak: Florida College Annual Lectures, 1981 (Temple
Terrace: Florida College Bookstore, 1981), 248.
102. B. C. Goodpasture, ?Some Modern Trends,? Gospel Advocate, February 21, 1963,
114, 121.  For a similar editorial, see B. C. Goodpasture, ?Jesus Could Not Preach There,?
Gospel Advocate, October 15, 1964, 658, 664.
103. Basil Overton, ?A Commentary on: ?Some Modern Trends,?? Gospel Advocate, March
14, 1963, 167.
104. ?In Commendation,? Gospel Advocate, March 14, 1963, 167.
105. B. C. Goodpasture, ?The Folly of Rehoboam,? Gospel Advocate, March 14, 1963,
162.
106. B. C. Goodpasture, ?Is the Day of the Proof Text Gone?? Gospel Advocate, June 27,
1963, 402.
107. Batsell Barrett Baxter, ?God Needs More Men,? Gospel Advocate, March 15, 1962,
166-67.
108. B. C. Goodpasture, ?Do They Have the Answer? . . . Brother Deaver and the Hurst
(Texas) Congregation,? Gospel Advocate, July 8, 1965, 434.
109. B. C. Goodpasture, ?The Need for More Preachers,? Gospel Advocate, November 22,
1962, 738.
245
110. Batsell Barrett Baxter, ?The Training of Preachers,? Gospel Advocate, June 18, 1970,
389.  Bill Patterson, ?Our Schools of Preaching,? Christian Bible Teacher, March 1966,
74, 102-03.  David Fleer, ?Schools of Preaching,? in Foster, Encyclopedia of the Stone-
Campbell Movement, 672-73.  Other schools for training preachers from foreign countries
existed both abroad and stateside.  According to Roy J. Hearn, ?Getwell Road School of
Preaching,? Gospel Advocate, February 1, 1968, 68, the average age of students in all
preaching schools in 1968 was 27.
111. Roy J. Hearn, ?Nashville School of Preaching,? Gospel Advocate, November 4, 1965,
712-13.  Charles R. Brewer, ?The Nashville School of Preaching,? Gospel Advocate, July
7, 1966, 420-21.  Batsell Barrett Baxter, ?Nashville School of Preaching,? Gospel
Advocate, June 15, 1967, 378-79.  E. Ray Jerkins, ?Nashville School of Preaching
Graduation Set,? Gospel Advocate, November 30, 1967, 758.  E. Ray Jerkins, ?B. C.
Goodpasture and the Nashville School of Preaching,? Gospel Advocate, May 12, 1977,
296.
112. J. E. Choate, The Anchor That Holds: A Biography of Benton Cordell Goodpasture
(Nashville: Gospel Advocate Co., 1971), 208.  In addition to Goodpasture, founding
committee members were Roy J. Hearn (founding director), E. Ray Jerkins, J. Roy Vaughan
(Advocate news editor), H. Clyde Hale, Charles Chumley, and Charles R. Brewer (who
succeeded Hearn as president).  See Baxter, ?Nashville School of Preaching,? and Alan E.
Highers, ?Getwell Road School of Preaching,? Gospel Advocate, February 3, 1966, 68-69. 
According to Choate, Hearn shared his idea for the school with Vaughan.  They discussed
their plans with Hale and Jerkins before approaching Goodpasture.
113. B. C. Goodpasture, ?The Nashville School of Preaching,? Gospel Advocate, April 7,
1966, 210.
114. See, for instance, Baxter, ?Nashville School of Preaching.?
115. Bob Bell Jr., ?Church of Christ Plans School For Preachers Here,? Nashville Banner,
November 3, 1965.
116. Jerkins, ?B. C. Goodpasture and the Nashville School of Preaching.?  See also Bill
Dedmon, ?The Nashville School of Preaching and Mississippi,? Gospel Advocate, July 14,
1977, 442.
117. Ibid.
118. Fleer, ?Schools of Preaching,? 672.
119. Thompson, ?The Formation of an Academic Tradition,? 26.
120. Hughes, Reviving the Ancient Faith, 330.
121. Harrell, The Churches of Christ, 188.
122. Robert E. Hooper, A Distinct People: A History of the Churches of Christ in the 20th
Century (West Monroe, La., Howard Publishing Co., 1993), 205; see also p. 301.
123. Roy J. Hearn, ?Training Schools for Preachers,? Gospel Advocate, July 22, 1965, 471.
246
124. Hearn, ?Getwell Road School of Preaching,? 68-69.  The Memphis School of
Preaching was founded as the Getwell Road School of Preaching.
125. For example, in addition to providing regular publicity to the school, he spoke at the
school?s second commencement service.  See ?B. C. Goodpasture to Speak at Memphis
School of Preaching,? Gospel Advocate, June 26, 1969, 417.  Also, others connected with
the Advocate were involved with the school, including faculty member and increasingly
prominent Advocate contributor Alan E. Highers.
126. Hearn, ?Getwell Road School of Preaching,? 69.
127. Letter from Roy Deaver to B. C. Goodpasture, June 24, 1965, Goodpasture papers.
128. Harrell, The Churches of Christ, 188.
129. Goodpasture papers.  The satirists inadvertently spelled ?Gospel? correctly in their first
mention of the Record Book, but otherwise they consistently spelled it ?Gosple.?
130. E-mail reply from Fletcher D. Srygley [III] to the author, April 26, 2007.
131. Guy N. Woods, ?The Church Not a Denomination,? Gospel Advocate, October 13,
1960, 645, 649-50.  Goodpasture took the same stance as Woods: ?At a time when there are
many members of the church who do not know that the church is not a denomination, elders
of the various congregations would do well to see that each family is supplied with a copy of
[the issue of December 3, 1964, on ?The Power and the Glory of a United Church?].?  See
Goodpasture, ?Special Number Reprinted Again.?
132. See, for example, Robert Meyers, ed., Voices of Concern: Critical Studies in Church
of Christism (St. Louis, Missouri: Mission Messenger, 1966), 156 and 83.
133. Letter from Van Allen Bradley to B. C. Goodpasture, July 20, 1960, Goodpasture
papers (?Church? was mistyped as ?Chuurch?).  Bradley noted that his deceased father and
uncle had been ministers in Tennessee.
134. Meyer, ed., Voices of Concern, 21-22.
135. Quoted in Ira Y. Rice, Jr., Axe on the Root, Vol. II (San Francisco: Ira Y. Rice, Jr.,
1967), 92-93.
136.  Sparring between Goodpasture and Lovell dated to the 1940s.  See, for instance, B. C.
Goodpasture, ?Brother Lovell Apologizes,? Gospel Advocate, November 2, 1948, 1060;
and B. C. Goodpasture, ?Here and There,? August 2, 1951, 482.
137. On Lovell, see Terry Cowan, ?World Bible School,? in Foster, Encyclopedia of the
Stone-Campbell Movement, 783-84; and Bill Youngs, The Man of Action: The Story of
Jimmie Lovell (Austin, Tex.: Sweet Publishing Co., 1969).
138. For Lovell quotation, see page 7 of the June 1966 issue of Action.
139. Jimmie Lovell, ?Talking Things Over,? Action, July 1966, 2.  In the same issue, see
also ?We Face A New Day? and ?We Preach ?Unity? and Practice Disunity.?  Lovell more
than once expressed a preference for the editorializing and leadership of Reuel Lemmons of
247
the Firm Foundation to that of Goodpasture, including in a 1961 letter commending
Lemmons for an editorial on mission work: ?In all fairness and as much as I hope, as you
know, that you and Goodpasture will not get crossed at this time, you are the ONLY man
among us today reaching beyond the brotherhood - the other boys have to protect their
projects and it is a shame? (letter from James L. Lovell to Reuel Lemmons, February 21,
1961, James L. Lovell papers, box 25, Center for Restoration Studies, Brown Library
Special Collections, Abilene Christian University, Abilene, Tex.).
140. B. C. Goodpasture, ??Talking Things Over,?? Gospel Advocate, September 29, 1966,
610, 615, 618.  Goodpasture also made a brief and indirect, but vigorous, response to
Lovell?s criticisms in ?The Gospel Advocate and the Madison Church,? Gospel Advocate,
August 25, 1966, 538.
141. E-mail replies from John Allen Chalk to the author, August 21 and 22, 2006.  Gospel
Advocate, January 6, 1966, 1, 5-6.  Willard Collins, ?Lipscomb?s Seventy-Fifth
Anniversary Year Lectureship Features Gospel Advocate?s One Hundred Eleventh
Anniversary Dinner,? Gospel Advocate, February 24, 1966, 120-22.  Chalk married the
sister of Goodpasture?s daughter-in-law in 1957, and first met Goodpasture at the wedding,
which Goodpasture conducted.  Three years later, according to Chalk, Goodpasture
?recommended [him] as the next preacher for the Broad Street Church of Christ? in
Cookeville, Tennessee, a job which, ?at the age of 23 years,? he otherwise would ?never
have been considered for.?  See also letter from John Allen Chalk to B. C. Goodpasture,
June 21, 1966, Goodpasture papers.  Chalk was an active pallbearer at the 1964 funeral of
Goodpasture?s first wife, Cleveland; see Eunice Bradley, Christian Chronicle, ?Mrs.
Goodpasture?s Services Are Held,? November 13, 1964, 2.
142. See, for example, letters from John Allen Chalk to B. C. Goodpasture, January 26,
1966, and January 29, 1968, Chalk papers.  Chalk would soon become identified with the
progressive movement (and form friendships with leaders like Jimmie Lovell and Carl
Ketcherside), but although he would feel a strain in his relationship with Goodpasture he
maintained his status as an Advocate staff writer until 1973, when he voluntarily resigned. 
See letter from John Allen Chalk to B. C. Goodpasture, May 8, 1973, Goodpasture papers.
143. Letter from John Allen Chalk to George Gurganus, February 16, 1966, Chalk papers.
144. See letter from L. D. Harless to B. C. Goodpasture, November 16, 1966, Goodpasture
papers; J. D. Thomas, ?The Holy Spirit (No. 11),? Firm Foundation, November 8, 1966,
711; and Reuel Lemmons, ?Brother Thomas? Articles On The Holy Spirit,? Firm
Foundation, November 15, 1966, 722.  See also T. Wesley Crawford, ?Lemmons, Reuel
Gordon (1912-1989),? in Foster, Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement, 469.
145. Letter from Chalk to Gurganus, February 16, 1966.
146. See letters from George Gurganus to John Allen Chalk, January 17 and May 4, 1966,
Chalk papers; and Olbricht, ?New Journals for the Sixties.?
147. On Chalk?s ?withdrawal from Mission,? see letter from George Gurganus to John
Allen Chalk, December 19, 1966, Chalk papers.
248
148. ?Statement Outlining Proposed New Christian Journal,? June 25, 1966, Memphis,
Tennessee, reproduced in part in Ira Y. Rice, Jr., Axe on the Root, vol. II (San Francisco: Ira
Y. Rice, Jr., 1967), 14-24; quotation from page 18.
149. Ibid., 21.
150. ?The Task of Mission,? Mission, July 1967, 3-6.
151. Thomas H. Olbricht, ?The Current Restoration,? Mission, July 1967, 15-18.
152. Olbricht, ?New Journals for the Sixties.?
153. In the foregoing quotation, Olbricht essentially summarized Rice?s comments in Axe on
the Root, vol. II, 29.
154. Ibid., 29, 32-33.
155. B. C. Goodpasture, ?First Century Christian,? Gospel Advocate, August 3, 1967, 482. 
Hearn and co-editor Franklin Camp highlighted Goodpasture?s ?unsolicited? welcome to
their paper, which was based in Memphis and published in Birmingham (?From the
Brotherhood,? First Century Christian, August-September 1967).  Goodpasture later
offered a warm welcome to another militant journal, the Spiritual Sword, edited by one of
his main staff writers, Thomas B. Warren.  According to Warren and associate editor Rubel
Shelly, ?All the articles will deal with the issue of Liberalism and its fruits and be designed
to directly combat them.?  See B. C. Goodpasture, ?The ?Spiritual Sword,?? Gospel
Advocate, November 13, 1969, 726.
156. B. C. Goodpasture, ?Who Is Our Oldest Reader?? Gospel Advocate, January 27,
1966, 50.
157. B. C. Goodpasture, ?Editor?s Note,? appended to Raymond Muncy, ?New ?Head? of
the Christian Church Denies Efficacy of Prayer and Need for the Bible,? Gospel Advocate,
December 7, 1967, 772-73.
158. Ibid.
159. B. C. Goodpasture, ?Preaching the Gospel,? Gospel Advocate, September 1, 1966,
546.
160. B. C. Goodpasture, ?Brother Woods? Articles,? Gospel Advocate, May 12, 1966, 290.
161. B. C. Goodpasture, ?Here and There,? Gospel Advocate, April 17, 1969, 246. 
Although Goodpasture did not use the term here, there was much railing against the ?Social
Gospel? in the Advocate during the 1960s.  See, for example, Hugo McCord, ?A Sorry
Viewpoint,? Gospel Advocate, March 20, 1969, 190-91, wherein McCord castigates a
black preacher for emphasizing the social gospel over the saving gospel.
162. See ?Three American Revolutions,? Such a Time as This, supplement to Christian
Chronicle, July 12, 1968.
163. E-mail reply from Chalk to the author, August 21, 2006.  In the same message, Chalk
also stated that in the late sixties Baxter ?became increasingly concerned about my position
249
on racism and other subjects.?  Although the differences were not drastic, the Spring 1968
issue of Herald of Truth Magazine contrasts the subject matter and style of Chalk?s and
Baxter?s preaching.  Baxter, however, did not entirely avoid making public proclamations on
racial prejudice.  Toward the end of Chalk?s series, on August 4, 1968, he preached on the
subject at Hillsboro.  Underlined in the transcript distributed by Hillsboro was this sentence:
?Let each of us examine himself and pledge anew to follow our Lord in loving all men
without prejudice? (quoted in Roland Delevar Roberts, Batsell Barrett Baxter: The Man
and the Message [New Hope, Ala.: Roland D. Roberts, 1998], 155).  As to Chalk?s ?Three
American Revolutions? series, the Advocate did advertise it, as it did all Herald of Truth
programming in the sixties; see issue of July 4, 1968.
164. See letters from John Allen Chalk to Roy Bowen Ward, July 15 and 25, 1968, Herald
of Truth correspondence, Chalk papers. 
165. See Choate, The Anchor That Holds, 113, 118, 180-83; J. E. Choate, Roll Jordan
Roll: A Biography of Marshall Keeble (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Co., 1968); B. C.
Goodpasture, ?Brother Keeble Passes,? Gospel Advocate, May 2, 1968, 274, 278; and
Marshall Keeble, ?What the Gospel Advocate Has Meant to Me,? Gospel Advocate,
October 3, 1963, 634.
166. B. C. Goodpasture, ?The Special Keeble Issue,? Gospel Advocate, July 18, 1968, 450.
167. Undated draft letter to Brother Goodpasture, ?Race Relations? folder, miscellaneous
box, Chalk papers.
168. E-mail reply from Chalk to the author, August 21, 2006.
169. Ibid.  Don Haymes, Eugene Randall II, and Douglas A. Foster, ?Race Relations,? in
Foster, Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement, 621-22.  ?Atlanta Conference
Studies Race,? Christian Chronicle, July 5, 1968, 1.
170. See 1968 correspondence between Chalk and Lemmons, including letters of April 12,
May 7, May 16, September 26, October 9, and October 15, Chalk papers.
171. E-mail reply from Chalk to the author, August 21, 2006.  Even if Goodpasture was less
than enthusiastic with Chalk?s stance on race and other social and theological issues, he was
not vindictive toward him and did not sever ties with him.  Although Chalk never published
prolifically in the Advocate, he published about as many articles in 1968 as in earlier years,
and he remained a staff writer until he voluntarily resigned in 1973 (see letter from Chalk to
Goodpasture, May 8, 1973).  In October1968 Chalk even published an article on the
importance of Christians forming interracial friendships as ?a powerful way to break down
cultural, racial, and personal discrimination? (Gospel Advocate, October 17, 1968, 660-
61).  But Chalk understood that there were limits to what Goodpasture would publish, even
from a staff writer, so while that article was bold it was not particularly provocative.
172. ?Harding and the Atteberry Case,? Christian Chronicle, June 9, 1969, 1-2.  See also,
?Harding Professor Refuses to Resign,? Christian Chronicle, April 28, 1969, 11.  At issue
in the Atteberry case, in part, was a paper he delivered in September 1968 at Harding?s Pre-
Session Faculty Conference in Searcy, which was reprinted in Mission: James L. Atteberry,
250
?The Freedom of Scholarship,? Mission, October 1969, 8-13.
173. Board of Trustees minutes, April 7, 1969, Exhibit D, Harding University Archives and
Special Collections, Brackett Library, Harding University, Searcy, Arkansas.
174. Ibid (commas added to block quotation).
175. ?California Meeting Discusses Possible ?Doctrinal? Boycott, Christian Chronicle,
December 9, 1968, 2.
176. B. C. Goodpasture, ?Here and There,? Gospel Advocate, June 5, 1969, 358.  Bales
also indirectly addressed the Atteberry controversy in the Advocate.  See James D. Bales,
?Apostasy Is Possible,? Gospel Advocate, May 15, 1969, 309, 315-16.
177. ?In Commendation,? Gospel Advocate, March 10, 1966, 150.
178. Ross W. Dye, ?Waybill for Decline,? Gospel Advocate, May 30, 1968, 337, 342.
179. Letter from Wilma Wilson to B. C. Goodpasture, February 27, 1968, Goodpasture
papers.
180. ?From the Mail,? Gospel Advocate, April 27, 1967, 265.
181. Claude A. Guild, ??Can These Things Really Be??? Gospel Advocate, March 21,
1968, 182-83.
182. Willard Collins, ?Gospel Advocate?s One Hundred and Twelfth Anniversary Dinner
Has Record Attendance,? Gospel Advocate, February 16, 1967, 104-06.
183. B. C. Goodpasture, ?Our Circulation Soars,? Gospel Advocate, March 23, 1967, 178.
251
CHAPTER 6
THE SEVENTIES:
?THE ANCHOR THAT HOLDS?
B. C. Goodpasture did not usually comment on the regular and effusive praise he
received in the Gospel Advocate, but he did allow it.   He also allowed the Gospel Advocate1
Company, which he served as president, to publish his biography.   As early as 1966,2
Advocate staff writer and Freed-Hardeman College faculty member Thomas B. Warren had
proposed writing the story of Goodpasture?s life.  Announcing that he had received the
consent and cooperation of his subject, he asked Advocate readers for help collecting
material.  Calling Goodpasture ?one of the giants of this generation,? he stressed the
importance of his endeavor: ?No adequate history of God?s people in the twentieth century
could be written without giving much attention to the life and work of Brother B. C.
Goodpasture.?3
J. E. Choate, an Advocate staff writer and David Lipscomb College professor, later
took up the task from Warren, with his efforts coming to fruition in 1971 as The Anchor
That Holds: A Biography of Benton Cordell Goodpasture.  Choate had already authored
two other biographies published by the Gospel Advocate Company, one on Goodpasture
mentor H. Leo Boles and another on legendary black preacher Marshall Keeble, who
counted Goodpasture among his white benefactors.   Like those works, Choate?s biography4
of the Advocate editor, while not entirely uncritical, had a strong triumphalist bent.  He
252
indicated his approach when announcing the project in the Advocate: ?It is safe to say that
few leaders of the church?including such men as David Lipscomb, H. Leo Boles, and N. B.
Hardeman? have exercised equal or greater influence for promoting the growth of New
Testament Christianity than B. C. Goodpasture.?   Later, when alerting Advocate readers5
that the book was almost ready to print, Choate mused about his studies of Boles, Keeble,
and Goodpasture: ?I hope the exemplary lives of these good and unusual men will be of
lasting worth through these biographies that were written to honor them.?  With his latest
volume, especially, Choate wanted not only to define the legacy of a great man and reinforce
the values he held, he also hoped to encourage the faithful and make a point to troublesome
progressives.  ?This biography was written,? he explained, ?with all the Christians in mind
who believe that the Bible is the divinely inspired Word of God and who love the church of
Christ which is the scriptural body of Christ.?6
In the book itself, Choate called Goodpasture ?by far the most influential person
among the churches of Christ today.?  As one who stood ?upon the shoulders of unusually
gifted leaders of the Restoration,? he perpetuated ?an unbroken line of succession? that had
begun with restoration movement co-founder Alexander Campbell.  Campbell taught
Tolbert Fanning, who taught David Lipscomb, who taught H. Leo Boles, who taught
Goodpasture.  No other church leader could claim a spiritual lineage anything like it. 
Moreover, ?no living contemporary? could match his contributions to the ?success of
restoring the patterns of Apostolic Christianity? in the twentieth century.  Choate considered
Goodpasture ?no ordinary man by any human standard? and admitted the difficulty of not
?turning the biography into an unabashed eulogy.?  As he related various exploits from his
boyhood, college days, and early preaching career, he portrayed a legend-in-the-making.  As
253
he discussed his native abilities, he noted a propensity for leadership and emphasized a
remarkable intelligence.  As he explored his character and personality, he found a reserved
but good-humored man with unmatched poise and self-discipline who was also humble,
thoughtful, gracious, and trustworthy.  Goodpasture?s studious manner was of a piece with
his sound judgment and profound wisdom in all matters, and his skill in the pulpit?even his
mere presence?remained unsurpassed.   7
But it was Goodpasture?s legacy of service to Churches of Christ that really made
him legendary to Choate.  His lead paragraph sounded an unmistakable note of group pride. 
?B. C. Goodpasture,? he wrote, ?has played a major and key role in the phenomenal growth
and worth of the church of Christ in this century.?  Choate thanked God that here was a great
man who had made the church a priority throughout his long career: ?The real meaning of
Goodpasture?s life is vitally centered in the church and a lifetime spent in building up the
church from the pulpit and as editor of the Gospel Advocate.?  The editor, understanding the
weight an Advocate endorsement carried, encouraged ?every good work that his brethren
were engaged in.?  In addition to supporting a wide variety of activities, he showed keen
support for church-related schools, which ?never had a stronger champion for their right and
need to exist,? and church-related orphanages, which ?never had a more compassionate
friend.?  Indeed, ?the first line of Goodpasture?s loyalty is to the church and whatever serves
the church is bound to win his unflagging loyalty and support.?8
Choate also emphasized the debt owed to Goodpasture for his role in rescuing
Churches of Christ from the debilitating legalism of the ?antis.?  In this regard he quoted
Advocate staff writer Gus Nichols, the dean of Alabama preachers.  With B. C. Goodpasture
?at the steering wheel,? Nichols had remarked in 1959, ?the Gospel Advocate again
254
defended the truth and the church has by such noble teachers and teaching been saved from
becoming an anti-sect of third rate dimension.?   Yet, although Choate portrayed9
Goodpasture?s salvific actions in a very good light, he came off a bit defensive when
remarking on his leadership in general: ?He has been a steadying influence in the church
without being a crusader and a name caller and stirring up the brotherhood.  He is just taking
a solid stand.  He has not allowed the Advocate to be used for hurting anybody or any
cause.?  Many people, living and dead, would have taken issue with Choate on that point,
but when stressing that Goodpasture?s driving motivation was to ?honor and advance the
church,? he was perfectly on target.10
Not unexpectedly, the Advocate thoroughly promoted The Anchor That Holds once
it was published in late 1971.  Several Goodpasture colleagues offered sterling reviews,
which were printed over an extended period of time.   One friend went to the trouble of11
arranging autograph parties ?to encourage everyone to purchase? the book, which ?should
be read by every Christian.?   Others likewise gave their stamp of approval to the work12
when sending private congratulations to Choate and Goodpasture.  Guy N. Woods offered
Choate his ?boundless appreciation and heartfelt thanks for your magnificent analysis and
vivid portrayal of one of the greatest men of our generation,? and informed Goodpasture that
?the enjoyment I have derived from reading The Anchor That Holds is beyond words.?  13
Similarly, Abilene Christian College chancellor Don H. Morris ?enjoyed reading every word
of it,? telling Goodpasture, ?I want to express to you my appreciation for the life and work
that inspired the book.?   Nashville preacher Jim Bill McInteer wrote Goodpasture to14
announce his intention to advertise the book to readers of 20  Century Christian magazine,th
which he served as business manager, so that they might ?see fit to emulate your life of
255
scholarship, devotion, and loyalty to God and His Word.?   In a more familiar tone, another15
acquaintance of the editor?s admitted staying up far beyond his usual bedtime reading the
volume.  He declared it ?one of the greatest book[s] that ever reached my hands.?16
Disengagement
In The Anchor That Holds, Choate made little mention of the problem of
?liberalism? that had marked recent years.   This was not for a lack of interest, as he17
published several articles warning of the dangers of liberalism.   But unlike earlier18
controversies, the storyline of the current drama was still developing.   Nor could Choate19
neatly summarize the issue, the threat being too multifaceted for simple analysis.  Everyone
labeled a liberal was non-traditional in one sense or another, but they were not homogenous
or easily categorized.   Their reactions to the rapid changes in American society were not20
dissimilar, and most still read scripture through restorationist lenses, but they assimilated a
variety of theological influences?ranging from neo-orthodoxy to neo-evangelicalism to neo-
pentecostalism?in a variety of ways.
Choate?s light treatment of a topic that had received a great deal of ink in the
Advocate was entirely appropriate.  While many thought of Goodpasture as a bulwark
against all dangers confronting the church, in truth he had given little personal attention to
the constellation of issues called liberalism.  Without question he had set the Advocate
against liberalism, but he had not spoken out often or vigorously.  Neither had he demonized
anyone in particular, in contrast to previous decades.   The issue had not defined his career21
nearly as much as the battle against the ?antis,? nor would it in the years to come before his
death in 1977.
256
During the 1970s Goodpasture wrote few significant editorials.  Even more than
usual he ran reprints and turned his space over to others to share opinions and news.  When
he did write fresh material he rarely addressed anything controversial or of unusual
importance.  On several occasions Guy N. Woods wrote to Goodpasture to commend his
editorial writing, taking the opportunity each time to urge him to write more often, ?every
week? if possible.   Many other readers also displayed a genuine fondness for his editorials22
despite their irregular appearance.  Goodpasture inaugurated an occasional series of personal
reminiscences at mid-decade that proved particularly popular, and he still edified subscribers
with content-rich sermon adaptations, including some he had previously published.  23
Moreover, a recycled editorial on a timely topic like ?Modernism and the Bible? still had the
potential to resonate with readers and set the tone for the entire paper.  This was doubly true
since Goodpasture rarely identified reprints as such.24
It was also true, however, that Goodpasture engaged less with the issues of the day
than ever before.  As the sixties gave way to the seventies he even appeared to be
contemplating retirement.  In September 1968, he hired an associate editor for the first time,
announcing the promotion of staff writer Basil Overton.   He gave him immediate and25
frequent access to the editorial page and Overton?s appearances there soon outpaced his
own.   But Overton?s tenure was cut short when he suddenly lost the editor?s confidence. 26
Believing that Overton had spoken ?against him? to others, Goodpasture dismissed him in
1971.   The associate editor made a quiet and unannounced exit, and Goodpasture declined27
to replace him.  As long as he remained in good health, he was content to stay in the editor?s
chair and to leave the question of a successor to others.   Rex A. Turner, president of28
Alabama Christian College in Montgomery, was one among many who wanted Goodpasture
257
to continue with the Advocate as long as he possibly could.  ?Brother Goodpasture has been
and is a balance wheel for the church of the Lord,? he wrote in the autumn of 1971.  ?We
need him in the harness just as long as he can maintain sufficient health and energy to
continue the great work that he does.?29
Goodpasture?s advancing age (he turned 75 in 1970) almost certainly contributed to
his lack of editorial vigor, but considering the rather active life he led in those years, it could
not have wholly determined it.  In addition to editing the Advocate, leading the Gospel
Advocate Company, serving as an elder for the Hillsboro Church of Christ, and teaching
classes for the Nashville School of Preaching, he often preached on Sundays and in short
meetings.   He was a fixture at the annual Blue Ridge Encampment, where until 1975 he30
delivered ?fireside chats? to hundreds of church members gathered in North Carolina for a
week of mutual edification.  Speaking each evening in an assembly hall in front of a huge
fireplace, he would have the audience ?laughing one minute and crying the next.?  He also
spoke at college and preaching school lectureships in Nashville, Memphis, Montgomery, and
other places.   Goodpasture?s second wife helped him keep up this pace.  His first wife,31
Cleveland, died in 1964 after an illness of several months, and in November 1965 he
married widow Freddie Goetz, formerly of Sikeston, Missouri.  Many years younger than
him, she renewed his energy and sustained him in his work during their eleven years
together.  According to William F. Ruhl, president of B. C. Goodpasture Christian School,
?Freddie extended brother Goodpasture?s life in terms of years, in terms of usefulness, in
terms of happiness.?32
Although Goodpasture put his pen into semi-retirement, he occasionally made
reference to the current scene, as in a 1973 editorial thanking readers for their help in a
258
recent subscription drive.  He exhorted them to ?stand fast in the faith? and beware of ?false
prophets.?  ?These are critical days for the church,? he warned.  ?Many winds of diverse and
strange doctrines blow across the brotherhood.?   Goodpasture also took other opportunities33
to communicate concern and engagement with issues disturbing the churches.  One venue he
utilized was the annual Gospel Advocate dinner held on the campus of David Lipscomb
College, which Vice-President Willard Collins dutifully reported each year in the Advocate
with an illustrated center-page spread.  At this event in 1970, Goodpasture described two
types of modernism: ?There is the kind of modernism that is in our own ranks, and then there
is the kind that has infiltrated religious groups in general.?  The former kind was typified by
men who had not yet departed from the Bible to the same extreme as men in the latter
category, but they were nevertheless dangerous.  Fortunately, these internal modernists
usually had certain characteristics that revealed their true colors.  They tended, Goodpasture
said, to dismiss the teachings of pioneer preachers while also belittling contemporary
preachers for generously quoting scripture in their sermons.  Such men, he declared, were
only a step away from also discarding respect for the Bible, if, in fact, some had not already
done so.  ?When a man comes to the point that he does not believe the Bible is true in every
minute detail, then, if he is a preacher, he ought to quit preaching,? he said.  ?When a
preacher does not believe the Bible as the inspired word of God, as many today profess not
to, it has already passed time for him to quit preaching.?34
Goodpasture sounded a similar note at the 1975 Advocate dinner, but by this time
his concern had obviously heightened.  He feared that liberals and charismatics had now
achieved a disturbing degree of success among Churches of Christ.  Having been vexed by
the beliefs of these liberals before, he was now mortified by their tactics.  Wolves in sheep?s
259
clothing, he warned, were preying on the unsuspecting faithful, discreetly spreading false
doctrine among them:
Time was when folks became liberal they would let it be known.  They aren?t doing
that now.  The idea is to start on the inside and work in secret to achieve a kind of
termite growth.  I am saying tonight that we have the fight of our generation on our
hands now in meeting the liberals and pentecostalists as they wage this new kind of
warfare.35
Yet, even in the wake of such strong statements, Goodpasture himself did not engage in
hand-to-hand combat with these enemies.  He continued to leave that up to his staff
lieutenants, the foot soldiers in the churches, and other allies.
