Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 9
January 23, 1958
NUMBER 37, PAGE 8-10,11b

The Dumas Debate

J. P. Lusby, Amarillo, Texas

A debate between brethren W. Curtis Porter and Roy Deaver was held in Dumas, Texas, in the meeting house at Sixth and Meredith, October 22-25, 1957. The propositions for discussion were:

Proposition I

"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 Bene volent Organizations."

Affirmative: W. Curtis Porter Negative: Roy Deaver

Proposition II.

"The Scriptures teach that a church may contribute to Boles Home, Quinlan, Texas."

Affirmative: Roy Deaver Negative: W. Curtis Porter

It was my privilege and pleasure to keep time for brother W. Curtis Porter in this debate. To adapt the language of another, "it must have been obvious to the most casual observer" that to keep time was all I had to do. There were times when it almost became necessary to call brethren Deaver and Warren (brother Deaver's moderator) to order because of their rude and loud consultations while brother Porter was speaking. Of course, it was not difficult to understand why there was so much "activity" in Deaver's "bull pen." When one is taking a beating such as Deaver's cause was suffering, it is extremely difficult, if not altogether impossible, to remain quiet. Had it not been for brother Warren's promptings, I seriously doubt that brother Deaver would have been able to have finished the discussion. Brother Warren not only prepared brother Deaver's replies at the table, but repeatedly prompted him during his speeches.

Brother Deaver admitted the last night that brethren Gordon Clements, Tom Warren, and himself "work as a team" in debates on the issues before the brotherhood. It would be a misnomer therefore to style the Dumas debate the Porter-Deaver debate, rather it should be styled the Porter-Deaver, Warren, Clements debate — with Deaver simply the spokesman for the Deaver-Warren-Clements team. (The same was true in the Finley-Deaver, Warren, Clements debate at Buna Vista in Borger) But in neither debate did (or maybe I should say could all three of them (Deaver, Warren and Clements) make one scriptural argument to sustain what they are advocating or to deny what their opponents affirmed. This was apparent and significant.

Sufficiency Of The Church

Brother Porter was affirming the all-sufficiency of the church in the realm of benevolence. Brother Deaver signed the negative of the proposition, but in the course of discussion he said he was not denying what the proposition said, but what he thought brother Porter meant by the proposition!

Porter argued that churches of Christ are adequate, sufficient, able, to accomplish all the work of benevolence God has given the church to do. Whatever work of benevolence God has assigned the church, the churches, acting in their congregational capacity, are able or sufficient or adequate to do it. And that they should do this work without delegating it, or surrendering it, by the contribution of their funds, that is, by donating or giving their funds, to benevolent organizations. Porter defined benevolent organizations as associations or societies set up to do the work of benevolence God gave the church to do, and which are human in their origin. He contended that churches are adequate to do the work God gave them to do without assigning or delegating that work to organizations of this nature.

In his analysis of the proposition Porter presented the following chart:

Chart Goes Here

Proposition Analyzed

My Position Deaver's Position

1. God has given a work 1. God has given a work of benevolence to churches. of benevolence to churches.

2. The churches are ade- 2. The churches are not quate to do the work that adequate to do the work

God gave them to do. that God has assigned.

3. They should do the work. 3. They should not do the work.

4. They should not surrender 4. They should surrender or delegate the work to the work to benevolent organizations.

benevolent organizations.

Porter pointed out that it was an amazing thing that a gospel preacher would sign the negative of the proposition he was affirming; yet, Deaver had done that very thing. Attention was called to the fact that if only a few short years ago a gospel preacher had signed a proposition in the negative like the one they were debating brethren would have thought he had about lost his mind. Yet Deaver had affixed his signature to it. Deaver tried to offset the force of this with the audience by crying all through the debate that he was not denying what the proposition said, but what he thought Porter meant by it. Porter pointed out time and again that he meant what the proposition said.

According to the proposition, Deaver was denying the all-sufficiency of the church! He was denying that the churches are able to do all the work of benevolence that God gave them to do! Ile admitted that God gave the church a work to do, but denied that the church is able, adequate to do it! And, furthermore, if they were able they should not do it anyway, but should surrender that work to benevolent organizations!

All of this Porter pressed with such telling effect that Deaver abandoned the proposition and said that the thing he was denying was that the church is a home, or that God gave the church the work of functioning as a home. He said that if Porter wanted to affirm that he was prepared to deny it. Porter simply pointed out that that was not the proposition and that Deaver had signed the negative of the proposition they were discussing, and he intended to hold him to it — which he did.

Would you have dreamed a few years ago that a gospel preacher would absolutely deny that the church God planned and Christ built is sufficient to do the work God assigned it to do? That he would take the position that the church is not adequate to accomplish the work God gave it to do? That is exactly where brother Deaver stood on the proposition which he negated; although he cried long and loud for four nights that if anyone believed in the all-sufficiency of the church more than he, it was because he had greater capacity.

