Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 11
December 3, 1959
NUMBER 30, PAGE 10-13a

News And Views

Charles A. Holt, Box 80, Florence, Alabama

Holt-Wallace Debate

This column will be used this time in announcing a forthcoming debate on current issues between Bro. G. K. Wallace and myself. It will be conducted in Florence, Alabama at the Harlan School on McBurney Drive. This is in the north part of town. The auditorium will seat about 800. The debate is set for December 8-11, Tuesday-Friday, beginning at 7:30 each evening. There seems to be widespread interest in the discussion and preachers and other brethren are planning to attend from near and far. Bro. Gus Nichols is to moderate for Bro. Wallace and Bro. W. L. Wharton will serve in that capacity for me.

We are planning day sessions at the East Florence building, both morning and afternoon, Wednesday-Friday, for all who care to attend. Various preachers will speak on subjects other than those involved in the debate. This should prove to be very interesting and worthwhile.

There are plenty of motels and hotels in the area to accommodate all who may need such. Also, we will be able to provide a few "free" places to stay with various members in the area. If you desire such a place or want us to help make reservations for you, please advise at once.

The elders of the Woodlawn Church here in Florence, where Barry L. Anderson preaches, have selected and endorsed G. K. Wallace to represent them in the debate. The elders of the Woodlawn church and the elders at East Florence really want and plan for a good debate and to that end they have prepared the joint statement and the rules and regulations which follow. If these rules and regulations are followed, then this will be a most unusual and unique debate — the very first to be planned on such a "high" plane as far as I know. Please read the following carefully and we hope to see you at the debate.

To Whom It May Concern:

The following sets forth an agreement reached between the elders of the Woodlawn Church of Christ and the elders of the East Florence Church of Christ (our names appear at the close) relative to a public debate which we are conducting. It is our sincere desire to have an honorable discussion of what the Bible teaches concerning the issues involved and to conduct it in such a way that the most possible good may be accomplished thereby. To that end we have agreed upon the following rules and regulations to govern the entire discussion and we pledge ourselves to see that these rules and regulations are strictly adhered to by all parties involved.

Because so many public debates on religious questions have not been what they should have been, many people look upon such with disgust and contempt; and they think of them as mere quarrels, wrangles, name-calling contests, insulting contests, personal abuse battles, and such like; and it is their idea that debating engenders strife, hatred, division and does only harm. We feel that some debates have led to such reaction due to the misconduct of the parties involved and the failure to have and abide by the rules of honorable debate. We want no part in a debate of this kind. It is our firm and honest conviction that debating is not only scriptural, but also one of the very best ways to ascertain and teach the truth and to expose error. Solomon urged that we "debate thy cause with thy neighbor." (Prow. 25:9.) Jesus Christ was the world's greatest debater and controversialist. He was nearly always in debate with the religious leaders while He was here on earth. His apostles and other followers likewise were in constant debate with those who were in and who advocated error. Jude writes that we "should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints." (Jude 3.) This certainly does not mean that we should engage in personal wrangles or strife; but it does obligate us to defend and uphold the truth with honorable contention. TRUTH and not personal victory should always be our object in such efforts.

Let it be understood, therefore, that while we do not approve of all things said and done under the guise of debating, we do heartily believe in and endorse both private and public debating (discussions) of our religious differences, with our religious neighbors in denominational churches and with our own brethren. However, such discussion should have the true objective of honorable debate, that TRUTH and not victory is the purpose of such. It is only for this reason that we entered into arrangements for this debate and it shall be our purpose to see that this objective is constantly in mind and toward it all our efforts shall be extended. We still believe that the right kind of debates can be conducted and that they will have the desired effect for the truth. Thus the reasons for this explanation and for the rules and regulations.

