The Roswell Debate
Propositions were discussed on the "Bible Class" question in the recent debate at Roswell, New Mexico, January 14-15, between Ernest E. West and Claude Lawrence. Both of that city.
The truth was well defended by Brother West throughout the discussion and the issue was kept before the audience. Both disputants conducted themselves in a very becoming manner in the two night discussion and the audience was very quiet and attentive.
Some of the points that highlighted the debate were:
1. The rule for prophets and prophetesses. Brother Lawrence contended that the rule which governed the prophets in 1 Corinthians 14:29-31 applied to the church today. He took the position that the rule given for prophetesses in 1st Corinthians 11:5 does not apply today because we do not have prophetesses. Brother West dealt with this point of inconsistency.
2. Demanding scripture. Brother Lawrence demanded the scripture that authorized the arrangement of teaching in classes; however, he failed in his affirmation to show where the Bible taught that all teaching must be done in one assembly only. Brother West answered that people were taught in single groups, but they were also taught in divided groups and such groups were taught simultaneously. (Mark 9:2, 14) From this reasoning it became very obvious that the anti-class does not allow all that Jesus taught and practiced.
3. The words "if" and "must." Brother West effectively reasoned that the anti-class position is contrary to the law of God according to their interpretation of 1st Corinthians 14:23. Their position is not, "IF the whole church be come together in one place," but that it "MUST come together in one place." This interpretation makes a law that we cannot find in the Bible.
4. Isolated cases. Brother Lawrence argued, and cited several special cases where young men had gone bad after having attended Bible School in some place. His conclusion was that since some Bible Schools had failed that they would all fail and should therefore be destroyed. Brother West showed that he would not accept the conclusion of his own reasoning. He pointed out the obvious fact that some homes have failed to teach their children the way of the Lord, and the result is lawlessness and disobedience; but who would say that all homes should be done away with simply because some have failed to do their duty? That argument was neither based on scripture nor sound reasoning.
5. All meetings the same. Brother Lawrence stated that 1st Corinthians 14:34 applied to all meetings of the church. He also stated that we have no command nor example for special meetings for special groups, hence any member can attend any service. When asked if women attended their business meetings, and young men's training class (they have one) there was no comment. Yes, they too, see the need for special meetings that are not specifically mentioned in the scriptures. They also have meetings where their women do not keep silent.
6. Women preachers. "What would keep your women from being preachers today if 1st Corinthians 14:34 does not apply to women of today?" asked Brother Lawrence in one of his negative speeches. The answer of course given was based on the limitations placed upon her work by the Lord as Paul commanded in 1st Timothy 2:11-12. Here the woman is commanded not to teach, nor usurp authority over the man. This, argued Brother West, will keep the woman from the pulpit as a public proclaimer of the word.
7. The use of old arguments. At one point in the debate, instead of answering the arguments presented in Brother West's affirmative, Brother Lawrence simply stated that these arguments had been used over and over again for fifty years or more. He said that he had seen them many times. Brother West suggested to the audience that he had seen the moon many times too, but that he had never been there, indicating of course the vast difference between simply seeing a thing and actually dealing with it. The anti-class folks seem to feel that they have dealt with an argument when they declare that they have seen it before.
8. A man in a ladies' class. The audience waited quietly for the answer to an unusual question which was asked by Brother Lawrence of Ernest West in his last negative speech. He asked: "Brother West, are you a man? If so, how can you be a teacher in the ladies' Bible class?" The question was answered to the satisfaction of all, in the affirmative, "Yes, I'm a man." Brother West gave as a reason for teaching the ladies Bible class, the example of Paul teaching the women by the riverside near the city of Philippi. (Acts 16:13)
9. The special problem of 1st Corinthians 14. In his first affirmative speech Brother West illustrated the special problems of 1 Corinthians 14 by using a chart. He reasoned that we could not have the same problems today because the special gifts were involved. Paul gave the solution to their particular problem by commanding: (1) Let all things be done unto edifying. (2) Those who spoke in unknown tongues were to speak only by course. (3) Interpreters were to interpret. (4) Prophets were to prophesy one by one. (5) Women were not to speak. They were not to "laleo," "To utter a sound, to emit a voice, make one's self heard." If this commandment was given to apply to all meetings of God's people, then we have a contradiction in the Bible, for in Ephesians 5:19, all are commanded to speak (laleo). He pointed out that the anti-Bible school folks do not keep the commandment given in 1st Corinthians 14:34 because that command would prohibit a woman's uttering a sound. Their women sing in the services, thus they do not obey that commandment. In the service of 1 Corinthians 14:34 the women could not sing. He reasoned that there could be services today where it would be wrong for a woman to speak, but if so, it would be because of the general command for women given in 1st Timothy 2:12, and not because of the special instruction that was given for a special case in the 14th chapter of 1st Corinthians.
All in all a fine spirit prevailed throughout the discussion and we feel that lasting good was accomplished. May the Lord hasten the day when the brethren will recognize the realm of expediency in the teaching of God's word as they do in other phases of His work. They do many things for which there is no detailed command, that they might expedite the Lord's will, but they are blind to their own inconsistencies. They refuse our fellowship, not because they do not believe in the realm of expediency, but because we are not agreed and united in matters of details. We could as well divide the church over the location of a building, the erection of a meeting house, the brand of a song book, or the time of services. It all boils down to the matter of details. We should never forget that in matters of faith there is unity, in opinion there is liberty.