Wilson-Dillbeck Debate
Brother John W. Wilson of Fontana, California, and brother Harlan Dillbeck of 7th & Teller congregation in Grand Junction, Colorado, completed a four-night debate on Benevolence and Cooperation from May 4, through May 7. There were four propositions discussed.
The first night brother Wilson affirmed, "Scriptures teach that a church is sufficient to do all God expects her to do in the care of orphans, widows, and needy within its own organization without contributing to other benevolent organizations; such as, Boles Home, Tipton Home, Tennessee Orphan Home and Childhaven. Brother Dillbeck denied. Brother Wilson made two outstanding arguments to which the negative made no reply. First, that the scriptures reveal two ways only in which one can give glory to God. One in the name of a disciple (Christian) Matt. 10:42, and in the Church Eph. 3:21, and called on the negative to find another name or the name of another organization in which God can be glorified. Second, brother Wilson displayed a chart in which he paralleled the work of the Benevolent Home and the International Sunday School Society showing that they supplant the Church in their respective fields, and if one could be defended by scripture they both could be. If the Church could support one of them, it could by the same rule support the other.
Brother Dillbeck began his negative by endorsing all that brother Wilson had said and emphasized that he too believed in the all sufficiency of the Church, though, he had signed a proposition in the negative which affirmed the sufficiency of the Church without other organizations. From his first speech it was evident that he had no intention of trying to defend his proposition, but spend his time in making rousing speeches on matters that were not under question by anyone.
The second night brother Dillbeck affirmed, "It is in harmony with the Scriptures for a Church to send funds to (contribute to) an orphan home; such as, Boles Home, Tipton Home, Tennessee Orphan Home and Childhaven so that the needs of orphans might be supplied adequately. Brother Dillbeck was continually in trouble trying to find a parallel between building committees, janitor service organizations, two people preaching the Gospel as a team, and the other organizations of his proposition. At the same time reaffirming his statement that the Church was sufficient within its own organization. Although it was pointed out many times, he never was able to see a contradiction in his contention that the Church was sufficient and yet it needed the other organizations of his propositions.
Brother Dillbeck attempted the argument that Elders couldn't oversee childcare work because the Church is not a home, and likewise, the home is not the Church and the distinction had to be maintained. Brother Wilson replied that the building is not the Church nor the Bible School the Church, but that it is a function of the Church, a work of the Church, and that the command to assemble and teach authorized both the building and the Bible School. Likewise, if it was the churches responsibility to supply the need of orphans, widows, or the destitute, it had authority by reason of the responsibility to oversee the work to the extent of its responsibility.
In his second speech brother Dillbeck neither reaffirmed his original argument nor attempted new ones, but turned his attention to arousing sympathy for the destitute and painted brother Wilson and the people whom he represented (Whoever that is) as a do nothing crowd. Even denied that he was debating the question of Benevolence and finally giving up the last seven (7) minutes of his time to brother Wilson.
The first proposition on Cooperation brother Wilson affirmed, "The Scriptures teach that a local congregation may be assisted in her responsibility in preaching the Gospel by a sister congregation only by having support sent directly to the evangelist on the field, and not by having the sister congregation send to the congregation to whom the evangelist is amenable. Brother Dillbeck denied.
Though this proposition was somewhat awkward in expression, there was no difficulty in defining what the issue was in the discussion. The cumbersome manner of expression is due to the difficulty encountered in writing an affirmative on this subject without using the expression, "It is contrary to the Scripture," to which Bro. Dillbeck objected. He insisted that Bro. Wilson affirm an affirmative and not affirm a negative, although it can be seen that in the proposition there is both an affirmative and a negative.
Bro. Wilson's argument on the proposition was mainly from the examples of how the churches cooperated in New Testament times in preaching the Gospel. With emphasis on the exclusive nature of these examples. The scriptural violations in the Sponsoring Church arrangement was also pointed out, showing plainly to all that this arrangement opened the floodgate to complete organizational apostasy.
The negative was never able to cope with the strength of the affirmative's first speech. His main effort was expended in casting doubt on the authority of an apostolic example. He worked so diligently in this, that an elder (his moderator) said that some brethren were convinced that an example of apostolic procedure had no authority. It is becoming more and more apparent that brethren are willing to give up the firm ground of New Testament example rather than give up the unscriptural practices, which these examples condemn.
The majority of Bro. Dillbeck's time in both negatives was spent not on the Cooperation issue, but on material involving the Benevolent question of the first two propositions. In fact, he stated plainly he had no intention of trying to follow Bro. Wilson's affirmative on the Cooperation proposition.
The fourth night of the discussion Bro. Dillbeck affirmed that, "It is in harmony with the scriptures for one church to contribute to another church which has assumed the oversight of a work to which both churches sustained the same relationship before the assumption of the oversight."
In Bro. Wilson's affirmative on Cooperation, Bro. Dillbeck had kept emphasizing that he was not going to let Bro. Wilson assume anything, forgetting that his next proposition assumed the right of one congregation, to assume a work and receive assistance from another congregation that had equal responsibility toward this work before the assuming was done. Bro. Wilson pointed this out with telling effect.
In Bro. Dillbeck's first affirmative on Cooperation he listed a number of things which he was not defending such as; one congregation having the oversight of another congregation's work, centralized control and oversight, but he was contending for the kind of cooperation that had made the debate possible. San Bernardino, California, sending and paying Bro. Wilson and Grand Junction, Colorado, sending and paying Bro. Dillbeck. Bro. Wilson pointed out that this was exactly what he was contending for and asked Bro. Dillbeck if he would shake hands and take a stand with him on that ground to which Bro. Dillbeck readily agreed. Now if Bro. Dillbeck will give up the things for which he will not contend and practice the kind of cooperation for which he said he would contend, this debate will have accomplished a great deal of good.
The small congregation at Paonia commends Bro. Wilson to any congregation who has need of his ability. He will do his job well and conduct himself as a Christian should.