Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 12
September 29, 1960
NUMBER 21, PAGE 10-11

Webb - Dobson Debate

Earl Robertson, Indianapolis, Indiana

On the night of April 18, 19, 21 and 22nd a religious discussion was conducted by the Lafayette Heights church and the Irvington church in Indianapolis, Indiana. Brooks Webb of the Heights and Paul Dobson of Irvington were the speakers. Quickly I hasten to say that each man conducted himself well. Each participating church expressed themselves as appreciating the demeanor of each participant. Such contrast in conduct on the part of these men with some who have debated here in recent years caused the people of Indianapolis to know that it is possible to have a clean, honorable debate. The people here had come to the point that they thought it impossible to have a good religious discussion. For the last twenty years in nearly every debate in Indianapolis, W. L. Totty has taken in his rude way the liberty to browbeat any and all who may differ with him or who refused to bow to his rule. Before this debate agreement was made that he had nothing at all to do with this one. So the recipe for a good clean debate here is simply to keep this man out of it! It is an impossibility to have a debate that is honorable if Totty has any thing at all to do with it, and if you think not, just visit one some time when he does have something to do with it.

Totty scorched for days because he could not have any part in this debate. He wrote in his bulletin of May 1, 1960, "They had refused to debate with brother Dobson and brother Rogers unless they would agree that I would not be allowed to moderate for the debates. They are afraid of me, for they know that I know too much about the things they have done and are doing. Thus, they try to trump up some 'cause' to keep me out of the debates." It isn't that Totty "knows so much" that we are refusing to debate him nor is it that we are afraid of him. Everybody knows that it isn't his power, but his ungodly conduct.

This debate was on the Orphan Home issue and the Herald of Truth. The first two nights of the debate were conducted in the Irvington building, and the last two in the Lafayette Heights building. The proposition on the Herald of Truth was discussed first. I want to give you some of the highpoints of each proposition.

The Herald Of Truth

The proposition: "The Bible teaches that several churches of Christ may assist a congregation in preaching the gospel as is done in the Herald of Truth program."

In the very first speech, in the definition of the proposition, Dobson nullified everything that Guy N. Woods did in the Birmingham Debate. He states that the Herald of Truth was the exclusive work of 5th and Highland. Brother Woods and others are teaching that this is a brotherhood work. That it is a work of each participating church. Dobson said it is Highland's work, that they control it and can stop it tomorrow if they want to. He contended that Irvington church was simply "assisting" Highland, and that it was not Irvington's work.

Since this is a network program, paid for by the brotherhood, Webb insisted on knowing just how it came to be Highland's. It was pointed out that Highland didn't start it, they do not pay for it, and they can not stop it. Therefore, it is a brotherhood work and not exclusively Highland's. Dobson further affirmed that "any number of congregations" could contribute in such an effort to preach the gospel. Webb showed that if "any number of congregations" could contribute to Highland, then every congregation in the whole world could. And if they could contribute 15 percent of their resources, why not all of it? Therefore, it necessarily followed that Dobson's unenviable position must be that every congregation in the world can contribute every cent of their funds to Highland to be used in preaching the gospel of Christ. The only answer Dobson could give was, "Common sense tells us we can't."

Dobson contended that the Herald of Truth is "only a radio program." Webb showed from documentary evidence that in 1957 there were not one, not two, but seventy two programs. One network program, and seventy one on independent stations. Hence, seventy two programs. Truly the Herald of Truth Missionary Society at work.

Webb pointed out that the elders at Highland serve over the Herald of Truth as directors, just the same as in the Tipton Home arrangement. They recognize this in the Tipton Home set-up, but refuse to acknowledge it in the Herald of Truth. Dobson did not attempt to deal with this point. Webb further demonstrated that with the Herald of Truth arrangement and theological development into the "million for the billion," or "Sponsoring church of sponsoring churches" organization, placed under the Broadway "Head Elder" and we would have no difference in principle from the Roman Catholic centralization. Dobson persistently denied that the Herald of Truth was "centralized." Yet, even though Webb pleaded with him, he would not attempt to tell how the church universal could be activated and centralization could be accomplished. The answer Dobson gave was: "Let every body in the world place membership at Lafayette Heights, and that would be it." However, brother Webb showed that this would only be a local congregation under its elders and not a centralization of resources of a number of congregations — all in the world.

As Webb continued to press Dobson to tell just whose work the Herald of Truth is, Dobson said, "It is Irvington's work to assist, but 5th and Highland's to oversee." Then Webb pressed Dobson to tell us how he determined who was to oversee, and who is to assist. Brother Dobson observed the Passover on this.

Brooks showed from history that this same arrangement reared its ugly head in Henderson, Tennessee, in 1910, and quoted from the writings of Earl West and David Lipscomb. Dobson said, "Let David Lipscomb rest." Yet he kept bringing up Charles Holt in the debate. Webb informed him that if he didn't let Charles Holt alone, Holt would not let Dobson alone. Then brother Dobson said, "I know he won't, he won't let me alone now."

