Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 13
February 1, 1962
NUMBER 38, PAGE 4,12-13a

The Newbern Debate

Connie W. Adams, Newbern, Tennessee

The little town of Newbern, Tennessee was the scene of a most significant religious discussion December 18-23, 1961. The debate was conducted in the building of the Main St. congregation. The participants were Roy E. Cogdill and Guy N. Woods, both able representatives of the respective views they hold. The discussion was characterized by good order from the audience, and ardent presentation by the speakers. Upwards of 550 were present the first two nights, with attendance somewhat lower the remaining evenings. A good number of local people as well as brethren from many places out of the state were in attendance. Preachers and members on both sides of the issues debated were present.

The Background

In answer to numerous inquiries, the background of the debate will now be briefly traced. In May of 1959, Guy N. Woods wrote to J. Porter Wilhite and reported that the church at Newbern, Tennessee had "split over the anti question." The impression was left that the Tyler St. group which began meeting in Newbern about a year after the brethren had occupied their new building on Main St., was a "split" of the Main St. church. The elders wrote Brother Woods and corrected this by showing that the Tyler St. church came into existence when some brethren closed up the Arnett's Chapel congregation, out in the country, took the seats, books and supplies, carpets off the floor,, and what money was in the treasury and bought out the old Tyler St. property from the American Legion and began meeting two blocks from the Main St. brethren. This was a factious move designed to divide the Main St. church if possible. A few members were siphoned off, some of whom have later repented and returned. Brother Woods, in the correspondence which followed, challenged the brethren in Newbern to debate him on the proposition that the church in Newborn had split. They expressed their willingness to endorse Brother Cogdill to meet him on the same propositions they discussed in Birmingham in 1957. The correspondence bogged down. Then after the writer moved to Newbern, a report came that Brother Woods was telling around the country that he had endorsement to meet the "antis" in Newbern but that they would not endorse a man to meet him. The elders instructed that he be written and advised that they were ready to endorse Cogdill, wanted the debate, and for him to come endorsed or not. Then followed one of the most unpleasant correspondences this writer has ever had. Woods said he wanted to have the debate the first six months of 1961. Cogdill suggested that he could begin July 3, within three days of the proposed limit Woods then charged that Cogdill had cancelled out the first half of the year, said he couldn't come that week in July (although he later made arrangements to meet A. C. Grider beginning July 10), and stated that the only time he could come would be December 18-23. We urged that it be held earlier in the fall, or even in the month of December, but were given to understand that it would be then or not at all. Being the week before Christmas, many people would be working late, highways jammed with traffic, the weather inclement, all of which would have an effect on the attendance, But thinking the debate was needed, that good would result, even at such an inopportune time, the elders agreed to have it then.

The Disputants

For Many Years Guy N. Woods Has Been Known As A Debater. His Ability As A Polemicist Has Not Been Questioned. Through The Gospel Advocate And Its Literature, His Name Has Become Widely Known Among Christians. He Is Looked Upon As The Champion Of The Institutional Cause. His Appearance Is That Of A Man Of Dignity. He Has The Veneer Of Learning. It Is The Writer's Judgment That He Is Not Nearly As Well Trained Along This Line As He Has Been Thought By Some To Be. His Manner Of Debating Has The Surface Appearance Of Thoroughness, While In Reality, He Shows Himself To Be A Master Sophist, Dodging The Real Point At Issue Yet Leaving The Impression That He Has Answered Everything "Item By Item, Statement By Statement."

For years Roy E Cogdill has been regarded as an able and faithful preacher of the gospel. He has been gifted with a good speaking voice. His approach both in preaching and debating is to deal with wide sweeping principles, to attack a problem from a fundamental standpoint, rather than taking up each subdivision growing out of those fundamentals. He believes in laying the ax at the "root of the tree." His appeal is not to emotion but to clear scriptural reasoning. He is well known among brethren through his many years of gospel meetings over the country, his writings in the Gospel Guardian and numerous booklets, and especially through his book, "THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH."