In a 1970 letter to Goodpasture, Los Angeles preacher James D. Groves expressed
an opinion common among Advocate supporters.  Thanking the editor for publishing a hard-
hitting piece on the charismatic movement, whose small but dramatic inroads into Churches
of Christ had been winked at by some, Groves remarked, ?All the journalists and editors are
not as firm and unshakable as you are.?   To admirers like Groves even a quiet36
Goodpasture spoke loud and clear.  It did not matter that he was not penning articles like the
one Groves commended; it only mattered that he was publishing them?and that he was using
writers guided by scripture, not subjective experience or theological fads.  As one Advocate
contributor put it, ?B. C. Goodpasture is to be highly commended in his editorial office
because he exalts the word of God as it should be!?   As usual, some of Goodpasture?s37
writers specialized in controversy, others in edification, and a few in both.  Among the staff
controversialists, Guy Woods and Thomas Warren stood foremost during the seventies,
while Harding College professor James D. Bales was probably the most tenacious of the
many regular non-staff contributors.  All three addressed a series of issues, engaging in battle
along lines drawn during the sixties.
260
Confronting Heresy
A tiny cadre of charismatics among Churches of Christ began grabbing headlines in
the church papers in the late sixties and continued to do so into the first few years of the new
decade.   One of the most visible was entertainer Pat Boone, who also made news in the38
secular press, particularly after his local congregation in the Los Angeles area withdrew
fellowship from him in 1971.   A Nashville native who had spent his life among Churches39
of Christ, Boone made a rapid descent from golden boy to outcast after embracing the
charismatic movement and its gifts of the Holy Spirit.   He recounted his spiritual40
awakening in a 1970 book, A New Song, blatantly contradicting the notion that miraculous
manifestations of the Holy Spirit had ended with the New Testament age, a doctrine that
Churches of Christ held as a matter of strictest orthodoxy.   The following year, the Full41
Gospel Business Men?s Fellowship International added insult to injury by publishing a
booklet containing not only Boone?s personal testimony but also those of another dozen
charismatics from Churches of Christ, many of them preachers or elders.42
The charismatic movement also established a beachhead in the Advocate?s
backyard.  In 1971, Lipscomb professor Don Finto left his teaching job to preach for the
Belmont Avenue Church of Christ, opening the congregation to charismatics and evangelical
youth counterculture.   Finto quickly incurred the wrath of the college, the Advocate, area43
churches, and arch-conservative editor Ira Y. Rice, Jr., who was based in Nashville at the
time.   Influential conservative James Bales highlighted the Boone case.  First privately and44
then publicly, he appealed to Boone and his wife Shirley to dissociate themselves from the
charismatic movement.  He carried on an extensive private correspondence with the couple
before choosing to rebuke them not only in the Advocate and other church papers but also in
261
a book, Pat Boone and the Gift of Tongues.   Bales informed Advocate readers that45
although he did not expect Boone to ?change at this present time,? he did hold out some
hope that he would eventually ?become conscious of the confusion and the error into which
his Pentecostal beliefs have led.?46
As concerned as the Advocate was about the defection of Boone and Belmont,
ultimately it was more troubled by ?confusion? and ?error? emanating from church colleges. 
Advocate writers seemed reluctant to expose any college with specificity, and in this they
were following their editor?s lead.  Although Goodpasture sometimes expressed concern with
campus events, he never targeted any of the colleges.  He had personal relationships with the
top leadership at virtually all of them and was disinclined to give bad publicity to any of
them, or to consider their problems systemic.   This included Abilene Christian and47
Pepperdine, whose reputations for orthodoxy were suffering.   He did, however, indicate48
that he considered some of the colleges sounder than others, consequently rewarding them
with more attention and rousing recommendations.  When introducing a special issue on
Freed-Hardeman College in 1970, he noted the school?s long-standing reputation for being
?loyal to the truth? and teaching ?the Bible as the inspired word of God.?  He was confident
that the college?s recently installed president, Advocate staff writer E. Claude Gardner,
would maintain this spiritual inheritance.  His endorsement of Gardner was a backhanded
statement of dissatisfaction with one or more unnamed college leaders.  ?We do not believe,?
Goodpasture wrote in reference to Gardner, ?that he would knowingly retain on his faculty
one who was unsound in the faith.?49
Thomas Warren, although not identifying questionable professors and their schools,
nevertheless warned that some church colleges were descending ?into the old ?mud-hole? of
262
modernism.?   Warren, an Abilene Christian College graduate with a doctorate in philosophy
from Vanderbilt, chaired the Freed-Hardeman Bible department from 1967 to 1971.  In
1969 he established the Spiritual Sword, a monthly journal devoted to combating liberalism. 
After his stint at Freed-Hardeman, he moved to Memphis to join the faculty of Harding
College?s Graduate School of Religion.  Warren announced his readiness to expose ?the
?smoke screen? of so-called ?academic freedom? [used by some colleges] as a device to
condone the teaching of doctrines which are not in harmony with the Bible? and entirely out
of step with their founding charters.  True believers, he argued, ?must not allow modernists
to ?creep in unawares? and snatch away from the Lord?s cause that which was begun and
nurtured by faithful men.?  The primary responsibility for keeping the schools safe and true
to their common mission lay with the leadership of each college.  ?Men of honor who
understand the meaning of the trust committed into their hands,? he wrote, ?will not
willingly allow modernists either to teach or to serve in administrative capacities in our
schools.?50
Although Warren and his Advocate cohorts resisted mentioning any college by
name, they did not always demonstrate the same restraint when dealing with Mission
magazine, an institution they believed to be run by modernists, not merely infiltrated by
them.  Founded in 1967, Mission never built a large circulation during its twenty-year
existence, but Advocate writers identified it with every theological problem surfacing among
Churches of Christ, and therefore very much wanted it out of business.   Their critiques of51
Mission also served as indirect criticism of Pepperdine and Abilene Christian, both of which
had faculty writing for the monthly and serving on its board.  Warren, for instance, made this
declaration in 1973: ?If there is even one faithful preacher or teacher who is yet allowing his
263
name to be published as a member of either the editorial staff or the board of trustees of a
journal which functions as an apologist for modernism, I pray that he may have the wisdom
and the love for the Lord?s cause which will lead him to openly renounce such.?52
In a 1972 letter to Goodpasture, James Bales expressed an opinion shared by
Warren, Woods, and scores of other church leaders.  ?It is time that Mission be hit so hard,?
he declared, ?that it either ceases to exist, or undergoes such a radical change for the better
that it ceases to be the type of magazine which it now is.?  Goodpasture agreed, immediately
publishing a hard-hitting submission from Bales that made the point.  Mincing no words,
Bales claimed that Mission was being used ?to introduce modernism into the church.?  He
called editor Roy Bowen Ward, professor of religion at Miami University, ?a modernist,?
noting that he published articles on topics like evolutionary theory and higher criticism that
served only to ?undermine the Bible.?  He reported further that he was fast losing confidence
in all members of Mission?s governing board, some of whom he once thought could be
trusted to steer the magazine in a healthier direction.  The time had come, Bales declared, ?to
appeal to the brethren to help change the nature of the journal or contribute to its cessation.? 
He pleaded with readers to share his sense of urgency.  ?The sooner we stand firm against
modernism,? he wrote, ?the fewer people we are going to lose to this type of apostasy.?53
Guy Woods likewise gave voice to concerns about Mission and assaults on biblical
authority.  He displayed considerable angst toward the magazine in a 1974 guest editorial,
taking offense at the ?well-financed? intellectuals in ?positions of much influence over our
people? who ?are becoming more and more bold in their calculated scheme to destroy the
distinctive plea which we have propagated so successfully in times past.?  These intellectuals
had even ?scoffed at? the doctrines of biblical inerrancy and infallibility.  Woods offered a
264
recent article from  Mission as an example of this tendency.  Written by Warren Lewis, it
endeavored ?to show that the books of the gospel, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John[,] are
hopelessly contradictory in content and are impossible to harmonize!?  Woods was at the
limits of his patience and wondered why so many others seemingly were not.  ?What has
happened to us that these theological Goliaths can attack Israel with impunity?? he asked
with rhetorical flourish.   A few months later, still discontented with Lewis?s assessment of54
the gospels, he declared, ?So far as I know, this is the first time in two thousand years that a
preacher of the church of Christ . . . and a publication sponsored by preachers and other
members of the churches of Christ have launched a determined and deliberate effort to show
that the Gospel records which detail the life of our Lord are untrustworthy, inaccurate, and,
in part, composed of fabrications.?55
Like Bales and Woods, Thomas Warren considered Mission extremely dangerous
and felt obligated to warn Advocate readers.  He believed two ?crucially fundamental
errors? had made inroads into Churches of Christ, both of which Mission displayed on its
pages.  The first error ?[denies] that truth is absolute and attainable,? while the second
?[denies] that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, and authoritative word of God.?   In 1972,56
Warren issued a scathing review of a Mission article unapologetically dismissive of the
restoration principle and the standard Church of Christ hermeneutic.  He accused author R.
Lanny Hunter of ?rejecting the view that we must have Bible authority for everything that
we practice in religion.?  This was a fair assessment.  Hunter had stated: ?Suffice it to say,
there is nothing in the New Testament canon which states that future generations must go
back to the Bible for detailed instructions for work and worship.  Nor is there any scripture
which gives substance to the assumption that ?command, example, or necessary inference? is
265
the interpretative key to grasping the significance of scripture.?  Warren stated his own view
of inspiration, however, when characterizing Hunter?s position as ?a rejection of the Bible as
the word of God.?  The gloves had come off.  No longer would he allow ?a journal which is
both edited and written by members of the church for which Jesus died? to promote apostasy
without vigorous opposition from him.  Making explicit the seriousness of his charge,
Warren further described Hunter?s view as ?a rejection of Christianity.?  Let there be no
misunderstanding, he declared, ?to reject the Bible is, in fact, to reject Christ.?57
Another institution that Advocate writers, particularly Warren, became increasingly
wary of was a paper with a much longer history than Mission: the Firm Foundation, edited
by Reuel Lemmons in Austin, Texas.  Since the beginning of his tenure in 1955, Lemmons
had more often than not sought middle ground between opposing sides in any given church
controversy.   He frequently wrote editorials that perplexed, even miffed, some fellow58
mainstream leaders; he sometimes seemed to take sides with conservatives, even
noninstitutional advocates, and other times the progressives.   By the early seventies,59
however, many believed he was a friend of progressives.  Most upsetting for zealots like Ira
Rice had been a 1969 Lemmons editorial in defense of Pat Boone.   Rice ally Archie W.60
Luper, a California entrepreneur and Freed-Hardeman College board member, reprimanded
Lemmons for letting his ?once strong voice? become ?weaker by the day.?  Contrary to
?helping concerned brethren . . . withstand the evils of modernism, liberalism and neo-
Pentecostalism,? his editorials defending Boone and other charismatics had ?tragically . . .
hurt the Church of our Lord.?61
 Thomas Warren similarly considered Lemmons a liability to the cause for truth.  In
a letter to Goodpasture in 1971 he wrote: ?It seems clear to me that modernism is going to
266
be a bigger problem west of the Mississippi River than east of it.  It seems further clear to me
that a crucial factor in that difference is the difference between the two major papers in each
area?and the men who edit them.?   Four years later, in response to a Lemmons editorial in62
the western paper, Warren used the Advocate to propose a debate on hermeneutics with the
Firm Foundation editor.   Lemmons questioned aspects of the standard method of biblical63
interpretation employed by Churches of Christ, and Warren could not let him go
unchallenged.  Lemmons wrote:
We have glibly tripped off our tongues for the past hundred years the slogan that
things are proven to be scriptural in three ways: (1) divine command, (2) necessary
inference, and (3) approved example. The more we dig into this matter the more we
are convinced that the only way to prove a thing essential is by divine command.  We
are afraid of necessary inference because we do not always trust the ability of the
inferer to make infallible inferences.  We do not trust approved example because
there are a lot of approved examples that all people agree are not binding examples.64
As was his style, Lemmons was seeking a common sense middle way, in this case
arguing that ?we are obligated to follow? only those examples in the New Testament ?that
reflect a direct command which is clearly shown? in the New Testament.   Since the65
statement squared with arguments typically found in Mission and other progressive papers,
and since its source was the respected editor of the Firm Foundation, Warren considered it
as dangerous as anything appearing in Mission.  The Lemmons view was ?not in harmony
with Bible teaching,? he pronounced.   Lemmons, however, suspected that Warren ?failed66
to take the statement to which he objected in the context in which it was written.? 
Goodpasture, without comment, allowed him a reply in the Advocate.   Lemmons explained67
to Warren?and to readers?that he was not in favor of a debate since he saw little difference
between their actual views.   Warren responded with an open letter for publication in the68
Firm Foundation, recommending that Lemmons ?either disavow or satisfactorily modify?
267
his view, which ?implies a number of false doctrines.?  When Lemmons did not print the
letter, Warren asked Goodpasture to publish it in the Advocate.   Not content to let the69
matter drop there, he quickly put together a book?When Is An ?Example? Binding??to
serve as his detailed rebuttal to Lemmons.70
Mixed Signals
In the midst of the Warren-Lemmons episode, Lemmons wrote to Goodpasture
thanking him for publishing his public reply to Warren.  It was a ?courtesy? for which he felt
the ?deepest appreciation.?  ?No one realizes more than I the magnatude [sic] of the favor I
was asking,? he added.   Unlike Goodpasture, Lemmons had never shown a reluctance to71
run such rejoinders.  That Goodpasture had done so in this instance, and without comment,
genuinely surprised him.  It likely surprised others too, and no doubt irked some hardliners. 
Ira Rice, for instance, regularly disparaged the Firm Foundation editor in his monthly paper,
Contending for the Faith.  The exasperated Rice charged ?that great upholder of Liberalists,
Reuel Lemmons,? with defending the indefensible.  In addition to his defense of Pat Boone,
Lemmons had become an apologist for two other Rice targets: Pepperdine University, which
Rice considered ?one of the greatest sources of error among churches of Christ,? and the
Herald of Truth broadcast ministry based in Abilene, Texas, which he likewise lambasted for
liberalism throughout the decade.72
Lemmons was not the only mainstream ?upholder of Liberalists? that drew fire from
Rice.  He also criticized Advocate writers Ira North and Batsell Barrett Baxter.   North, he73
charged, was guilty of promoting Pepperdine (in the Advocate and elsewhere) and
condoning liberal preachers and churches.   Baxter had failed to use his position as chief74
speaker for the Herald of Truth to insist on orthodox programming.   Rice, however, never75
268
ventured to criticize the Advocate editor.  To the contrary, he took numerous opportunities
to portray Goodpasture as a keen supporter of his crusade against liberalism.   Goodpasture,76
meanwhile, was sending mixed signals.
The most significant of the mixed signals involved the Herald of Truth.  By the
seventies, the ministry?s programming, which premiered on the ABC Radio Network in
1952 and expanded to television in 1954, was airing on a combined 650 television and radio
stations in the U.S.  In the heady days of growth and consensus the Herald of Truth had
generated widespread enthusiasm, with funds to match.  Although a ministry of the Highland
church in Abilene, thousands of congregations and individuals provided financial support
(listeners were not solicited), making it the premier cooperative venture after World War II. 
The program was a source of pride throughout the church and Baxter, in particular, came to
be revered as an ?electronic bishop,? wielding a different and potentially greater influence
among the churches than ?print bishops? like Goodpasture.77
Highland, the Abilene church that sponsored the Herald of Truth, was a conventional
mainstream congregation that began to embrace progressive trends during the sixties.  By the
early seventies some of the earliest supporters and most ardent defenders of the Herald of
Truth thought it would be best to let the program die.  Others joined Ira Rice in a concerted
effort to expose Highland as an unsound congregation infiltrated by charismatics and led by
an unstable eldership.  If Highland could not be trusted then the Herald of Truth could not be
trusted.  The source for much of the criticism was Highland?s E. R. Harper, who had
previously served long stints as Highland?s preacher and as a speaker for the Herald of
Truth.  In March 1973, the elders unceremoniously fired the 75-year-old Harper after he
refused to silence his criticism, and despite his 28 years of service they did not offer him
269
retirement benefits.  With this action, the crusade against the Herald of Truth picked up
steam.  Events in subsequent months, including the firing and immediate rehiring of
Highland?s controversial preacher, Lynn Anderson, only added fuel to the fire.78
The crisis came to a head in September 1973 when approximately 200 preachers
gathered in Memphis for a meeting with several Highland and Herald of Truth
representatives.  Recent happenings at Highland aside, many had become increasingly
dissatisfied with Herald of Truth programming.  The gathered preachers were on edge and in
a confrontational mood, ready to demand answers from Highland leaders on record. 
Scheduled as a lunchtime affair, the meeting stretched past midnight.  It still left most
attendees distrustful of Highland?s management of the Herald of Truth.  Several preachers
complained that the programs did not consistently exhibit a restorationist perspective or
emphasize God?s ?plan of salvation,? the culminating feature of which was adult baptism. 
Moreover, the Highland elders had allowed ?false teachers? to write scripts for the programs
and hidden that fact from supporting congregations.  Although the Highland elders
supposedly approved each script, ?doctrinal error? had crept into some of the broadcasts. 
These erstwhile friends of the ministry all but demanded that Highland transfer the Herald of
Truth to another congregation, one that still had the confidence of the larger part of Churches
of Christ.  Otherwise, they predicted, it would justly lose support and wither away.79
Garland Elkins, preacher for the Getwell Church of Christ in Memphis, moderated
the exhausting affair.  Highland elder Art Haddox and preacher Lynn Anderson, along with
Herald of Truth speakers Batsell Barrett Baxter, Landon Saunders, and Harold Hazelip,
occupied the hot seat answering questions.  Some two dozen others, including Rice and
Harper, questioned them at length.   Indeed, the meeting was a window onto a church in the80
270
process of splintering yet again.  The mainstream that had emerged from the institutional
fight of the fifties?in which the Herald of Truth had been a chief point of contention?was
breaking up into two or even three relatively distinct groups, each destined to have its own
loose networks of institutions, leading congregations, and influential personalities.   Despite81
this emerging reality, irenic leaders like Batsell Barrett Baxter held out hope that schism was
not inevitable and that a unity of purpose could be recovered.  Others recognized the deep
fissures.  Alert conservatives hoped to silence the Herald of Truth before it inflicted further
damage.82
In an afterword to the published transcript of the Memphis meeting, Alan Highers, a
frequent contributor to the Advocate and co-editor of the Spiritual Sword, called it ?one of
the most significant publications of this century relating to the New Testament church.? 
Explaining his rationale, he noted that ?in every liberal takeover in denominationalism the
means has been through gaining control of the influential institutions aided and abetted by
the unsuspecting tolerance and indifference of well-meaning but uninformed brethren.?  It
was not yet too late to prevent a similar fate for the Herald of Truth, he argued.  Not only
might it be saved to do good works once again, but the churches in its wide sphere of
influence could still be protected from ?liberalism and apostasy.?  However, it was
imperative that churches heed the clear warnings.  Highers emphasized that Highland?s
?problems . . . are not mere judgmental misdirections, but doctrinal defections of the most
serious consequences.?  He believed the transcript revealed as much, and hoped it would jolt
the complacent faithful into action.  Liberals had already made significant inroads into
Churches of Christ, and if the recent past was any indication, the situation promised only to
worsen.  After all, Highers asked, in a series of rhetorical questions,
271
Who would have thought just a few years ago that we would have the tongue-
speakers and their sympathizers in the churches of Christ?  Who would have
supposed that we would see gospel preachers apostatizing into rank Pentecostalism? 
Who could have anticipated that opposition to instrumental music in worship would
be de-emphasized and fellowship with liberals, sectarians, and apostates would be
accentuated?
?Brethren,? he continued, ?we are in the fight of our lives for the truth of the gospel, yet
many well-meaning and well-intentioned brethren are asleep at the battle stations!?83
The Herald of Truth crisis presented Goodpasture with a quandary, yet he remained
on the sidelines.  For years the programs had featured the much loved and respected Batsell
Barrett Baxter, head of the Bible department at Lipscomb.  Not only was Baxter one of
Goodpasture?s main staff writers, he was also the preacher at Hillsboro, where Goodpasture
served as an elder.  When Goodpasture retired from the Hillsboro pulpit at the close of 1950,
Baxter succeeded him, and except for a brief interlude in the early seventies he stayed on the
job until his own retirement in 1980.   In his autobiography, Baxter described Goodpasture84
as his ?friend and mentor.?  Goodpasture told him many times, ?I resolved when I retired
from preaching to demonstrate what an ex-preacher should be.?  Baxter conveyed this to the
mourners gathered for Goodpasture?s funeral in February 1977, adding, ?And he did; he was
the greatest friend and helper I?ve ever had in my preaching.?  Both men described their
relationship in father-son terms.  ?Brother Goodpasture was more like a father to me,?
Baxter said at the funeral.  ?Shortly before my father passed away, he asked brother
Goodpasture to kind of take over that role.  Last Saturday evening, brother Goodpasture
reminded me of that and said, ?I?ve tried to be a good father to you.?  And he was.?85
For the first fifteen years of the Herald of Truth?s existence, Goodpasture had
ardently supported it.  That support seemed to be on the wane by the late sixties, but it did
272
not disappear.  Although editorial promotion slackened, Goodpasture continued to publish
Herald of Truth advertising and published nothing against it.  By the time of the Memphis
meeting in September 1973, however, no Herald of Truth ads had appeared in the Advocate
since November of the previous year.   In the intervening months the only significant86
mention of the Herald of Truth came in August 1973, when Goodpasture allowed Highland
elder Art Haddox to address Advocate readers.  In a thinly veiled response to critics, Haddox
reaffirmed Highland?s orthodoxy on all issues and declared that the Herald of Truth would
not ?lay down the challenge? of broadcast evangelism ?simply because it is not easy.?87
Six weeks later Goodpasture might have regretted his decision to give Haddox access
to the Advocate; the reports coming from the Memphis meeting were sufficiently
unsatisfactory to elicit a statement from him.  Printed at the top of the editorial page in the
issue of September 20 and highlighted against a blue background, it read:
The columns of the Gospel Advocate have been open to the activities of the
Highland church of Christ, Abilene, Texas, through the years.  Its Herald of Truth
program, in particular, has been publicized and defended on its pages.
Recent happenings at Highland are, to say the least, disquieting and disappointing.  It
is our hope that things there will be set in proper order.  In the meantime, our attitude
will be one of ?watchful waiting.?88
The statement was not unequivocal but it proved to be Goodpasture?s last mention of either
Highland or the Herald of Truth in the Advocate, and nearly the last by anyone else during
the remainder of his editorship.
Guy Woods considered Goodpasture?s statement ?excellent? and ?timely.?  It could
not and would not be ignored in Abilene.  ?This puts the men at Highland on notice,? he
wrote Goodpasture, ?that the Advocate, the Herald of Truth?s most powerful defender,
expects them to clear up the matter if they are to maintain brotherhood confidence.?  89
273
Woods was probably right that the Highland elders would find Goodpasture?s announcement
worrisome.  It was one thing for the firebrand Ira Rice to criticize them in his self-published
monthly, but quite another for the staid editor of the Advocate to question their viability.
The Herald of Truth had already lost some support, and was in danger of losing
more.   Some two months after the Memphis meeting, the Highland elders, judging the90
situation serious, issued a 24-page leaflet defending Highland and the Herald of Truth.  In
this ?special report,? they admitted mistakes and acknowledged unresolved problems, but
claimed that these had been exacerbated by the circulation of misinformation.  They
contended that Highland not only remained capable of running the Herald of Truth, it was as
determined as ever ?to continue the faithful presentation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ? over
the airwaves.  This could be done, they stated, only ?as long as you make your support
available.?  Noting that Herald of Truth programming had elicited ?12,000 letters from
around the world? the previous month, they asked: ?Is it the best thing for the Lord?s work
that this stop??91
Batsell Barrett Baxter, as the principal Herald of Truth speaker, made his answer to
that question clear.  He had no intention of giving up on Highland, and certainly not the
Herald of Truth, as he explained in a letter distributed with the elders? plea and published on
the front page of the Christian Chronicle.  Acknowledging Highland?s problems, he argued
that it was time to press forward, building on lessons learned.  Despite the controversy of the
past year, he reported, only about 100 congregations of the more than 2,000 that regularly
contributed funds to the Herald of Truth, had ended their support or were threatening to end
it.  He was encouraged that ?brethren are slow to take any action that would destroy a good
work.?  Such a ?wait and see? approach was wise, for ?it would indeed be a tragedy if this
274
work were stopped.?  Perhaps Goodpasture was one Baxter had in mind as taking a
deliberate approach to the controversy; if so, he likely also thought of him when insisting
that the time had come for everyone to declare either for or against the Herald of Truth,
having now heard Highland?s defense of itself.  As for himself, ?after months of considering
the situation and after many hours of prayerful meditation,? he had made his choice:
Chastened, humbled, strengthened, I plan to move forward to preach the gospel to the
lost world.  My prayer is that you will continue to help us.  We must not let the past
mistakes, largely now corrected, deprive millions of their opportunity to hear the
gospel and be saved.?92
Baxter did move forward.  By May 1974 he was filming a new television series and sending
out fundraising letters under his signature.   He never lost hope that Goodpasture might yet93
lend visible support to the Herald of Truth, and in January 1977 he broke through with an
appeal to Advocate readers on behalf of the ministry.   Baxter would remain intimately94
involved with the Herald of Truth to the end of his life in 1982.95
Although Baxter was satisfied with Highland?s statement, Rice, Harper, and others
were not.  Rice told his readers that the ?sighs of relief [that] went up brotherhood-wide? in
response to the Highland and Baxter open letters ?were premature.?  Not only was the
?pesky matter? still unresolved, Highland and Baxter had raised additional questions with
their supposedly forthright remarks.   Houston preacher H. A. Dobbs sent Rice a list of 9596
questions drawn up in response to the Highland report.  Rice gladly published the questions,
thus figuratively ?nailing [them] to the churchhouse door at Highland.?  He introduced the
list with a piece provocatively titled, ?Is Brotherhood Polarizing?  If It Has To Be?So Be
It!?  Neither he nor Dobbs, both having entirely lost confidence in the Highland elders, ever
expected to receive a satisfactory answer to any of the 95 questions.   Later that year, 1974,97
275
Rice used most of another issue of Contending for the Faith to print an extensive and
emotional response from E. R. Harper to Highland and Baxter.  Harper had his own
questions, especially for Baxter, who he believed had betrayed him: ?Brother Baxter, where
are you headed?  Where will you and this liberal group end??98
Rice, eagerly anticipating a clear break by the bulk of Churches of Christ from that
?liberal group,? was mystified that so many churches, rather than ostracizing Highland and
her friends, never even suspended their financial support, or, worse, reinstated it after hearing
Highland?s perspective on the controversy.   In all likelihood, he was also puzzled that the99
months were passing by without another word from Goodpasture.  If so, he was not alone. 