One of the most significant things of the debate was that Webb kept pressing Dobson for his position and the position of the Irvington church on the College Question, whether or not they believed it scriptural for the church to contribute money from its treasury to such Colleges as David Lipscomb. On the third evening Webb read a challenge from the elders of the Lafayette Heights church to the elders of the Irvington church for a debate on the scripturalness of the church supporting the Colleges. They declined as Dobson said they felt exactly as he did, that it is unscriptural to contribute to Colleges from the church treasury. Dobson even signed the negative of a proposition on the College issue. Now the significant thing about this is, W. L. Totty was sitting with Dobson and coaching him all the way! Furthermore, Totty wrote, "Just one week before the debate started, the elders of the Irvington church challenged Cecil Willis, who was holding a meeting at Lafayette Heights, to meet me in a debate on the orphan home question at the Irvington church. Of course, Willis refused. Less than two months ago I represented the Martinville church in a debate at Martinville. Therefore, we see that both the Irvington church and the Martinville church endorse me." So Irvington is opposed to church support to colleges; but Totty affirmed with Charles Holt in 1954 "It is Scripturally right for churches to contribute money from the church treasuries to support what is commonly called a Bible College in its work." Now the amusing thing about all this is that Dobson said in one of his speeches, "I don't know of a preacher that believes that the church ought to put the college in the budget."

Because Charles Holt denied the above proposition in 1954 that made him a Sommerite, according to Totty. I wonder now if Dobson's denial of such causes him and the Irvington church to be Sommerite? And if so, will they have a debate? And if they do not have a debate, will Totty represent a Sommerite church? Will Irvington endorse a man who affirms something in debate which they believe is unscriptural? Or, when Dobson said that he didn't "know of a preacher that believes that the church ought to put the college in the budget," did he not consider Totty a preacher? We know he knew him! Incidentally, the challenge still stands, if and when the Irvington elders are converted to Totty's position, Webb and the Heights church are ready to meet them on the same terms that governed the former debate.

The Orphan Home Issue

The proposition: "The Scriptures teach that the local church is all-sufficient to care for its orphan children without the aid of any organization paralleled to Shults-Lewis, or Potter Orphan Home."

Though Webb pleaded for a proposition which was much simpler, and not nearly so open to quibbling, brother Dobson refused. The proposition was defined by Webb as follows: "The church is all-sufficient to see to, provide for, those who are its responsibility, without having to delegate its works by the contribution of funds to an association or society, body corporate and politic, another independent body, which is like in essential parts to Shults-Lewis or Potter Orphan Home Benevolent Society or organization — the board of directors of such organizations." Brother Dobson never objected to this definition.

Webb pointed out there is a middle organization providing the house, supervision, personnel, food, etc. in such arrangements as Shults-Lewis and Potter Orphan Homes. Furthermore, Brooks asked Dobson what Shults-Lewis could do that the church could not provide. Brother Dobson did not answer. Brother Webb showed that the Bible teaches the church is sufficient to do the work God intended for it to do. He showed from Acts 2:44, 45; 4:32; 6:1-6; Rom. 15:25-28; 1 Cor. 16: 1-2; 2 Cor. 8 and 9; 1 Tim. 5:16 that the church in New Testament days did care for their own needy without the aid of any organization paralleled to Shults-Lewis or Potter. Not only did he show that such is possible from the Bible, but gave as a case in point the Broadway church in Lubbock, Texas. John B. White, elder and superintendent, states that the Children's Home of Lubbock is under the elders of the Broadway church just like their Bible classes are. He pointed out that he did not believe the church had the right to the extent to which they had gone, but that the organization, the local church was doing that work without any other organization.

Dobson contended that the board of directors constituted the parents of the children in the homes. Webb read a letter from Nile E. Yearwood of Nashville, Tennessee, President of the board of directors of the Tennessee Orphan Home, in which Yearwood said, "I had not heard that the Orphan Home is the home restored," and "I had not given any thought as to who were the parents." So, according to Dobson, here is a man who is "Top Poppa" to a number of children, but had given it no thought!

Webb showed with telling force that Dobson limited the church in her work of benevolence more than he. Since Dobson was actually affirming that the church is not all-sufficient to do her benevolent work, but must have separate organizations paralleled to Shults-Lewis to do this work, and that not one such home will accept a colored child, means therefore, that not one colored congregation can "practice pure and undefiled religion." Furthermore, when asked if the church could help support a Baptist Orphan Home, Dobson said, "Webb now brings in the big Baptist Home — one that is really in the business — no, the church can't help one like that, where the money goes to support false doctrine." He thought the church could help a private Baptist Home, but not a Baptist Orphan Home. So they are not as interested in helping the "poor little starving orphans" as they let on like they are. But Webb showed how Dobson thought he taught error, and asked him if he should become needy, could he encourage the church to help his home. For the conclusion — no comment!

We believe this debate did good. Brother Webb is scheduled to meet Jimmy Rogers, moderator for Dobson, in debate on the same propositions sometime this Fall. We look forward to that debate, and anticipate that much good shall result from it as was the case in the debate with Dobson.

This writer served as moderator for brother Webb.