Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 10
NEED_DATE
NUMBER 49, PAGE 7a

Jenkins -- Hathaway Debate

R. L. Burns, Grand Prairie, Texas

On February 2, 3, 5, 6 Jesse Jenkins, Irving, Texas, met Lester Hathaway, Mobeetie, Texas, in Irving. The entire discussion was in the building of the "No-Bibleclass-fellowship" group in Grand Prairie. Good crowds were present throughout and good order prevailed. The only hinderances were inclement weather and the efforts of the three institutional churches in Grand Prairie to discourage their members from coming.

This last matter seems significant, in as much as bro. Jenkins holds the position that the local church must do its own work in its assigned duties, and the brethren who endorse human innovations in benevolence and evangelism charge that opposition to their projects and opposition to Bible classes systematically arranged under elders are parallel. One preacher even asked in his bulletin how bro. Jenkins would defend his position and find his "pattern". But, needless to say, he was not interested enough in an answer to even favor us one night with his presence to see Hathaway "annihilate" Jenkins because of his "inconsistency." The truth is, as I am persuaded many liberal brethren know, both deny the local church the right, exclusively, to systematically arrange to do its own work, under its elders.

In Hathaway's first speech he charged that there is no difference in denominational Sunday Schools and our own classes. When he was pressed to show that the classes of the proposition were separate organizations from the church, with presidents, secretaries and treasurers, he admitted they were not parallel, but said, "If you don't have them, you fellowship those who do." He defined "prophesy" as edifying, then later admitted that "prophesying" was the cause and edifying was the effect. He read from Cleon Lyles and the 12th Ave. church in Nashville, Tennessee to prove that Robert Raikes started the "Sunday School" and when Jenkins quoted history to show that Bible classes existed long before Raikes, Hathaway rebuked him for introducing history. Hathaway argued that "teach" was specific on Sunday morning at 11:00, but then admitted that preaching, teaching from house to house, and disputing were scriptural METHODS of teaching. Jenkins replied that he accepted teaching in the 11:00 service as both preaching and singing. When asked if in places where women only were Christians could they meet and worship God as commanded, Hathaway said "No." Jenkins then showed that Hathaway so interpreted I Cor. 14 as to cause women to disobey Hebrews 10:25, but that he would not so interpret it as to cause them to disobey Eph. 5:19.

In his first affirmative, Jenkins stated that all religious division was caused by a failure to recognize and/or apply Bible authority. He pointed out that Bible authority may be established by precept, divinely approved example and/or necessary inference. He showed that there is generic and specific authorization and illustrated this with a chart showing "Authorization — Generic — Specific — Essentials — Expediencies — Exclusions." In the Lord's Supper, it was pointed out, there are expediencies (containers, etc.), but another feast was excluded; In relieving widows (I Tim. 5:16) the systematic arrangement under the oversight of the elders was an expedient, but another organization to supply the method and assume the oversight would be excluded; In feeding the flock then, by the same reasoning, Bible classes provided by the elders was merely a systematic arrangement, but another organization apart from the church to provide the classes for the church and oversee them would be wrong. He called upon Hathaway to: (1) Show that the wrong method of establishing authority was employed, (2) Show that he had deviated from that method as related to Bible classes, or (3) admit classes as scriptural and right. Hathaway's only attempt to answer the argument was in trying to show that Jenkins had made Bible classes parallel to the Lord's Supper. Jenkins responded by showing that he had made the classes parallel with the number of containers, not the Supper itself. Jenkins' second argument was that the command to teach in the Mosaic Economy was generic and allowed classes. In his third affirmative, Jenkins showed that it is scriptural for women to teach in some of the classes. He gave a detailed explanation of I Cor. 14:26-40 and I Tim. 2:11-12. In the first, he pointed out that the minute details of I Cor. 14 were given to regulate a meeting where spiritual gifts were exercised. He pointed out that Paul gave three abiding principles in regulating these gifts, found in verses 26, 83, 40. He charged Hathaway and those who stand with him of not even regulating their meetings by I Cor. 14 which call for: (1) No more than 3 speakers in one meeting; (2) Judging prophets; (3) the one speaking to stop for another to speak; (4) Women to remain completely silent; (5) Wives of prophets to ask their husbands any question they have at home.

Jenkins showed that I Tim. 2:11-12 was of general application. This passage does not teach: (1) It is wrong for women to teach (Titus 2:3); (2) It is wrong for women to teach man (Acts 18:26); (3) It is wrong for women to exercise authority (I Tim. 5:14). But it does teach woman's subjection to man. He concluded by showing that the Bible authorizes women to teach when: (1) All things are done unto edifying; (2) There is no confusion; (3) All things are done decently and in order; (4) She is in subjection to man. Since the women in the Classes of the proposition observed each of these principles, the classes are scriptural.

In his last affirmative, Jenkins showed that women spoke in assembles in the days of Jesus' ministry, without being rebuked either by Jesus or the rulers of synagogue.

While this was only the second public discussion bro. Jenkins has ever had he conducted himself as a master throughout and upheld the truth in a commendable way. The brethren who stand with him are well pleased with the work he did.