Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 8
July 26, 1956
NUMBER 12, PAGE 10

Letter To Thomas B. Warren

H. Osby Weaver, Brady, Texas

(Editor's Note: All efforts to bring about a debate between Brother Thomas B. Warren and Brother Charles Hat in both Franklin and Fort Worth seem now to have failed, due apparently to the unwillingness of the Fort Worth elders to endorse Brother Warren for a debate in that city. They will endorse him for debates in other cities, but not at home — in spite of the fact that probably every congregation in Fort Worth (not excluding East-ridge) has members who are much disturbed over the questions proposed for discussion.)

February 8, 1956 Thomas B. Warren, Evangelist

Eastridge Church of Christ Fort Worth, Texas

Dear Tom:

I notice in the bulletin of the West End church in Franklin, Tennessee, that you and the elders at Eastridge refuse to entertain a return debate in Fort Worth at Eastridge with Charles Holt. This is disappointing to me, for I had looked forward to such a discussion.

It hasn't been too long ago that Brother Porter Wilhite was announcing publicly in an article entitled "My Son Timothy," that Tom Warren was preparing himself to be a champion debater and would henceforth welcome the opportunity to fight the brethren's battles for them on the polemic platform and requested brethren to call him for such conflicts. Could it be that "My Son Timothy" turns out to be a John Mark who flees from the field of battle? In an article in which you criticized a Baptist preacher for refusing to answer your questions, you said, "If this scribe should be faced with upholding Baptist doctrine at all costs, then perhaps he too would have refused to answer." Could this have been your prophetic explanation for refusing to debate Holt in Fort Worth? Could it be you are now "faced with upholding" the brethren's promotional projects "at all costs," therefore you refused to answer the debate in Fort Worth? It may be a little awkward for brethren to use "My Son Timothy" in debates if he occupies positions which he is unwilling to defend in his home congregation.

In your "Jakim and Kareah" episodes, you had Jakim say, "Paul at one time thought that we had to walk by faith, but he now sees that we must fit our religions to the changing needs of the times." I thought yours were the "hands of Kareah," now it turns out that you also had the "voice of Jakim."

Under the heading of "What Can Prevent the Recurrence of Apostasy by the Church of Christ," you wrote, "There must be willingness to study diligently and prayerfully the issues which arise." Will this formula NOT work in Fort Worth? Is Eastridge not interested in preventing a "recurrence of apostasy in the church of Christ"? Under the heading of "Critics," you wrote, "When my plans, schemes, and ideas get too big for investigation and sincere study as to whether or not they are pleasing in the sight of God, then my plans are TOO BIG!" Have your plans got "TOO BIG" at Eastridge, Tom? Or shall we conclude that "My Son Timothy" was a little overly-ambitious when he announced his intentions of taking on all corners? You asked, "Why should anyone with the truth fear investigation?" I wonder if we couldget you to answer your own question? I don't believe anyone with truth would fear investigation, even at Eastridge!

In another article headed "Are Preachers Christ-like When They Refuse To Debate?" you said, "When preachers decline to debate there are a number of possibilities as to the motivation for such action. Perhaps three of these are most prevalent: first, not understanding the Bible teaching . . . . He may feel it is not 'Christ-like.' Secondly, he may feel that the difference between men having the truth and having a lie is of little importance. Thirdly, he may recognize that the doctrine which he preaches will not meet the test of being put up against the Word of God. As the writer heard a colored preacher say one time. 'If a fellow thinks his watermelons are green, he don't want 'em plugged'." Now,Tom, just which of these "three most prevalent reasons" is yours? You did such a good job of showing debates to be 'Christ-like' that I doubt that to be your reason, unless you have changed your conviction on this point, of course, but since you agree to debate in Franklin, that doesn't seem likely. I certainly would be the last one to charge you with number two. I do not believe you feel the difference between truth and a lie is of "little importance?' Could it then be the third one? That you recognize that the doctrine which you preach will not meet the test of being put up against the Word of God? Perhaps you "think your watermelons are a little green and don't want 'em plugged!" Therefore, you intend to do your best to keep Charles Holt out of your watermelon patch at Eastridge!

Let us hope the debate in Fort Worth will yet materialize. We need to discuss these things, just as you have suggested in your writings that we should. If you have discovered some new truths that caused you to make an immediate change, give the rest of us, including the congregation at Eastridge, the advantage of what you have learned, tried and tested in public controversy. We are unwilling to accept it in its "green" state. We had much rather have it "plugged."

Sincerely yours, H. Osby Weaver, Brady, Texas