But He Did
During the week of February 11-14, 1958, Brother W. Curtis Porter of Monette, Arkansas participated in an oral debate with Brother Kermit. M. Lynch of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The debate was conducted in the building owned by the church in Claremore, Oklahoma. The weather was not too good during the debate, and therefore the crowds were not extremely large. In this article no attempt is going to be made to review the debate, argument by argument, as is usually done. Perhaps someone else will do that.
Significance Of The Debate
Brother Lynch is one of our brethren who objects to classes as an arrangement to teach the Bible. He believes that all of the teaching must be done in an "undivided assembly." It was obvious to those present that Brother Lynch was relatively inexperienced in debating this matter. So the significance of the debate did not lie in the fact that Brother Porter was meeting one of the champions of the brethren who object to the Bible classes, because Brother Lynch was not that. Brother Porter presented the same tried and proved arguments that he had used so often before in debate with these brethren. The effect of his arguments was telling to all — even upon Brother Lynch. (More recently, April 7-10, Brother Porter met Brother Ralph Gage, Brother Lynch's moderator at Claremore, on the same subject at Norman, Oklahoma.)
The thing that made this debate of special interest to me was the fact that Brother Porter was undertaking to do that which he was never supposed to be able to do again. As most of you well know, for several years W. Curtis Porter has taken a firm stand against churches making contributions to human institutions. Even back during the old BIBLE BANNER days, Curtis Porter was opposing churches of the Lord making contributions to human institutions. And in more recent years he has continued to make the same objections to church support of human benevolent organizations.
Those who have undertaken to defend these human benevolent organizations have engaged in oral and written debate several times with Brother Porter on these issues. Brother Porter has met Brother Guy N. Woods twice, once at Indianapolis, Indiana and once at Paragould, Arkansas, and has met Brother Roy Deaver at Dumas, Texas. In each of these debates Brother Porter was said to have joined the "Antis." Everyone who opposes human institutions through which the church undertakes to do what has been termed "its work" has been called an "Anti," Ketchersideite, or a Sommerite. Some brethren seem to have a philosophy something like this: "If you cannot answer a brothers argument, call him something that You can answer.' So Brother Porter has been said to have given up the fight with the brethren who object to Bible classes. He is said to have joined the "Antis." So the debate at Claremore was of special interest to me because Brother Porter was going to do what some of the prophets among the institutional brethren had said he could never do again. He was going to debate a brother who objected to classes.
Brother Woods
In the Indianapolis debate, Brother Woods' defense of the benevolent organizations was in the fact that when he spoke of organizations, he did not mean a separate organization (body politic), but that he only meant "a systematic procedure" or "a systematic manner of procedure." These were his definitions of organization in Indianapolis. Since then he has decided that these definitions will not do anymore. These organizations now have to be separate organizations, according to Brother Woods. If the modern benevolent organizations were only "systematic arrangements" within the church, then the elders could oversee them. But now Brother Woods very plainly states that elders cannot oversee an orphan home as elders. They can only do so as a board of directors.
In Indianapolis Brother Woods argued that the benevolent organizations and the Bible classes exist on the same basis. Brother Woods said: "He (Porter — CW) doesn't scruple to organize classes in which the Bible is taught . . . But yet, when in the field of benevolence we insist on the same sort (His emphasis — CW) of systematic procedure, Brother Porter objects." Woods-Porter Debate, p. 235. Further, Brother Woods said:
"Brother Porter believes that it is right for a part of the church to organize and conduct edification for itself and others in the Bible school, in what is sometimes called the Sunday school. Now, is the Sunday school the church? It is not in the sense that it is organized exactly as the church is. It is in that sense another organization, because it is a separate procedure; and yet Brother Porter is on record as defending that." p. 33.
Brother Woods insisted that Brother Porter had accepted the "Anti" position. He said "I am not about to accept the anti position here on this question or any other" (P. 103), implying that Brother Porter had accepted it. "In fact, the position that you hold on this question tonight is in principle that of the anti-Sunday school people!" (His emphasis, p. 256.) "These men (Brother Porter and his group) have identified themselves with the Anti-Sunday school position" (p. 187). "It is the same in principle as the Anti-Sunday school position" (p. 190).