Divine Versus Human

Porter set forth the fact that the church is: (1) Divine in origin, (2) Authorized by the Lord, (3) Governed by the gospel, (4) Directed by elders, and that it is adequate to do the work of benevolence God has assigned it by supplying food, shelter, clothing, supervision, and medical care for the needy who are its own responsibility. He showed that Deaver denied this, according to the proposition, but rather affirmed that the church should delegate that work to a benevolent organization and let it do the work God gave the church to do. That the divine organization is not able, adequate, to do it, but that the human organization is, according to the proposition Deaver signed. Porter further showed that a benevolent organization is: (1) Human in origin, (2) Authorized by the state, (3) Governed by a charter, (4) Directed by a board. The answer Deaver made to this was to deny that any such human organization exists.

Brother Guy N. Woods affirmed in debate with brother Porter at Indianapolis that: "It is in harmony with the Scriptures for churches to build and maintain benevolent organizations for the care of the needy, such as the Boles Home, the Tipton Home, and other orphan homes and homes for the aged that are among us."

Brother Deaver now affirms that no such organizations exist, but if they did exist he would oppose them just like brother Porter and on the same ground. Woods says they not only exist, but that it is scriptural for churches to build and maintain them. Deaver denies their existence. and declares them to be unscriptural if they did exist. Looks like Deaver and Woods ought to have a debate.

The issue is not benevolence, nor whether the church has an obligation along that line. The issue is: Should the church surrender its funds to benevolent organizations and let them do the work God ordained the church to do?

Adequate

Back to the all-sufficiency of the church. Brother Porter presented a chart in which he showed that God gave an adequate gospel upon which man cannot improve. He gave an adequate plan of salvation, and man can neither add to it nor take from it. The worship which God gave is adequate, man had best not tamper with it. And in the work which God assigned the church he gave it adequate organization to accomplish it — the local congregation. If the local congregation is not adequate to do the work, then the New Testament is not adequate as a guide in religious matters, for the only organization the New Testament authorizes to perform the functions of the church is the local congregation. If that congregation cannot do it, if it is not adequate to do it, then the New Testament is not adequate as a guide. And the Lord failed to give us a sufficient revelation to guide us in the way we should go.

Evangelism

Brother Porter used the following scriptures: 1 Tim. 3:15; Eph. 3:10; Acts 2; Acts 8; 11:19; 11:22,23; 13:1-4: 14; 16:31-33; 17:1-4; Phil. 4:15,16; 1 Thess. 1:7,8; and that in these passages is revealed to us the work of evangelism that God assigned the church to do. Local congregations were then and are now able to do what God gave them to do in this field. They are adequate to do all the work of evangelism assigned to them by God, and the apostolic churches did this work without delegating their work by the contribution of their funds to a Missionary Society to do their work of evangelism for them.

When men set up a Missionary Organization in the field of evangelism, they were simply expressing their view that the church was not adequate to do the work God wants done in evangelism.

Edification

Under this heading on his chart, Porter used the example of the churches at Ephesus and Corinth. The scriptures used were: Eph. 4:16, 11,12; 1 Cor. 14:12. He argued that each congregation engaged in the work of self edification, each congregation was able to do what God assigned it to do in the field of edification. They did not set up a Sunday School Society and then delegate their work by the contribution of their funds to that Sunday School Society, which in turn performed the work of edification the church could not do.

Benevolence

Porter reasoned that the same principle obtains in the field of benevolence. The Jerusalem church is an example of a congregation taking care of its own needy. (Acts 6:1-4) The Antioch church is an example of a congregation sending funds to a number of congregations. (Acts 11:27-30) And Rom. 15:25,26 is a record of a plurality of congregations sending money to one church. In each case the church was acting in its congregational capacity. No church set up a Benevolent Organization and delegated its work by the contribution of its funds to that Benevolent Society, which in turn performed the work of benevolence the church was obligated to do. There is nothing like that in all of God's book.

Deaver's Reaction To Porter's Chart

Deaver said he believed all Porter had on his chart just as strongly as Porter does. He declared that he does not deny the all-sufficiency of the church, but affirms the all-sufficiency of the home. And that the only part of the proposition he was denying was that by a contribution of funds a church delegates its work to, the recipient of those funds. He said he emphatically denied that and if Porter wanted to affirm that God gave the church the job of functioning as a home he was prepared to deny that. It seemed that Deaver was prepared to deny everything except the proposition he had signed to deny! And he indicated time and again that he agreed with about all the proposition said but he signed the negative because of what he thought Porter meant. And later he said he did not know what Porter meant by various parts of or expressions in the proposition.

Regarding the delegating of work by a contribution of funds, Porter asked Deaver if a congregation delegates its work to a human organization when it contributes its funds for the work of evangelism to a Missionary Society? Deaver evaded this question and refused to answer.

