The Burns - Rogers Debate - No. 2
Sometime previous to the debate brother Rogers admitted to brother Burns that he had no scruples against the local church contributing to the colleges operated by brethren. So from time to time in the debate brother Burns would insist that brother Rogers state plainly what his thinking was relative to such contributions. A number of times brother Rogers said that the colleges had no part in the debate (though he seemed to think the located preacher question did have part in the debate), and that he was not going to discuss the colleges.
By the last night of the debate it must have seemed to Rogers and Deaver that to remain silent on the college question would be worse than admitting they believed that the church could contribute to it. So they decided to discuss it and try to patch their position up to where it would not be so objectionable to those who stand with them on the orphan home question. However, as Burns was unaware that they intended to discuss the college question, he submitted a question in writing that was calculated to bring them out in the open. So as it resulted, each disputant asked the other a question relative to church support of the colleges on the last night of the debate. We shall notice both questions and the answers.
Burns' Question to Rogers In the early part of the debate Rogers had presented a chart on which he asked: "Where does the sin occur?
1. A Christian contributes to a non Christian.
2. 2 Christians contribute to a non Christian.
3. 1 Christian gives a contribution to another Christian to give to a non Christian along with his own contribution.
4. 2 Christians give their contributions to a 3rd Christian to give to a non Christian along with his own contribution.
5. 200 Christians give their contributions to a selected (201st) Christian to give to a non Christian along with his own contribution.
6. These 201 Christians are the members of a local congregation.
7. The elders endorse the gift that is made by these 201 Christians to a non Christian.
8. The church (local congregation) makes a contribution to a non Christian."
Burns answered forthrightly that the sin would occur when the local church engaged in the relief of aliens. Using Rogers' own order, Burns asked the following question:
"Please check the point at which you believe sin occurs:
1. A Christian contributes to F.W.C.C. (Fort Worth Christian College)
2. Two Christians contribute to F. W. C. C.
3. One Christian gives contribution to another Christian to give to F. W. C. C.
4. 200 Christians give their contribution to 201st Christian, all of whom give to F. W. C. C.
5. All are members of same congregation.
6. Congregation makes contribution to F. W. C. C."
The written answer as returned to Burns was: "We allow a possibility here that such a contribution can be made." Notice, it was answered "We;" therefore, there can be no question but that Deaver agreed with Rogers' answer. Roy Deaver was the first president of F. W. C. C. and is now on the "Bible faculty" of the school. So parents, you can rest assured that when the question of church support of the schools comes up in the Bible classes your children will be taught by Roy Deaver that such is in harmony with the scriptures.
Rogers' Question to Burns
"A young man, faithful Christian, native of Holland, wants to attend a Christian college that he might prepare to preach the gospel in his country. He must have financial assistance. Would you allow that a church could send funds to the Christian college in order that he might receive the training?" The written answer was: "No!"
In reference to this question and answer Rogers said:
"I'd like to turn to a question, however, before we go into this affirmative tonight and spend just a moment on it. This is something that brother Burns has been wanting to talk about for a long time. So we've just given him a question tonight that we believe will honestly represent the answer that we can give to you. A young man, faithful Christian, native of Holland, wants to attend a Christian college that he might prepare to preach the gospel in his country. He must have financial assistance. Would you allow that a church could send funds to the Christian college in order that he might receive the training? Brother Burns said no. Now I want to tell you, beloved friends, that I'm just as willing as I can be to go down on record as saying that I believe that a church could send to a Christian college in such a case as this. This is not somebody trying to sneak in on the brethren as brother Burns implied last night. This is something that has been going on for a long time; its going on now at Abilene Christian College. And a number of years ago when I worked with Southwestern Christian College that very thing was going on at that time. A church in Dallas was supplying the funds for my good friend Jackson Sagoni who is a native of Africa, a colored man, a fine preacher of the gospel of Christ. And they were sending that — those funds to the school. And brother Sagoni was receiving his education supported by these brethren over there. Beloved friends, I believe that that's scriptural; I believe that it's right. And if that person were an orphan child, I'd still believe that it was right. And so we've given you an answer. And that ought to satisfy brother Burns, and it ought to satisfy you if you think that we're trying to sneak something in in a underhanded or deceitful manner as was suggested by him last night."
