Jones- McCaghren Debate= (No. 2)
Two nights were given to each proposition. The proposition on evangelism which McCaghren affirmed was: "It is scriptural for churches of Christ to send funds to another church in order that the receiving church may preach the gospel over the radio or television."
Before getting around to the proposition, brother McCaghren tried to patch up the fact that Boles Home owned one of the post office buildings in Abilene. He impugned brother Jones motive in introducing such, and delivered a brief lecture on where liars are going. Throughout the debate, he would constantly insinuate and reflect on brother Jones and the character of the Pruett and Lobit church. When brother Jones would answer, McCaghren would deny any statement and accuse brother Jones of having a guilty feeling.
In answer to some questions, McCaghren took the following positions: He knows of no scriptures that prohibit all churches from sending to one church in order that preaching may be done. Yet he says, universal bishops are unscriptural! There is no exclusive pattern for church cooperation, however, the Catholic type cooperation is wrong even though he allowed the debate to close without giving the scriptures which the Catholic type cooperation violate. It is wrong to destroy congregational independence; yet they can jointly work in capacities in which they are dependent upon each other. Elders cannot transfer their oversight to another eldership, yet he will defend their doing just that.
He tried to revive the "component part" argument. He had eleven elements listed on a chart. He assumed the truthfulness of these elements.
McCaghren used Matt. 28:18-20; 1 Tim. 3:15; Rom. 1:16; Matt. 5:16; Mk. 16:15-16; Acts 1:8; 2 Thess. 1:7-9; Phil. 2:13; 2 Cor. 8:113-11; Acts 11:20-30, 15:22-23; Col. 4:16; Matt. 4:23, 15:32. Get this: from these passages he argued — Congregation "A" and "B" are equally related to a work, "B" considers the need, "B" undertakes this specific work and has a right to seek to do its own work, the work then exceeds "B's" financial ability without catastrophe involved. "B" can receive assistance from "A." This would allow many to send. Their relationships change. They have liberty of action. These principles apply both in evangelism and benevolence. McCaghren indeed took some scriptures and preached from them a person can read those scriptures separate and apart from McCaghren's line of thought and never get the idea that such monstrosities as he introduced ever did or would exist. He had all of that to say trying to strengthen his fallacious position, "principles apply both in evangelism and benevolence."
In trying to pinpoint the controversy, McCaghren argued that money was the point at dispute. He gave a list of statistics as to the number now lost, the ones that had died unprepared and the number of the ones who had never known the Lord. Since we have the gospel we should not argue, but rather take it to them.
He, in his affirmative, tried to prove his proposition by trying to prove Pruett and Lobit inconsistent. He would hate to face God in the judgment having been responsible for such teaching and practice. He talked about the universal need of man: salvation!
McCaghren took the position that Jerusalem's sending Barriabas, (Acts 11:22) was equal to one congregation sending funds to another congregation in evangelism. Also, froni Col. 4:16, he argued that if the letter could be sent, that funds could be sent. Brother Jones pointed out that a preacher or tract could be sent to teach the truth to a lazy man or denominationalist, but asked if funds could be sent. McCaghren repeatedly stated if you can send a tract, you can send money for a tract. However, one can see where such concludes.
Throughout the debate there was a striking contrast in approach. Brother Jones steered clear of statistics, emotional stories, prejudicial appeals, hypothetical cases and rested his case on the divine truth. He proved that the pattern of cooperation was concurrent, never joint riention.
Brother Jones exposed the reasoning of McCaghren that the scriptures did note prohibit all churches from sending to one church. He observed that such could activate the church universal, and out of that type of reasoning grew the missionary society, and digression.
When McCaghren had stated that elders could not scripturally transfer their oversight to other elders, Jones showed that the very thing had taken place in the Herald of Truth. Elders of local congregations who had previously overseen every phase of local radio preaching had abandoned such and were now sending funds to other churches where their elders oversee every phase of the work.
Brother Jones gave an effective explanation of the difference in approach to evangelism and benevolence. He gave a reasonable and scriptural account as to why a congregation could send to another in benevolence and not in evangelism. Benevolence is specific in that the receiving church sustains a responsibility to her needy unequaled by any other church. Such is not the case in evangelism. Each congregation is equally responsible to evangelize in accord with her ability. Since the obligation of a church in preaching is general and benevolence is specific, necessity demands that they be approached differently. Therefore, McCaghren's argument on his eleventh component part, that principles apply both in evangelism and benevolence, was exposed as simply being untrue.
