Wilson-Rudd Debate
Gordon Wilson, Sacramento, California: A religious discussion was held the nights of April 12-15 in Delta, Colorado, between John W. Wilson and Don Rudd. These brethren represented the churches of Christ in Paonia and Delta, respectively. The proposition for the first two evenings, affirmed by Rudd, was:
"The scriptures teach that such arrangements and cooperative efforts on the part of churches of Christ for the preaching of the gospel as the Herald of Truth are scriptural."
Just a word needs to be said concerning the conduct of the participants. Brother Rudd was his usual ungentlemanly, obnoxious self. For those who have heard him debate this is enough said. He spent a large part of his time (plus extra time allowed him by moderator) in boasting of all the champions he has vanquished, calling names, accusing brother Wilson of dividing churches and, finally, bragging that he himself had split every church he had preached for. Brother Wilson dealt adequately with Rudd's meanness, but refused to get down into the mud with him. The difference between the style of the two men was marked by the audience; even many of those whom Rudd represented admitted to being ashamed of his behaviour.
Brother Rudd used his first affirmative speech in establishing eight points which he said, if proved, would prove his proposition. They were:
1. The gospel is to be preached.
2. The gospel is to be preached world wide.
3. The gospel is to be preached by the church.
4. The gospel is to be preached by the church world wide.
5. The gospel can be preached over the radio.
6. The church can preach the gospel over the radio.
7. Churches of Christ are to cooperate.
8. Churches of Christ can cooperate in evangelism.
He expressed a belief that bro. Wilson would agree with the first seven, but would probably take issue with point number eight. Wilson replied to this speech by saying that he would not take issue with the eighth point but, to the contrary, the fact that churches may cooperate in evangelism is established by specific authority. He then cited 2 Corinthians 11:8 as authority for churches to cooperate in preaching the gospel. Since this passage specifies churches sending wages to the preacher, it automatically excludes sending to a sponsoring church, just as the Bible specifying the fruit of the vine for the Lord's Supper excludes buttermilk. Rudd was challenged to show scriptural authority for churches to send money to one church for the receiving church to use in preaching the gospel. Such an action plainly violates 2 Cor. 11:8. Thus Rudd's eighth element was turned against him.
It was also pointed out that in addition to proving these eight elements Rudd needed to show one of three things to be true: He must prove that the Herald of Truth arrangement is the only way for churches to cooperate in evangelism, or second, he must show that it is one of two or more ways in which churches may cooperate in preaching, or third, he must take the position that any way in which churches may cooperate is scriptural. Obviously he cannot take either of the first two positions. But if he takes position number three, then since the Missionary Society is an arrangement whereby churches may cooperate in preaching, his eight element argument proves the Missionary Society to be scriptural!
Brother Rudd found himself in great difficulty in regard to some written questions which were submitted to him. Here are the questions and his answers: 1. Are elders limited by the scriptures in their oversight to the congregation and its work there where they are members? Answer: Yes, I Pet. 5:2,3.
2. Since the support of the preaching of the gospel is a work of the church, when more than a thousand churches put money into the treasury of one church for that work to be done, is the work done the work of one church or the work of many churches? Answer: Such an arrangement would be the work of all involved yet not in the same manner. The thousand churches would be doing a work indirectly, while the sponsoring church directly.
3. Is the oversight of the work of preaching on the Herald of Truth under ne eldership? Answer: Yes.
In comment on these answers brother Wilson pointed out that Rudd admits that the scriptures limit the oversight of one congregation, yet the Herald of Truth arrangement is the (indirect) work of more than a thousand congregations. Therefore, the Fifth and Highland elders are overseeing the work of more than a thousand churches, in violation of their scriptural limitations.
4. What obligation do the Highland elders owe to the Highland church, that pertains to the oversight of Herald of Truth, that they do not owe to every other contributing church? Answer: The obligation of oversight.
But he had just admitted that these elders have the oversight of Herald of Truth which is the work of all the contributing churches. Therefore, it was, in effect, admitted that, in regards to the Herald of Truth, the Highland elders sustain the same relationship to every contributing church that they sustain to Highland church. Thus you have a brotherhood eldership as far as that work extends.
5. Would it be scriptural for one church to become the sponsoring church for all of the preaching to be done in the whole world, radio, T. V., the printed page, and gospel meetings? Answer: If such were to come about exactly according to the hypothetical case, the sponsoring church would truly destroy the freedom of the great brotherhood. This would be wrong.
Since it would be wrong, according to Rudd, to turn all of the preaching money over to one church, he was challenged to show by the scriptures at just what point it becomes wrong. How much can churches send of their preaching money without being a sin? Ten per cent? Twenty? The audience could feel the force of this point.
6. Can you give one passage in the scriptures where one church took money from its treasury and placed it in the treasury of another church for that church to use in preaching the gospel? Answer: Yes, I can give Biblical authority for such a practice.
You see, instead of giving the scripture he just said, "Yes, I can." But he never did, though he was continually pressed to do so. This kind of childish dodge, rather than a straightforward answer showed the weakness of his proposition. And, failing to give the scripture, he thereby failed to prove Herald of Truth to be scriptural.