The elders of the two churches involved have mutual respect and love for each other. We have not had the slightest difficulty in effecting this agreement because our desire is the same in it. We know that churches of Christ are disturbed and troubled concerning these questions; that feelings and emotions have been aroused, and the situation looks very bad in some ways. Yet we believe that for the most part all are honest and sincere and really desire to know and walk in the truth touching these questions. Such problems can not be solved by ignoring them and trying to act as if they did not exist. Neither can they be solved by drawing up sides, separating into partisan groups and hurling charges and countercharges at each other. Surely matters that so effect the peace and welfare of the church are worthy of serious and honest study — open and above board! We should desire the TRUTH above anything and everything else. We can not all be right — this much is certain! However, it is more certain that the Bible is right and that we should seek to follow it exactly. When we all follow it we will all be right and not until then. Also, we will then all be united as we should. We are commanded to "all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment." (1 Cor. 1:10.) We feel the desperate need for a more brotherly and honest effort to attain such a goal and we are interested in doing what we can to bring it about. We fear what the future holds for the Lord's church if more is not done along this line. This debate is being conducted to HELP bring ALL to "the unity of the Spirit" along these lines; and with the sincere hope and prayer that it may help "heal the troubled waters" in the church, get us all closer to the truth and thereby draw us closer to each other. How much this debate will contribute to this worthy goal remains to be seen, and while we do not think that it will fully settle the matter and bring us at once to the desired place, we do sincerely believe that it will play a very vital part in doing so. If we did not believe this we would never have undertaken such an effort.

We agree to publish all this so that all may know our desire, plans and aims in having the debate, for we know well that this debate will have a far-reaching effect for good or bad upon the church of the Lord in this entire area.

Propositions For Debate

I. It is in harmony with the Scriptures for churches of Christ to build and maintain benevolent organizations for the care of the needy, such as Boles Home, Tipton Home, Tesnessee Orphan Home, Childhaven, and other Orphan Homes and Homes for the Aged that are among us.

AFFIRMS: G. K. Wallace DENIES: Charles A. Holt II. Such an arrangement and co-operative effort on the part of churches of Christ for the preaching of the gospel as "The Herald of Truth" is without scriptural authority.

AFFIRMS: Charles A. Holt DENIES: G. K. Wallace

Points Of Agreement, Rules And Regulations

1. The propositions above set forth the points of difference between us. This discussion will have to do with these propositions and they are to be discussed in the light of God's word. We want an honorable debate about these issues.

2. All parties involved will conduct themselves in harmony with Christian principles and treat each other as sincere and honest brethren.

3. There shall be nothing in the way of what is commonly called "mud-slinging." The disputants shall not attack nor discuss each other personally in any way. The disputants shall make no reference to anything either has said or done in the past; only replying to what is legitimately (that which is in harmony with the rules and regulations for this debate as herein set forth) introduced in the debate proper. Moreover, no such attacks nor references shall be made to or about anyone or any church or religious paper of the past or present; unless such are directly connected with the propositions under discussion. The disputants themselves are not involved in the propositions and what they have done or said, or even what they may think of each other has no bearing on whether the propositions are true or false. The purpose of this rule is that all IRRELEVANT matters may be fully eliminated. Such things do not help in determining the truth of any proposition, but rather confuse and cloud the issues. We want to avoid anything and everything that is not directly related to having a discussion about what the Bible teaches about these questions. The disputants shall, therefore, refrain from any reference to or attack upon any individual or church, local or otherwise, except as DIRECTLY involved in the propositions.

4. It is furthermore agreed that the discussion shall be governed according to "Hedge's Rules of Debate" — the accepted and usual rules of orderly and honorable debate. There must be rules and all must respect them if honorable debate is to be conducted.

In view of the fact that most people do not know what "Hedge's Rules of Debate" are, we are giving them in detail at the close of our statement. The article containing them was written by Bro. Guy N. Woods and appeared in the Gospel Advocate in 1951. We sincerely urge each one to read and study carefully this material.

