Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 9
January 23, 1958
NUMBER 37, PAGE 1,12-13b

Cogdill-Woods Debate No. 2

James W. Adams, Nacogdoches, Texas

A Striking Contrast

One of the indelible impressions of the Birmingham debate between Brethren Roy E. Cogdill and Guy N. Woods was the striking contrast in the approach of each man to the proof of his proposition. Testimony to this fact was heard on every hand both during and after the discussion from average members of the church — not preachers.

Brother Cogdill stood forth as a man rooted in love for the word of God and respect for its authority mightily contending like prophets of old for "the old paths." His approach to the proof of his proposition was a Bible approach. His first speech in the debate was a masterpiece of eloquence, sound Bible teaching with reference to divine authority and the means of its determination, and discriminating analysis of the issue involved in the proposition for debate. It is our considerate judgment — even allowing for a certain amount of human prejudice — that Brother Woods never overcame the impact of this speech. It took from him all the quibbles and misrepresentations of the issue upon which he had previously based his arguments for human organizations in the work of the church. Brother Cogdill's approach was that of a dedicated proclaimer of divine truth.

Brother Woods, on the other hand, occupied the role of a skillful polemic schooled in the practiced art of human sophistry and dedicated to the necessity of rendering palatable (to people long used to a simple "thus saith the Lord") human organizations through which the heaven-born churches of Christ function to perform their divine mission. His approach was through the avenue of human reason and prejudice rather than a "thus saith the Lord." As usual, great emphasis was given to charges of "changing" and "lack of agreement" among the opposition, traditional practices of the churches for the past thirty years, and maudlin appeals to emotional prejudices. Brother Woods' approach was that of a man saddled with an unpleasant necessity and determined to vindicate his position by whatever means necessary. His was the defense of a wily attorney with a weak case admitting the law but denying the fact of its application to his client, and depending upon his skill at confusing the jury through calculated camouflage. This contrast was so marked between the two men as to be the occasion of general comment.

The First Proposition

The proposition for the first three nights had to do with the right of human organizations to exist and operate between the churches and their work. It was as follows:

"It is contrary to the Scriptures for the 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 among us."

Affirmative: Roy E. Cogdill

Negative: Guy N. Woods

One of the noticeable developments of the debate was the unwillingness of Brother Woods to come to grips with the proposition which he signed to discuss. He uniformly evaded the fact that the proposition required him to prove that "churches of Christ" have the scriptural authority to "build and maintain" organizations for the care of the needy. He pictured the matter as a group of brethren getting together and organizing a home for the care of the needy. The churches were pictured as observing this home, recognizing its needs, and then sending funds to assist it. He denied with emphasis that a church through its elders can scripturally oversee such a home. His position simply added up to the fact that he believes that churches of Christ can build and maintain that which they have no right to oversee. This obvious truth concerning his position, Brother Woods evaded throughout. The proposition laid upon him the responsibility of contending that churches of Christ can build and maintain benevolent organizations. His argument denied that they can oversee and operate them. The absurdity of such a position is so manifest that we are not surprised it was camouflaged and avoided.

Another peculiar attitude on Brother Woods part was demonstrated in his efforts to take over the affirmative on the first proposition refusing by the manner in which he presented his material to assume the obligation of the negative — answer his opponents arguments. Then, on the second proposition, to which he (unwillingly) sustained an affirmative relation, he assumed a negative approach and did his utmost to force Brother Cogdill into the affirmative. More will be said about this when we get to that proposition. On the first proposition, he complained (as do all his colleagues) that Cogdill was affirming a negative. It was pointed out to him that he would not deny any affirmation that Cogdill could logically and conscientiously make on the question. Just as there is no affirmation that Brother Woods will make on the question of instrumental music in the worship that a Christian Church debater will deny, so it is with this question. If Woods affirms in debate on the music question, he is forced to affirm a negative. Brother Woods is a great one to seek an unfair advantage in controversy. The fact that Brother Cogdill did not permit such in arranging the debate seemed to be a millstone about Woods' neck throughout the discussion.

Basic Arguments On Which The Fight Was Waged

Much that goes on in a debate is stage dressing. Many who attend debates confuse the set with the plot. This is not to minimize the importance of planned strategy or clever rejoinder. Many a basically good drama has been ruined by poor presentation. By the same token, truth has often suffered in the hands of a novice when error has been wielded by a skilled controversialist. Yet, the truth or falsity of a proposition is not determined by strategy, clever rejoinder, or pulpit personality — victory in a given encounter, yes, but truth, no! We think it wise, therefore, in reviewing the Birmingham debate, to seek to divest the argumentation of the superfluous and focus our attention on the basic postulates of each disputant.