In September 1974, a full year after Goodpasture briefly commented on the ?disquieting and
disappointing? events at Highland, Aaron Swanson, an elder in Jackson, Tennessee, inquired
into the matter.  He wrote to Goodpasture, he explained, only after months of ?praying and
hoping that [another] statement would be forthcoming? from the editor.  Informing
Goodpasture that he had subscribed to the Advocate since the 1930s, Swanson commended
him for having always dealt ?head-on with the issues that confront the Brotherhood.?  But in
light of his longstanding silence on Highland and the Herald of Truth, Swanson could not
help but wonder if he was ?abolishing this policy.?  ?I have asked myself this question many
times in recent months and I?m sure many others have also,? he added.  Despite his record of
loyalty to the Advocate, he was ready to abandon the paper if it continued to shirk its
responsibility to address this most troubling of issues.  ?HOW LONG, brother Goodpasture,
how long,? he pleaded, until the Advocate announced its stance?  Surely he was not ?selling
out the Brotherhood??100
276
 When a month passed without a reply from Goodpasture or a statement in the
Advocate, Swanson addressed another letter to the editor.  He sent the second one by
registered mail and enclosed a copy of the first in case it had not been delivered.  ?That a
man of your knowledge and wisdom, and the means at your disposal to get at the truth of an
issue,? he lectured Goodpasture, ?would or should take more than a year to make up your
mind and take a stand, is inconceivable to me.?  He had ?read and studied? the entire record
of the controversy and surmised: ?To say the least, what the Highland elders have said . . .
leaves much to be desired.?  Swanson ended his appeal by expressing a growing sentiment. 
He was confused by the silence of the Advocate and feeling not a little betrayed:
How much longer, brother Goodpasture, will those of us who are striving to defend
the principles of the Restoration have to wait to hear where you stand?  Can it be that
your silence says what stand you have already taken?  Choose you this day where
you will stand, and speak out in unmistakable words.?101
Others also felt that Goodpasture must speak out, including Paul E. McGaughey, a
Herald of Truth staff member, who made his own appeal to the editor.  Although his was not
wrought with the emotion of Swanson?s, it carried a similar sense of urgency.  In July 1974
McGaughey visited Goodpasture at his office, asking him to accept Herald of Truth
advertising for the Advocate.  In a follow-up letter, he thanked Goodpasture for his
?willingness to listen to our plea.?  He assured him that his fellow staffers took seriously
?the suggestions you made concerning the activities of the Highland church and the Herald
of Truth ministry,? and that they were working on an ad that ?might be more to your liking.? 
McGaughey then reiterated his basic request.  ?Brother Goodpasture, we do desperately
need your help,? he wrote.  ?You have been such a friend to the program in the past and
your influence can be the determining factor in the ongoing [success] of this ministry.?  102
277
McGaughey?s sales pitch was not successful.  Although an item on the Herald of Truth did
appear in the Advocate within a few months, it was not an ad promoting the ministry but an
article condemning it.  It came from the pen of Birmingham preacher Franklin Camp and
targeted ?Heartbeat,? the Herald of Truth?s daily radio program hosted by St. Louis
preacher Landon Saunders.103
In September 1974, Goodpasture accepted an invitation to attend a special event
hosted by Camp?s congregation, the Shades Mountain Church of Christ.  He was to come to
Birmingham to ?help initiate? the church?s sponsorship of Ira Rice?s mission work and
journal.  Goodpasture brought his wife Freddie with him for the weekend?s festivities,
capping off his participation by delivering the Sunday morning sermon at the large church. 
In the next issue of his monthly, Rice highlighted the editor?s involvement, featuring a
photograph of Goodpasture on the front page and one of Goodpasture and his wife on the
second.  As Rice explained, ?Because this new arrangement appeared especially auspicious
for greater things to come, it was felt that something unusual should transpire to initiate its
beginning.?104
Rice surely spoke with Goodpasture about the Herald of Truth during that weekend
in Birmingham.  He had devoted the previous issue of his paper to attacking the ministry,
and would have been eager to hear Goodpasture?s reaction.  Years later, Rice claimed that
on ?many? occasions he directed ?protests to brother Goodpasture,? as one of the Hillsboro
elders, for keeping Baxter as the Hillsboro preacher while he yet remained with the Herald of
Truth.   California businessman Archie Luper, an outspoken Rice ally, told of similar105
discussions with Goodpasture, including one in Atlanta in the presence of Rice.  On that
occasion, Goodpasture assured the pair that he had stopped carrying Herald of Truth
278
advertising.  As to his friend Baxter, Luper quoted Goodpasture as saying, ?If Brother
Baxter would ask my advice on the matter, I would advise him to leave Highland and the
Herald of Truth.?   Luper?s report was likely accurate.  Goodpasture respected Baxter and106
would have been reluctant to offer him unsolicited advice.  Baxter, though troubled by
circumstances at Highland, believed that many of the accusations brought against the church
and its broadcast ministry were unfounded.   Goodpasture?s muted stance on the Herald of107
Truth no doubt reflected both his distaste for the turn the program had taken and his abiding
love and respect for Baxter.
Rice was reluctant to label the highly respected Baxter a ?false teacher,? but he came
close.  In a December 1976 letter to Freed-Hardeman president Claude Gardner, he claimed
that Baxter?s 1971 book, I Believe Because, was ?honeycombed with error,? and that
?several of the scripts that he has used on Herald of Truth these past few years have taught
false doctrine?some as recent as this year!?  More troubling to Rice was Baxter?s attitude
toward overt ?false teachers.?  Baxter, he contended to Gardner, was the ?stand-for-nothing,
compromising, everything-all-right, love-everybody? type.  Ira North was too, and both men
?consistently fellow-travel with and uphold false teachers.?  Above all, Rice deplored the
credibility Baxter lent Highland and the Herald of Truth: ?If it were not for Batsell, we
could have straightened out that Highland/Herald of Truth mess long ago.  But by his
making many feel that things have been corrected at Highland (they have not), he has
confirmed those doctrinally-corrupt heretics in continuing in their own false way. . . . [He is
among those] who have done not one thing to help fight for the truth in the present
apostasy.?108
279
The ever-expanding rift soon reached Freed-Hardeman and Gardner.  The old
warrior Foy E. Wallace, Jr., who had rehabilitated his reputation with mainstream churches
in the early sixties, was stirring up controversy over Bible translations.   In July 1976, he109
targeted Freed-Hardeman in a lengthy article published in the Advocate and the Firm
Foundation.  Some Bible professors at the college, Wallace alleged, were favoring ?false?
and ?corrupt? modern translations such as the Revised Standard and New International
versions, and thereby ?weakening [student] confidence in the Bible.?  They were doing this,
he contended, under the protection of ?a deceptive policy which leaves the general
impression that the college is sound on the issue of the versions.?  Wallace had expected
better of Freed-Hardeman.  ?Now that the last of the colleges allowing these pseudo-versions
to be taught in the Bible Departments has succumbed to their invasion,? he lamented, ?the
last collegiate bastion for the defense of the Bible has been breached.?   Attentive readers,110
knowing how rarely Goodpasture published material he disagreed with, justifiably
questioned whether he had lost confidence in the college.   But the editor soon allowed111
Gardner a forceful reply to Wallace.   More responses followed from Bible department112
head William Woodson.113
Several weeks after Wallace?s article appeared, an angry Freed-Hardeman alumnus
from west Tennessee wrote to Goodpasture to report that it had ?already divided us and will
continue to do so.?  James D. Mayberry, a 1969 graduate, was livid at the editor for
providing Wallace a venue to fulminate about ?a matter of opinion.?  He called the article ?a
senseless, utterly unprovoked and totally vicious diatribe,? and lectured Goodpasture at
length for publishing it:
280
Some congregations in West Tennessee are considering a complete end to financial
support for Freed-Hardeman. . . . If the school suffers then I want you to know I hold
you personally responsible. . . . The young brethren in the brotherhood are going to
use the R.S.V. and N.I.V. and you older brethren might as well accept it.  If you
persist in your tomfoolery (binding on others when you have nothing Biblical to
bind) you will further besmirch the name of Christ and divide his church.114
Mayberry called on Goodpasture to write an editorial clearing up the matter, but in this too
he met with disappointment.  The closest Goodpasture came to making editorial comment
was to reprint, by request, two editorials on translations.  The reprints appeared two weeks
apart, and in light of current events were laced with ambiguity.  The first provided a bit of
comfort to the Freed-Hardeman camp.  ?Some versions and translations are superior to
others,? it read, ?[but] no one . . . should make the use of the King James Version, or any
other, a condition of fellowship or cause a disturbance about it.?   The second editorial, on115
the Revised Standard Version, seemed to lean Wallace?s way.  ?We do not like the
modernism,? it stated, ?which is noticeable in the rendering of certain key passages.?  116
Goodpasture left it to his readers to determine any messages he was sending with those
reprints, but he otherwise made it apparent that he had not lost confidence in Freed-
Hardeman College.117
Fellow Travelers
 B. C. Goodpasture delivered his last sermon on Tuesday, February 8, 1977, to an
audience of 3,000 assembled for morning chapel at the 41  annual Freed-Hardemanst
Lectures.  He titled the sermon ?Preach the Word? and took as his text Paul?s second letter
to Timothy, chapter four.   ?He spoke clearly, forcefully, and quoted scripture all during118
his lesson,? his wife Freddie Goodpasture recalled.  ?And as he always did after the second
sermon he [ever] preached, he did not use notes.?   The Goodpastures lodged at President119
281
Claude Gardner?s home during the lectures, and it was Gardner who introduced the chapel
address, thanking Goodpasture ?for his friendship and support; and for his course of
moderation.?  He later provided an account of the sermon in the Advocate.  Goodpasture, he
reported, ?came to the pulpit with vigor and presented a clear, forceful and timely message.? 
Gardner selected several excerpts to share with readers, including this one: ?The one thing
that the world needs most now is the gospel of Jesus Christ.  It is the one thing that can
change the world.  It is the only thing that can save our civilization and save the world from
wreck and ruin.  Yes, preach the word.?120
The college hosted a dinner honoring Guy Woods on the first evening of the
lectureship, at which the oft-honored Goodpasture delivered a ?beautiful? and ?eloquent?
tribute to his old friend.   Goodpasture gave his chapel sermon the next morning, and that121
evening the first of three Herald of Truth speakers, Joe Barnett, appeared on the program. 
The second, Harold Hazelip, taught a class Thursday morning.  Batsell Barrett Baxter was
the third representative of the Herald of Truth to speak, teaching a class Friday morning,
immediately followed by a chapel sermon that concluded the lectures.  An Abilene Christian
College professor, Neil R. Lightfoot, a graduate of Freed-Hardeman, spent the week
teaching a four-part class on Bible translations.  Each afternoon Guy Woods led ?Open
Forum,? a longstanding lectureship tradition.122
Some attendees were upset that the college had invited Herald of Truth and Abilene
Christian representatives.   In their presentations, Barnett and Hazelip avoided controversy,123
but Baxter and Lightfoot did not shy away from it.  Lightfoot baldly criticized the King
James Version and generally defended modern translations, including the Revised Standard
Version.   Baxter, while not mentioning any specific controversies in his chapel address,124
282
unmistakably alluded to current troubles; he also took the opportunity to say a word on
behalf of the Herald of Truth.   In his prepared remarks, he assailed both legalism and125
liberalism, urging Christians to shun either extreme.  He claimed the middle way himself,
implicitly rejecting attempts to label him a liberal.  He pointedly rebuked the legalists in
attendance.  ?Those who would impose human opinions as matters of faith and fellowship
must be resisted,? he firmly stated.  ?Otherwise, the Lord?s church will be split into endless
factions and parties over matters of judgment.?  This, he added, ?is sinful and wrong.?126
The final session of Open Forum, conducted by Guy Woods on Thursday afternoon,
turned controversial.  Addressing the lectureship theme, ?A Plea for Fundamentals,? Woods
lamented the growing number of preachers and other church members forsaking the ?old
paths.?  Without elaborating, he placed much of the blame for this alarming situation on?the
proliferation and multiplication of so-called modern speech translations.?  When Woods
opened the floor for discussion, the subject turned to the Herald of Truth.  It received sharp
criticism from several men, Woods included.  Many of the remarks were charged with
emotion, and some audience members expressed their resentment toward the Freed-
Hardeman leadership for having allowed Barnett, Hazelip, and Baxter a place on the
program.  Not only was it time for the faithful to ?withdraw from [the Herald of Truth] once
and for all,? one man proclaimed, it was time for Freed-Hardeman to correct its wayward
course.127
A few hours later, President Gardner delivered ?Progress With Soundness,? a
lengthy official statement.  According to lectureship director William Woodson, it ?received
overwhelming, spontaneous applause? from the lectureship crowd.   Gardner reprimanded128
those who would question the ?soundness? of Freed-Hardeman.  Reviewing the college?s
283
?progress? in the years since he had taken office, including transition to fully accredited
senior college status, he emphasized its adherence ?to the fundamentals of the faith.?  He
accused ?external regulators? of trying to control the college by ?splitting hairs.?  Their
?spurious criticisms? threatened to ?hamper the good we are accomplishing.?  Gardner
specifically answered critics on the two issues that had flared up during the afternoon?s
forum.  ?We do not believe,? he said, in an obvious reference to the presence of Barnett,
Hazelip, and Baxter, ?that brethren must agree 100% on every position before they can
speak on a lectureship, preach in a congregation or write for a paper.?  What matters, he
continued, ?is whether or not one is basically sound in the faith.?  He addressed at length the
controversy over the college?s policy on Bible translations, stressing that this was ?a time for
moderation.?  Moderation, in fact, was his central message and the unspoken theme of the
lectureship.  ?We stand opposed to seeing the church split over matters of judgment,? he
announced.  ?As unbelievable as it seems some think the church has already been split over
the versions of the Bible ? exalting a matter of judgment as a matter of faith.?129
Ira Rice attended the lectureship and was one of the men who spoke out against the
Herald of Truth during Open Forum.  He was in the audience for Gardner?s statement and
present when Gardner made additional remarks following Baxter?s Friday chapel sermon. 
Two days later he addressed a letter to the president informing him that he had suspended his
support of the school.  ?After a careful study of what you said in your public statements,? he
wrote, ?it is now clear to me that you are determined to open Freed-Hardeman College to the
Liberals and their fellow-travellers, and that the ?old paths? for which the college has always
stood heretofore are no longer of any genuine concern to you.?   William Woodson130
284
responded to Rice to ?vigorously deny? that Freed-Hardeman had forsaken ?the Old Paths.? 
?You should be ashamed,? he reprimanded Rice, ?of such false accusations.?131
When Goodpasture returned to Nashville from the Freed-Hardeman Lectures, he
went about business as usual.  On the evening of February 17, after a full day at the office
and shortly before he was due to attend a Hillsboro elders meeting, he suffered a stroke and
collapsed at his Caldwell Lane home.  Transported by ambulance to Baptist Hospital, he
died fourteen hours later, the morning of February 18, with his wife Freddie at his side.  132
Both major Nashville newspapers took notice of his death.  The Tennessean marked it in
these words: ?An eloquent, able, and warm-hearted man, Mr. Goodpasture had a host of
friends inside and out of the church movement in which he was an effective leader.  His
contributions to his time and place were many and valuable.  He will be sorely missed.?  133
On February 21, after services at the Hillsboro church, Goodpasture was laid to rest in
Woodlawn Memorial Park Cemetery next to his first wife, Cleveland.134
As the main speaker at the funeral, Batsell Barrett Baxter reviewed many of the
particulars of Goodpasture?s life, including his sixty-four years of preaching.  Remarking on
his last sermon he said, ?Many I see here this morning will remember it as one of the great
sermons of our lifetimes.?   Recalling several other sermons going back thirty-five years he135
concluded, ?Brother Goodpasture loved the Lord and loved his book and preached it as few
other men in history have preached it.?  Summarizing his career with the Advocate, Baxter
spoke of the ?many difficult issues, many pressures? of his thirty-eight years as editor, and
shared bits of a conversation he had with Goodpasture the day after the Freed-Hardeman
lectureship.  Baxter reported asking him, ?How have you always been able to keep from
going off on one side or the other??  Goodpasture gave a brief, self-assured, and pragmatic
285
response.  ?Well,? he had answered, ?if you just stay with God?s word and let that be your
guide then you can stay in the middle of the road, and those who love the Lord will go with
you and those who don?t may be left behind.?136
Tensions emanating from the Freed-Hardeman Lectures were still escalating when
most of the protagonists gathered in Nashville for Goodpasture?s funeral.  Guy Woods, who
had stated during Open Forum that his ?enthusiasm for [the Herald of Truth] has been zero
for a number of years,? joined Baxter in conducting the service.   At graveside, Woods137
initiated a brief conversation with Baxter.  Heartened by his comments, Baxter reported them
to Claude Gardner before leaving the cemetery.  He soon conveyed them to William
Woodson as well: ?Brother Woods called me aside and said, ?Brother Baxter, I deplore what
happened in the forum at Freed-Hardeman College recently. . . I want to dissociate myself
completely from those men.??  Baxter interpreted Woods to mean, in part, that he supported
the college?s call for moderation.  ?The ultimate outcome of the week?s meetings,? Baxter
observed, ?was a clear-cut move away from factionism and extremism.?138
Word of the Baxter-Woods graveside conversation spread, but some doubted the
accuracy of the reports.  Ira Rice, while in Asia, heard that Woods ?had repudiated
everything that happened in the forum.?  He could not fathom this, for he had been at the
graveside and ?did not hear [him] do any such thing.?  He was also quite sure that they
?were and are in general agreement? with the sentiments expressed at the forum.   Woods?139
recollection of his words did indeed differ from Baxter?s, and he was ?surprise[d] that any
one would believe me capable of repudiating any public statement of mine, or any statement
. . . endorsed by me.?   As he explained to another inquirer, ?I told brother Baxter that I140
deplored personal attacks upon him touching his loyalty and devotion to the Lord and that I
286
dissociated myself from all such.  I told him further, as I had earlier done, that I differed
greatly with him in the conduct and aims of the Herald of Truth.?141
The Cause of Christ
When Goodpasture died, the institution that had all but become synonymous with his
name was enjoying good health, as measured by circulation figures.  The number of
Advocate subscribers stood near 40,000, indicating that Goodpasture had maintained a solid
base of support to the end.   Texas preacher F. F. Conley offered reasons for that success. 142
?May I say how grateful I am,? he wrote Goodpasture in 1976, ?for the great and marvelous
work you have done in the kingdom of our Lord for so many years.  Your fidelity to the
Cause of Christ has been an inspiration to me and to thousands of others.?   Those143
thousands ranged from little-known preachers like Conley, to prominent ministers and
college presidents, to congregational elders and average members.  Anyone, in short, who
found common cause with Goodpasture and the Advocate.
Strong circulation aside, the Gospel Advocate that Goodpasture left behind was
really only as healthy as the constituency it served.  Churches of Christ were awash in
factionalism.  The efforts of Goodpasture and other would-be caretakers to maintain the
cohesive church of the fifties had fallen short.  By the seventies, an increasingly passive
Goodpasture provided a certain amount of stability but little leadership.  He remained an
important symbol?the anchor that holds?but generally did not enact the role of the so-called
editor-bishop, either to promote conciliation or to impose conformity.  In truth, even if he
had, he likely would have had little effect on long-term trajectories.  Influence within
Churches of Christ was increasingly diffuse, and while Goodpasture still had significant
informal power at his disposal, it was far from what it had been.
287
1. To cite an exception to his silence, Goodpasture appended a statement of appreciation to a
report of the ceremonies marking his sixty years of preaching in 1972.  See Batsell Barrett
Baxter, ??I Have Stuck unto Thy Testimonies,? Gospel Advocate, November 9, 1972, 710.  
2. See J. E. Choate, ?Brother Goodpasture?s Biography,? Gospel Advocate, December 30,
1971, 824: ?I am aware that Brother Goodpasture may have reservations about promoting a
biography of his life; but, we, his friends just want to give honor to whom honor is due.?  See
also J. E. Choate, ?A Man of One Book and Many Books,? Gospel Advocate, April 21,
1977, 251, where he reported that ?Goodpasture never added a word or altered a phrase? of
the biography; he also remarked that Goodpasture lightly edited material published in the
Advocate.
3. Thomas B. Warren, ?Perhaps You Can Help with This Book,? Gospel Advocate, August
4, 1966, 487.  See also letters from Thomas B. Warren to B. C. Goodpasture, December 3,
1966, and February 24, 1967, Benton Cordell Goodpasture papers, Disciples of Christ
Historical Society, Nashville.
4. Leo Lipscomb Boles and J. E. Choate, I?ll Stand on the Rock: A Biography of H. Leo
Boles (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Co., 1965).  J. E. Choate, Roll Jordan Roll: A
Biography of Marshall Keeble (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Co., 1968).
5. J. E. Choate, ?The Anchor That Holds,? Gospel Advocate, April 23, 1970, 268.
6. J. E. Choate, ?The Anchor That Holds,? Gospel Advocate, October 14, 1971, 644-45.
7. J. E. Choate, The Anchor That Holds: A Biography of Benton Cordell Goodpasture
(Nashville: Gospel Advocate Co., 1971).  Quotations from pp. 3, 15, 186-87.  See also Gary
Freeman, ?How to Get an Article Printed In a Brotherhood Journal,? Mission, January
1972, 24, wherein Freeman satirizes Choate?s biography in his column, ?Balaam?s Friend.?
8. Choate, The Anchor That Holds, ix, 3, 157, 176, 178.
9. Ibid., 172.  Gus Nichols, ?An Excellent Editor, Wonderful Paper And a Good Work,?
Gospel Advocate, May 14, 1959, 314.
10. Choate, The Anchor That Holds, 191; see also pp.130-31.
11. See, for example, Thomas B. Warren, ?The Anchor That Holds,? Gospel Advocate,
February 3, 1972, 73; and Guy N. Woods, ?The Anchor That Holds,? Gospel Advocate,
May 18, 1972, 308-09.  See also letter from Thomas B. Warren to Mr. and Mrs. B. C.
Goodpasture, December 14, 1971, Goodpasture papers.
12. Paul Hunton, ?The Anchor That Holds,? Gospel Advocate, February 10, 1972, 91.  See
J. Noel Meredith, ?Autograph Party for B. C. Goodpasture at New Johnsonville,? Gospel
Notes
288
Advocate, March 30, 1972, 202.
13. Letter from Guy N. Woods to J. E. Choate, December 15, 1971, Goodpasture papers;
letter from Guy N. Woods to B. C. Goodpasture, December 15, 1971, Goodpasture papers.
14. Letter from Don H. Morris to B. C. Goodpasture, November 16, 1972, Goodpasture
papers.
15. Letter from Jim Bill McInteer to B. C. Goodpasture, December 22, 1971, Goodpasture
papers.
16. Letter from ?John The Evangelist? to B. C. Goodpasture, December 4, 1971,
Goodpasture papers.
17. Beyond an ambiguous reference to the ?subtle dangers [arising] through the liberal
theologies imported from the liberal theological schools of religion,? he had little to say on
the subject (Choate, The Anchor That Holds,132).
18. See, for example, J. E. Choate, ?The Speech of Ashdod,? Gospel Advocate, September
19, 1968, 593, 598-99.
19. Although the ?Witty-Murch? unity movement of the late thirties and early forties had
been quashed among Churches of Christ (see Chapter 3), new unity initiatives constituted
one aspect of the liberalism that conservatives complained about from the early sixties
forward (see Chapter 5).  As to the institutional fight, a few from both sides were still
seeking to heal the schism of the fifties; see, for example, the account of a 1968 meeting at
Arlington, Texas, with participants from both sides of the debate: The Arlington Meeting
(Orlando, Fla.: Cogdill Foundation, n.d.).
20. During the seventies, many Advocate writers continued to address various issues under
the general rubric of ?liberalism,? but some critics began to distinguish between ?ultra-
liberals among us as well as those who are enamored by Pentecostalism? (Dan Harless,
?Battles Have Been Won But the War Is Not Over,? Gospel Advocate, August 9, 1973,
508), or to categorize the dangers that ?face today?s church? under three headings: ?open
fellowship, Neo-Pentecostalism and sweeping liberalism? (Robert Taylor, ?Think Now
What You Can Do For the Advocate,? Gospel Advocate, October 25, 1973, 681).  See also
James D. Bales, ?Bringing the Bible Down to Man?s Level,? Gospel Advocate, March 2,
1972, 134, wherein he argued that some charismatics among Churches of Christ were also
modernists: ?As strange as it seems, among us some of the Pentecostalism merges into
modernism.?  Although Advocate writers did not use the term ?evangelical,? pejoratively or
otherwise, to describe any church member, it would have been the most accurate descriptor
for many with whom they found fault, stretching back to the early sixties.
21. James L. Lovell is a possible exception.  See Chapter 5; B. C. Goodpasture, ?In
Commendation of Brother Overton (No. 2),? Gospel Advocate, October 17, 1968, 665;
letter from Jimmie [Lovell] to Jac [John Allen Chalk] and Prentice [Meador, Jr.], November
289
3, 1968, John Allen Chalk Papers, Harding University Graduate School of Religion Library,
Memphis; and letter from John Allen Chalk to Jimmie Lovell, November 12, 1968, Chalk
papers.
22. See letters from Guy N. Woods to B. C. Goodpasture, August 30, 1970, September 26,
1973, February 9, 1975, and May 26, 1975, Goodpasture papers.  For a similar example,
see letter from James D. Groves to B. C. Goodpasture, June 17, 1970, Goodpasture papers.
23. The first installment of ?This I Remember? appeared October 30, 1975.  See Robert R.
Taylor, Jr., ?At Fourscore and One,? Gospel Advocate, April 1, 1976, 213 (The series was
?so favorably received and deeply appreciated by so many of us?); and Mrs. B. C.
Goodpasture, ?I Also Remember,? Gospel Advocate, April 21, 1977, 242 (?The ?This I
Remember? editorials always brought a flood of mail of appreciation?); and Robert R.
Taylor, Jr., ??This I Remember? About B. C. Goodpasture,? Gospel Advocate, May 5,
1977, 280.
24. Originally published in 1946,?Modernism and the Bible? reappeared frequently,
including three times in the seventies: November 4, 1971; December 6, 1973; and, in two
parts, July 24 and 31, 1975.  On reprints addressing timely topics and resonating with
readers, see Fred E. Dennis, ?Some Comments,? Gospel Advocate, May 6, 1971, 277-78,
wherein he states of an editorial that was at least in part a reprint, ?I wish it were possible for
every preacher and every prospective preacher to read the editorial in the March, 25, 1971,
issue.?  See also J. Porter Wilhite, ?Gospel Preachers: Yesterday and Today (No. 2),?
Gospel Advocate, February 24, 1972, 121, wherein he quotes at length Goodpasture?s
editorial of February 16, 1971, which was first published in the issue of June 27, 1963.
25. B. C. Goodpasture, ?Brother Overton Joins Advocate Editorial Staff,? Gospel Advocate,
September 12, 1968, 578.  Jimmie Lovell was one who took Overton?s appointment to mean
that Goodpasture had chosen his successor.  He informed Goodpasture that he had been told
as much, a remark that Goodpasture published without contradiction. See Goodpasture, ?In
Commendation of Brother Overton.?  See also letter from James L. Lovell to David
McQuiddy, March 13, 1977, James L. Lovell papers, box 35, Center for Restoration
Studies, Brown Library Special Collections, Abilene Christian University, Abilene, Tex.
26. Goodpasture placed Overton?s writings on the editorial page in 51 of the first 92 issues
following the announcement of his hiring (i.e. from September 19, 1968, to June 18, 1970,
his last appearance there).
27. Letter from Basil Overton to D. Ellis Walker, May 17, 1971, Goodpasture papers. 
Walker forwarded the letter to Goodpasture, introducing it with a note scribbled on the
Overton letter envelope.  See also letter from Hugh Fulford to B. C. Goodpasture, September
13, 1972, Goodpasture papers; and letter from Don Shackelford to B. C. Goodpasture,
August 16, 1976, Goodpasture papers.  Overton?s activity in the Advocate all but ended
after June 1970 but came to a complete halt only with the issue of March 11, 1971.  In May
1971, Goodpasture informed Overton of his dismissal, effective August 1.
290
28. One of Goodpasture?s staff writers, Robert R. Taylor, Jr., reported Goodpasture to say
?in essence? at mid-decade, ?I am going to take care of myself for I believe my work with
the paper is the most important thing I can do.?  See Taylor, ?At Fourscore and One,? 213.