McCaghren seemed to think that a major charge was that Jones was trying to make a pattern. Jones answered that such was not his business, however, he was obligated to study the Bible and honor the patterns contained therein.
Brother McCaghren would create a false impression by going back continually to the benevolent proposition and stating that Pruett and Lobit would spend money on "termite control" and not a dime for a little orphan. Evidently such was designed to create prejudice without appeal to or regard for God's written word.
McCaghren, as other liberals have in days gone by, thought that he had something in the question "could one congregation send another a New Testament?" Brother Jones exposed such as being hypothetical. How could there be a congregation of the Lord's people without a New Testament? A New Testament would be an involved factor in their becoming the Lord's people. Brother Jones pointed out that there is a difference, however, in sending a New Testament or a tract and sending funds for evangelism. Such was illustrated in sending a tract or testament to a lazy man or denominationalist.
Brother McCaghren would leave the impression that since one congregation could not send to another congregation in evangelism, but could send wages to a preacher, that "the antis" were trying to evade an eldership; that "they want the oversight" of the work. He disregarded the Biblical teaching that preachers received wages from congregations while working in a distant field. His argument was against the Bible.
McCaghren said that when he first began to preach we were fighting "anti class" then "premillennialism." Brother Jones answered, if he had gone back a little further he would have found brethren arguing over the principles involved in today's controversies While fighting the missionary society.
McCaghren made a brief statement that gave much away as to why some defend what they do. In talking about a battle that the brotherhood had with brother Leroy Garret over the "located preacher" issue, he said, "I believe in located preachers. I'm located!" There is far more in this brief statement than what may immediately meet the eye. Many of us have been made to wonder if the reason that some brethren try to defend what they do is because they are already doing it. Many today are more concerned with justifying a practice than teaching the Bible.
Brother Jones pointed out that he was not advocating that the work should be neglected, but that we are to honor the teachings of God's word.
In the statement made by McCaghren that he knew of no passage that would prohibit all churches from "Sending to one church in order to evangelize, he found himself in no little trouble. He tried to ease his misery by arguing that if one church could send to a preacher, all could; hence, Jones' position would allow universal church action through sending to a preacher. Brother Jones answered by stating (2 Cor. 11:8) the preacher was to receive "wages from a congregation, and that the condition would not exist wherein a preacher could receive "wages" from all the churches.
Brother Jones clarified the issue by defining God's collectivity. He explained that two kinds of collectivity exist: one is a collectivity of individuals which make up the church; the other is a collectivity of churches working through a sponsoring church. God has authorized the collectivity of Christians to work in the local church under duly qualified elders, but has not authorized a collectivity of churches to work through a sponsoring church.
Brother Jones introduced Heb. 8:1-5 to teach that God has authorized us to follow a pattern. The pattern is a model or example for all later imitation. This was illustrated by the pattern used in baptism: 1. The subject — a confessing penitent believer (Mk. 18:16; John 1:12; Lk. 13:3; Rom. 10:10, Acts 2:38, 22:16; etc.) 2. The design — for remission of sins. (Acts 2:38, 22:16; 1 Peter 3:21; Rom. 6:3-4) The pattern in baptism is for the confessing penitent believer unto the remission of sins. Examples of this pattern being followed are found in Acts 2:38; 8:12-13, 38; 10:48; 18:14, 30-31; 18:8; 22:16. This pattern is violated when infants are baptized or when one is baptized for other reasons.
In like manner, brother Jones argued, there is a pattern in church to church contribution. 1. The subject — receiving church is in want. (Rom. 15:26) 2. Design — for equality. (2 Cor. 8:14) The pattern then is: contributions from church to church is for relief from want of the receiving church so that there may be equality. Examples of this pattern being followed are seen in Acts 11:27-30; Rom. 15:28-27; 1 Cor. 16:1-2; 2 Cor. 8:1-4; 2 Cor. 9:1-2. The pattern is violated when contributions are sent to an able church for reasons other than to reduce equality.
Brother Jones contrasted New Testament cooperation with modern. In New Testament times the sending was always direct. There was no in-between agency and the action was concurrent, but not joint. In modern cooperation for which there is no pattern, the sending is indirect. There is an in-between agency and the action is joint.
McCaghren took the position that the equality to be produced in 2 Cor. 8:14 was between the sending churches and not between the sending and receiving church. All that one has to do, to see his fallacy is to read the passage.
Evidently McCaghren ran out of soap and began to accuse someone of not believing in eating in a church building. He talked about a common meal in connection the Lord's supper, etc.
All in all the debate was on a high plane. The audience behaved excellently. In this section evidence is available that good was done.
— Baytown, Texas