We have here given in full what Rogers said, lest someone say that we misrepresent him. It is well, however, to point out that Rogers and Deaver believe that it is scriptural for a church to contribute to a college on exactly the same basis that they believe it is scriptural for a church to contribute to an orphan home. If the college has a man 'enrolled that is not able to pay his own way, they think the church can send contributions to the college to enable the man to receive the training that the college offers. And if the orphan home has a child enrolled that is not able to pay his own way, they think the church can send contributions to the orphan home to enable the child to receive the training that the orphan home offers.
One thing we will have to accredit these men with is that they are consistent in their reasoning relative to the two human institutions. Yes, they are consistent, but consistent in error. However, there are a number of church members, gospel preachers and elders included, in Fort Worth who believe that church contributions to orphan homes are scriptural, but that church contributions to the colleges are unscriptural. In the June issue of Calmont's monthly bulletin we called upon any one of these men to write an article for publication in the bulletin in which he would show that it is scriptural for a church to contribute to an orphan home such as Boles and unscriptural for the church to contribute to a college such as F. W. C. C. To this day not a one of them has submitted such an article. And it is no wonder. For it is an inescapable fact that if it is scriptural for the church to contribute to an orphan home so that the child can be educated through the high school level, it is also scriptural for the church to contribute to the college so that the child can be educated through the college level!
In one way or another such men as Leroy Brownlow, Thomas McDonald, Ralph Starling, Eldred Stevens, and Johnny Ramsey have let it be known that they are opposed to local churches contributing to the colleges. And in the October 25, 1960, issue of the Firm Foundation brother Lemmons in referring to Thomas B. Warren, president of F. W. C. C. wrote: "Recently this same brother commended in glowing terms a book which advocates that it is all right for the church to put the college in the budget. Now is he 100% for, or 100% against, that book? People in his area should know which." Brother Lemmons, we now know. For you can rest assured that Roy Deaver is not in disagreement on this question with the "greatest thinking machine" that he has ever known.
It will be interesting to see what these preachers in Fort Worth who oppose church contributing to colleges will now do. Will they fight this innovation? Or will they submit to the pressure of the powerful machines in the brotherhood called "Christian Colleges?" Some months ago brother Eldred Stevens wrote in the Southside bulletin that he would oppose the Fort Worth School if those running it ever let it be known that they believed it to be scriptural for the college to receive church contributions. We will look for such opposition from this brother.
Another thing worthy of notice in the question Rogers submitted to Burns is that the young man of the question wanted to attend a Christian college "that he might prepare to preach the gospel." Thus, this is an open admission that the college is a preacher training factory. My dear reader, next time you consider making a contribution to F. W. C. C. you might do well to remember that one thing that the preachers are being trained in IS THAT IT IS SCRIPTURAL FOR THE CHURCH TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE SCHOOL! By this admission from one of the Bible teachers in the college, the college is now to the church of Christ exactly what the Seminary is to the denomination, i. e., a school to train men to preach.
The local church is the institution in which men are to be trained to preach. And all the talk and writing by preachers today about the work of the college being indispensable to the welfare of the church just shows that God's people have again rejected God's way and have gone about to establish their own. You can rest assured that if the college was necessary to train men to preach, Jesus Christ would have established a college for this work. The truth of the matter is that the church doesn't need the Christian (?) colleges, but the colleges do need the church. When Christians again are content to spend their time and money in building local churches after the New Testament order instead of human institutions called Christian Colleges, we will again see the New Testament church grow not only numerically, but spiritually also.
If brother Rogers' comments are true, most if not all of the Christian (?) colleges have been receiving contributions from the churches all along. He assured us that the practice which he was advocating was no new thing. And I am constrained to believe him. But one thing is new! that is, an open admission from these fellows that such is being done and that they endorse it!
On Thursday night brother Rogers said: "He had to say something about Fort Worth Christian School. He wants to stay on that instead of on the issue. Fort Worth Christian School as a religious activity; he said one of these days we'll tell them that the religious activity is in contributing to the school. Well now, brother Burns, if I do I'll have the word of God to back me up when I do. But that isn't in this discussion. And you're not going to get on it; we're not going to discuss it because that isn't here." But after this promise that if and when he told people it was right for the colleges to receive contributions from the churches he would "have the word of God to back me up." Rogers made his comments about this matter and never even remotely referred to the word of God. So brother Rogers, we are still waiting for you to introduce the scripture that "backs you up" in your contention that it is right for the college to receive contributions from the churches. If you will submit an article in which you introduce the word of God that "backs you up" in this, we will publish it in this paper.