Proposition One

The first three evenings the proposition was this: "It is contrary to the scriptures for churches of Christ to build and maintain benevolent organizations for the care of the needy such as Boles Home, Tipton Home, Tennessee Orphan Home, Childhaven and other orphan homes and homes for the aged that are among us." Cogdill affirmed this and Woods denied it. Cogdill proceeded to show how a thing may be scripturally established. There must be a direct statement, approved example or necessary inference for what is practiced, else it is contrary to scripture. He then discussed the nature of authority and showed that it might be generic or specific. While "relieve" in 1 Tim. 5:16 is generic, the organization to do the relieving is specified, being the church. He stated that the issue is not that of method, rather which organization shall employ the method, the local church, or the benevolent organization. He then showed that there is a difference between aids and additions and classified the benevolent society as an addition, coordinate with the local church. The issue is: which organization shall perform and control the work God commands the church to do? The work is relieving. God's organization for this is the local church, divine in origin, existing by the authority of Christ, regulated by scripture, having elders as overseers. The organization of the proposition is a corporate body, human in origin, chartered by the state, regulated by state law and controlled by a board of directors. Cogdill then showed that the organization of the proposition differed from both the church and the home in origin, nature, form and function. It is neither a home nor a church, but a "society".

Woods countered by saying he too believed there must be divine authority for all we do. He said the church could provide the money needed for the destitute but could not administer what was needed. He said elders cannot be over a home, and argued that the organization of the proposition was nothing more than a restored home. He recited some passages to show that the destitute are to be cared for, most of which concerned the private duties of Christians. He sought to show Cogdill inconsistent, raised sophistical questions, charged that Cogdill had changed, that the Newbern church had changed, and generally made an emotional appeal to the audience. He sought to drive a wedge between Cogdill and those who oppose the benevolent home among us over the point of whether or not the church is obligated in some instances to orphans who are not members of the church.

Cogdill produced a chart on the "restored home" argument. Woods argues on the basis of James 1:27 that when the child has lost his home, it may be "restored". Cogdill showed that if the church must build and maintain benevolent organizations to restore the home that was lost for the child, then the same verse also mentioned visiting widows, and such an argument would justify building an institution to restore the home the widow lost. This would justify church supported lonely hearts associations. He further showed that in I Tim. 5:16 a "sister" is to "relieve" her "widow" so that the church may "relieve" those that are "widows indeed". Whatever the sister can do to relieve her widow, then the church can do for widows indeed, for the word relieve is the same in both cases. If the church must build and maintain an organization to relieve its widows, then so must the sister of this passage. Woods displayed the kind of sophistry characteristic of his part in the whole debate, by shifting terms and asking if the sister could "provide" her widow a TV set, and if so, could the church? The question was over "relief" and not simply "providing".

On the last evening of the proposition, Cogdill applied such pressure as this writer has seldom witnessed in debate. He made the following charges against the benevolent organizations of the proposition: (I) They are transgressive in that they go beyond the divine pattern in relief. The benevolent organizations are coordinate with the church and therefore additions. (2) They are unholy, not sanctified by the blood of Christ. All the vessels of ministry had to he sanctified by blood. Since these are outside New Testament authority, they are not cleansed by blood. (3) They are presumptive in that there is no divine assurance that God accepts them. (4) They are irreverent in that they impeach the wisdom of God. God in his wisdom provided everything necessary for the church to fulfill the mission he gave it, but did not authorize these organizations. (5) They are lawless in spirit. The word "iniquity" is from "anomia" meaning without law. (6) They are sectarian in nature. While claimed as mere expedients, yet they are the test of fellowship and you either approve them or else must be maligned. (7) They are Pharisaical in that they count themselves righteous and those who oppose them unholy. If you oppose them then you are an "anti?' and an "orphan-hater". They are demonstrative and boastful of what "they" are doing. (8) They are unrighteous for God's righteousness is revealed in the gospel and these are not in it. (9) They are perverse in that they divert the church from its true mission and put it into farming and business affairs. (10) They are wasteful. About 40% of the funds is spent on management, not on actual care. Not one of these points was touched by Woods and their weight was noticeable upon him.