29. Letter from Rex A. Turner to Mrs. B. C. Goodpasture, October 6, 1971, Goodpasture
papers.  See also Chester A. Hunnicutt news report, Gospel Advocate, November 8, 1973,
721: ?Brother Goodpasture is a great editor.  It is going to be hard to find someone to
replace him, when that time comes.  We truly hope that this will not be soon.?
30. Goodpasture was averse to airline flights, and thus, according to Choate, The Anchor
That Holds, 170, he rarely traveled farther west than Texas or farther north than New York. 
See also J. D. Thomas, ?B. C. Goodpasture,? Gospel Advocate, April 21, 1977, 244; and
Goodpasture, From Neri to Nashville, 383.  Goodpasture also kept busy out of doors,
especially at his farm near Nashville; he had business interests beyond the Gospel Advocate
Company (e.g. land and mercantile store ownership); he collected books at an increasing
rate; and he served on a few boards, like that of B. C. Goodpasture Christian School.  See
remarks of Ruhl and Baxter, Goodpasture funeral.
31. See Goodpasture, From Neri to Nashville, 376-88.
32. Ruhl?s remarks, Goodpasture funeral.  See Guy N. Woods, ?The B. C. Goodpasture
Appreciation Dinner,? Gospel Advocate, May 3, 1973, 281; Taylor, ?At Fourscore and
One,? 213; J. Roy Vaughan, ?Benton Cordell Goodpasture,? Gospel Advocate, April 21,
1977, 242; and Woods, ?Brother Goodpasture,? 246 (?To his wonderful wife must be
attributed much credit for his exceptionally active life, physically, mentally and spiritually,
in old age to the day of his death?).  After they wed, Freddie Goodpasture reported,
Goodpasture began ?holding meetings again,? and thus preached away from Nashville
regularly during his last decade (Goodpasture, Neri to Nashville, 382-83).  See also
Baxter?s remarks, Goodpasture funeral; Willard Collins, ??The Reliability and Influence of
the Gospel Advocate?: Theme of One Hundred and Twenty-First Anniversary Dinner,?
Gospel Advocate, February 19, 1976, 122; and letter from J. E. Choate to B. C.
Goodpasture, April 8, 1975, Goodpasture papers.
33. B. C. Goodpasture, ?Our Thanks,? Gospel Advocate, March 29, 1973, 194.
34. Willard Collins, ?The Gospel Advocate Observes One Hundred Fifteenth Anniversary
Year,? Gospel Advocate, March 12, 1970, 169.  Goodpasture made similar remarks at
lectureships.  For example, in 1970 at Freed-Hardeman College, a school he commended for
not being ?afraid to stand up and be counted on the side of the Bible,? he blasted critics of
?traditionalism.?  Anyone, he said, ?still wrapped in the great throws of traditionalism,? was
anyone still ?not afraid to preach the word just as it is.?  Anti-traditional attitudes betrayed
?a lack of respect for God?s Word, a lack of appreciation of the inspiration of the Bible.? 
Furthermore, ?if we fail to accept the Bible as an inspired volume . . . we fail to believe the
Bible.?  See Goodpasture, ?The Bible is Inspired? (audio), of which the prepared text,
without introductory remarks, was published as ?The Inspiration of the Bible? in Thomas B.
291
Warren, ed., The Church Faces Liberalism: Being the Freed-Hardeman College Lectures
of 1970, Henderson, Tennessee (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Co., 1970), 52-68.
35. Willard Collins, ?Editor and Publisher of Gospel Advocate Honored at One Hundred
and Twentieth Anniversary Dinner,? Gospel Advocate, March 13, 1975, 170.  See J. E.
Choate, ?Not With Us, But Among us [sic],? Gospel Advocate, May 15, 1975, 310.
36. Letter from Groves to Goodpasture, June 17, 1970.  Groves was commending Perry B.
Cotham, ?Brethren Receive the Holy Spirit (?)? Gospel Advocate, May 28, 1970, 340-42.
37. Foster L. Ramsey, Sr., ?Are We Minimizing the Word of God?? Gospel Advocate,
December 23, 1971, 814.
38. See Thomas H. Olbricht, ?Charismatics,? in Douglas A. Foster, et al., eds., The
Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 170.
39. See Contending for the Faith, June 1971.
40. See Richard T. Hughes, Reviving the Ancient Faith: The Story of Churches of Christ in
America (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 337-40; and David Edwin Harrell, Jr.,
Churches of Christ in the Twentieth Century: Homer Hailey?s Personal Journey of Faith
(Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2000), 185.  See also, J. Noel Meredith, ?A Sad
Song,? Gospel Advocate, January 28, 1971, 52-53; and Paul M. Tucker, ?Just Jesus,
Please!? Gospel Advocate, October 12, 1972, 648.
41. Pat Boone, A New Song (Carol Stream, Ill.: Creation House, 1970).
42. The Acts of the Holy Spirit in the Church of Christ Today (Los Angeles: Full Gospel
Business Men?s Fellowship International, 1971).  Some of the essays in this seventy-two
page booklet, including Boone?s, originally appeared in Testimony magazine; see
Contending for the Faith, November 1970.
43. See Hughes, Reviving the Ancient Faith, 340.
44. See J. Noel Meredith, ?Strange Things Are Happening,? Gospel Advocate, December
23, 1971, 805, 812-13; and Paul M. Tucker, ?Restructure in Nashville,? Gospel Advocate,
March 8, 1973, 149-51.  In Contending for the Faith, January, May, and July 1972, Rice
denigrated Belmont, noted Lipscomb?s and parents? displeasure with students and employees
attending Belmont, and reproduced related Nashville Tennessean newspaper articles.
45. James D. Bales, Pat Boone and the Gift of Tongues (Searcy, Ark.: James D. Bales,
1970).  James D. Bales, ?If Any of the Gifts, All of the Gifts,? Gospel Advocate, May 14,
1970, 308-10.  James D. Bales, ?Pat, the Holy Spirit Is Not a Deceiver,? Gospel Advocate,
August 27, 1970, 553-55.  James D. Bales, ?Pat, the Holy Spirit Is Not Blind,? Gospel
Advocate, September 17, 1970, 597-98.  See letter from James D. Bales to Jimmie Lovell,
July 17, 1970, Lovell papers, box 25; and letter from Pat Boone [to James D. Bales, 1970],
292
on Tokyo Hilton letterhead, Lovell papers, box 25.  Bales informed Lovell that he had ?sent
[Boone] over 600 pages of manuscript and around 100 letters,? and Boone remarked to
Bales about ?this lengthy correspondence and exchange of views with you.?
46. Bales, ?Pat, the Holy Spirit Is Not a Deceiver.?
47. In a 1971 book, James Bales described an approach to problems with college faculty
members that Goodpasture would have been inclined to accept as a good description of his
approach to the same problems: ?We should not make a public issue of the beliefs of a
person unless it is necessary.  So long as it is possible, and is not hurting the cause of truth,
we should quietly work behind the scenes. . . . Because an administration is not working as
quickly as some might like, it does not mean they are not trying to deal with the problem. 
But the time can come when others may need to be informed so that they can bring their
influence to bear on the situation.?  See James D. Bales, Modernism: Trojan Horse in the
Church (James D. Bales: Searcy, Ark., 1971), 197.
48. In fact, Goodpasture ?encourag[ed] Archie Luper to refrain from publishing [i.e.
disseminating] inaccurate and potentially hurtful comments about Pepperdine.?  Letter from
M. Norvel Young (Chancellor of Pepperdine University) to B. C. Goodpasture, March 6,
1974, Goodpasture papers.  See also M. Norvel Young, ?B. C. Goodpasture As a Friend,?
Gospel Advocate, June 23, 1977, 391.
49. B. C. Goodpasture, ?Freed-Hardeman College,? Gospel Advocate, November 26, 1970,
754.  See also E. Claude Gardner, ?B. C. Goodpasture, Giver to Christian Education,?
Gospel Advocate, April 24, 1975, 262: ?It seems that when Brother Goodpasture sees a
school making progress and he feels it is on the ?right track,? he then gives it a special boost
to enable it to do even more for the Lord?s work.  He desires only to help advance those who
are committed to the ?old paths.??  In a 1970 letter to Goodpasture, Gardner addressed the
issue of Freed-Hardeman staying biblically sound, as he asked him to serve on the college?s
Board of Directors: ?Freed-Hardeman College has stood [and] is standing for the ?old paths?
and I need your help and influence to keep it this way. . . . In the very beginning of my
administration I believe you can be of special help to the college, the Cause of Christ and to
me.  You can help us perpetuate the school of brethren Freed, Hardeman, Brigance, Hall and
Dixon?all your friends. Your coming will enable us to keep and secure the faculty we must
have to keep the college strong? (letter from E. Claude Gardner to B. C. Goodpasture,
August 26, 1970, Goodpasture papers).  Goodpasture declined to serve on the board but did
remain on the college?s informal Advisory Committee; see E. Claude Gardner, ?Family and
Friends of Freed-Hardeman College,? Gospel Advocate, November 26, 1970, 758.
50. Thomas B. Warren, ?Honor and Trust,? Gospel Advocate, August 30, 1973, 549, 554-
55.  James Bales addressed this subject at length in Modernism: Trojan Horse in the
Church.  See, for instance, pp. 57, 96-99, 123-24, and 130.
51. One of those writers was the normally non-controversial Batsell Barrett Baxter.  In an
uncharacteristically direct, front-page article, he wrote, ?Many of us have been disturbed
293
increasingly through the life of Mission magazine about the constant and recurring
liberalism which it has encouraged.?  See Batsell Barrett Baxter, ?Iceberg or
Gibraltar?Which?? Gospel Advocate, March 1, 1973, 129.
52. Thomas B. Warren, ?I Reject Liberals? Use Of The Expression ?The Church of Christ
System,?? Gospel Advocate, October 4, 1973, 629, 633.  In addition to Mission, Warren
perhaps also had in mind Integrity magazine, established in 1969 in Michigan.  See also
Guy N. Woods, ?Mission?s Methods and Motives,? Gospel Advocate, March 6, 1975, 151-
52: ?All who support, in any way, Mission magazine are accessories to [its] effort to weaken
confidence in the inerrancy of God?s Word.?  By comparison, the normally more lenient
Firm Foundation called Abilene Christian by name.  Roy H. Lanier, Sr., admonished
administrators for not ?exercis[ing] some discipline over? Bible faculty members Everett
Ferguson, Thomas H. Olbricht, and JW Roberts, who served on the board of Mission
(?Review of a Piece of Infidelity,? Firm Foundation, March 14, 1972, 169, 171).
53.  Letter from James D. Bales to B. C. Goodpasture, March 16, 1972, Goodpasture
papers.  James D. Bales, ??Mission?s? Mission??  Gospel Advocate, March 30, 1972, 197-
98.  See also James D. Bales, Restoration, Reformation or Revelation? Shreveport, La.:
Lambert Book House, 1975, especially Chapter 1 and Appendix 2.
54. Guy N. Woods, ?Biblical Interpretation?An Introduction,? Gospel Advocate, October
31, 1974, 690.  Woods was referring to Warren Lewis, ?Let?s look at the text--again!?
Mission, September 1974, 21-24.  See also Warren Lewis, ?Every Scripture Breathed of
God is Profitable,? Mission, January 1972, 3-9; and Warren Lewis, ?Lewis responds,?
Mission, July 1972, 26-28.  Woods had earlier asked Goodpasture to provide him with a
new venue for making combined responses to the many inquiries he received on ?current
brotherhood questions of interest.?  The column apparently resulting from this request was
the one he introduced to readers in this editorial.  See letter from Guy N. Woods to B. C.
Goodpasture, September 2, 1974, Goodpasture papers.
55. Woods, ?Mission?s Methods and Motives,? 151.
56. Thomas B. Warren, ?Truth is Absolute and Attainable (No. 1),? Gospel Advocate,
March 11, 1971, 145.
57. Thomas B. Warren, ??A Three Hundred and One Cubit Ark??and other Such Matters:
?Preludes to Apostasy??No. 3,? Gospel Advocate, February 10, 1972, 81, 87-88.  See R.
Lanny Hunter, ?The Three Hundred and One Cubit Ark,? Mission, December 1971, 5-14. 
Warren did not quote Hunter?s sentence beginning, ?Nor is there any scripture . . . .?
58. Lemmons often described himself as being in ?the middle of the road.?  See, for example,
Reuel Lemmons, ?The Shifting Current,? Firm Foundation, April 17, 1962, 242 (?the
middle of the road is the only safe position?); and Reuel Lemmons, ?The Open Letter,? Firm
Foundation, June 5, 1962, 354 (?We are quite aware that extremists do not like our ?middle
of the road? position, but we are not aware that the Lord doesn?t?).  See also T. Wesley
294
Crawford, ?Lemmons, Reuel Gordon (1912-1989),? in Foster, Encyclopedia of the Stone-
Campbell Movement, 469.
59. See Hughes, Reviving the Ancient Faith, 308-10; and Harrell, Churches of Christ in
the Twentieth Century, 216-17.
60. See, for example, Contending for the Faith, July 1970, 5; November 1970, 8; and
August-September 1971, 1. The Lemmons editorial introduced a letter from Boone printed
in the same issue.  See Reuel Lemmons, ?On a Letter from Pat Boone,? Firm Foundation,
December 2, 1969, 754; and Pat Boone, ?A Statement of Personal Faith,? Firm
Foundation, December 2, 1969, 757, 766.
61. Letter from Archie W. Luper to Reuel Lemmons, January 21, 1974, Goodpasture
papers.  See also letter from Reuel Lemmons to Archie W. Luper, January 15, 1974,
Goodpasture papers; and letter from Archie W. Luper to M. Norvel Young, March 13,
1975, Goodpasture papers.
62. Letter from Thomas B. Warren to B. C.  Goodpasture, April 23, 1971, Goodpasture
papers.  Several years earlier, Warren had begun a new series in the Advocate with an
apparent reprimand of Lemmons? self-professed moderation.  See Thomas B. Warren,
?Christianity Versus Relativism, Middle-of-the-Roadism, Neutralism and Compromise?(No.
1),? Gospel Advocate, May 31, 1962, 342-43.
63. Thomas B. Warren, ?Is the Only Way to Prove a Thing Essential by Divine
Command?? Gospel Advocate, May 1, 1975, 281.
64. Reuel Lemmons, ?When Are Examples Binding,? Firm Foundation, December 10,
1974, 786.  See also J. D. Thomas, Heaven?s Window (Abilene, Tex.: Biblical Research
Press, 1974), 108ff.
65. Ibid.
66. Warren, ?Is the Only Way to Prove a Thing Essential by Divine Command??  Ralph
Henley was actually the first Advocate writer to contest Lemmons? editorial, comparing it to
Mission articles by Warren Lewis (January 1972) and Victor Hunter (March 1972).  See
Ralph T. Henley, ?Some Current Thoughts on Establishing Authority,? Gospel Advocate,
February 20, 1975, 116-17.
67. Letter from Reuel Lemmons to B. C. Goodpasture, July 11, 1975, Goodpasture papers.
68. Reuel Lemmons, ?Open Letter,? Gospel Advocate, June 26, 1975, 407-08.
69. Thomas B. Warren, ?Open Letter for Publication in the Firm Foundation,? June 21,
1975, Goodpasture papers; reproduced as Thomas B. Warren, ?Open Letter,? Gospel
Advocate, October 9, 1975, 646-47. 
295
70. Thomas B. Warren, When Is An Example Binding? (Jonesboro, Ark.: National
Christian Press, 1975).
71. Letter from Lemmons to Goodpasture, July 11, 1975.
72. Contending for the Faith, May 1975, 7; and April 1972, 1 (page 3 reproduced Reuel
Lemmons, ?The New Face of Pepperdine,? Firm Foundation, December 14, 1971, 786).
73. Rice also complained that Advocate staff writer J. D. Thomas promoted liberalism at
Abilene Christian College, but Thomas maintained only a bare presence in the Advocate
during the seventies, as did Advocate staff writer and Pepperdine professor Frank Pack, who
came under fire from time to time.
74. See, for example, Contending for the Faith, April 1972, 1-2 (?When, for instance, Ira
North . . . can find it in his heart to recruit students for Pepperdine, the cause of truth is not
being served.?); June 1975, 1(?There is a general tendency . . . to overlook brother North?s
and Madison?s continuing offense of riding rough-shod over the withdrawal actions of
faithful brethren and congregations.?); and September 1975, 4 (?In the event that brother Ira
North sees fit to make a public statement of wrong-doing for having had fellowship with
those who had been withdrawn from for heresy, Contending for the Faith, of course, will
most gladly publish that.  It is now up to him.?). 
75. See, for example, Contending for the Faith, June 1972, 4 (?Yes, I am sure brother
Baxter does not agree that . . . going after this apostasy hook and tongs is the way to do it.?);
March 1974, 7 (?Brother Baxter said he would not preach for [the Herald of Truth] if [the
Highland elders] did not rid Highland of these Charismatic teachers?and here they now are
high up on the totem pole of Highland?s teaching and preaching ministry?both!  What will
brother Baxter now do?  Yes, brother Batsell Barrett, WHAT??); and February 1975, 8
(?Brother Baxter has had every opportunity to help us contend for the faith. . . . If he still
believes the faith he purports to preach, we cannot understand his failure to defend it as well
as his consistent defense of its enemies.?). 
76. See Contending for the Faith, November-December 1971, 8 ( ?HOT OFF THE
PRESS! A TRULY MEANINGFUL BIOGRAPHY!?); May 1972, 6 (?I keep remembering
a remark brother B. C. Goodpasture is fond of making.  ?If something looks like a duck,? he
says, ?waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck, and always seems to associate with ducks,
you must pardon me if somehow I mistake him for a duck!??); June 1972, 7 (?This partly
accounts for the size of my telephone bill?counseling with men whose wisdom I value?men
such as B. C. Goodpasture, Guy N. Woods, James D. Bales, Thomas B. Warren, Archie W.
Luper, Dalton P. Ellis, Franklin Camp and a host of others of like precious faith.?);
September 1974, 1-4 (?Goodpasture, Luper Help Initiate Strong Team Effort in
Birmingham?); and October 1974, 7 (?Goodpasture, for more than 35 years the esteemed
editor of the Gospel Advocate, the oldest periodical of the churches of Christ, is truly one of
the greatest speakers, scriptorians and pulpiteers of our time.  This is an occasion when you
will want to bring your children and give them a chance to hear this extraordinary brother.
296
They will be telling their children?s children about it for generations to come.?)
77. Tim Sensing, ?Herald of Truth,? in Foster, Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell
Movement, 383-84; ?James Walter Nichols Dies,? Christian Chronicle, June 19, 1973, 1. 
On electronic and print bishops, see Hughes, Reviving the Ancient Faith, 239-44.
78. Ibid.  Contending for the Faith, multiple issues, 1972-1974.  Highland Church of Christ
elders, Herald of Truth: A Special Report [Abilene, Tex.: Highland Church, 1973].
79. See Memphis Meeting with the representatives of the Herald of Truth, September 10,
1973 [Memphis: Getwell Church of Christ, 1974].  Quoted terms from Section 2, pp. 19-25.
80. Ibid.  Speakers at both sessions (day and night) are listed in Memphis Meeting at
beginning of Section 1 and Section 2, respectively.  Highland elder Leroy Norman was also
present for the day session, but did not speak.
81. See Harrell, Churches of Christ in the Twentieth Century, Chapter 4; Hughes, Reviving
the Ancient Faith, Chapter 13; and Robert E. Hooper, A Distinct People: A History of the
Churches of Christ in the 20  Century (West Monroe, La.: Howard Publishing Co., 1993),th
Chapter 13.
82. See Franklin Camp, ?Is It Well With the Herald of Truth,? The Word of Life, February
1974, 1-2.
83. Memphis Meeting, ?A Final Word.?
84. Upon his retirement, Baxter once again followed in Goodpasture?s steps, serving as a
Hillsboro elder until his own death, which came in 1982 after a second battle with cancer.
85. Batsell Barrett Baxter, Every Life a Plan of God: The Autobiography of Batsell Barrett
Baxter (Abilene, Tex.: Zachry Associates, 1983), 8; and Baxter?s remarks, Goodpasture
funeral (by ?last Saturday? Baxter meant February 12, 1977).  See also Roland Delevar
Roberts, Batsell Barrett Baxter: The Man and the Message (New Hope, Ala.: Roland D.
Roberts, 1998), 97-98; and Goodpasture, From Neri to Nashville, 389.
86. See ad for programming in Spain, Gospel Advocate, November 16, 1972, 735.
87. Art Haddox, ?Herald of Truth Broadcasts,? Gospel Advocate, August 2,1973, 488-89.
88. B. C. Goodpasture, ?Highland Church, Abilene, Texas,? Gospel Advocate, September
20, 1973, 598.
89. Letter from Woods to Goodpasture, September 26, 1973.
90. See Reuel Lemmons, ?Concerning Herald of Truth,? Firm Foundation, December 11,
1973, 786.
297
91. Highland elders, Herald of Truth.  Quotations from pp. 1, 19, and 23.
92. Batsell Barrett Baxter, ?Baxter Stands With Highland Elders,? Christian Chronicle,
December 4, 1973, 1, 3.  See E. R. Harper, ?Highland?s ?Special Report,?? Contending for
the Faith, August 1974, 12 (Harper indicated the letter was dated November 26, 1973; see
Contending for the Faith, March 1974, 4).  See also letter from Freddie Goodpasture to
Batsell Barrett Baxter, n.d., Batsell Barrett Baxter papers, Correspondence 1973: G,
Beaman Library Special Collections, Lipscomb University, Nashville; in the letter, which
lacks sufficient context, Mrs. Goodpasture seems to indicate that her husband promoted
Baxter?s letter (and thereby the Herald of Truth) during a visit to the Alabama Gulf Coast.
93. See minimally personalized form letter from Batsell Barrett Baxter to James D. Bales,
May 15, 1974, James D. Bales collection, Special Collections, University of Arkansas
Libraries, Fayetteville.
94. Batsell Barrett Baxter, ?Is the Herald of Truth Reaching the Lost?? Gospel Advocate,
January 20, 1977, 36.  See letter from E. Claude Gardner to Kenneth Franklin, April 6,
1977, Goodpasture papers.  In December 1976, the Advocate?s front page featured a Baxter
commentary on the?serious crisis? of numerical decline within Churches of Christ.  In part,
the article promoted the Herald of Truth.  ?If we are to respond affirmatively to this crisis,?
he wrote, ?I am convinced that the use of mass media, like the Herald of Truth, is
imperative.?  See Batsell Barrett Baxter, ?Facing Reality,? Gospel Advocate, December 2,
1976, 769 (the article appeared in a slightly different form a week earlier as a guest editorial
in the Christian Chronicle: Batsell Barrett Baxter, ?Fires of Evangelism: Smoldering or
Blazing? Use of Mass Media Vital to Restore Evangelistic Thrust,? Christian Chronicle,
November 30, 1976, 2).  Another Baxter Advocate article earlier in the year also mentioned
the Herald of Truth favorably, but primarily promoted the Advocate: Batsell Barrett Baxter,
?Three Score Years and Five,? Gospel Advocate, February 5, 1976, 82, 85.
95. See Baxter, Every Life a Plan of God, 86-101.
96. Contending for the Faith, February 1974, 7.
97. Contending for the Faith, January 1974.  Dobbs preached for Memorial Church of
Christ and edited Anchor magazine.  He was better known by the name Buster.
98. Harper, ?Highland?s ?Special Report,?? 10.
99. See, for example, Contending for the Faith, March 1974, 1, and August 1974, 8.  See
also Reuel Lemmons, ?Herald of Truth?s New Film Series,? Firm Foundation, May 21,
1974, 322; and letter from Batsell Barrett Baxter to J. L. Hughes, January 13, 1975, Baxter
papers, Herald of Truth correspondence.
100. Letter from Aaron Swanson to B. C. Goodpasture, September 30, 1974, Goodpasture
papers.
298
101. Letter from Aaron Swanson to B. C. Goodpasture, November 1, 1974, Goodpasture
papers.
102. Letter from Paul E. McGaughey to B. C. Goodpasture, August 1, 1974, Goodpasture
papers.
103. Franklin Camp, ?Heartbeat Has Heart Trouble,? Gospel Advocate, November 7,
1974, 709.  See letter in response to the Camp article from Paul E. McGaughey to B. C.
Goodpasture, November 15, 1974, Baxter papers, Herald of Truth correspondence.
104. Contending for the Faith, September 1974, 1-4 (see August issue, 1-2).  Goodpasture
did not provide Rice return publicity; in fact, his name rarely made the Advocate.  Chief
exceptions date to the early 1970s: full-page ads for Rice?s College of World Evangelism in
San Francisco, November 5, 1970, and October 14, 1971; and Ira Y. Rice, Jr., ?Luper,
Rice?Mainland China Attempt,? Gospel Advocate, March 2, 1972, 132-33.
105. Letter from Ira Y. Rice, Jr., to William Woodson, February 28, 1977, Guy N. Woods
papers, box 2, Loden-Daniel Library, Freed-Hardeman University, Henderson, Tennessee. 
In April 1974, Goodpasture reprinted an editorial that Rice probably wished the editor
would apply to his relationship with Baxter.  ?To commend by word or deed the teacher of
error,? he wrote, ?is to become partner with him in his false teaching.?  Furthermore,
?neither loyal attachment to, or devoted friendship for, a man in error is a scriptural covering
for his sins.?  Paul, in ?reprov[ing] Peter for his inconsistent and sinful conduct at Antioch, .
. . manifested his love both for Peter and the truth of the gospel? (B. C. Goodpasture, ?Here
and There,? Gospel Advocate, April 11, 1974, 226; also printed December 10, 1970, and
similar reprints ran July 11, 1974, and December 28, 1972).
106. Letter from Archie W. Luper to William Woodson, March 1, 1977, Woods papers, box
2.  See letter from Archie W. Luper to Batsell Barrett Baxter, April 4, 1977, Woods papers,
box 2.  The Atlanta conversation probably took place early in 1973.  In 1977, Luper
claimed that the Saturday preceding his death, Goodpasture advised Baxter to leave the
Herald of Truth, in the wake of additional controversy over the program (see letter from
Luper to Baxter, April 4, 1977; at Goodpasture?s funeral, Baxter did speak of meeting with
Goodpasture the Saturday evening before he died and told of conversation on serious topics).
107. See Baxter, Every Life a Plan of God, 97-100.
108. Letter from Ira Y. Rice, Jr., to Claude Gardner, December 18, 1976, Woods papers,
box 2.  See Batsell Barrett Baxter, I Believe Because . . . A Study of the Evidence
Supporting Christian Faith (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1971).
109. Among other writings, Wallace had published a hefty tome on the topic: Foy E.
Wallace, Jr., A Review of the New Versions: Consisting of an Exposure of the Multiple
New Translations (Fort Worth, Tex.: Foy E. Wallace, Jr., Publications, 1973).  See also
Terry J. Gardner, ?I Am Bound for the Promised Land: Foy E. Wallace, Jr., 1970-1979,? in
Foy E. Wallace, Jr.: Soldier of the Cross, ed. Noble Patterson and Terry J. Gardner (Fort
299
Worth: Wallace Memorial Fund, 1999), 122-23.
110. Foy E. Wallace, Jr., ??Watchman, What of the Night??? Gospel Advocate, July 1,
1976, 420-23; published in the Firm Foundation, July 6, 1976 (although Wallace did not
refer to Freed-Hardeman by name, he otherwise identified the college).  Gardner allowed
Freed-Hardeman Bible classes to use versions other than the King James and American
Standard for ?comparative study,? a policy that Wallace was not the first to criticize.  See E.
Claude Gardner, ?Translations,? Gospel Advocate, January 8, 1976, 24-25; Wallace?s July
article was largely in response to that piece, wherein Gardner quietly justified his policy. 
For criticism of the policy see, for instance, letter from James W. Boyd to Guy N. Woods,
February 25, 1976, with enclosure of letter from Clyde M. Woods to the elders at Obion
Church of Christ, Obion, Tennessee, November 13, 1975, Woods papers, box 17.  Ira Rice,
for his part, was in great sympathy with Wallace?s viewpoint, but having seen improvement
?along this line there at the college,? he was still trusting Gardner to take care of the problem
?altogether? (letter from Rice to Gardner, December 18, 1976).  Rice?s sagging support of
Gardner would soon give way.
111. Although Wallace did not refer to Freed-Hardeman by name in his bill of indictment,
he otherwise identified it.  Some readers might have recalled that Goodpasture had
welcomed Wallace?s A Review of the New Versions with the words ?magnificent? and
?monumental,? and carried a significant and approving review of it.  See B. C. Goodpasture,
?Books Received,? Gospel Advocate, October 10, 1974, 652; and J. Noel Meredith, ?A
Review of A Review of the New Versions,? Gospel Advocate, October 10, 1974, 644-45. 