Several other brethren have said that their position on the benevolent institutions was similar to their position on the Bible classes. In a little book by Brother Lewis Hale called How Churches Can Cooperate with a sub-title "God's Work in God's Way" (This has always appeared strange to me. These brethren say God has specified no way. The sub-title should read "God's Work In Any Way We Choose To Do It."), Brother Hale also argues that the defense of the benevolent organizations must be made on the same basis as the defense of our Bible classes, and the objection to benevolent organizations must be made on the same basis as objections are made to the Bible classes. Brother Hale says "If to purchase property, provide food clothing, and adequate supervision is 'Institutionalism', then I most heartily favor it. Such is no more 'Institutionalism' than to provide adequate classrooms, teachers, educational facilities and subject matter for systematic Bible study on Sunday morning." (p. 28). The benevolent organizations are just like our Bible classes is their argument. And to object to these institutions is comparable to those who object to our Bible classes, they say.
Orphan Homes And Bible Classes
In the debate at Claremore Brother Porter showed by a chart that he would object to a separate organization in any field of the church's activity. He objected to a Missionary Society, a Benevolent Society and would also object to a Sunday School Society.. If Brother Woods and these other brethren are correct in maintaining that their defense of the benevolent organizations is parallel to our defense of the right to conduct Bible classes, then unless the two have ceased to be parallel in the last few months, these brethren are now in an unenviable position. Brother Woods and several others of prominence now declare that it would be wrong for elders to oversee these benevolent organizations as elders. They must be under a board of directors. Are our Bible classes still parallel? Maybe we should appoint a board of directors from several congregations (Such as is done for several of the orphan homes) and set them over our Bible classes. Then this board of directors should select a superintendent (a Sunday School Superintendent), as is done for the homes.
The next step to be taken would be to incorporate our classes according to the laws of the land. After all we do have to do the work of the church in harmony with civil law. It seems that I have heard that sentence somewhere before! We would then give our Bible classes separate name such as Boles Memorial Sunday School. Of course the classes could have their own budget because they are parallel with our benevolent societies. Incidentally, some churches have already arranged for their various classes to have their own budgets. If, the institutions are not now parallel with Bible classes, then we will finally have found something on which Brother Woods will admit to have changed. He has made plenty changes, but just has not admitted them as yet. If they are still parallel, in view of the more recently taken positions by the Gospel Advocate writers, the elders cannot oversee these classes. Brother Woods said the "Sunday school" is a separate organization in the same sense in which the benevolent organizations are separate organizations. So they could have their own budget, as the homes do.
The benevolent organizations sell products to finance their work. They operate farms, sell meat, milk, corn, cotton, etc. If our Bible classes are separate organizations in the same sense in which the benevolent societies are, then these classes, under their own directors and superintendent, can sell, say maybe, pies, cakes, chili, old clothes, etc. to support their own budget.
Brother Porter was not encumbered with having to defend any such absurd positions as these in the debate at Claremore. He said the classes were the work of the church, directed by the elders of the church as every other work of the church should be, financed out of the first day of the week contribution as every other church work must be.
If the orphan homes and the Bible classes are parallel, then the above positions taken by these brethren on the orphan homes ought to be taken with reference to the Bible classes. If Brother Porter's position on the orphan homes is like the brethren's position who object to the Bible classes, then Brother Woods' position on the Bible classes ought to be like Brother Woods' position on the orphan homes.
Frankly I would hate to think that Brother Woods was going to make the defense of the Bible Classes in my behalf. Believing the homes and the classes to be separate organizations in the same sense as "he said at Indianapolis, he might try to set up the Bible classes like he now says the homes must be set up.
It had been said that Brother Porter could never debate the Bible class question again. Objecting to separate organizations in all three realms of the church's activity, he had absolutely no trouble dealing with the opposition. He was not trying to defend a separate organization and stated plainly that he would not. He has shown the prophets to be false prophets. He did debate the "antis" (whatever that is) again, and did a very good job of it too. Now let us wait and see how Brother Woods makes out in his next encounter, if the brethren ever call upon him to defend the classes again. Or as Brother Porter put it, ...I am interested to see in years to come just what the Anti-Bible class fellows do with you when they get hold of you on that proposition again. (p. 271)