Corporations

Deaver vehemently denied that the corporations providing the homes in benevolence were human organizations standing between the church and the home. He affirmed that the corporation was an integral part of the home. Porter asked if the Buckner Corporation that provides Buckner Home, Dallas, Texas, is an organization in between Baptist churches and Buckner Home? Deaver replied that Buckner Home is an incorporated orphan home and an integral part of the Southern Baptist Convention. He had already taken the position that Boles Home Corporation is an integral part of the Home. Porter then wanted to know why Buckner Corporation became an integral part of the Southern Baptist Convention while Boles Corporation became an integral part of the Home? Why does one reach one way and the other an opposite direction? Why wouldn't Buckner Corporation be an integral part of the Home?

Deaver made one reach one way and the other reach back the other direction. Porter replied that according to Deaver's position on Buckner Corporation, if he meant that it becomes an integral part of the Southern Baptist Convention because the members of the Baptist Church supervise the corporation that provides the home, or because they are allied or associated with the Southern Baptist Convention, then upon the same basis, since members of the church form the corporation that provides Boles Home, why wouldn't that corporation reach back the other way and become an integral part of the church? If one reaches one way, why doesn't the other reach the same way? Why does the corporation at Buckner Home reach one direction, while the corporation at Boles Home reaches the other direction?

Deaver argued that Boles Home is simply an incorporated home, like an incorporated private home, and that the human organization, which Porter affirmed stands between the church and the home, does not exist, except in Porter's imagination. Porter used the following chart as proof that the in-between organization does exist. The statements on the chart were taken from the charters of the two institutions mentioned.

Chart Goes Here Porter's Chart

Christian Restoration Association

1. The name of said Corporation shall be The Christian Restoration Association. Art. 1.

2. Said Corporation is to be located at Cincinnati, in Hamilton County, Ohio. Art. 2.

3. Said Corporation is formed for the purpose of promoting the cause of the Christian religion and of receiving, soliciting, holding in trust, and disbursing bequests, gifts, funds and monies for the preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ, for the organization of churches of Christ according to New Testament pattern. Art. 3

Is this association between the church and evangelism? If this one is in evangelism —

Southern Christian Association

1. The name of this association is the Southern Christian Home. Art. 1.

2. The location of this association shall be in Morrilton, Connelly County, Arkansas. Art. 2.

3. The purpose of this association shall be to care for, adopt, keep, train, and educate orphan children, and to find homes for and place in Christian homes children committed to this Association, and to act for and on behalf of orphan children, and dependent and neglected children. Art. 3.

Is this association not between the church and benevolence? Why? why is this one not in benevolence?

The Christian Restoration Association is a Missionary Society chartered by a conservative group of the Christian church at Cincinnati, Ohio. The Southern Christian Association is a Corporation chartered by some of our brethren at Morrilton, Arkansas.

There were many other interesting arguments and developments, but time and space forbid my reporting more. It was a very interesting and informative discussion.

The first night of the debate there was a fair representation of institutional brethren from Amarillo and a few other places. This representation steadily declined until by the time of the final session the Deaver-Warren-Clements team scarcely had any backing at all. Almost all men had forsaken them, especially preachers, and scarcely any remained to hold up their hands. This also was apparent "to the most casual observer," and significant to all who are acquainted with conditions in Amarillo.

Brother Porter did his usual excellent work in exposing error, and the truth was victorious.

A Postscript

The last night of the Dumas debate both disputants agreed to repeat the discussion, of the same propositions, at Amarillo, provided some congregation in Amarillo would back Deaver. However, Deaver said it might be a year before he could get to it. At the close of the session I made the announcement. Immediately Deaver arose and announced that he was booked solidly for two years, and therefore could not possibly get to it within that time.

I attended the debate at Birmingham between brethren Roy Cogdill and Guy Woods. To my surprise, there sat brother Deaver operating the opaque projector for brother Woods. I asked him how he managed to attend. He informed me that he had called the board, under which he labors, together and had secured their permission. If he could get permission to attend a six nights debate in Birmingham, Alabama, do you wonder why he could not secure permission for a four nights discussion in Amarillo, Texas? I don't. I attended the Dumas debate!

Appendage

The following is an interesting statement from brother Thomas F. Shropshire, Cactus, Texas:

"On Wednesday, October 30, just a few days after the (Dumas) debate, Mrs. Gayle Oler, wife of the superintendent of Boles Home, appeared on Cotton John's T. V. program in Amarillo. In the course of the program, Mrs. Oler represented herself and her husband, Gayle Oler, as being the parents of the children in Boles Home. In this debate, brother Deaver represented the board which is over Boles Home to be the parents of the children in the Home. He staked every argument he made in the entire debate upon this claim. Brother Porter argued that the board stood as an in-between organization, between the church and the home. This admission by Mrs. Oler proved that brother Porter was right and that brother Deaver was wrong.

"I have no hesitancy in making this statement since that which was said was broadcast on T. V., and can without a doubt be easily verified."