Such readers might also have recognized that the Advocate published more by and about
Wallace in the period intervening between notice of his book and his July 1976 article than
in years past, including one general attack on the church colleges for using modern versions. 
For the latter, see Foy E. Wallace, Jr., ?Genesis 3:15 and the Virgin Birth,? Gospel
Advocate, July 24, 1975, 473-75.  For publicity of his preaching and writing see, for
instance, Hugh Fulford, ?Foy E. Wallace, Jr., Is Still on the Firing Line,? Gospel Advocate,
December 5, 1974, 772; and, the week before his attack on Freed-Hardeman, a prominent
ad listing eleven ?Foy E. Wallace Jr. Publications? for sale through Gospel Advocate
Bookstores in Nashville, Dallas, and Memphis, including a new edition of A Review of the
New Versions (June 24, 1976, 409).
112. E. Claude Gardner, ?Translations and Judgments,? Gospel Advocate, August 12,
1976, 519-20.  Goodpasture ran an article by the Freed-Hardeman professor at the center of
the controversy when he ran Gardner?s rebuttal to Wallace.  An orthodox but not arch-
conservative piece on messianic prophecy, it quoted from the Revised Standard Version:
Clyde M. Woods, ?Christ and Prophecy,? Gospel Advocate, August 12, 1976, 522-24.
113. See William Woodson, ?Strange Things One Reads in the Papers,? Gospel Advocate,
September 30 and October 14, 1976 (and April 28, 1977).  A response to Woodson (and
Gardner) came with Foy E. Wallace, Jr., ??How Long Halt Ye Between Two Opinions???
Gospel Advocate, July 14, 1977, 436-39 (published in the Firm Foundation, March 22,
1997).  See also William Woodson, ?Fallacies, Faith, and Judgment (No. 2),? Gospel
300
Advocate, September 29, 1977, 612-14.
114. Letter from James D. Mayberry to B. C. Goodpasture, August 21, 1976, Goodpasture
papers.  See also letter from Tommy J. Hicks to Ira Y. Rice, Jr., March 8, 1977, Woods
papers, box 17.  Hicks reported that Woodson told him ?that because of Brother Foy E.
Wallace, Jr., Freed-Hardeman, Brother Gardner, himself, and others at F-HC were being
attacked and slandered?that he had a file of critical letters three feet thick as a result of this.?
115. B. C. Goodpasture, ?Inspiration and Translation,? Gospel Advocate, September 30,
1976, 626 (originally appeared July, 26, 1962, and was also reprinted April 9, 1970).
116. B. C. Goodpasture, ??The Revised Standard Version,?? Gospel Advocate, October 14,
1976 (originally appeared November 20, 1952, and was also reprinted October 19, 1972).
117. In addition to running ads, news notes, and articles promoting the college, in this period
Goodpasture spoke at the college?s 1977 lectureship, donated 1,500 hymnals, and added ?a
few hundred? books to the ?B. C. Goodpasture Collection? of the college library.  See E.
Claude Gardner, ?Thanks to B. C. Goodpasture for Supporting Freed-Hardeman College,?
Gospel Advocate, February 24, 1977, 116-17; and Gardner, ?B. C. Goodpasture?s Last
Sermon,? 247.  See also this vote of confidence in the Bible department: E. Claude Gardner,
?Preacher Training at Freed-Hardeman College,? Gospel Advocate, December 9, 1976,
793-94.  However, Goodpasture did not end publicity for his former nemesis Wallace, who
continued to pester the college.  See George W. DeHoff, ?Wallace?s 80th Birthday,? Gospel
Advocate, September 9, 1976, 578 (editorial page, with large picture of Wallace); Dean
Crutchfield, ?A Most Happy Occasion,? Gospel Advocate, September 16, 1976, 596-97;
Foy E. Wallace, Jr., ?A Thousand Thanks,? Gospel Advocate, January 6, 1977, 7; and
Willard Collins, ?Book of the Week,? Gospel Advocate, January 27, 1977, 54.
118. See Baxter?s remarks, Goodpasture funeral; E. Claude Gardner?s remarks, B. C.
Goodpasture memorial service, Freed-Hardeman College, February 23, 1977 (partial tape
recording in author?s possession); and Gardner, ?B. C. Goodpasture?s Last Sermon,? 247.
119. Goodpasture, From Neri to Nashville, 388.
120. Gardner, ?B. C. Goodpasture?s Last Sermon,? 247.
121. Ibid.
122. William Woodson, ed., A Plea for Fundamentals: 1977 Freed-Hardeman College
Lectureship (Henderson, Tenn.: Freed-Hardeman College, 1977).  The January 13, 1977,
Advocate carried the lectureship?s schedule of events.
123. See letter from Pat McGee to William Woodson, February 28, 1977; and letter from
Archie Luper to Claude Gardner, April 7, 1977, Woods papers, box 2.
301
124. Neil R. Lightfoot, ?Translations of the Bible,? in Woodson, A Plea for Fundamentals,
332-40.  Lightfoot specifically defended the RSV?s translation of Isaiah 7:14, which Foy
Wallace, among others, cited as the prime example of the translators? modernism, claiming
that their rendering of the verse constituted a denial of the virgin birth of Jesus.  Lightfoot
noted, ?The passage is an admittedly difficult one.  Anyone who claims to know all the
answers here does not have all the answers. . . . Why attack the RSV mainly on this passage? 
And why attack professors and our Christian colleges as ?liberal? if they choose to use the
RSV??  The April 21, 1966, issue of the Advocate announced that Lightfoot had recently
been made a staff writer, but his writings rarely appeared in the paper.
125. Letter from McGee to Woodson, February 28, 1977.
126. Batsell Barrett Baxter, ?Legalism of Liberalism: Are These the Only Choices?? in
Woodson, A Plea for Fundamentals, 281-83.
127. Guy N. Woods, Open Forum, Freed-Hardeman College Lectures, 1977, Thursday,
February 10, 3:30 p.m., tape # A-334.  The unidentified speaker was perhaps B. C. Carr,
director of the Florida School of Preaching in Lakeland.
128. William Woodson, ?Of What is One Assured at Freed-Hardeman College?? undated
typescript, Woods papers, box 2.  See also E. Claude Gardner, ??Progress with Soundness,??
Gospel Advocate, April 28, 1977, 264: ?[The statement] has been well received by faithful
and sound brethren from across the nation.  The response has been overwhelming.?
129. E. Claude Gardner, ?Progress With Soundness,? Woods papers, box 2.
130. Letter from Ira Y. Rice, Jr., to E. Claude Gardner, February 13, 1977, Woods papers,
box 2.  See letter from McGee to Woodson, February 28, 1977; letter from William
Woodson to Ira Y. Rice, Jr., February 18, 1977, Woods papers, box 2; and letter from Ira Y.
Rice, Jr., to Guy N. Woods, April 6, 1977, Woods papers, box 17.  Others were not so ready
to abandon Gardner and his administration, but they considered the situation dire.  See letter
from Guy N. Woods to Archie W. Luper, March 13, 1977, Woods papers, box 2; letter from
Robert R. Taylor to Archie W. Luper, March 1, 1977, Woods papers, box 2; letter from
Archie W. Luper to Woody Loden, March 9, 1977, Woods papers, box 2; and letter from
Archie W. Luper to E. Claude Gardner, March 16, 1977, Woods papers, box 2.
131. Letter from Woodson to Rice, February 18, 1977.  See reply from Rice to Woodson,
February 28, 1977: ?And, now, here you are, trying to cram such Liberalistic-fellow-
travellers as Baxter, Hazelip and Barnett down our throats, when Baxter still upholds
Highland/Abilene, Landon Saunders, Lynn Anderson, George Howard and others in their
error; Hazelip does the same for John Scott, the most liberal-minded teacher at Harding
Graduate School, as well as others; and Barnett, as a Board member, goes right along with
the apostate Pepperdine as well as Abilene Christian Universities.?
132. Goodpasture, From Neri to Nashville, 380-81, 386-90; Collins, ?B. C. Goodpasture
Dies February 18, 1977.?
302
133. ?Mr. B. C. Goodpasture,? Nashville Tennessean, February 20, 1977.  See ?B. C.
Goodpasture,? Nashville Banner, February 19, 1977.
134. Photograph of grave marker and related information accessed at ?Benton Cordell
Goodpasture,? http://www.therestorationmovement.com/goodpasture,bc.htm.
135. Baxter?s remarks, Goodpasture funeral.  Baxter also made a sterling report of the
speech Goodpasture delivered at the Guy N. Woods Appreciation Dinner, hosted by Freed-
Hardeman on February 7.  He was probably engaging in the kind of overstatement not
unknown to funeral addresses, but others in attendance at both Freed-Hardeman and the
funeral gave similar assessments.  On the tribute to Woods see Robert R. Taylor, Jr., ?The
Guy N. Woods Appreciation Dinner,? Gospel Advocate, March 17, 1977, 168: ?Brother
Goodpasture spoke eloquently and with ease.  He was at his best that night.?  See Gardner,
?B. C. Goodpasture?s Last Sermon,? 247, on his chapel sermon: ?He came to the pulpit with
vigor and presented a clear, forceful, and timely message without ever referring to a Bible or
to notes.  His broad sweep of knowledge of the Bible and literature was evident and some
have said this was the best sermon they ever heard Brother Goodpasture preach.?  On the
other hand, W. C. Anderson reported: ?I was sitting on the platform at Freed-Hardeman
when brother Goodpasture delivered his last sermon.  I saw and heard him falter physically,
but he did not falter spiritually.  I am happy to have that lesson on tape? (J. Roy Vaughan,
?What Brethren Are Saying,? Gospel Advocate, September 29, 1977, 610).
136. Baxter?s remarks, Goodpasture funeral.
137. Letter from Luper to Woodson, March 1, 1977.
138. Letters from Batsell Barrett Baxter to William Woodson, February 22 and 24, 1977,
Woods papers, box 2; ellipsis points in original.
139. Letter from Rice to Woods, April 6, 1977.  See letter from Hicks to Rice.
140. Letter from Guy N. Woods to Ira Y. Rice, Jr., May 19, 1977, Woods papers, box 17.
141. Letter from Guy N. Woods to Kenneth Franklin, March 9, 1977, Woods papers, box 2.
142. Statement of circulation, Gospel Advocate, November 11, 1976, 735.  The annual
number of paid subscribers from 1971 to Goodpasture?s death ranged from a low of 37,189
in 1971 to a high of 42,064 in 1975.
143. Letter from F. F. Conley to B. C. Goodpasture, April 5, 1976, Goodpasture papers.
303
CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSION:
?A TOWERING OAK?
During the seventies, B. C. Goodpasture reached several milestones.  In 1970, the
fiftieth year since his first formal association with the Gospel Advocate as circulation
manager, he turned 75.  In 1972, he marked his sixtieth year as a preacher.  In 1974, he
completed thirty-five years as editor of the Advocate.  In 1975, the same year the Advocate
celebrated its 120th anniversary, he finished a quarter-century as president of the Gospel
Advocate Company.  In 1976, he began his twenty-fifth year as an elder at Nashville?s
Hillsboro Church of Christ.  His admirers took advantage of such milestones to lavish him
with praise.  ?Few men,? remarked Batsell Barrett Baxter in 1972, ?have been endowed so
richly or have used their talents so fully to the glory of God and to the advancement of his
cause. . . . [He] has exerted a positive, constructive, scriptural influence around the world.?1
When Goodpasture?s death came five years later, on February 18, 1977, Baxter
commemorated it with words similarly evocative of broad influence.  As the main speaker at
the funeral, he compared the preacher, editor, and elder to ?a towering oak.?  Speaking in
measured tones, he drew inspiration from the first Psalm: ?Brother Goodpasture was like a
tree planted by the streams of water, whose leaf doth not wither; and whatsoever he doeth
shall prosper.  As one of the members of his family said, and as many others of us have
thought, brother Goodpasture was a towering oak.  And that towering, giant oak has
304
fallen.?   Goodpasture?s death came some two months before his eighty-second birthday and2
some two weeks before he would have begun his thirty-ninth year at the Advocate?s helm. 
More than 300 preachers were among the mourners filling the Hillsboro auditorium to pay
their respects.   ?All ministers of the Church of Christ? were named honorary pallbearers,3
and a handful?Baxter, William F. Ruhl, Guy N. Woods, Willard Collins, and Rex A.
Turner?conducted the service.   Many more would eulogize Goodpasture in the Advocate in4
the following weeks.5
Goodpasture?s admirers did not wait until his death to voice their appreciation for
him.  As his friend D. Ellis Walker observed, ?In a lifetime it is a rare thing to hear a man
receive and deserve the manifold praise that was heaped upon B. C. Goodpasture.?   By the6
seventies, supporters had already built a substantial pedestal beneath his feet, but in that
decade their acclaim of the editor became more frequent and intentional.  With Goodpasture
aging, they became more reflective about his life and career and sought to honor and solidify
his legacy.  J. E. Choate?s 1971 biography of the editor, The Anchor That Holds, was the
most notable instance of that impulse, but the expressions of affection and appreciation were
many and varied.7
Individuals paid him homage.  In 1972, Alabama preacher V. P. Black thanked
Goodpasture for his decades of service: ?Just a few lines to let you know how much I
appreciate your great work and [the] good influence that you have had on the church of our
Lord for the last sixty years.?   Churches celebrated him.  Central Church of Christ in8
Athens, Alabama, held a special Sunday afternoon service in 1975 in order to, as the
minister informed Goodpasture, ?pay tribute to you for your work and influence in our
area.?   Institutions honored him.  In 1976, Freed-Hardeman College recognized9
305
Goodpasture for his contributions to religious journalism; the assembled crowd gave him a
standing ovation.   And his birthplace remembered him.  At the suggestion of a local10
church, officials in Livingston, Tennessee, and Overton County declared July 5, 1970, B. C.
Goodpasture Day, ?in honor of his service to humanity.?   Taking notice of that signal11
honor, Joe L. Evins, congressman from Tennessee and Church of Christ member, remarked
that Goodpasture ?is indeed one of the truly great and good men of our times.?12
The editor took the honors and accolades in stride.  Accustomed to generous public
introductions, for instance, he was adept at deflecting any accompanying awkwardness.  13
When President E. Claude Gardner gave him an extended introduction at the 1970 Freed-
Hardeman Lectures, he elicited great laughter when he responded, ?I?m human enough that I
appreciate what he said.  I?m sure none of you listened more reverently or with more interest
than I did.?   On occasion he also expressed the profound gratitude he no doubt felt14
whenever receiving fulsome praise.  At the 1973 Gospel Advocate dinner at David
Lipscomb College he responded to the usual tributes in these words: ?I am indebted to so
many for so much.  I am eternally indebted to everyone present, and to many, many others,
for their support of the Gospel Advocate and of me as its editor.?15
Person and Persona
While genuine, the adulation of Goodpasture often said as much about his admirers
as it did about him.  He embodied their ideals, so they idealized him.  Moreover, a high
appraisal of the editor of the Gospel Advocate roughly equated with a high appraisal of
themselves.  Much of the affection for Goodpasture was rooted in his leadership role during
the first fifteen or twenty years after World War II, when, rallying around a banner of
progress, and shunting aside internal critics of methods and motives, mainstream Churches
306
of Christ expanded their profile on the landscape of American Christianity.  Yet, the editor
was also revered in his old age because of his unchanging presence during the changing
times that followed the post-war surge.  As it became apparent to his fifties cohorts that the
institutional consensus of that decade was not as deep and broad as it had seemed, and that
more uncertainty lay ahead, Goodpasture remained a strong and reassuring constant at the
helm of the oldest institution among them.
Factors other than position and leadership helped Goodpasture garner substantial
support over the decades.  One was his public persona, another was his personality.  Readers,
even when knowing little of the editor beyond what they gleaned from the Advocate, thought
of him much like they thought of the Advocate itself: sturdy, reliable, and respectable.  Most
would have agreed with the assessment of Abilene Christian College president John C.
Stevens.  ?No man in our brotherhood,? he judged in 1972, ?more exactly personifies the
ideal of a Christian gentleman than Brother Goodpasture.  He is a man of dignity,
scholarship, urbanity, and dedication to the cause of Christ.?   That widespread perception,16
like his inherently powerful position, served Goodpasture well.  But it was not an inaccurate
perception.  His persona reflected his true person.  His personality both complemented his
persona and endeared him to his many acquaintances, helping him command their respect,
cooperation, and loyalty.
Besides knowing him to be generous financially, many people in personal contact
with Goodpasture found him to be ?a wonderfully warm and generously gracious person.?  17
As his friend G. K. Wallace stated, ?His liberality was manifested in many ways.?   Both18
young and old at the Hillsboro church adored him, according to Batsell Barrett Baxter: ?His
pockets often bulged with the gum and candy that the youngsters came to expect whenever
307
they saw him,? while adults ?sought him out when they had some difficult decision to make
or needed some insight concerning God?s teachings.?   At his funeral Baxter discoursed19
about Goodpasture?s love for people, saying, ?One of the yearnings that I have had through
the years is that those who only knew him at a distance might have had the opportunity to
love him and to know him intimately, to feel the warmth of this love.?   The editor made20
time to talk with hundreds of preachers who called at his office each year, becoming for
many ?a pillar of strength and counsel,? besides bestowing books upon them.   He regularly21
invited preachers visiting from out of town, like Earl Irvin West, to stay overnight ?in his
hospitable home,? where they would talk church ?into the wee hours of the night.?   He was22
equally attentive to his office staff.  Dove Wilson, who secured employment with him while
attending the Nashville School of Preaching, mourned the death of an ideal boss:
The Gospel Advocate family will never be the same again this side of eternity. 
Everyone knew when he arrived each morning.  Regardless of the weather, he would
say, ?Good morning, a beautiful day!?  When anyone in the office was ill, he
constantly inquired as to their progress.  Many times he came to their aid financially. 
The tears which freely flowed on the morning of his death were for a man who
cannot be replaced in our hearts.  We lost a dear friend.23
Friends and associates also counted among Goodpasture?s best qualities a keen wit,
rich sense of humor, engaging conversational powers, and masterful storytelling abilities. 
Tennessee preacher and Advocate staff writer Robert R. Taylor, Jr., considered it ?a true
pleasure to be in his company,? describing him as ?an entertaining conversationalist? who
?brought healthy laughter to many with his stories.?   Freed-Hardeman Bible professor24
William Woodson, memorializing the editor in the Advocate, made a similar remark: ?His
humor was quiet and dignified, but frequently evoked delicious chuckles at the time and
many days afterward.?   Freed-Hardeman president Claude Gardner shared excerpts from25
308
Goodpasture?s last public address, given on his campus in 1977.  One bit that had lingered
with him was indeed evocative: ?It cost John the Baptist his head to make that statement, but
it?s better to have a head like John had and give it as he gave his than to have heads like
some people have and keep them.?   In the subtler vein described by Woodson, Goodpasture26
responded to tributes to his six decades of preaching by dryly observing, ?Sixty years ago
today I preached my first sermon.  Noah preached twice as long, but the record shows that I
have converted more people in my sixty years than he did in one hundred and twenty.?27
Goodpasture?s warmth and vitality were not usually apparent on the pages of the
Advocate, but readers sometimes caught glimpses of his fuller self.  On the lighter side, in
the mid-seventies he began writing an occasional series, ?This I Remember,? in which he
shared stories from a long life filled with many rich experiences.  Intended to be little more
than fond reminiscences, the pieces resonated with many readers.   Goodpasture, however,28
rarely shared personal thoughts in the Advocate.  Although his friend William Ruhl could
attest, ?I have never known a man prouder of his family,? he was not one to refer to family
in print.   The chief exception to these tendencies occurred in 1964.  Cleveland, his beloved29
wife of almost five decades, passed away in November of that year after an illness of several
months.  In her memory he filled an entire issue with tributes from a number of church
leaders.  His own tribute was particularly eloquent, opening a window on his soul rarely seen
by readers.  ?She loved the good, the pure, and the beautiful,? he wrote.  ?She walked in the
beauty of holiness and in the holiness of beauty.  She was an ideal wife and mother.  She has
left us a rich store of priceless memories.?  He expressed gratitude to the ?thousands? who
had consoled him with ?their words of kindness and hope,? recognizing that many ?in
similar circumstances? felt no hope.  Thankful that he had children and grandchildren to rely
309
upon in his loneliness, he rejoiced that ?through Jesus God has given us his remedy for a
troubled heart.?30
Peerless Pulpiteer
Goodpasture?s public persona came not only from his actions as an editor.  His
preaching and other public addresses played a role in its formation too.  Snippets of his full
personality, especially his sense of humor, sometimes emanated from the pulpit and the
lectern.   Though he occasionally allowed himself a certain amount of latitude when31
speaking at campus lectureships and special events, most of his sermons, like most of his
editorials, were marked by formality.   Not unlike many of his preaching contemporaries,32
he rarely employed a conversational style.   He did connect with his listeners, however. 33
Many heralded his preaching, and his public speaking in general, as another symbol of his
extraordinary talent.
Like most editors and writers among Churches of Christ, Goodpasture regarded
himself a preacher first and foremost.  ?If I had my time to go over,? he said in 1972, ?I
would still like to preach as I have done.?   He delivered his first sermon at age 17 and his34
last at age 81.  Upon advice from his father early in his career, he learned to ?shoot without a
rest,? choosing to memorize his remarks instead of relying on notes.   This method might35
have contributed to his formal style, but it did not prevent his sermons from having energy or
substance.  Indianapolis preacher W. L. Totty observed that Goodpasture?s ?forceful,
emphatic manner of preaching and his ability to accurately quote passage after passage of
Scripture in his sermons hold the undivided attention of the audience.?   In a 1975 speech,36
Fort Worth preacher and Advocate staff writer Wendell Winkler recalled hearing
Goodpasture preach in 1948 when he was a college student.   Speaking on ?Handling Aright
310
the Word of Truth,? Goodpasture made ?a statement that made a permanent impression? on
the young preacher, so much so that Winkler could still recite it.  ?The way to handle truth
aright,? he quoted, ?is to know and obey it.?37
Goodpasture offered advice in the Advocate about effective preaching.  In order to
succeed, a preacher must be diligent in study and preparation: ?Oftentimes the preacher who
endeavors to preach a sermon without preparation plays the role of the hunter who tries to
fire his gun which is not loaded.?  He must deliver a sure and certain message: ?God never
intended that men should preach doubts.  The souls of men are not edified by the preaching
of pious uncertainties.?  He must know his audience: ?Many a great sermon has failed to
produce the desired effect because . . . the message was not adapted to the needs of the
hearer.?  And he must be dignified in his presentation: ?In preaching the gospel he will give
offense, but he should be sure that it is the message, and not the manner of his presenting it,
that gives the offense.?38
That last point, in particular, said much about Goodpasture?s preferences and
proclivities.  In the pulpit, he reasoned but did not rant, exhorted but did not shout.  Befitting
his personality, his typical sermon was the picture of moderation, and he encouraged other
preachers to do likewise.  ?One does not have to be vulgar to be witty, nor abusive to be
sound,? he insisted.  ?One does not have to work himself up into a veritable rage to preach
with conviction.?   Georgia preacher Ralph T. Henley remarked that Goodpasture?s39
sermons were ?couched in simple, descriptive language,? which ?penetrat[ed] . . . to the
heart of the individual.?  Moreover, Henley averred, ?in his ability to exegete a text, describe
in vivid terms an event in the Bible, or to hold an audience spellbound I have seldom seen
311
his equal and never his superior.?   Madison Church of Christ elder A. C. Dunkleberger40
agreed that ?his was the power to hold and sway an audience.?41
Many admirers of Goodpasture?s preaching thought he had an extraordinary pulpit
presence.  The venerable Alabama preacher Gus Nichols, who avowed that Goodpasture
was the ?best gospel preacher? he had ever heard, noted that his ?presence commands
attention.?   Once Goodpasture had someone?s attention he did not usually lose it.  Even at42
age 80, observed Stanley J. A. McInery, ?Brother Goodpasture still knows how to hold an
audience with simple preaching of the truth, and dedication to the cause of Christ.?   J. M.43
Powell, who reckoned Goodpasture to be ?a peerless pulpiteer,? credited his effectiveness to
several factors, including his ?studious habits.?  Having both ?the mental capacity? and the
?self-discipline? to study, he ?never disappointed an audience.?  His thorough preparation,
Powell explained, put him ?in perfect command of every situation.?  When B. C.
Goodpasture preached ?he knew what he wanted to say and he said it in the best possible
way.?   Robert Taylor held a similar opinion.  Upon returning from the 1974 Freed-44
Hardeman Lectures, he penned a letter to Goodpasture commending his performance there:
?I marvel at your powers in the pulpit.  What a loss it would have been had you never
preached!  You grace the pulpit with a fitness that is beautiful to behold [and] enrapturing to
experience.?45
In 1970, when Rex A. Turner, president of Alabama Christian College in
Montgomery, reported on his school?s recent lectureship, he gushed to Advocate readers
about the three lectures Goodpasture gave.  His ?relaxing, refreshing, and stimulating? talks
on early restoration movement history were ?so overwhelmingly and enthusiastically
received that the large audience in attendance gave him a standing ovation.?  Many of the
312
?younger preachers? on hand, Turner added, ?came to have a greater appreciation of the
work and sacrifices of the pioneers as a result.?   One young preacher in attendance, Paul46
Edward Tarence, was at that time preparing a study of Goodpasture?s preaching for a
master?s thesis in speech at nearby Auburn University.  Goodpasture, Tarence concluded,
was the model preacher.  ?What is really shown in this investigation,? he summarized, ?is
that high moral character, a pleasing personality, intelligent and thorough preparation, and
the studied application and practice of the principles of rhetoric result in effective
preaching.?47
Cautious and Consistent
In his biography of Goodpasture, J. E. Choate acknowledged that he had failed to
capture the complexity of his subject?s personality.  ?Shallow men are easily gauged, but
men of genius may never be,? he lamented, evincing some frustration at Goodpasture?s
reticence with even his personally authorized biographer.  He took some comfort in the
knowledge that Goodpasture?s oldest and closest friends could not ?fully unravel? him
either.  Goodpasture possessed a complex personality, and thus Choate uncovered seemingly
contradictory personality traits.  Despite excelling as counselor and conversationalist, he
noted, ?Goodpasture seldom reveals his feelings.?  He was witty and warm, but ?his friends
find him an enigma because of his extreme self-reserve in personal contacts.?  Due to his
cautious and careful nature, he ?is not a man that is easily approached.?  Nor was his
confidence readily won, Choate observed, but once it is, ?talking with him is a pleasing and
memorable experience.?  Choate further explained that Goodpasture ?does not study to be
inscrutable,? but, the reader should understand, ?the Goodpastures are by nature a taciturn
people.?48
313
While sometimes perplexed that Goodpasture was not more forthcoming, Choate did
not really regret his subject?s reserve, reckoning it to be a central component of his
uncommonly good judgment.  ?He is not the man to be goaded into irrational actions,?
Choate observed, offering as confirmation this assessment of him by Guy Woods:
In calm, deliberate fashion he has ever exhibited the knack of getting to the root of a
matter in moments, and of viewing it in proper perspective.  Among the most
magnificent characteristics of this great man are his balanced judgment, ?sweet
reasonableness,? and calm appraisal of the problems which pile up in mountainous
detail before a man in his position.  Those who are closely associated with him soon
come to know and to appreciate highly these outstanding personal features.49
Many others in Goodpasture?s circle likewise lauded his deliberateness and related attributes
like balance, moderation, and consistency.  ?Here is not a man who changes positions with
practically every issue of his paper,? attested Ralph Henley.  To the contrary, ?here is a man
who has charted a course which he believes to be in harmony with the holy Scriptures and he
follows it doggedly toward the prize.?   Claude Gardner appreciated Goodpasture?s ?course50
of moderation? as editor and his ?characteristic sense of balance? in regard to controversy.  51
Advocate staff writer Thomas B. Warren admired him for wielding influence ?without being
radical,? for being ?a man of power who veered neither to the right hand nor to the left.?52
One of the most vivid lessons that Advocate employee T. B. Underwood, Jr., learned
from Goodpasture was to speak ?sparingly.?  In the office, he reported, Goodpasture was apt
to recite the precept, ?As long as you do not speak you control your words, but when you
speak your words control you.?   According to Lipscomb president Athens Clay Pullias,53
Goodpasture also mastered Paul?s instruction to the Philippians to ?let your moderation be
made known to all.?  Addressing a gathering of Advocate supporters in 1975, Pullias
emphasized Goodpasture?s ?imperturbability,? particularly in the editor?s chair.  ?Every
314
leader is always beset mercilessly from every side,? he said.  ?To walk with dignity,
calmness and courage straight down the road of right and righteousness requires the qualities
B. C. Goodpasture has so ably demonstrated in serving the Gospel Advocate.?54
Abiding Loyalty
After Goodpasture?s death, Guy Woods listed certain traits of his ?dear and trusted
friend? that his closest associates cherished more than any other.  ?It will be impossible,?