5. Each disputant shall have one moderator to assist him by keeping time or in any other way that moderators usually assist. The moderators shall have charge of the services each evening, with each one serving in this capacity the nights that his man is in the affirmative.

6. There shall be no applause or any other kind of outward display of disapproval or approval of anything said or done by either speaker at any time. The audience shall remember that this will be a religious service — a sincere study of God's word, and it is not a time for uncontrolled emotions, inflamed prejudices or party spirit to blind our eyes, stop our ears or cause us to act in any way that would be unbecoming to Christians. Grave issues are before us and this discussion demands our very best. We shall strive to see that all act as becometh saints.

7. The debate is being conducted primarily for the benefit of the two churches directly responsible for it. However, we realize the keen interest in these questions on the part of so many others both near and far, and because of this we have sought for adequate quarters and arrangements so that we can provide for all who desire to come and study with us. We have done our best along these lines to provide for your comfort and convenience.

8. Two evenings shall be given to the first proposition and two evenings shall be given to the second proposition and each speaker shall alternate with thirty minute speeches until a total of four such speeches have been made each evening; that is, two speeches of this length by each speaker. No NEW material shall be allowed in the last negative speech on each proposition.

9. The debate will be conducted at Harlan School, McBurney Drive, December 8-11, 1959, with the sessions beginning each evening at 7:30.

Woodlawn Elders East Florence Elders

Willard C Cox Edward L. Briggs Harry H. Morris H. M. Graben

Aulden D. Grigsby This statement was agreed upon and signed by all the above on November 6, 1959.

It is further agreed that this statement shall be printed to use in advertising the debate. This will be sent to the brotherhood papers for publication if they desire and it shall also be put in circular form for general distribution before and during the debate.

Rules Of Controversy

Ours is a decidedly controversial age. Argumentation is the order of the day in political, scientific and economic realms; and the church is having its share of disputation, too! Controversy, properly regulated, and rightly conducted, is highly beneficial, and may be made to serve the cause of truth more effectively than any other method of teaching. To accomplish its desired purpose, it must be kept within well-defined bounds, and across the years certain rules have been evolved which, by general acceptation, have come to be recognized as essential to honorable controversy.

Hedge's "Rules of Controversy" are, by common consent, most often used as a basis of argumentation, and have often been reprinted. Usually, the reprints are abridgements of the original rules — abridgements which do not fully represent the rules as originally promulgated by Mr. Hedge.

We shall, there, transcribe the entire chapter of "rules" and italicize the portions usually reprinted to indicate the difference between these, and the original arrangement as written. The edition being followed was published by Oakley and Mason, New York, 1868, and bears the title, "Logick; or a Summary of the General Principles and Different Modes of Reasoning, by Levi Hedge, LL D , Professor of Natural Religion, Moral Philosophy, and Civil Polity, in Harvard University."

"From the limited extent of human knowledge, and the different points of view, in which the same subjects may be contemplated by different minds, it follows of necessity, that a diversity of opinions must be entertained on many subjects of speculation. In whatever manner people are first led to form their opinions, they are usually disposed to defend them afterwards with zeal and pertinacity. Hence arise controversies and disputes, which are oftentimes conducted with such intemperate and misguided zeal, as to inflame animosities, by which the comfort and harmony of society are impaired.

These are the worst fruits of controversy. They are, however, merely incidental effects; and are counterbalanced by others of an opposite character; and of high importance to the interests of truth and virtue. The advantages of controversy consist in having questions of iifficulty and moment settled in a satisfactory manner. The principles of government and law have been immovably fixed by the debates, which have passed in deliberative assemblies and courts of justice.

All questions, not susceptible of rigorous demonstration, can be correctly settled only by a full and impartial comparison of the reasons on both sides. This is seldom done, with sufficient exactness, by the solitary investigation of an individual. Men rarely enter on the examination of a question wholly free from the bias of a previous opinion respecting it, which makes them more solicitous to find arguments for one side than for the other. It is only when the talents of different persons are enlisted, and opposite opinions are contended for, that questions are traced in all their bearings, and the grounds of an equitable decision are fully exhibited.

