The Bunavista Debate
This article is not intended to be a complete report of the Buna Vista debate. Space is too limited in this little paper for a detailed and complete report. It is simply this writer's view (and review) of some of the arguments brother Roy Deaver made in his recent debate on benevolent organizations with brother Ernest Finley at the Buna Vista church, just outside the city of Borger, Texas.
Brother Finley did his work well, especially in view of the fact that it was his first debate, but brother Deaver was a disappointment. I expected him to do much better than he did. I thought the air would be filled with "constituent elements," "component parts," and "total situations;" but all of that was conspicuous by its complete absence. Looks like "one of the best arguments in twenty five years and one hundred debates" has "fizzled."
In his first affirmative speech he spoke for thirty minutes and never read nor quoted a single passage of scripture; yet, he was affirming his proposition to be scriptural! He used the following syllogism:
Major Premise: All homes which properly supply the needs of orphan children are homes to which a church may scripturally make a donation.
Minor Premise: Boles Home is a home which properly supplies the needs of orphan children.
Conclusion: Boles Home is a home to which a church may make a stipulated donation.
Substitute "Buckner Home" in the place of "Boles Home" and see how it sounds. If Deaver objects on the ground that Buckner Home does not "properly supply the needs of orphan children," I remind him that throughout the debate he was arguing that a church may donate to any home, whether the, parents were Christians or not, and to any individual, whether the individual was a Christian or not.
He argued on the how, incorporation, civil law, legal aspects. He employed prejudice and made emotionalism his handmaid. He chided the preaching at Buna Vista, thus reflecting upon the preacher, and reprimanded the elders, calling upon them to resign and make acknowledgements. Why? Because they stopped their support to Sunny Glen Home. He was affirming: "The scriptures teach that a church may donate to Boles Home, Quinlan, Texas." He defined "may" to mean a church has the right to, liberty of action. But when the elders exercised their liberty of action and stopped their support to Sunny Glen they immediately became guilty of a disqualifying sin and were called upon to resign and make confession! This demonstrates the spirit of those promoting human institutions. They make church support of such a qualification of elders and a refusal to support such a test of fellowship.
He based an argument for the churches' doing general benevolence on Matt. 5:43-48, emphasizing the question: "What do ye more than others?" He seemed oblivious to the fact that such reasoning from this passage would necessitate the churches' supporting Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, Catholic, and all other Orphan Homes. Does brother Deaver support "Church of Christ Orphan Homes" only? If so, what does he more than others?
He stated that the home as God instituted it is a divine institution; Boles Home is this home restored; therefore, Boles Home is divine. Yet, he said that Boles Home is a substitute home. It seemingly had never entered Deaver's mind that the same reasoning can be applied to the church. Is a substitute church the New Testament church restored?
Deaver labored to show that benevolence is a part of evangelism. He said: You evangelize by what you say and by what you do. The scriptures used to sustain this idea were Matt. 5:16; 2 Cor. 3:2; I Pet. 3:1,2; Acts 30:35. I suppose no one will deny there is a "do" in evangelism, but it is not benevolence. The church has a threefold work to perform: (1) Evangelism, (2) Edification, (3) Benevolence. There is a "say" and "do" in prosecuting each of these tasks. In the field of evangelism, Christ said: "Go ... teach all nations (say), baptizing them (do)." Matt. 28:19. In the field of edification, Paul wrote: "Be thou an ensample to them that believe, in word (say), in manner of life (do) . . . give heed to reading (do), to exhortation, to teaching (say)." 1 Tim. 4:12,13 R.V. Likewise in the realm of benevolence, James wrote: "If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give (do) them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?" Jas. 2:15,16. So, we see there is a "say" and "do" in all three realms. The general law governing our speech and conduct in any sphere whatsoever is found in Col. 3:17: "And whatsoever ye do in word (say) or deed (do), do all in the name of the Lord Jesus ..."
The very fact that benevolence is listed separately from evangelism is primafacia evidence that it is not included in evangelism. If it were, the Red Cross, and other benevolent organizations, would be evangelizing, at least in part. Inasmuch as the charge to evangelize was given to none other organization that the church, one would be forced to oppose the Red Cross — that is, if he opposed the Missionary Society.
Based on Tit. 2:5 Deaver argued that a home is a place. So far as I am aware, nobody has ever denied that this is one use of the term "home." But when Deaver speaks of the home as God instituted it, does he mean a place? When he speaks of the home destroyed or broken, and the home restored, which he styled a substitute home, does he mean place? The effort to show we are opposed to a place for caring for the needy was pure sophistry.
When Finley called Deaver's attention to the fact that the Lubbock Home is not incorporated, Deaver replied that it is because the Broadway church is incorporated and the Home is allowed for in this same corporation. Thus, he got the Home within the framework of the Broadway church — the very thing he had been so vehemently denying could possibly be!
Deaver says the Lubbock Home is incorporated. John B. White. Superintendent of Lubbock Home, wrote: "The children's home at Lubbock is not incorporated." Deaver says it is impossible for a home to be under elders, but brother White wrote: "The children's home at Lubbock is not incorporated, but it is under the direct supervision of the elders of the Broadway Church of Christ, as is the regular Sunday morning Bible classes, the Texas Tech Bible Chair and other work carried on by this congregation." Woods-Porter Debate, pgs. 272,286.
Throughout the discussion of Deaver's affirmative he loudly asserted he believed in the all-sufficiency of the church, and if anyone believed it more than did he it was because he had greater capacity. It had rather a hollow ring in view of the fact that he had denied the all-sufficiency of the church in the realm of benevolence the first two nights of the Buna Vista discussion and was affirming a human institution, church supported the last two. It sounded more than hollow to those of us who knew he had already signed the negative of the following proposition: "According to the scriptures, churches of Christ, each acting in its congregational capacity, are adequate to accomplish all the work of benevolence that God has given the church to do, and they should do this work without delegating it, by the contribution of their funds, to Benevolent Organizations."
Most of the rest of brother Deaver's time was spent in reading from corporate charters and House Bill number fifteen.