Woods declared, ?to chronicle fully his towering spiritual strength, his nobleness of heart,
and the fierce and enduring loyalty he displayed toward those . . . [he] regarded as friends.?  55
These traits, combined with the advantages of returning Goodpasture?s loyalty, made for a
leader that Woods, like others, did not hesitate to follow.  Woods was one among many
expressing fealty to the editor even as he entered his eighth decade and the twilight of his life. 
Goodpasture had been true to him and ?the cause? they both loved, and Woods desired to be
equally true.  ?Brother Goodpasture,? he wrote in 1976, ?you have been so good to me
through the years, and you have done so much for me and you have enabled me to do so
much more for the cause than otherwise I could.  I will never refuse to perform any service
for you which you feel I can do.?56
Woods never had refused.  Trained in the law, though never a practicing attorney, he
relished any opportunity to employ his powers of logic in exegetical combat.  Goodpasture
provided him plenty of chances, first by naming him a staff writer in 1943, then by letting
him take a leading role in the institutional fight, and by urging him on as he led the
Advocate?s charge against ?liberalism.?  As Advocate news editor J. Roy Vaughan
observed, ?Goodpasture highly respects Guy N. Woods? ability to handle a controversy.?  57
Woods agreed, boasting about the special role he played for Goodpasture, ?who has, without
315
exception, kept open the pages of the Advocate for me in every battle we have fought for a
pure faith and a faultless practice.?   The editor?s confidence in him, Woods declared,58
would always be among his ?most prized and precious blessings.?59
Other Advocate writers offered their gratitude to Goodpasture for the trust he placed
in them, the loyalty he showed them, and the opportunities he gave them.  Staff writer Robert
Taylor was ?grateful for every kindness? he had received.  They had ?long passed accurate
enumeration,? but included the editor?s endorsement of his book, Christ in the Home, and
placement of one of his articles on the editorial page.   John Waddey, a preacher from the60
Knoxville area and a regular Advocate contributor, thanked Goodpasture in similar fashion. 
?I am indebted to you for your kindness toward me and your encouragement to me to
?publish? the truth I preach,? he wrote.  ?Thank you for what you have done not only for me
but for the Cause we both love.?   J. E. Choate, though pleased to be Goodpasture?s61
biographer, was perhaps even more appreciative of the chance to write for his paper.   When62
sending the editor good wishes for his eightieth birthday, he wrote, ?Brother Goodpasture, I
am grateful to you for a very personal reason. . . . I have been privileged to write for the
Gospel Advocate and to tell what I believed would be useful to the church today and
tomorrow.?63
Rex Turner had even more reason to be personally grateful to Goodpasture, one of
his most earnest allies in the promotion of Alabama Christian College, which Turner co-
founded in 1942 as Montgomery Bible School.  Goodpasture provided extensive publicity
from the start, and in 1953 gave the college a boost in exposure and credibility by naming
Turner, who served as president, to his team of staff writers.  He also ?lent much prestige? to
the school?s annual lectureship by appearing periodically on the program.  In addition to
316
contributing money of his own to the college, Goodpasture connected Turner with potential
donors in Tennessee, some of whom would come to rank among the school?s most
significant benefactors.  The editor?s support of Alabama Christian, Turner explained, grew
not from any ?selfish purpose,? but from commitment to ?brethren in Christ? and Christian
education.  ?The fact is,? he stated, ?I was an underdog college president, and B. C.
Goodpasture always held a place in his heart for the struggling underdog.?64
In September 1973, Turner?s thirty-one-year tenure with Alabama Christian came to
a controversial end.   Goodpasture, while not dropping his support for the board that ousted65
Turner, stuck by his side.  In particular, he helped him stay on his feet by immediately
inviting him to prepare the Teachers? Annual Lesson Commentary, published annually by
the Advocate since 1922.   Churches of Christ made extensive use of this Sunday school66
series and thus Goodpasture?s choice of Turner was a meaningful vote of confidence in
him.   It signaled to churches everywhere that Turner had not outlived his usefulness and67
was still to be trusted.   ?The invitation was a real boon to me,? related Turner.  In the68
?disappointing days? before it came, ?I really felt that there was little place for me to make a
significant contribution to the kingdom.?   A 1976 issue of the Advocate reported that69
Turner was ?spending virtually every moment of his time in the service of the Lord.?  Still
handling the Teacher?s Annual Lesson Commentary, he was also busy writing, speaking,
and conducting workshops.  Most important of all, as president of the Alabama Christian
School of Religion, an offshoot of Alabama Christian, he was still training preachers.70
Advocate allies were well rewarded.  This was particularly true of staff writers, and
in some cases relatives, as illustrated by the story of Goodpasture?s relationship with J. M.
Powell.  Married to Mildred Cliett, the youngest sibling of Goodpasture?s first wife,
317
Cleveland, Powell was both staff writer and brother-in-law.  Sharing Goodpasture?s love of
restoration movement history, Powell wrote on that topic regularly, but through the years
readers of the Advocate also learned of his many other interests and activities.  Though a
preacher by occupation, Powell served a brief stint as president of Ohio Valley College, a
church-related school in Parkersburg, West Virginia.  When he returned to the pulpit in
1969, his new location of Asheville, North Carolina, put him near the site of the annual Blue
Ridge Encampment, a retreat for church families he directed.  In 1974, when he decided to
go into semi-retirement, Powell made plans to move to Franklin, Tennessee.  Although he
would not be occupying a pulpit, he intended to keep himself busy with a variety of church
work, including, he hoped, weekend lectures on restoration history and Sunday preaching
appointments.  Goodpasture informed Advocate readers of this news and provided Powell?s
picture and mailing address.  He stressed that Powell had not tired of doing the Lord?s work
and was not slowing down.  ?This move does not mean retirement,? he explained on
Powell?s behalf, ?but only a change and more extensive activity.?71
In return, Powell was deeply passionate about the success of the Advocate and its
propagation of New Testament Christianity.   His feelings for Goodpasture, however, were72
particularly profound.  And while he certainly appreciated the editor?s recognition and use of
him in the Advocate, it was his relationship to the man himself that most thrilled and
humbled Powell.  He became acquainted with Goodpasture as a Lipscomb student in 1928,
when ?the brilliant young preacher from Atlanta? visited campus to preach a week-long
series of sermons.  The ?slender and handsome? thirty-three-year-old, he recalled in 1977,
?spoke fluently without manuscript or notes,? delivering lessons that were ?still vivid and
fresh? to him a half-century later.   Powell had many opportunities to interact with73
318
Goodpasture over the ensuing decades and his admiration for him grew.  Although they
became relatively close, Powell never seemed to regard himself the editor?s equal, even when
Goodpasture made known his own admiration for Powell.  After hanging up the telephone
with the editor one June day?exactly eight months before Goodpasture?s death?Powell
dashed off a handwritten note to him, sharing thoughts perhaps more easily communicated
by pen than by voice.  ?The personal affection you expressed for me on the phone a few
moments ago [has] burned deep in my heart and soul,? he informed Goodpasture.  ?As I
write these lines, my eyes are filled with tears of joy that one of your stature should have
such kindly feelings for me. . . . You of course know that my esteem for you has no bounds. 
You are the grand champion of all the personalities of the Restoration Movement?past and
present.?74
Decision of This Century
The task of finding a successor to B. C. Goodpasture in February 1977 fell to David
Lipscomb McQuiddy, Jr., publisher of the Gospel Advocate.  Not that there was a shortage
of willing candidates.  Many preachers still considered the editor?s job a gem, the pinnacle of
a career in service to Churches of Christ.  McQuiddy?s first move was to name an interim
editor.  He chose longtime Advocate news editor J. Roy Vaughan, who would edit the paper
through 1977.  McQuiddy then turned his energies to finding the right man to move the
Advocate forward, much like his uncle Leon B. McQuiddy in 1938.  He promised readers
not to proceed ?with undue haste.?  ?Just as B. C. Goodpasture was there at the right time,?
he proclaimed, ?I believe there stands another, raised up by the Lord to carry on the
illustrious line of Gospel Advocate editors.?75
319
The 1938 Advocate vacancy had occasioned a flurry of unsolicited suggestions to
Leon McQuiddy.  Some believed that David McQuiddy faced a decision ?even more
crucial? than his uncle?s.   James L. Lovell, opinionated California editor and world76
evangelism enthusiast, wrote McQuiddy within a month of Goodpasture?s death, stressing
that ?the church is in the wors[t] crisis of its history in America.?  In his blunt opinion, both
the Advocate and the Firm Foundation were partly to blame for the crisis.  Except for the
editorials of Reuel Lemmons in the Firm Foundation, he saw ?nothing among our people
that is making a forward ripple.?  On the presumption that McQuiddy was planning to install
someone with close ties to the Advocate, perhaps Batsell Barrett Baxter, Lovell cautioned
him to reconsider.  As ?sound and loved? as Baxter might be, he was not the answer.  The
Advocate needed fresh leadership.   A month later, Lovell ?could not resist? writing77
McQuiddy again, this time to lobby for a specific candidate, Reuel Lemmons.  Enclosing
editorials by Lemmons, Lovell directed McQuiddy to notice ?the quality of thinking? they
contained, and the passion they showed for ?reaching . . . [the] billions who need Jesus
Christ.?  No better man for the job could be found, Lovell was sure.  ?In your hands, my
Brother, rests the decision of this century.?  You can continue to produce ?a paper filled with
stuff most all readers already know,? he lectured, or you can provide one by which ?we can
start going into homes of the lost.?78
Despite his thoughtful editorializing, Lemmons was never a realistic candidate to
succeed Goodpasture.  He had edited the Firm Foundation since 1955 and would not leave
that post until 1983, when the owners, the Showalter family, sold the paper to disapproving
conservatives.   Instead, McQuiddy named Ira North editor, and Guy N. Woods associate79
editor.  North had been an Advocate staff writer since the mid-fifties, Woods since the early
320
forties.  Their appointments were announced with a full-color cover in August, the
flamboyant North sporting a bright red jacket.  They were to take the reins from Roy
Vaughan with the first issue of 1978.  In making the announcement, McQuiddy remarked
upon his wish for the energetic North to do with the Advocate what he had done with the
Madison Church of Christ.  That is, to make it into a ?phenomenal? example of growth and
outreach: ?It is my hope that the same successful techniques which built the Madison church
into the great force for good that it is today can be brought to bear by Dr. North in increasing
the effectiveness of Christian journalism within the brotherhood.?  North, he added, as if to
reassure some readers of the new editor?s orthodoxy, ?is a firm believer in the Restoration
Plea and in the promulgation of sound doctrine.?  With the addition of Woods, McQuiddy
claimed to have put together ?the strongest [possible] combination for soundness and
growth.?80
That McQuiddy made Guy Woods associate editor suggested, as he would later tell
Lovell, that he was hoping to appeal ?to the widest range? of church members.   His81
decision also suggested, however, that the Advocate was facing something of an identity
crisis.  Of the two men, Woods was the likelier to continue the Advocate in the Goodpasture
mold, but the less likely to energize the readership.  North, on the other hand, would
undoubtedly bring new enthusiasm to the Advocate, but needed the endorsement of a
doctrinal stalwart like Woods to gain the trust of some readers.   In any case, most readers82
were likely to grant the new team a honeymoon period, and, in fact, readers ranging from
James Lovell to Foy E. Wallace, Jr., commended McQuiddy for his choice and welcomed
North and Woods to their new responsibilities.   James O. Baird, chancellor of Oklahoma83
Christian College, expressed the sentiments of many Advocate supporters with his welcome
321
to the pair in December 1977.  From the editorial page, he extolled the virtues of the
Advocate, fully anticipating that North and Woods would perpetuate its legacy of leadership
and maintain the utility of its ?valid functions.?
Listing those functions, Baird sounded a familiar note.  ?One is that of helping the
brotherhood be a brotherhood by reporting what is happening to others,? he offered.  Another
was to teach ?Biblical truth.?  Yet another has the Advocate serving the church ?as it
admonishes, encourages, and exhorts.?  A sometimes unappreciated function of the paper, he
continued, was its exposure of ?false doctrine.?  But rather than ?condemn? that function as
?negative,? as some are wont to do, readers should embrace it, so long as it is ?done in love.? 
After all, Baird observed, ?these purposes of the Advocate might be considered as an
extension of the purposes of the New Testament.?  While it is of course true that ?brethren
North, Woods, and their able staff members are not the keepers of the faith,? they play an
important role in helping Christians judge teachings as scriptural or not.  ?It is in the
fulfillment of this function,? he concluded, ?that the Advocate has best served in the past and
can . . . best serve in the future.?84
By 1977, David McQuiddy?s decision, while still of great significance, was by no
means ?the decision of this century.?  Times had changed too much for it to be quite so
consequential.  Even so, North and Woods seemed to make a good team and got off to a
strong start.  North spruced up the paper, widened the base of writers, and systematically
collected church news.  After a year-and-a-half, however, ?astronomical increases in
postage? forced the paper to become a bi-monthly.   Although each issue doubled in size,85
the move was a harbinger of more change to come.   By the 1990s, the Gospel Advocate,86
like the Firm Foundation, had unquestionably lost its broad influence, catering to a
322
narrower segment of members of Churches of Christ than ever before.  Unlike the Firm
Foundation, however, the Advocate continued to cast itself as a centrist magazine.  And
although it now served a smaller constituency, it remained dedicated to carrying out the
same ?valid functions? it always had.
The Shepherd?s Heart
Upon Goodpasture?s death, friends and colleagues had written remarks into the
record such as, ?No man will be remembered longer,? and, ?His influence will never die.?  87
The editor lingered in the memories of many people, of course, and his influence lived
through them, but such adulation was blunted by the decreasing significance of the
Advocate.  In an editorial that he was fond of reprinting, Goodpasture reflected on the
apostle Paul?s burdens of church leadership.  In the second Corinthian letter, Goodpasture
noted, Paul wrote of his constant ?anxiety for all the churches.?  It was an anxiety that the
editor obviously identified with.  ?Anxious to see the churches sound in faith, in life, and in
practice,? Paul did what conscientious spiritual leaders do.  He ?used every resource at his
command to instruct, develop, and protect all the members of all the congregations
everywhere.  He truly had the shepherd?s heart.  He loved, and was anxious about, the entire
flock of God.?   Goodpasture was very much a man of his times.  He was not, by choice, an88
adventurous thinker.  He was, by his own description, a devoted servant of the church.
323
1. Batsell Barrett Baxter, ?B. C. Goodpasture?Sixty Years of Preaching,? Gospel Advocate,
October 5, 1972, 626.
2. Batsell Barrett Baxter?s remarks, B. C. Goodpasture funeral, Hillsboro Church of Christ,
Nashville, February 21, 1977; tape recording and transcript prepared by David Duer in the
author?s possession.  Baxter truncated Psalm 1:3.  He made similar remarks at the 1964
funeral of Goodpasture?s first wife, Cleveland: ?When walking in the woods occasionally we
see a giant oak which towers above most of the other trees.  The Goodpasture family is like
such an oak tree? (Willard Collins, ?In Appreciation of Mrs. B. C. Goodpasture,? Gospel
Advocate, December 10, 1964, 789).  Others utilized the oak imagery too.  See D. Ellis
Walker, ?B. C. Goodpasture,? Gospel Advocate, April 28, 1977, 260: ?His passing, like the
falling of a gigantic oak, has left a great empty space among us.?  See also Robert R. Taylor,
Jr., ??This I Remember? About B. C. Goodpasture,? Gospel Advocate, May 5, 1977, 280.
3. Freddie Joan Armstrong Goetz Goodpasture, From Neri to Nashville by the Providence
of God, 1918-1998 (Nashville: Pilcrow Publishing, 1998), 379-80, 389.  According to Guy
N. Woods, the crowd at Goodpasture?s funeral was ?the largest audience I ever saw
assembled for such an occasion? (Guy N. Woods, ?Brother Goodpasture as I Knew Him,?
Gospel Advocate, April 21, 1977, 246).
4. B. C. Goodpasture death notice, Nashville Banner, February 18, 1977.  Willard Collins,
?B. C. Goodpasture Dies February 18, 1977,? Gospel Advocate, March 3, 1977, 130.  See
Larry Bumgardner, ?B .C. Goodpasture: ?A Man of Love,?? The Babbler, March 1, 1977.
5. See especially the entire issue of April 21, 1977.  The tributes in that issue bore striking
resemblances to those included in Willard Collins and John Cliett Goodpasture, comp.,
Sermons and Lectures of B. C. Goodpasture (Nashville: B. C. Goodpasture, 1964), 1-51. 
Four writers wrote tributes in both the 1964 volume and the Advocate of April 21, 1977.
6. Walker, ?B. C. Goodpasture,? 259.
7. J. E. Choate, The Anchor That Holds: A Biography of Benton Cordell Goodpasture
(Nashville: Gospel Advocate Co., 1971).
8. Letter from V. P. Black to B. C. Goodpasture, November 9, 1972, Benton Cordell
Goodpasture papers, Disciples of Christ Historical Society, Nashville.
9. Letter from Charles Marshall to B. C. Goodpasture, October 7, 1975, Goodpasture
papers.  See also Charles Marshall, ?B. C. Goodpasture Speaks at Central in Athens,
Alabama,? Gospel Advocate, December 11, 1975, 796; and Goodpasture, From Neri to
Nashville, 377, 381-89.
10. Robert R. Taylor, Jr., ?The 1976 Freed-Hardeman College Alumni Banquet: A Fitting
Climax,? Gospel Advocate, June 10, 1976, 376-78.  The alumni association presented
Notes
324
Goodpasture, who was not an alumnus of the college, its ?Award for Outstanding Service to
Religious Journalism.?  See also letter from John Bob Hall to B. C. Goodpasture, April 15,
1976, Goodpasture papers.  Also during the seventies, Alabama Christian School of
Religion in Montgomery named its library after Goodpasture (see ?Dedication of B. C.
Goodpasture Library, Alabama Christian School of Religion,? [March 24, 1970],
Goodpasture papers; and letter from Rex A. Turner to Mrs. B. C. Goodpasture, October 6,
1971, Goodpasture papers), while Pepperdine University gave him its Distinguished
Christian Service Award (see letter from M. Norvel Young to B. C. Goodpasture, March 6,
1974, Goodpasture papers).
11. E. Claude Gardner, ?B. C. Goodpasture Day,? Gospel Advocate, October 29, 1970,
692. See also Bob Bell, Jr., ?B. C. Goodpasture Day Is Celebrated in Livingston,? Nashville
Banner, July 1, 1970; and ?Tennessee counties [sic] laud life of minister-editor,? Christian
Chronicle, July 13, 1970, 1.
12. Letter from Joe L. Evins to Stanley J. A. McInery, July 2, 1970, Goodpasture papers. 
See also letter from Adron Doran to Stanley James E. McInery, June 29, 1970.  Earlier in
1970, Evins gave a luncheon in Goodpasture?s honor at the Capitol.  See Ross W. Dye, ?B.
C. Goodpasture Honored at Capitol,? Gospel Advocate, May 28, 1970, 340.
13. See Paul Edward Tarence, ?A Study of the Preaching Theory and Practice of Benton
Cordell Goodpasture,? (M. A. Thesis, Auburn University, 1970), 43.  Tarence concluded
that Goodpasture?s use of humor ?may be described as gentle, appropriate, and extremely
effective.  He successfully uses humor to gain and hold attention, to please his audience, and
to relieve himself in an embarrassing setting where he has been praised or honored.?
14. B. C. Goodpasture, ?The Bible is Inspired,? address at Freed-Hardeman College
Lectures, Henderson, Tenn., February 6, 1970, audio file accessed at
http://www.therestorationmovement.com/audio.htm.
15. Willard Collins, ?Lipscomb?s Forty-Fourth Annual Lectureship Brings Visitors from
Twenty-five States,? Gospel Advocate, February 22, 1973, 121.
16. Letter from John C. Stevens to The Elders, Hillsboro Church of Christ, October 4, 1972,
President John C. Stevens papers, box 22, Archives, Brown Library Special Collections,
Abilene Christian University, Abilene, Tex.
17. Letter from Robert R. Taylor, Jr., to B. C. Goodpasture, February 20, 1974,
Goodpasture papers.
18. G. K. Wallace, ?Goodpasture?A Man of God,? Gospel Advocate, April 21, 1977, 247. 
In regard to financial liberality, Goodpasture, beyond making typical charitable gifts, freely
gave away hundreds of books to preachers and donated thousands more to colleges and
schools, all from his substantial personal collection.  See Robert R. Taylor, Jr., ?B. C.
Goodpasture: A Giant in Our Brotherhood,? Gospel Advocate, March 29, 1973, 197.
325
19. Batsell Barrett Baxter, ?Preacher . . . Elder . . . of the Hillsboro Church,? Gospel
Advocate, April 21, 1977, 249.  See J. Noel Meredith, ?B. C. Goodpasture As I Remember
Him,? Gospel Advocate, April 21, 1977, 254; and Taylor, ?B. C. Goodpasture,? 197.
20. Baxter?s remarks, Goodpasture funeral.
21. David L. McQuiddy, Jr., ?B. C. Goodpasture As My Minister, Friend, and Business
Associate,? Gospel Advocate, April 21, 1977, 244.  See Baxter?s remarks, Goodpasture
funeral; Meredith, ?B. C. Goodpasture,? 253-54; Taylor, ?B. C. Goodpasture,? 197; and
letter from Guy N. Woods to B. C. Goodpasture, September 19, 1976, Goodpasture papers:
?It was a great joy to visit with you. . . . I am always hesitant to stay long, knowing . . . what
great demands are made upon your time by so many visitors there.?  A weekly feature of the
Advocate, ?Preachers Who Called,? listed preachers who signed the office guest register.
22. Dennis Gulledge, ?An Interview With Earl West,? Gospel Advocate, September 1992,
49.  See also Taylor, ??This I Remember,?? 281. 
23. ?B. C. Goodpasture,? Gospel Advocate, April 28, 1977, 258.
24. Taylor, ?B. C. Goodpasture,? 198.
25. William Woodson, ?B. C. Goodpasture?s Footprints on the Sands of Time,? Gospel
Advocate, April 21, 1977, 249.
26. E. Claude Gardner, ?B. C. Goodpasture?s Last Sermon,? Gospel Advocate, April 21,
1977, 247.
27. Willard Collins, ?Advocate Editor Has Preached Sixty Years,? Gospel Advocate,
November 23, 1972, 745.
28. The first installment of ?This I Remember? appeared October 30, 1975.  See Robert R.
Taylor, Jr., ?At Fourscore and One,? Gospel Advocate, April 1, 1976, 213 (The series was
?so favorably received and deeply appreciated by so many of us?); and Mrs. B. C.
Goodpasture, ?I Also Remember,? Gospel Advocate, April 21, 1977, 242 (?The ?This I
Remember? editorials always brought a flood of mail of appreciation?).
29. William Ruhl?s remarks, Goodpasture funeral.
30. B. C. Goodpasture, ?I Am Grateful,? Gospel Advocate, December 10, 1964, 786. 
Seven college presidents were among the authors of tributes to Cleveland Goodpasture.
31. Most of these glimpses came during introductory remarks, before launching into the
main body of his sermon.  See, for example, B. C. Goodpasture, ?Is the Young Man
Absalom Safe?? Sermon No. 396, Hillsboro Church of Christ, July 21, 1963.  He thanked
the congregation for attending to him during hospitalizations the previous spring and fall,
saying that he had long believed that Hillsboro was ?the greatest congregation I ever knew.?
326
32. Several Goodpasture sermons were published in lectureship books, tracts, as sound
recordings, and in other forms, including two dedicated volumes: Collins, Sermons and
Lectures; and J. D. Thomas, ed., Sermons of B. C. Goodpasture,  Great Preachers of Today
Series (Abilene, Tex.: Biblical Research Press, 1967).  The Collins and Thomas volumes
contain examples of the type of humor he sometimes employed in his sermons.
33. A notable exception to this statement is a series of three lectures he gave at Alabama
Christian College in 1971, though they were reminiscences of his preaching career, not
sermons.  See B. C. Goodpasture, ?Fifty-Nine Years on the Firing Line,? Alabama Christian
College Lectures, March 23-25, 1971, transcription in Goodpasture papers.
34. Collins, ?Advocate Editor Has Preached Sixty Years,? 745.
35. Choate, The Anchor That Holds, 48.
36. W. L. Totty, ?B. C. Goodpasture at Garfield Heights,? Gospel Advocate, June 25,
1970, 409.
37. Willard Collins, ?Editor and Publisher of Gospel Advocate Honored at One Hundred
and Twentieth Anniversary Dinner,? Gospel Advocate, March 13, 1975, 169.  See Taylor,
??This I Remember,?? 281; and Baxter?s remarks, Goodpasture funeral.
38.  B. C. Goodpasture, ?Concerning Preachers and Preaching,? Gospel Advocate, March
13, 1975, 162, 167.  B. C. Goodpasture, ?The Responsibility of Speaker and Hearer,?
Gospel Advocate, March 22, 1973, 178.
39. B. C. Goodpasture, ?They ?So Spake,?? Gospel Advocate, June 2, 1949, 338.
40. Ralph T. Henley, ?B. C. Goodpasture ? A Prince in the Pulpit,? and ?B. C. Goodpasture
is Coming to North Georgia,? circulars on church letterhead, [1970], Goodpasture papers.
41. A. C. Dunkleberger quoted in J. M. Powell, ?B. C. Goodpasture?A Giant Among Men,?
Gospel Advocate, April 21, 1977, 250.
42. Gus Nichols, ?B. C. Goodpasture in the Pulpit,? in Collins, Sermons and Lectures, 30.
43. Stanley J. A. McInery news report, Gospel Advocate, May 22, 1975, 332-33.
44. Powell, ?B. C. Goodpasture?A Giant Among Men.?
45. Letter from Taylor to Goodpasture, February 20, 1974.
46. Rex A. Turner, ?B. C. Goodpasture?An Outstanding Feature of Recent Alabama
Christian College Lecture Program,? Gospel Advocate, May 7, 1970, 292.
327
47. Tarence, ?A Study of the Preaching Theory and Practice of Benton Cordell
Goodpasture,? iv-v.  See also pp. 25 and 44 (n. 19).
48. Choate, The Anchor That Holds, 184, 186-88, 194; see also p. 216.
49. Ibid., 184, 188.  Garland Elkins, in ?A Truly Great Gospel Meeting!? Gospel Advocate,
January 9, 1975, 24, describes Goodpasture using language very similar to that of Woods.
50. Henley, ?B. C. Goodpasture ? A Prince in the Pulpit.?
51. Gardner, ?B. C. Goodpasture?s Last Sermon,? 247.
52. Thomas B. Warren, ?B. C. Goodpasture?Valiant Soldier of the Cross,? Gospel
Advocate, April 21, 1977, 246.
53. T. B. Underwood, Jr., ?What B. C. Goodpasture Meant to Me,? Gospel Advocate, April
21, 1977, 255.
54. Willard Collins, ?Editor and Publisher of Gospel Advocate Honored at One Hundred
and Twentieth Anniversary Dinner,? Gospel Advocate, March 13, 1975, 170.
55. Woods, ?Brother Goodpasture? 246.
56. Letter from Woods to Goodpasture, September 19, 1976.
57. Choate, The Anchor That Holds, 184.
58. Guy N. Woods, ?Why I Believe the Bible,? Gospel Advocate, January 25, 1973, 50. 
See also Guy N. Woods, Questions and Answers: Open Forum, Freed-Hardeman College
Lectures (Henderson, Tenn.: Freed-Hardeman College, 1976), 175.
59. Woods, ?Brother Goodpasture,? 246.
60. Letter from Taylor to Goodpasture, February 20, 1974.  See Robert R. Taylor, Jr.,
Christ in the Home (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1973).
61. Letter from John Waddey to B. C. Goodpasture, September 11, 1975, Goodpasture
papers.
62. See Choate, ?Brother Goodpasture?s Biography,? wherein he states, referring to The
Anchor That Holds, ?I consider the opportunity to write the biography as being one of the
greatest privileges of my life, and I am solicitous that the book may have a wide reading
audience.?  Similarly, he told the crowd gathered for the 1972 Gospel Advocate dinner,
?The finest privilege of my life has been to work with B. C. Goodpasture on this biography.? 
See Willard Collins, ?Gospel Advocate Observes One Hundred and Seventeen Years at
David Lipscomb College Winter Lectureship,? Gospel Advocate, March 2, 1972, 137.
328
63. Letter from J. E. Choate to B. C. Goodpasture, April 8, 1975, Goodpasture papers.
64. Rex A. Turner, ?This I Remember About B. C. Goodpasture,? Sound Doctrine,
July/August 1977, 3. See also Rex A. Turner, ?I Remember B. C. Goodpasture,? Gospel
Advocate, July 1992, 45; and ?Dedication of B. C. Goodpasture Library,? 4.