The importance of controversy may be inferred from the use, which has been made of it, in every period of the world. It has been adopted, as the principal mode of transacting business, in the halls of legislation and in courts of justice, where questions of the deepest concern to individuals and communities are decided. The minds of youth have been trained to it in seminaries of education, where the practice of disputation, in various forms, has been preserved, as a salutary discipline of the mental powers.

As controversy, especially when carried on from motives of victory or reputation, is liable to be productive of evil rather than of good, it is incumbent on all, who engage in it, from whatever motives, to observe rigorously those laws and principles by which the former may be avoided and the latter secured. The following rules, some times called canons of controversy, have been highly approved by writers of learning and discernment.

Rule 1. The terms in which the question in debate is expressed, and the precise point at issue, should be so clearly defined, that there could be no misunderstanding respecting them. If this be not done, the dispute is liable to be, in a great degree, verbal. Arguments will be misapplied, and the controversy protracted, because the parties engaged in it have different apprehensions of the question.

Rule 2. The parties should mutually consider each other, as standing on a footing of equality in respect to the subject in debate. Each should regard the other as possessing equal talents, knowledge, and desire for truth, with himself; and that it is possible, therefore, that he may be in the wrong, and his adversary in the right. In the heat of controversy, men are apt to forget the numberless sources of error, which exist in every controverted subject, especially of theology and metaphysics. Hence arise presumption, confidence, and arrogant language; all which obstruct the discovery of truth.

Rule 3. All expressions, which are unmeaning, or without effect in regard to the subject in debate, should be strictly avoided. All expressions may be considered as unmeaning, which contribute nothing to the proof of the question; such as desultory remarks and declamatory expressions. To these may be added all technical, ambiguous, and equivocal expressions. These have a tendency to dazzle and bewilder the mind, and to hinder its clear perception of the truth.

Rule 4. Personal reflections on an adversary should in no instance be indulged. Whatever his private character, his foibles are not to be named nor alluded to in a controversy. Personal reflections are not only destitute of effect, in respect to the question in discussion, but they are productive of real evil. They obstruct mental improvement, and are prejudicial to public morals. They indicate in him, who uses them, a mind hostile to the truth; for they prevent even solid arguments from receiving the attention, to which they are justly entitled.

Rule 5. No one has a right to accuse his adversary of indirect motives. Arguments are to be answered, whether he, who offers them, be sincere or not, especially as his want of sincerity, if real, could not be ascertained. To inquire into his motives, then, is useless. To ascribe indirect ones to him is worse than useless; it is harmful.

Rule 6. The consequences of any doctrine are not to be charged on him, who maintains it, unless he expressly avows them. If an absurd consequence be fairly deducible from any doctrine, it is rightly concluded that the doctrine itself is false; but it is not rightly concluded, that he, who advances it, supports the absurd consequence. The charitable presumption, in such case, would be, that he had never made the deduction; and that, if he had made it, he would have abandoned the original doctrine.

Rule 7. As truth, and not victory, is the professed object of controversy, whatever proofs may be advanced, on either side, should be examined with fairness and candor; and any attempt to ensnare an adversary by the arts of sophistry, or to lessen the force of his reasoning, by wit, caviling, or ridicule, is a violation of the rules of honorable controversy.

To the extent then, that controversy, any controversy, all controversy, is conducted in harmony with the foregoing rules great good must inevitably result; to the extent that such rules are ignored and disregarded, the disputation must fail of the only purpose for which it should ever have been engaged in — edification of the reader or listener. Those who engage in any form of controversy — and this all of us do in some degree or other — should consider carefully the foregoing rules, and adhere to them as far as possible.

— Guy N. Woods, Gospel Advocate, December 13, 1951.