A Review Of A Debate
Faithful Christians everywhere have wondered during the last several years as to the "stopping place" of our institutional minded brethren. "How far will brethren go?" has been the worried question of many who seek after the "old paths."
A public debate was conducted in Alameda, California, on the nights of February 12 and 13. In this discussion, Bro. Lyle McCollum "went further" than this writer has ever heard a "gospel preacher" go before. The proposition under discussion was: "RESOLVED ... It is scriptural for churches of Christ to build, maintain and support such benevolent institutions as Ontario Orphan Home (for the homeless), Old Folks Home (for the aging saints), and a hospital (for the sick)." Bro. Lyle McCollum of Shafter, California, affirmed; Bro. Glen Lovelady of Alameda, California, denied. For the second night of the debate, the proposition was reversed ("It is not scriptural . ..") with Bro. Lovelady affirming and Bro. McCollum denying.
The first night, Bro. McCollum, as the affirmative speaker, had the burden of proof. He was obligated to prove from the scriptures that the proposition was true. Bro. McCollum introduced many scriptures to prove that the Christian individual has many obligations to the needy. He, himself, stated that these were individual responsibilities.
He then switched his discussion to the responsibility of the church in such matters. His main argument was that the New Testament does not show THE METHOD of caring for the needy. "In METHOD, the scriptures are silent" was his cry. Because of this plea, he said that the church may build, maintain and support Human Institutions to do the work that he said was the church's work. This was the weight of his affirmative argumentation.
Bro. Lovelady, as the negative speaker, was obligated to show that Bro. McCollum did not prove his proposition. He pointed out to Bro. McCollum and to the audience that the discussion was not concerning methods, but organizations. He showed that an institution, whether it is the church, as the divine institution, or any Human Institution, had to use method; therefore methods were not the things being discussed.
Bro. Lovelady put two blanks on the blackboard, with question marks beside them. He pleaded with Bro. McCollum to place in the first blank the scripture which authorizes the church to care for orphans, the sick who are not members of the church, or the widows who are not "widows indeed." He then asked that Bro. McCollum find the scripture which authorizes the church to build, maintain and support any other institution to do the work that God has given the church to do. He repeatedly reminded Bro. McCollum of his work as the affirmative speaker; that he was under obligation to show from the scriptures that his position was true. He reminded Bro. McCollum that the audience was waiting for him to place the two scriptures in the blanks on the backboard. These two spaces on the blackboard stayed blank throughout the first evening of debating! Bro. McCollum did not even attempt to write the scripture in the spaces to prove his proposition. To most of the audience, it was fairly apparent that the reason he failed to write the scripture on the board, was simply that he could not find the scripture which authorizes such action.
During the second night of debating, Bro. Lovelady, affirming that "It is not scriptural ..." pointed out very plainly that the church is the perfect, sufficient organization to do the work God gave it to do. No other organization is needed. If it had been needed, then God would have provided for it in His perfect book, the Bible.
Bro. Lovelady stressed throughout the evening that he believed in caring for the needy, whether they were orphans, old folks, or sick people. But he showed that the scriptures authorize him as an individual to do this benevolence, and nowhere does the Bible authorize the church to care for any who are not members of the church — saints.
He reminded the audience that Bro. McCollum had not produced the scripture to show the church had responsibility to any but members of the church. He again asked Bro. McCollum for the passage; and then the passage which authorizes the church to build or donate to any Human organization to do the work of the church.
Bro. McCollum seemed to feel very heavily his failure of the night before and finally in desperation wrote James 1:27 and I Tim. 5:16 in the spaces on the blackboard. But Bro. Lovelady showed that James 1:27 was an individual responsibility, and that even Bro. McCollum had said that the church could not assume the responsibilities of the individual Christian. He showed that there was no argument on I Tim. 5:16, pointing out that the "widow indeed" was not being debated, for all understand that the church has a responsibility to her.
During the debate, Bro. McCollum tried to find some difference between orphan homes, hospitals, and the Missionary society which divided God's people in 1849. He said that the only reason the Missionary Society was wrong was that it dominated the churches! According to Bro. McCollum, it was not wrong because it was another organization doing the work of the church! He even said that the Missionary Society would be all right today if it did not dominate the churches!!!! He said the church may build and donate to restaurants, hospitals, and any other organization needed to care for people, if such organization did not dominate the church. At least Bro. McCollum was consistent, even if he was consistently wrong!!
The debate was on a high plane, with both men acting as Christians in their actions and attitudes toward each other. Debates like this one show the real value of debating, and can bring nothing but good to the people of God. Both men are to be commended for standing up for what they believe. Some preachers in the Bay area simply will not debate their cause. This debate should serve as an impetus to all to "contend earnestly for the faith ..." (Jude 3)
Your writer served Bro. Lovelady as moderator, and Bro. Barker served Bro. McCollum in the same capacity.