65. See Turner, ?This I Remember.?  Turner reluctantly accepted the chancellorship of the
school in January 1973, and the Board of Directors promoted Eulie R. Brannan, the Vice
President for Academic Affairs, to president.  Although Turner?s change was reported as a
promotion, it left him without any administrative authority.  See Don G. Moore, ?Alabama
Christian College,? Gospel Advocate, February 8, 1973, 94.  Turner?s services were finally
terminated in September 1973.  See ?A Statement by Rex A. Turner,? Gospel Advocate,
April 14, 1977, 228.  See also letter from D. Ellis Walker to B. C. Goodpasture, March 13,
1973, Goodpasture papers; letter from James A. Turner to E. R. Brannan, August 25, 1973,
Goodpasture papers; and letter from James A. Turner to Members of the Board of Directors
of Alabama Christian College, August 28, 1973, Goodpasture papers. 
66. The roots of the curriculum actually trace to the 1880s and David Lipscomb?s Notes on
Sunday School Lessons.  As an annual publication, the series started in 1922.  Based on the
Uniform Bible Lesson series, but prepared for Churches of Christ, Elam?s Notes came first. 
The title changed to Annual Lesson Commentary with the 1932 volume, and to Teacher?s
Annual Lesson Commentary with the 1946 volume.  See J. E. Choate, ?Gospel Advocate
Literature,? May 19, 1977, 306, 311.  Additionally, editors commissioned authors to
prepare short uniform lesson guides for each Advocate issue.
67. See B. C. Goodpasture, ?The Uniform Bible Lessons, Third Quarter, 1973,? Gospel
Advocate, June 7, 1973, 358: The Adult Quarterly, a version of the uniform lessons, ?has
the largest circulation of any publication among the churches of Christ.?
68. This was the not the first time Goodpasture had taken this kind of action.  In 1958, he
had used his position in a similar fashion to help out another beleaguered colleague.  Leslie
G. Thomas, a Tennessee preacher the same age as Goodpasture, and, like Turner, a friend to
the Advocate, had caught serious flak for his public teaching on the Holy Spirit.  Judging the
dispute to be merely ?a matter of terminology,? Goodpasture came to Thomas?s aid, naming
him both a staff writer and the new author for the Teachers? Annual Lesson Commentary. 
With these actions, according to J. E. Choate, ?Goodpasture saved a useful man for the
church.?  Had the powerful editor not stepped in, Thomas?s ?influence? likely would have
been ?compromised.?  When later asked about the episode, Goodpasture explained, ?I think
it is as necessary to defend a good man as it is to condemn a bad one.?  See Choate, The
Anchor That Holds, 185.  On Thomas see Batsell Barrett Baxter and M. Norvel Young,
eds., Preachers of Today: A Book of Brief Biographical Sketches And Pictures of Living
Gospel Preachers, Vol. IV (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Co., 1970), 316.  See also B. C.
Goodpasture, ?Our New Staff Writers,? Gospel Advocate, October 2, 1958, 626.  Thomas
handled the Commentary duties for more than a decade.
329
69. Turner, ?This I Remember,? 3.
70. Gary M. Bradley, ?The Work of Rex A. Turner,? Gospel Advocate, November 25,
1976, 757.  On the Alabama Christian School of Religion see Lawrence E. Barclay, ?Dr.
and Mrs. Rex A. Turner, Sr., Honored,? Gospel Advocate, December 22, 1977, 807-09. 
The school had its beginning in 1952 as the lone senior college program at Alabama
Christian College.  In 1967 it became a separate legal entity, also headed by Turner, a
position he retained after his departure from Alabama Christian.
71. B. C. Goodpasture, ?From North Carolina to Tennessee,? Gospel Advocate, November
14, 1974, 722.  See J. M. Powell, ?Home Again in Tennessee,? Gospel Advocate, February
6, 1975, 85-86; J. M. Powell, ??Nothing Could Be Finer Than to Be in Carolina,?? Gospel
Advocate, August 21, 1969, 539; Goodpasture, From Neri to Nashville, 376-77; and the
Minister?s Monthly, May 1971.
72. See, for example, J. M. Powell, ?The Year of the Gospel Advocate,? Gospel Advocate,
May 31, 1973, 344.  See also Terry J. Gardner, ?Memories of James Marvin Powell,? 
Gospel Advocate, July 2004, 40.
73. Powell, ?B. C. Goodpasture?A Giant Among Men.? 
74. Letter from J. M. Powell to B. C. Goodpasture, June 18, 1976, Goodpasture papers.
75. David L. McQuiddy, Jr., ?A Statement from the Publisher,? Gospel Advocate, March 3,
1977, 131.  See letter from David L. McQuiddy, Jr., to James L. Lovell, March 18, 1977,
James L. Lovell papers, box 35, Center for Restoration Studies, Brown Library Special
Collections, Abilene Christian University, Abilene, Tex.  See also Guy N. Woods,
?Introducing Our New Editor,? Gospel Advocate, March 24, 1977, 178.
76. Cecil N. Wright, ?B. C. Goodpasture,? Gospel Advocate, April 21, 1977, 252.  See also
letter from James L. Lovell to David McQuiddy, April 19, 1977, Lovell papers, box 35:
?Yesterday at Pepperdine I had some might[y] enjoyable visits with Earl West, Batsell
Barrett and many others whom you know.  We talked long about the coming editor and I
never realized so many were expecting to get the job.  Archie Luper told me that Parker
Henderson had already been selected but no announcement as yet.?  See also Don Haymes,
?The Imprimatur and the Nihil Obstat,? Integrity, September 1977, 63: ?By late July
[1977] rampant rumor had given the [Advocate] job to practically everyone but Yater Tant
and Carl Ketcherside.?
77. Letter from James L. Lovell to David McQuiddy, March 13, 1977, Lovell papers, box
35.  See also James L. Lovell, ?The Gospel Advocate,? Action, October 1977.  Lovell had
sparred with Goodpasture intermittently over the years, but according to Lovell all wounds
had been healed with the arrival of a letter from Goodpasture, penned days before his death
(James L. Lovell, ?B. C. Goodpasture,? Action, April 1977; see also letter from James L.
Lovell to B. C. Goodpasture, February 3, 1977, Lovell papers, box 35).  On Lovell, see
Terry Cowan, ?World Bible School,? in Douglas A. Foster, et al., eds., Encyclopedia of the
330
Stone-Campbell Movement (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 783-84; and Bill Youngs,
The Man of Action: The Story of Jimmie Lovell (Austin, Tex.: Sweet Publishing Co.,
1969).
78. Letter from Lovell to McQuiddy, April 19, 1977 (likely Lovell?s second letter lobbying
for Lemmons).  In contrast to Sewell?s lobbying of Leon McQuiddy decades earlier, Lovell
had his candidate?s permission to test the waters with David McQuiddy.  The day he died,
Goodpasture had been scheduled to meet Lemmons at the Nashville airport.  Lemmons had
come to discuss business with him and McQuiddy ?relative to the mutual printing and
publishing interests? of the Firm Foundation Publishing House and the McQuiddy Printing
Company, which owned the Gospel Advocate Company (Reuel Lemmons, ?On the Passing
of B. C. Goodpasture,? Firm Foundation, April 5, 1977, 210).  Lemmons, as he informed
Lovell, did meet with McQuiddy later, and as a result could envision ?a much closer
relationship between the two papers.?  He did not elaborate, but Goodpasture?s death had
Lemmons, Lovell, and perhaps McQuiddy contemplating the possibility of Lemmons
succeeding Goodpasture.  Lemmons asked Lovell to write McQuiddy on that point: ?I don?t
know how interested I will be but I would appreciate a look at it.  Nothing will happen
suddenly.  I think I can say to you that the people we most suspect are not in the running?
(letter from Reuel Lemmons to James L. Lovell, April 5, 1977, Lovell papers, box 35).
79. T. Wesley Crawford, ?Firm Foundation,? in Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell
Movement, 337-38.
80. David L. McQuiddy, Jr., ?Statement from the Publisher,? Gospel Advocate, August 11,
1977, 498.
81. Letter from David L. McQuiddy, Jr., to James L. Lovell, August 23, 1977, Lovell
papers, box 35.  In his announcement to the Advocate readership, McQuiddy indicated that
making Woods associate editor was North?s idea, while Willard Collins, many years later,
indicated that it was McQuiddy?s decision, with North?s concurrence; see Willard Collins,
?Farewell For Now,? Gospel Advocate, February 1994, 64.
82. See Chapter 6.  See also letter from James W. Boyd to Bruce Curd, July 28, 1978, and
associated correspondence, Guy N. Woods papers, box 2, Loden-Daniel Library, Freed-
Hardeman University, Henderson, Tennessee; and letter from W. N. Jackson to Guy N.
Woods, March 7, 1978, Woods papers, box 2.
83. See Hugh Fulford, ?Foy E. Wallace, Jr., Commends New Editors,? Gospel Advocate,
December 15, 1977, 786; letter from McQuiddy to Lovell, August 23, 1977; letter from
Guy N. Woods to James L. Lovell, November 12, 1977, Lovell papers, box 35; and Lovell,
?The Gospel Advocate.?
84. James O. Baird, ?A Tribute and a Reflection,? Gospel Advocate, December 8, 1977,
770.
331
85. Ira North, ?Gospel Advocate Becomes a Bi-Monthly,? Gospel Advocate, July 12, 1979,
418.
86. In failing health, North retired in 1982, and Woods replaced him.  F. Furman Kearley
became the editor in 1985 upon the retirement of Woods.  The Advocate switched to a
monthly slick magazine format in 1988, and in 1990 McQuiddy sold the Gospel Advocate
Company to Neil Anderson.
87. Batsell Barrett Baxter, ?Preacher . . . Elder . . . of the Hillsboro Church,? Gospel
Advocate, April 21, 1977, 249.  G. K. Wallace, ?Goodpasture?A Man of God,? Gospel
Advocate, April 21, 1977, 248.
88. B. C. Goodpasture, ?Paul?s ?Daily Anxiety,?? Gospel Advocate, September 7, 1972,
562 (at least the third reprinting after the original editorial ran May 28, 1964).  His
quotation of Paul was taken from II Corinthians 11:28.
332
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Primary Sources
Manuscript Collections
Abilene Christian University, Brown Library Special Collections, Abilene, Texas
George Carter papers
Exodus/New Jersey collection
J. D. Hall, Jr., collection
Herald of Truth archives
Howard Horton papers
T. B. Larimore papers
Reuel Lemmons papers
James L. Lovell papers
Lemoine Lewis papers
E. W. McMillan papers
Don H. Morris papers
Frank Pack papers
Jesse P. Sewell papers
John C. Stevens papers
Glenn L. Wallace papers 
Vertical files
Disciples of Christ Historical Society, Nashville
Benton Cordell Goodpasture papers
Vertical files
Freed-Hardeman University, Loden-Daniel Library, Henderson, Tennessee
G. K. Wallace collection
Guy N. Woods papers
Harding University, Archives and Special Collections, Brackett Library, Searcy, Arkansas
James D. Bales files
George S. Benson files
Board of Trustees minutes, 1969
Miscellaneous topical and university files
333
Harding University Graduate School of Religion, Memphis
John Allen Chalk papers
Lipscomb University, Beaman Library Special Collections, Nashville
Batsell Barrett Baxter papers
H. Leo Boles collection
A. M. Burton papers
Herald of Truth collection
Hillsboro Church of Christ sermon collection
Marshall Keeble collection
Vertical files
Memphis School of Preaching, Memphis
N. B. Hardeman collection
University of Arkansas Libraries, Special Collections, Fayetteville
James D. Bales papers
Audio Recordings, Interviews, and Transcripts
Baxter, Batsell Barrett, and others.  Benton Cordell Goodpasture funeral service, Hillsboro
Church of Christ, Nashville, February 21, 1977.  Tape recording and unpublished
transcript prepared by David Duer in author?s possession.
Gardner, E. Claude, and others.  Memorial service, Freed-Hardeman College, Henderson,
Tennessee, February 23, 1977.  Partial tape recording in author?s possession.
Goodpasture, B. C.  ?Fifty-Nine Years on the Firing Line.?  Alabama Christian College
Lectures, March 23-25, 1971.  Unpublished transcript in author?s possession and in
Goodpasture papers.
__________.  ?Problems or Dangers Confronting the Church.?  Special sermon given in the
late 1950s at Grace Avenue Church of Christ, Nashville.  Unpublished transcript in
author?s possession and in Goodpasture papers.
__________, and others.  Miscellaneous sermon and lecture recordings in author?s
possession.
Kebble, Marshall, B. C. Goodpasture, Charles Brewer, and others.  Interviews by J. E.
Choate, 1965-1967.  Unpublished partial transcripts prepared by David Duer in
author?s possession; audio recordings at Beaman Library, Lipscomb University,
Nashville.
334
McQuiddy, David Lipscomb, Jr.  Interview by Terry J. Gardner, July 29, 1996. 
Unpublished annotated transcript prepared by Terry J. Gardner in author?s
possession.
Woods, Guy N, and others.  Open Forum, Freed-Hardeman College Lectures, 1977. 
Thursday, February 10, 1977, 3:30 p.m.  Tape # A-334.  Partial recording in
author?s possession.
Periodicals
[Abilene Christian] Optimist
Action
Apostolic Times
Bible Banner
Christian Bible Teacher
Christian Chronicle
Christian Leader
Contending for the Faith
Firm Foundation
First Century Christian
Gospel Advocate
Gospel Guardian
Guardian of Truth
Herald of Truth Magazine
Integrity
Kerygma
[Lipscomb] Babbler
Lipscomb Review
Minister?s Monthly
Mission
Mission Messenger
Restoration Review
Sound Doctrine
Spiritual Sword
Vanguard
Voice of Freedom
Books, Pamphlets, and Tracts
Memphis Meeting with the representatives of the Herald of Truth, September 10, 1973. 
[Memphis: Getwell Church of Christ, 1974].
335
The Acts of the Holy Spirit in the Church of Christ Today.  Los Angeles: Full Gospel
Business Men?s Fellowship International, 1971.
The Arlington Meeting.  Orlando, Fla.: Cogdill Foundation, n.d.
Bales, James D.  Restoration, Reformation or Revelation?  Shreveport, La.: Lambert Book
House, 1975.
__________.   Modernism: Trojan Horse in the Church.  Searcy, Ark.: James D. Bales,
1971.
__________.  Pat Boone and the Gift of Tongues.  Searcy, Ark.: James D. Bales, 1970.
Baxter, Batsell Barrett.  Every Life a Plan of God: The Autobiography of Batsell Barrett
Baxter.  Abilene, Tex.: Zachary Associates, 1983.
__________.  I Believe Because . . . A Study of the Evidence Supporting Christian Faith. 
Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1971.
__________.  Questions and Issues of the Day.  Nashville: Hillsboro Church of Christ,
1963.
__________.  Speaking for the Master: A Study of Public Speaking for Christian Men. 
New York: Macmillan, 1954.
__________ and M. Norvel Young, eds.  Preachers of Today: A Book of Brief
Biographical Sketches and Pictures of Living Gospel Preachers.  Vol. 4. 
Nashville: Gospel Advocate Co., 1970.
__________.  New Testament Churches of Today: A Book of Brief Sketches and Pictures
of Twentieth Century Churches of Christ.  Nashville: Gospel Advocate Co., 1960.
__________.  Preachers of Today: A Book of Brief Biographical Sketches and Pictures
of Living Gospel Preachers.  Vol. 2.  Nashville: Gospel Advocate Co., 1959.
__________.  Preachers of Today: A Book of Brief Biographical Sketches and Pictures
of Living Gospel Preachers.  Nashville: Christian Press, 1952.
Boles, H. Leo.  The Way of Unity Between ?Christian Church? and Churches of Christ. 
Memphis: Getwell Church of Christ, 1984.
__________.  The New Testament Teaching on War.  Nashville: Gospel Advocate Co., n.d.
336
__________ and R. H. Boll.  Unfulfilled Prophecy: A Discussion on Prophetic Themes. 
Nashville: Gospel Advocate Co., 1928.
Bradfield, W. A., ed.  The Bible Versus Liberalism: Freed-Hardeman College
Lectureship, Henderson, Tennessee, 1972.  Nashville: Gospel Advocate Co.
Brewer, G. C.  A Story of Toil and Tears, of Love and Laughter: Being the Autobiography
of G. C. Brewer, 1884-1956.  Murfreesboro, Tenn.: DeHoff Publications, 1957.
__________.  ?Childhaven?: A Review of Brother Lewis? Booklet and a Study of
Institutionalism.  n.p., 1950.
__________.  Forty Years on the Firing Line.  Kansas City: Old Paths Book Club, 1948.
__________.  Congregations and Colleges.  n.p., [1947].
__________.  Contending for the Faith.  Nashville: Gospel Advocate Co., 1941.
Brownlow, Leroy.  Why I am a Member of the Church of Christ.  Ft. Worth, Tex.:
Brownlow Publishing Co., Inc.,1945.
Bryan, Alan M.  Ideas for Bible School Growth.  Gadsden, Ala.: Christian Teacher, 1957.
Burns, Leon C.  Why Desegregation Will Fail.  Columbia, Tennessee: Leon Burns, 1957.
Chalk, John Allen.  The Praying Christ and Other Sermons.  Dallas:  Christian Publishing
Co., 1965.
Choate, J. E.  The Anchor That Holds: A Biography of Benton Cordell Goodpasture. 
Nashville: Gospel Advocate Co., 1971.
Coffman, James Burton.  Tales of Coffman: An Autobiography.  Abilene, Tex.: Abilene
Christian University Press, 1992.
Flatt, Bill, ed.  What the Bible Teaches: Being the 1972 Bible Lectureship of Harding
Graduate School of Religion, Memphis, Tennessee.  Nashville: Gospel Advocate
Co., 1972.
[Frost, Jere E.]  Reprints and Excerpts from the Gospel Advocate. [Newbern, Tenn.: Jere
E. Frost, 1957.]
Gatewood, Otis.  Preaching in the Footsteps of Hitler.  Nashville: Williams Printing Co.,
1960.
337
Goodpasture, B. C.  Sermons of B. C. Goodpasture, ed. J. D. Thomas.  Great Preachers of
Today Series.  Abilene, Tex.: Biblical Research Press, 1967.
__________.  Sermons and Lectures of B. C. Goodpasture.  Compiled by Willard Collins
and John Cliett Goodpasture. Nashville: B. C. Goodpasture, 1964.
__________, comp.  The Gospel Advocate Centennial Volume.  Nashville: Gospel
Advocate Co., 1956.
__________, comp.  The Gospel Advocate Celebrates Its 100  Anniversary.  Nashville:th
Gospel Advocate Co., 1955.
__________, ed.  The Sermon Outlines of H. Leo Boles.  Nashville: B. C. Goodpasture,
1949.
__________, comp.  The Sermon Outlines of M. C. Kurfees.  Atlanta: B. C. Goodpasture,
1936.
__________.  Introduction to Biographical Sketches of Gospel Preachers, by H. Leo
Boles, 9-11.  Nashville: Gospel Advocate Co., 1932.
__________, ed.  Biography and Sermons of Marshall Keeble, Evangelist.  Nashville:
Gospel Advocate Co., 1931.
__________ and W. T. Moore, eds.  Biographies and Sermons of Pioneer Preachers. 
Nashville: B. C. Goodpasture, 1954.
Goodpasture, Freddie Joan Armstrong Goetz.  From Neri to Nashville by the Providence of
God, 1918-1998.  Nashville: Pilcrow Publishing, 1998.
Gospel Advocate Company.  Gospel Advocate Series: Teacher?s Annual Lesson
Commentary on Uniform Bible Lessons for the Churches of Christ.  Nashville:
Gospel Advocate Co., 1946-1977.
__________.  Gospel Advocate Series: Annual Lesson Commentary on Improved
Uniform Series of International Bible Lessons.  Nashville: Gospel Advocate Co.,
1932-1945.
Harper, E. R.  Harper-Tant Debate, Abilene, Texas, November 27-30, 1955.  Abilene,
Tex.: Chronicle Publishing Co., 1956.
__________.  An Examination of ?Why ?Herald of Truth? Is Wrong.?  Abilene, Tex.: n.p.,
1955.
__________.  Charts Presented at the Lufkin Debate.  n.p., n.d.
338
Harrel [sic], David Edwin, Jr.  Emergence of the ?Church of Christ? Denomination. 
Lufkin, Tex.: Gospel Guardian Co., n.d.
Herald of Truth.  The Restoration and Unity Plea:1965 Herald of Truth Workshop.
[Abilene, Tex.: Herald of Truth, 1965].
Highland Church of Christ elders.  Herald of Truth: A Special Report.  [Abilene, Tex.:
Highland Church of Christ, 1973].
Jennings, Alvin.  Traditions of Men Versus the Word of God.  Ft. Worth, Tex.: Star Bible
Publications, Inc.,1973.
Ketcherside, W. Carl.  Pilgrimage of Joy: An Autobiography of Carl Ketcherside.  Joplin,
Mo.: College Press, 1991.
Lewis, John T.  The Christian and the Government or A Review of the Bible Banner?s
Position on Christians Going to War.  Birmingham 8, Ala.: John T. Lewis, 1945.
__________.  ?Childhaven.?  Birmingham, Ala.: Star Publishing Co., n.d.
Lipscomb, D[avid].  Civil Government: Its Origin, Mission, and Destiny and the
Christian?s Relation To It.  Nashville: McQuiddy Printing Co., 1913; reprint ,
Nashville: Gospel Advocate Co., 1957.
Lovell, James L., ed.  Voices of Action.  Austin, Tex.: R. B. Sweet Co., Inc., 1968.
Meyers, Robert, ed.  Voices of Concern: Critical Studies in Church of Christism.  St.
Louis: Mission Messenger, 1966.
Miller, Jim.  Is the Church of Christ Really the Church of Christ?  J-M Publications.  n.d.
Murch, James DeForest.  Adventuring for Christ in Changing Times: An Autobiography of
James Deforest Murch.  Louisville: Restoration Press, 1973.
Nichols, Gus.  Sermons of Gus Nichols, ed. J. D. Thomas.  Great Preachers of Today
Series.  Abilene, Tex.: Biblical Research Press, 1966.
__________.  New Testament Principles of Caring for the Needy.  Nashville: Gospel
Advocate Co., 1957.
North, Ira.  You Can March for the Master.  Nashville: Gospel Advocate Co., 1959.
Olbricht, Thomas H.  Hearing God?s Voice: My Life with Scripture in the Churches of
Christ.  Abilene: ACU Press, 1996.
339
Patterson, Noble, and Terry J. Gardner, eds.  Foy E. Wallace, Jr.: Soldier of the Cross. 
Fort Worth: Wallace Memorial Fund, 1999.
Phillips, Dabney.  Restoration Principles and Personalities.  University, Ala.: Youth in
Action, Inc., 1975.
Porter, W. Curtis.  Porter-Myers debate, between W. Curtis Porter, Monette,
Arkansas, representing Church of Christ, and B. Sunday Myers, Opelika,
Alabama, representing Pentecostal Church of God.  A written discussion: Is the
Church of Christ a denomination?  Or is it the exclusive New Testament church? 
Monette, Ark.: Porter?s Book Shop, 1956. 
Powell, James Marvin, and M. Norvel Young.  The Church is Building.  Nashville: Gospel
Advocate Co., 1956.
Pullias, Athens Clay.  Where There Is No Pattern.  Nashville: Gospel Advocate Co., 1957.
Rice, Ira Y., Jr.  Pressing Toward the Mark: An Autobiography.  2 vols.  Memphis: Ira Y.
Rice, Jr., 1998, 2001.
__________.  Axe on the Root.  3 vols.  San Francisco and Nashville: Ira Y. Rice, Jr.,
1966-1970.
Schug, Howard L., J. W. Treat, and Robert L. Johnston, Jr., eds.  The Harvest Field. 
Athens, Ala.: C. E. I. Publishing Co., 1958.
Sewell, Jesse Parker and Henry Eli Speck.  The Church and Her Ideal Educational
Situation.  Austin, Tex.: Firm Foundation Publishing House, 1933.
Taylor, Robert R., Jr.  Christ in the Home.  Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1973.
Thomas, J. D.  What Lack We Yet?.  Abilene, Tex.: Biblical Research Press, 1974.
__________.  Heaven?s Window.  Abilene, Tex.: Biblical Research Press, 1974.
__________.  We Be Brethren.  Abilene, Tex.: Biblical Research Press, 1958.
Totty, W. L., Sterl A. Watson, and Charles A. Holt.  The Indianapolis Debate.  Lufkin,
Tex.: Gospel Guardian Co., 1955.
Wallace, Foy E., Jr.  The Present Truth.  Fort Worth: Foy E. Wallace Jr. Publications,
1977.
340
__________.  A Review of the New Versions: Consisting of an Exposure of the Multiple
New Translations.  Fort Worth, Tex.: Foy E. Wallace Jr., Publications, 1973.
__________.  God?s Prophetic Word: A Series of Addresses Delivered in the Music Hall
in Houston, Texas, January 21-28, 1945, Exposing Modern Millennial Theories. 
Oklahoma City: Foy E. Wallace Jr., Publications, 1946.
__________ and N. B. Hardeman.  Wallace-Hardeman Correspondence, May 19, 1945 ? 
October 3, 1945.  n.p., n.d.
Wallace, G. K.  Autobiography and Retirement Sermons.  High Springs, Fla.: Mary Lois
Forrester, n.d.
Warren, Thomas B.  Logic and the Bible.  Jonesboro, Ark.: National Christian Press, Inc.,
1982.
__________.  When is an ?Example? Binding?  Jonesboro, Ark.: National Christian Press,
Inc., 1975.
__________, ed.  The Church of Christ ? Essential, All-Sufficient, Indestructible,
Perpetually Relevant: Being the Freed-Hardeman College Lectures of 1971,
Henderson, Tennessee.  Nashville: Gospel Advocate Co., 1971.
__________, ed.  The Church Faces Liberalism: Being the Freed-Hardeman College
Lectures of 1970, Henderson, Tennessee.  Nashville: Gospel Advocate Co., 1970.
West, Earl Irvin.  Searcher for the Ancient Order: The Golden Odyssey of Earl I. West. 
Nashville: Gospel Advocate Co., 2004.
West, W. B., Jr., ed.  The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible: Being the 1972 Bible
Lectureship of Harding Graduate School of Religion, Memphis, Tennessee. 
Nashville: Gospel Advocate Co., 1971.
Willis, Cecil.  Is the Herald of Truth Expedient?  n.p., n.d.
Woods, Guy N.  Questions and Answers: Open Forum Freed-Hardeman College
Lectures.  Henderson, Tenn.: Freed-Hardeman College, 1976.
__________ Cooperation in the Field of Benevolence and Evangelism.  Nashville: Gospel
Advocate Co., 1957.
__________ and Roy E. Cogdill.  Woods-Cogdill Debate.  Nashville: Gospel Advocate
Co., 1958.
341
Woods, Guy N., and W. Curtis Porter.  The Woods-Porter Debate on Orphan Homes and
Homes for the Aged.  Nashville: Gospel Advocate Co., 1956.
Woodson, William, ed.  A Plea for Fundamentals: 1977 Freed-Hardeman College
Lectureship.  Henderson, Tenn.: Freed-Hardeman College, 1977.
Secondary Sources
Books
Adams, Lindy, and Scott LaMascus, eds.  Decades of Destiny: A History of Churches of
Christ from 1900-2000.  Abilene: ACU Press, 2004.
Banowsky, William S.  The Mirror of a Movement: Churches of Christ As Seen Through
the Abilene Christian College Lectureship.  Dallas: Christian Publishing Co., 1965.
Blumhofer, Edith Waldvogel.  Restoring the Faith: The Assemblies of God,
Pentecostalism, and American Culture.  Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1993.
Blumhofer, Edith L., and Joel A. Carpenter.  Twentieth-Century Evangelicalism: A Guide
to the Sources.  New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1990.
Boles, John B., ed.  Autobiographical Reflections on Southern Religious History.  Athens:
University of Georgia Press, 2001.
Boles, Leo Lipscomb, and J. E. Choate.  I?ll Stand on the Rock: A Biography of H. Leo
Boles.  Nashville: Gospel Advocate Co., 1965.
Brereton, Virginia Lieson.  Training God?s Army: The American Bible Schools, 1880-
1940.  Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990.
Carpenter, Joel A.  Revive Us Again: The Reawakening of American Fundamentalism. 
New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.
__________ and Wilbert R. Shenk, eds.  Earthen Vessels: American Evangelicals and
Foreign Missions, 1880-1980.  Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1990.
Casey, Michael W.  Saddlebags, City Streets, and Cyberspace: A History of Preaching in
the Churches of Christ.  Abilene, Tex.: ACU Press, 1995.
342
__________, and Douglas A. Foster, eds.  The Stone-Campbell Movement: An
International Religious Tradition.  Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press,
2002.
Choate, J. E.  The Anchor That Holds: A Biography of Benton Cordell Goodpasture. 