Proposition Two

The last three evenings Woods affirmed and Cogdill denied this proposition: "It is in harmony with the scriptures for churches of Christ to contribute funds from their treasury, in support of the Herald of Truth, conducted by the Highland church of Christ, Abilene, Texas, as a means of cooperating in accomplishing the mission of the church of the Lord." Woods began with the Great Commission and showed that it involved going to every person in every city in all the world, and that such a huge task demanded cooperation between congregations to realize fulfillment. He said that in New Testament times one church sent to another church physical assistance, and that if it could do so, could it not so act to render spiritual assistance? He wanted to know if feeding hungry stomachs was more important than feeding hungry souls? He introduced the now famous "total situation" argument and affirmed that all the component parts of his total situation were scriptural, therefore his proposition stood. He said that the contributing churches did their work when they sent money and that Highland did her work in receiving it and overseeing the Herald of Truth. He told how many stations carried the program and how many people heard it each week. He wanted to know if one church could not send money to another for evangelism, could one church send a New Testament to another one? He charged that Cogdill's position would stop all cooperative efforts, and reduce the church to a "second-rate, hobbyistic sect". He chided the Newborn church for changing, said Cogdill had changed, told us all about the Music Hall meeting, and the last night displayed a chart purporting to be Cogdill wielding the mallet which was splitting the log (the church). He wanted to know how far we would follow this man in his "anti-ism".

Cogdill showed that in order for Woods to sustain his proposition, he must produce the passage which shows that one church ever could or did send money to another one for the purpose of evangelism. That passage was never introduced. It was shown that in fulfilling the mission of the church, there was to be no centralization of churches and their funds, but that each one sustained equal relation to the task. On the matter of one church sending physical relief to another, Cogdill pressed him for arguing for three nights that the church could not oversee or manage benevolence without establishing another organization, and asked if Woods would endorse that kind of arrangement in evangelism. With reference to the "total situation", Cogdill showed that Woods had not established all the elements, he had only asserted them, and that you must have the proper order of elements. He then produced a chart on constituent elements showing that a congregation has members, resources, work, worship, and discipline and asked if one church could delegate to another some of its resources, as is done in the Herald of Truth, then why could it not delegate the oversight of some of its members work, worship or discipline? He charged that in the Herald of Truth the Highland elders had become brotherhood elders. He showed that the Herald of Truth is a separate entity. It has employees, its own treasury, separate from the Highland church, its own separate mailing permit and publishes its own financial report. Yet Highland contributes to it, and sends money to numerous other "sponsoring churches" for their projects. According to their own published financial statement, 56 of every dollar contributed (in 1960) was used to grease the machinery. Their own financial report had a telling effect. The writer has heard and read several debates on the Herald of Truth and is of the opinion that Woods made the poorest defense of it yet observed. It was also the judgment of many preachers with whom the writer talked, who are conversant with these matters and debates upon them, that Cogdill did the most thorough job in exposing the unscripturalness of the Herald of Truth, to date.

It is impossible to give a complete report of every point discussed, but, I have tried to survey the general scope of the discussion with the major points at issue. Already there are favorable results in this section. Some in attendance who favored these innovations now have their eyes open. Doors are opened for further study with some. The church here is stronger as a result of it. It is true that many of the preachers and others who were institutional, are still so. The Lord described some of his day who closed their eyes, stopped their ears, hardened their hearts, and as Paul said, had not a love for truth. But present at all these discussions have been people of honest heart and open mind, willing to study and learn and determined to do what is right. It is for the benefit of all such that these discussions should continue as long as the liberals can be induced to participate.