Brother Cogdill based his opposition to the human organizations of the proposition on the "sufficiency of the Lord's plan," and on the complete lack of scriptural authority for their existence and operation in the field they occupy. He contended that the church — the local congregation — is completely sufficient to fulfill her mission in the fields of evangelism, edification, and benevolence without the creation and maintenance of human organizations by the churches. He argued with clarity and power that just as there is no divine authority for central, extra, human organizations in the fields of evangelism and edification (admitted by Woods), so there is no scriptural authority for such organizations in the field of benevolence. In this connection, Brother Cogdill introduced a number of charts to establish: (1) the absolute necessity for Bible authority for all that is done in religion; (2) the manner of determining Bible authority; (3) the Lord's plan with reference to organization for the accomplishment of the work with which he has charged his churches; and (4) the manner in which the creation and maintenance of the organizations of the proposition under discussion pervert and antagonize the Lord's word and plan.

Brother Woods in his defense accepted: (1) the necessity of Bible authority for all that is done in religion; (2) the manner of determining Bible authority (command, approved example, and necessary inference with proper recognition of generic and specific authority); and (3) the all-sufficiency of the Lord's church to perform her God-given work (though the proposition in its very wording laid upon Woods the responsibility of denying this all-sufficiency as Brother Cogdill repeatedly showed him) denying, however, that the care of the needy is the work of the church. His contention throughout the debate was that it is the duty of the churches to provide the funds, but not their duty nor even their scriptural right to oversee and administer the funds in the actual care of the needy. His basic postulate was, "The church is not a home." This self-evident fact none denies. Woods incorrectly assumed that it proved his position to be scripturally correct. Practically everything he said which could justly be called argumentation was related to this point. He argued: (1) it is the duty of the home to care for the temporal needs of man; (2) it is the duty of the church to care for the spiritual needs of man; (3) if the church seeks to care for the temporal needs of man, it usurps the function of the home; (4) benevolence involves the temporal needs of man, hence its administration is the work of the home, not the church; (5) the benevolent obligation of the church involves only the providing of the funds with which the work is accomplished by the home; (6) the benevolent organizations of the proposition are simply homes restored As we have already mentioned, Brother Woods professed to accept practically all Brother Cogdill taught in his presentation of Bible principles. He airily waved his hands at Cogdill's charts, dismissed as not involved in the discussion the principles that were set forth from the word of God, denied categorically that they were violated in the organizations which he defended, and assumed an affirmative position by introducing some thirty or more charts. The charts were designed to: (1) establish his contention that the benevolent organizations of the proposition are natural homes restored and that only; (2) create prejudice against his opposition in the debate by stigmatizing him and those who stood with him as late converts to Daniel Sommer and Carl Ketcherside, disturbers of the peace of churches, inconsistent in practice, and divided among themselves; and (3) appeal to the emotional prejudices of the audience by virtue of the nature of the work being done by the organizations in question. The charts left much to be desired from the standpoint of art. Many of them resembled the art work one has seen on a "Rinky-Dink" clubhouse in an "Alley Op" comic strip, in an "Our Gang" comedy, or in a pungent fresco on an outhouse wall. Certainly, many of them were beneath the dignity of the occasion and of the man who presented them. They contained little or no reference to the Scriptures and unquestionably set forth no scriptural authority for the organizations which they were designed to defend. Because Brother Cogdill did not have each of these many masterpieces of artistic talent flashed again and again on Brother Woods' screen, Brother Woods complained endlessly as the reader will perceive when he reads the published book. No argument made by Brother Woods was left unanswered. In reply to Woods' petulant complaints, Brother Cogdill challenged Woods to show one argument on which the charts were based that had not been answered. The inability of Woods to produce such an argument demonstrated the childish character of his complaining.

In our next article, we shall detail some of the high points of the argument as it developed. The reader will be particularly interested in the discomfiture of Brother Woods' colleagues over his insisting that he has undergone no changes. It seems that Brother Woods stands alone among friends and foes in believing that he has not changed. Too, Brother Woods' sudden loss of interest in the question of incorporation approached the ridiculous and will be of great interest to all. Look for us next week.