Nashville: Gospel Advocate Co., 1971.
__________.  Roll Jordan Roll: A Biography of Marshall Keeble.  Nashville: Gospel
Advocate Co., 1968.
Conkin, Paul K.   American Originals: Homemade Varieties of Christianity.  Chapel Hill:
University of North Carolina Press, 1997.
Crews, Mickey.  The Church of God: A Social History.  Knoxville: University of Tennessee
Press, 1990.
Dayton, Donald W., and Robert K. Johnston.  The Variety of American Evangelicalism. 
Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1991.
DeGroot, A. T.  Disciple Thought: A History.  Ft. Worth, Tex.: Texas Christian University,
1965.
Eckstein, Stephen Daniel, Jr.  History of the Churches of Christ in Texas, 1824-1950. 
Austin, Tex.: Firm Foundation Publishing House, 1963.
Ellwood, Robert S.  The Fifties Spiritual Marketplace: American Religion in a Decade of
Conflict.  New Brunswick, N.J., Rutgers University Press, 1997.
Flowers, Ronald B.  Religion in Strange Times: The 1960s and 1970s.  Macon, Ga.:
Mercer University Press, 1984.
Flynt, Wayne.  Alabama Baptists: Southern Baptists in the Heart of Dixie.  Tuscaloosa:
University of Alabama Press, 1998.
Foster, Douglas A., et al., eds.  The Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement. 
Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2004.
Foster, Douglas A.  Will the Cycle Be Unbroken? Churches of Christ Face the 21st
Century.  Abilene, Tex.: ACU Press, 1994.
Gardner, Arthur Kay, and John Waddey, eds.  Life and Lessons of H. Leo Boles.  Delight,
Ark.: Gospel Light Pub. Co., 1987.
343
Garrett, Leroy.  The Stone-Campbell Movement: The Story of the American Restoration
Movement.  Revised edition.  [Joplin, Missouri]: College Press, 1994.
Garrison, Winfred Ernest, and Alfred T. DeGroot.  The Disciples of Christ: A History. 
Revised edition.  St. Louis: The Bethany Press, 1958.
Gray, Fred.  Bus Ride to Justice: Changing the System by the System: The Life and Works
of Fred Gray.  Montgomery, Ala.: NewSouth Books, 2003.
Harrell, David Edwin, Jr.  The Churches of Christ in the Twentieth Century: Homer
Hailey?s Personal Journey of Faith.  Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press,
2000.
__________, ed.  Varieties of Southern Evangelicalism.  Macon, Georgia: Mercer
University Press, 1981.
__________.  All Things are Possible: The Healing and Charismatic Revivals in Modern
America.  Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1975.
__________.  The Social Sources of Division in the Disciples of Christ, 1865-1900. 
Atlanta: Publishing Systems, Inc., 1973.
__________.  White Sects and Black Men in the Recent South.  Nashville: Vanderbilt
University Press, 1971.
__________.  Quest for a Christian America: The Disciples of Christ and American
Society to 1866.  Nashville: Disciples of Christ Historical Society, 1966.
Hastings, Marvin W.  Saga of a Movement: Story of the Restoration Movement. 
Manchester, Tenn.: Christian Schoolmaster Publications, 1981.
Harvey, Paul.  Freedom?s Coming: Religious Culture and the Shaping of the South from
the Civil War through the Civil Rights Era.  Chapel Hill: University of North
Carolina Press, 2005.
Hatch, Nathan.  The Democratization of American Christianity.  New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1989.
Hicks, L. Edward.  ?Sometimes in the Wrong, but Never in Doubt?: George S. Benson
and the Education of the New Religious Right.  Knoxville: University of Tennessee
Press, 1995.
Hill, Samuel S, ed.  The New Encyclopedia of Southern Culture: Volume 1: Religion. 
Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2006.
344
__________.  Southern Churches in Crisis Revisited.  Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama
Press, 1999.
__________, ed.  Encyclopedia of Religion in the South.  Macon, Ga.: Mercer University
Press, 1984.
Hooper, Robert E.  A Distinct People: A History of the Churches of Christ in the 20th
Century.  West Monroe, La.: Howard Publishing Co., 1993.
__________.  Crying in the Wilderness: A Biography of David Lipscomb.  Nashville:
David Lipscomb College, 1979.
__________ and Jim Turner.  G. Willard Collins: The People Person.  Nashville: 20th
Century Christian, 1986.
Hughes, Richard T., and Thomas H. Olbricht.  Scholarship, Pepperdine University, and
the Legacy of Churches of Christ: A Primer for Faculty, Staff, and Students. 
Malibu: Pepperdine University, 2004.
Hughes, Richard T., and R. L. Roberts.  The Churches of Christ.  Westport, Connecticut:
Greenwood Press, 2001.
Hughes, Richard T.  Reviving the Ancient Faith: The Story of Churches of Christ in
America.  Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1996.
__________, ed.  The Primitive Church in the Modern World.  Urbana: University of
Illinois Press, 1995.
__________, ed.  The American Quest for the Primitive Church.  Urbana: University of
Illinois Press, 1988.
__________ and C. Leonard Allen.  Illusions of Innocence: Protestant Primitivism in
America, 1630-1875.  Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988.
Humble, B. J.  The Story of the Restoration.  Austin, Tex.: Firm Foundation Publishing
House, 1969.
Israel, Charles.  Before Scopes: Evangelicalism, Education, and Evolution in Tennessee,
1870-1925.  Athens: University of Georgia Press, 2004.
Jacobsen, Douglas, and William Vance Trollinger, Jr.  Re-Forming the Center: American
Protestantism, 1900 to the Present.  Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1998.
345
Keith, Jeanette.  Country People in the New South: Tennessee?s Upper Cumberland. 
Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1995.
Knowles, Victor.  The One Cup Faith (Memoirs of a Movement).  [West Concord, Minn.]:
Vanguard, 1976.
Lewis, Jack P., ed.  The Last Things: Essays Presented By His Students To Dr. W.B. West,
Jr. Upon The Occasion Of His Sixty-fifth Birthday.  Austin, Tex.: Sweet Publishing
Co., 1972.
Lewis, Warren, and Hans Rollman, eds.  Restoring the First-century Church in the Twenty-
first Century: Essays on the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement.  Eugene,
Oregon: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2005.
Lippy, Charles H.  Bibliography of Religion in the South.  Macon, Ga.: Macon University
Press, 1985.
Lynn, Mac, comp.  Churches of Christ in the United States, Inclusive of Her
Commonwealth and Territories, 1997 Edition.  Nashville: 21  Century Christian,st
1997.
McAllister, Lester G., and William E. Tucker.  Journey in Faith: A History of the
Christian Church (Disciples of Christ).  St. Louis: Bethany Press, 1975.
Madison Church of Christ.  The Madison Story: 90 Successful Church Growth Programs
of the Madison Church of Christ.  Nashville: Gospel Advocate Co., 1987.
Marsden, George M.  Reforming Fundamentalism: Fuller Seminary and the New
Evangelicalism.  Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1987.
__________.  Fundamentalism and American Culture: The Shaping of Twentieth-
Century Evangelicalism, 1870-1925.  New York: Oxford University Press, 1980.
Marty, Martin E.  Modern American Religion Volume 3: Under God, Indivisible 1941-
1960.  Chicago:  University of Chicago Press, 1996.
__________.  Modern American Religion Volume 2: The Noise of Conflict 1919-1941. 
Chicago:  University of Chicago Press, 1991.
__________.  Modern American Religion Volume 1: The Irony of It All 1893-1919. 
Chicago:  University of Chicago Press, 1986.
Moberg, David O.  The Church as a Social Institution: The Sociology of American
Religion.  Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1962.
346
Morrison, Matthew Clifton.  Like a Lion: Daniel Sommer?s Seventy Years of Preaching. 
Murfreesboro, Tenn.: DeHoff Publications, 1975.
Mullin, Robert Bruce, and Russell E. Richey, Reimagining Denominationalism:
Interpretive Essays.  New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.
Murch, James DeForest.  Christians Only: A History of the Restoration Movement. 
Cincinnati: Standard Publishing Co., 1962.
Niebuhr, H. Richard.  The Social Sources of Denominationalism.  Reprint.  New York:
New American Library, 1975.
Noll, Mark A.  Between Faith and Criticism: Evangelicals, Scholarship, and the Bible in
America.  San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1986.
North, James B.  Union in Truth: An Interpretive History of the Restoration Movement. 
Cincinnati: Standard Publishing Co., 1994.
Pope, Liston.  Millhands and Preachers: A Study of Gastonia.  New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1942.
Powell, James Marvin, and Mary Nelle Hardeman Powers.  N. B. H.: A Biography of
Nicholas Brodie Hardeman.  Nashville: Gospel Advocate Co., 1964.
Ray, Jack L., comp.  Gospel Advocate Index, 1855-1982.  Nashville: Gospel Advocate Co.,
1985.
Roberts, Roland Delevar.  Batsell Barrett Baxter: The Man and The Message.  New Hope,
Alabama:  Roland D. Roberts, 1998.
Robinson, Edward J.  Show Us How You Do It ? Marshall Keeble and the Rise of Black
Churches of Christ in the United States, 1914-1968.  Tuscaloosa: University of
Alabama Press, 2008.
Rowland, Rick.  Campus Ministries: A Historical Study of Churches of Christ Campus
Ministries and Selected College Ministries from 1706 to 1990.  Fort Worth, Tx.:
Star Bible Publications, 1991.
Sandeen, Ernest R.  The Roots of Fundamentalism: British and American Millenarianism,
1800-1930.  Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970.
Sears, L. C.  For Freedom: The Biography of John Nelson Armstrong.  Austin: Sweet
Publishing Co., 1969.
347
Sears, Lloyd Cline.  The Eyes of Jehovah: The Life and Faith of James Alexander
Harding.  Nashville: Gospel Advocate Co., 1970.
Stone, Jon R.  On the Boundaries of American Evangelicalism: The Postwar Evangelical
Coalition.  New York: St. Martins Press, 1997.
Stowell, Daniel W.  Rebuilding Zion: The Religious Reconstruction of the South, 1863-
1877.  New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Tant, Fanning Yater.  J. D. Tant?Texas Preacher: A Biography.  Erlanger, Ky.: Faith and
Facts Press, 1958.
Tristano, Richard M.  The Origins of the Restoration Movement: An Intellectual History. 
Atlanta: Glenmary Research Center, 1988.
Troeltsch, Ernst.  The Social Teaching of the Christian Churches.  2 vols.  Translated by
Olive Wyon.  New York: Harper & Row, 1960.
Trollinger, William Vance, Jr.  God?s Empire: William Bell Riley and Midwestern
Fundamentalism.  Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1990.
Wade, Ronny F.  The Sun Will Shine Again, Someday: A history of the non-class, one cup
Churches of Christ.  Springfield, Mo.: Yesterday?s Treasures, 1986.
Webb, Henry E.  In Search of Christian Unity: A History of the Restoration Movement. 
Cincinnati: Standard Publishing Co., 1990.
West, Earl Irvin.  The Search for the Ancient Order: A History of the Restoration
Movement.  4 vols.  Germantown, Tenn.: Religious Book Service, 1979-1994.
__________.  The Life and Times of David Lipscomb.  Henderson, Tenn.: Religious Book
Service, 1954.
Williams, D. Newell, ed., A Case Study of Mainstream Protestantism: The Disciples?
Relation to American Culture, 1880-1989.  Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1991.
Willis, Cecil.  W. W. Otey, Contender for the Faith: A History of Controversies in the
Church of Christ from 1860-1960.  Akron, Ohio: Cecil Willis, 1964.
Wilson, Charles Reagan.  Religion in the South.  Jackson: University Press of Mississippi,
1985.
Woodson, William.  Standing For Their Faith (A history of churches of Christ in
Tennessee, 1900-1950).  Henderson, Tenn.: J&W Publications, 1979.
348
Wuthnow, Robert.  The Restructuring of American Religion: Society and Faith Since
World War II.  Princeton, N.J.,: Princeton University Press, 1988.
Young, M. Norvel.  A History of Colleges Established and Controlled by Members of the
Churches of Christ.  Kansas City: Old Paths Book Club, 1949.
Youngs, Bill.  The Man of Action: The Story of Jimmie Lovell.  Austin, Tex.: Sweet
Publishing Co., 1969.
Articles and Book Chapters
Adams, James W.  ?Foy E. Wallace, Jr.: Militant Warrior.?  In They Being Dead Yet
Speak: Florida College Annual Lectures, 1981, ed. Melvin D. Curry, 171-86. 
Temple Terrace: Florida College Bookstore, 1981.
Artman, Amy Collier.  ?The Encounter of North American Stone-Campbell Christians with
the Pentecostal/Charismatic Movement.?  Discipliana 62 (Fall 2002): 81-93.
Berryhill, Carisse Mickey.  ? The Ministry of Scholarship: The Jubilee History of
Restoration Quarterly, Part II: Leaders and Scholars.?  Restoration Quarterly 50
(Second Quarter 2008): 91-106.
Brant, Billy G.  ?An Appraisal of the Current Usage of Broadcasting by the Churches of
Christ.?  Restoration Quarterly 25 (Second Quarter 1982): 102-108.
Brauer, Jerald C.  ?Regionalism and Religion in America.?  Church History 54 (September
1985): 366-378.
Carpenter, Joel.  ?Youth for Christ and the New Evangelicals? Place in the Life of the
Nation.?  In Religion and the Life of the Nation: American Recoveries, ed.
Rowland A. Sherrill, 128-151.  Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1990.
__________.  ?Fundamentalist Institutions and the Rise of Evangelical Protestantism,
1929-1942.?  Church History 49 (March 1980): 62-75.
Casey, Michael W.  ?From Religious Outsiders to Insiders: The Rise and Fall of Pacifism in
the Churches of Christ.?  Journal of Church and State 44 (Summer 2002): 455-
475.
__________.  ?The First Graduate Theological Education in the Churches of Christ ? Part
1: Jesse Sewell?s and George Kingman?s Audacious Synthesis of Spirituality and
Academic Excellence at Abilene Christian College.?  Restoration Quarterly 44
(Second Quarter 2002): 73-92.
349
__________.  ?The First Graduate Theological Education in the Churches of Christ ? Part
2: The Controversy over Webb Freeman?s ?Modernism? and the Resulting Collapse
of Sewell?s Dream.?  Restoration Quarterly 44 (Third Quarter 2002): 139-157.
__________.  ?Warriors Against War: The Pacifists of the Churches of Christ in World
War II.?  Restoration Quarterly 35 (Third Quarter 1993): 159-174.
__________.  ?New Information on Conscientious Objectors of World War I and the
Churches of Christ.?  Restoration Quarterly 34 (Second Quarter 1992): 83-96.
__________.  ?Church Growth: New Information,? Image, May 1, 1987 (Part 1), and May
15, 1987 (Part 2).
Cobb, Rick.  ?A Failed Unity Movement within a Unity Movement: The Murch-Witty Unity
Movement, 1937-1947.?  Restoration Quarterly 41 (Second Quarter 1999): 87-
107.
Cope, James R.  ?N. B. Hardeman: Orator, Evangelist, Educator, and Debater.?  In They
Being Dead Yet Speak: Florida College Annual Lectures, 1981, ed. Melvin D.
Curry, 133-55.  Temple Terrace: Florida College Bookstore, 1981.
Ellett, Kent.  ?Non-Sunday School Churches of Christ: Their Origins and Transformation.? 
Discipliana 60 (Summer 2000): 49-63.
Eskridge, Larry.  ??One Way?: Billy Graham, the Jesus Generation, and the Idea of an
Evangelical Youth Culture.? Church History 67 (March 1998): 83-106.
Ferguson, Everett.  ?Higher Education in Religious Studies among Members of Churches of
Christ, 1957-1982.?  Restoration Quarterly 25 (1982): 205-212.
Fitzgerald, John T.  ?Abraham J. Malherbe as a New Testament Scholar: An Analysis and
Appreciation, Part I: The Early Years.? Restoration Quarterly 46 (2004): 167-73.
Foster, Douglas A.  ?The 1906 Census of Religious Bodies and Division in the Stone-
Campbell Movement: A Closer Look.? Discipliana 66 (Fall 2006): 83-93.
__________.  ?Waves of the Spirit Against a Rational Rock: The Impact of the Pentecostal,
Charismatic, and Third Wave Movements on American Churches of Christ.? 
Restoration Quarterly 45 (First/Second Quarter 2003): 95-105.
Fowler, Newton B., Jr.  ?Church and Sect Applied to Early Disciples: Limitations of
Troeltsch and Niebuhr.?  Discipliana 56 (Summer 1996): 54-64.
350
Gardner, Terry J.  ?Young Foy: The Early Years, 1896-1938.?  In Foy E. Wallace, Jr.:
Soldier of the Cross, ed. Noble Patterson and Terry J. Gardner, 1-22.  Fort Worth:
Wallace Memorial Fund, 1999.
__________.  ?Foy E. Wallace, Jr.: The Bible Banner Years, Part One (1938-1945).?  In 
Foy E. Wallace, Jr.: Soldier of the Cross, ed. Noble Patterson and Terry J. Gardner,
55-73.  Fort Worth: Wallace Memorial Fund, 1999.
__________.  ?Foy E. Wallace, Jr.: The Bible Banner Years, Part Two (1945-1949).?  In 
Foy E. Wallace, Jr.: Soldier of the Cross, ed. Noble Patterson and Terry J. Gardner,
75-93.  Fort Worth: Wallace Memorial Fund, 1999.
__________.  ?Foy E. Wallace, Jr.: The Critical Decade (1949-1959).?  In Foy E. Wallace,
Jr.: Soldier of the Cross, ed. Noble Patterson and Terry J. Gardner, 95-107.  Fort
Worth: Wallace Memorial Fund, 1999.
__________.  ?Into the Sunset: Foy E. Wallace, Jr, 1960-1969.?  In Foy E. Wallace, Jr.:
Soldier of the Cross, ed. Noble Patterson and Terry J. Gardner, 109-20.  Fort
Worth: Wallace Memorial Fund, 1999.
__________.  ?I Am Bound for the Promised Land: Foy E. Wallace, Jr., 1970-1979.?  In 
Foy E. Wallace, Jr.: Soldier of the Cross, ed. Noble Patterson and Terry J. Gardner,
109-20.  Fort Worth: Wallace Memorial Fund, 1999.
__________.  ?Cled E. Wallace: The Ace Writer.?  In Foy E. Wallace, Jr.: Soldier of the
Cross, ed. Noble Patterson and Terry J. Gardner, 285-90.  Fort Worth: Wallace
Memorial Fund, 1999.
Halbrook, Ron.  ?G. C. Brewer: Perennial Protagonist.?  In They Being Dead Yet Speak:
Florida College Annual Lectures, 1981, ed. Melvin D. Curry, 198-219.  Temple
Terrace: Florida College Bookstore, 1981.
Harrell, David Edwin, Jr.  ?Christian Primitivism and Modernization in the Stone-Campbell
Movement.?  In The Primitive Church in the Modern World, ed. Richard T.
Hughes, 109-120.  Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1995.
__________.  ?Restorationism and the Stone-Campbell Tradition.?  In Encyclopedia of the
American Religious Experience, vol. 2, ed. Charles H. Lippy and Peter W.
Williams, 845-58.  New York: Charles Scribner?s Sons, 1988.
__________.  ?From Consent to Dissent: The Emergence of the Churches of Christ in
America.?  Restoration Quarterly 19 (Second Quarter 1976): 98-111.
351
__________.  ?The Agrarian Myth and the Disciples of Christ in the Nineteenth Century.?
Agricultural History 41 (April 1967): 181-192.
__________.  ?The Sectional Origins of the Churches of Christ.?  Journal of Southern
History 30 (August 1964): 261-277.
Harrell, Ed.  ?B. C. Goodpasture: Leader of Institutional Thought.?  In They Being Dead
Yet Speak: Florida College Annual Lectures, 1981, ed. Melvin D. Curry, 241-53. 
Temple Terrace: Florida College Bookstore, 1981.
Hart, Larry.  ?Brief History of a Minor Restorationist Group (The Non-Sunday-School
Churches of Christ).?  Restoration Quarterly 22 (Fourth Quarter 1979): 212-32.
Henderson, Alan.  ?A Historical Review of Missions and Missionary Training in the
Churches of Christ.?  Restoration Quarterly 35 (Fourth Quarter 1993): 203-217.
Hicks, John Mark.  ?K.C. Moser and Churches of Christ: A Historical Perspective.?  
Restoration Quarterly 37 (Third Quarter 1995): 139-157.
__________.  ?K.C. Moser and Churches of Christ: A Theological Perspective.? 
Restoration Quarterly 37 (Fourth Quarter 1995): 193-211.
Himmel, Irvin.  ?M. C. Kurfees: Careful Scholar and Astute Author.?  In They Being Dead
Yet Speak: Florida College Annual Lectures, 1981, ed. Melvin D. Curry, 22-33. 
Temple Terrace: Florida College Bookstore, 1981.
Hooper, Robert E.  ?Goodpasture, Benton Cordell.?  In Encyclopedia of Religion in the
South, ed. Samuel S. Hill, 306-07.  Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1984.
__________.  ?The Gospel Advocate: A Short History,? Gospel Advocate [microfilm]. 
Nashville: Lipscomb University Microfilm, 1989.  Initial section of rolls 1-131.
Holifield, E. Brooks.  ?Theology as Entertainment: Oral Debate in American Religion.?  
Church History 67 (September 1998): 499-520.
Hollinger, David A.  ?The ?Secularization? Question and the United States in the Twentieth
Century.?  Church History 70 (March 2001): 132-143.
Hughes, Richard T.  ?The Apocalyptic Origins of Churches of Christ and the Triumph of
Modernism.?  Religion and American Culture 2 (Summer 1992): 181-214.
__________.  ?The Editor-Bishop: David Lipscomb and the Gospel Advocate.?  In The
Power of the Press: Studies of the Gospel Advocate, the Christian Standard, and
352
The Christian-Evangelist, 1-34.  Nashville: Disciples of Christ Historical Society,
1986.
__________.  ?Twenty-Five Years of Restoration Scholarship: The Churches of Christ ? 
Part I.?  Restoration Quarterly 25 (Fourth Quarter 1982): 233-256.
__________.  ?Twenty-Five Years of Restoration Scholarship: The Churches of Christ ?
Part II.?  Restoration Quarterly 26 (First Quarter 1983): 39-62.
__________.  ?The Role of Theology in the Nineteenth Century Division of Disciples of
Christ.?  In American Religion: 1974 Proceedings, compiled by Edwin S. Gaustad,
56-78.  Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1974.
Humble, Bill J.  ?The Restoration Ideal in the Churches of Christ.?  In The American Quest
for the Primitive Church, ed. Richard T. Hughes, 220-31.  Urbana: University of
Illinois Press, 1988.
Jenkins, Ferrell.  ?Please Don?t Call Us ?Anti?: An Update on the Non-Institutional
Churches of Christ.?  Focus Magazine (October 1998): 13-22.
Langford, Thomas A.  ?An Insider?s View of Non-Sunday School Churches of Christ.?  
Restoration Quarterly 45 (Third Quarter 2003): 181-192.
Martin, Mark.  ?The Churches of Christ Evangelize Germany: The First Years After World
War II.?  Discipliana 65 (Spring 2005): 23-36.
Olbricht, Thomas H.  ?The Theology of the Church in Churches of Christ.?  Restoration
Quarterly 50 (First Quarter 2008): 15-34.
__________.  ?The Peace Heritage of the Churches of Christ.?  In The Fragmentation of
the Church and Its Unity in Peacemaking, ed. Jeffrey Gros and John D. Rempel,
196-219.
__________.  ?Hermeneutics in the Churches of Christ.?  Restoration Quarterly 37 (First
Quarter 1995): 1-24.
Parks, Norman L.  ?G. C. Brewer, Controversalist.?  Discipliana 44 (Spring 1984): 55-58.
Robertson, Earl E.  ?Daniel Sommer: Thunder on the Right.?  In They Being Dead Yet
Speak: Florida College Annual Lectures, 1981, ed. Melvin D. Curry, 220-40. 
Temple Terrace: Florida College Bookstore, 1981.
Rollmann, Hans.  ??Our Steadfastness and Perseverance Depends on Perpetual Expectation
of Our Lord?: The Development of Robert Henry Boll?s Premillennialism (1895-
1915).?  Discipliana 59 (Winter 1999): 113-126.
353
Shaffer, Stephen L.  ?Exodus Rochester.?  Restoration Quarterly 48 (Fourth Quarter
2006): 233-246.
Shelburne, Ian.  ?Piecemakers to Peacemakers: The Transformed Ministries of W. Carl
Ketcherside and J. Ervin Waters.?  Discipliana 57 (Fall 1997): 80-95
Stephens, Randall J.  ??There is Magic in Print?: The Holiness-Pentecostal Press and the
Origins of Southern Pentecostalism.?  Journal of Southern Religion 5 (2002).
Stevens, John C.  ?J. D. Thomas and the Abilene Christian University Bible Department.?  
Restoration Quarterly 22 (First/Second Quarter 1979): 3-7.
Tant, Fanning Yater.  ?Henry Leo Boles: Distinguished Preacher, Teacher, Debater,
Commentator (1874-1946).?  In They Being Dead Yet Speak: Florida College
Annual Lectures, 1981, ed. Melvin D. Curry, 62-73.  Temple Terrace: Florida
College Bookstore, 1981.
Thompson, James W.  ?Reflections on the Last Fifty Years.?  Restoration Quarterly 46
(Third/Fourth Quarter 2004): 131-138.
__________.  ?The Formation of an Academic Tradition in Biblical Studies at Abilene
Christian University.?  Restoration Quarterly 45 (First/Second Quarter 2003): 15-
28.
Toulouse, Mark G.  ?The Problem and Promise of Writing Denominational History.?  
Discipliana 57 (Winter 1997): 112-128.
Tucker, John Mark.  ?The Ministry of Scholarship: The Jubilee History of Restoration
Quarterly, Part I: Context and Challenge.? Restoration Quarterly 50 (First Quarter
2008): 3-14.
Welch, Robert C.  ?R. H. Boll: Premillennial Visionary.?  In They Being Dead Yet Speak:
Florida College Annual Lectures, 1981, ed. Melvin D. Curry, 50-61.  Temple
Terrace: Florida College Bookstore, 1981.
Williams, Almon L.  ?Robertson Lafayette Whiteside: Bible Student Par Excellence.?  In 
They Being Dead Yet Speak: Florida College Annual Lectures, 1981, ed. Melvin
D. Curry, 86-104.  Temple Terrace: Florida College Bookstore, 1981.
Wilson, Charles Reagan.  ??God?s Project?: The Southern Civil Religion, 1920-1980.?  In 
Religion and the Life of the Nation: American Recoveries, ed. Rowland A. Sherrill,
64-83.  Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1990.
Yeakley, Flavil, Jr.  ?Recent Patterns of Growth and Decline Among Heirs of the
Restoration Movement.?  Restoration Quarterly 37 (First Quarter 1995): 45-50.
354
Theses and Unpublished Papers
Billingsley, Scott C.  ?The Newbern Trial: A Study of Restorationism and Primitivism in
American Religion.?  M.S. thesis, Middle Tennessee State, 1996.
Broking, Darrell.  ?Marshall Keeble and the Implementation of a Grand Strategy: Erasing
the Color Line In The Church of Christ.?  M.A. thesis, East Tennessee State
University, 2003.
Goode, Richard.  ?To Claim the Soul of the Tradition: A Review of Reviving the Ancient
Faith.?  Unpublished paper presented at Christian Scholars Conference, David
Lipscomb University, 1996.
Harrell, David Edwin, Jr.  ?The Legacy of Barton W. Stone?s Millennialism in the Churches
of Christ.?  Unpublished paper.
Humble, Bill J.  ?The Missionary Society Controversy in the Restoration Movement (1823-
1875).?  Ph.D. diss., State University of Iowa, 1964.
Key, Barclay. "Race and Restoration: Churches of Christ and the African-American
Freedom Struggle." Ph.D. diss., University of Florida, 2007.
Major, James Brooks.  ?The Role of Periodicals in the Development of the Disciples of
Christ, 1850-1910.?  Ph.D. diss., Vanderbilt University, 1966.
Olbricht, Thomas H.  ?New Journals for the Sixties: Restoration Quarterly and Mission.?
Unpublished paper.
Tarence, Paul Edward.  ?A Study of the Preaching Theory and Practice of Benton Cordell
Goodpasture.?  M.A. thesis, Auburn University, 1970.
Waldrep, B. Dwain.  ?Lewis Sperry Chafer and the Development of Interdenominational
Fundamentalism in the South, 1900-1950.?  Ph.D. diss., Auburn University, 2001.
Wilson, Mark R.  ?Advancing Progressive Orthodoxy: William Owen Carver and the
Reconciliation of Progress and Southern Baptist Tradition.?  Ph.D. diss., Auburn
University, 2005.