The Hogland - Clement Debate
The setting of this discussion was Fort Smith, Arkansas. The time was February 25-28, 1957. It was this writer's privilege to attend all four sessions and also to moderate for Brother Hogland. Brother Judson Woodbridge also assisted Brother Hogland. Moderating for Brother Clement was Brother Sterl Watson. Also assisting him were Brother Roy Deaver and Brother W. L. Totty. Large audiences were in attendance throughout the four nights. The Park Hill meeting house and the Midland Boulevard Church house will accommodate between five and six hundred persons each. The discussion was at Midland Boulevard the first two nights and at Park Hill the last two. The house was filled for each session. Good order prevailed throughout the debate.
One fact of interest to this writer regarding the attendance at this debate was the large number of members of the church present who were not public preachers. We have attended four debates on the cooperation question in the last two years. Of these, we believe the audiences at this one had a larger percentage of members who do not preach and a smaller percentage of preachers than at any of the discussions we have been privileged to attend. This would seem to indicate that somebody realizes our differences over church cooperation or institutionalism amount to more than a "preacher fuss." While the attendance was commendable on the part of members in Fort Smith, there was good attendance from Christians throughout the area.
A word is in order respecting the two churches and men directly involved. Brother Robert Gordon Clement preaches for the Midland Boulevard Church in Fort Smith. Relatively early in the current controversy over cooperation, Brother Clement took a position favoring the sponsoring church type of cooperation and of human, benevolent institutions supported out of church treasuries. He has been outspoken in behalf of this position for sometime. The Midland Boulevard elders also endorse this practice, as will be seen by their having him represent their cause in public debate.
Brother Ward Hogland has preached for the Park Hill Church in Fort Smith for about nine years. For a number of years he has voiced his opposition to the type of church cooperation in which one church assumes the oversight of work which is the work of all churches and then invites other churches to contribute to it to carry on the work. He has also stood for a number of years against churches contributing from their treasuries to human, benevolent institutions. The Park Hill elders likewise endorse this position.
Two propositions were discussed in this debate. The first two nights, Brother Hogland affirmed: "The scriptures teach that a church may contribute money from its treasury to another church only when the receiving church is unable financially to supply adequately for the physical needs of its own indigent members." The last two nights the following proposition was affirmed by Brother Clement: "The scriptures teach that one church may (has the right to) contribute to (send funds to, render assistance to) another church which has assumed (undertaken) the oversight of a work to which both churches sustained to same relationship before the assumption of the oversight." It is to be regretted that such propositions as these have to be debated. That is, they do not represent the issue. They are not clear statements of the differences between brethren. They did not represent clearly the differences in Brother Hogland's position and Brother Clement's; or, the differences between the Park Hill Church and the Midland Boulevard Church.
That which is causing confusion, strife and unrest among brethren is the centralization of funds and oversight in the hands of one eldership. The New Testament clearly teaches that the limit and extent of elders' oversight is the congregation "which is among you." (T Peter 5:2.) It is a well-known fact that for several years some of our larger and more ambitious churches have taken on programs of evangelism and benevolence such as Germany, Italy, nationwide radio and television preaching and brotherhood homes for orphans and aged. Nobody ever dreamed of calling these the programs of the churches "overseeing" them until these brethren were hard-pressed to defend them. They were and are "brotherhood" projects. And this is the issue! Does any congregation have a scriptural right to oversee such a project? These things are being pressed by their advocates to the division of the church. The "sponsoring" church is the issue.
Some of the brethren who led in the first digression were more honorable as far as the affirmation of their practice is concerned than the sponsoring church advocates. For instance, J. B. Briney affirmed, "The Use of Such Organizations as the Illinois Christian Missionary Society, the Foreign Christian Missionary Society, etc., is Authorized in the New Testament Scriptures, and Acceptable to God." Though Briney was wrong in his position, he is to he admired for his willingness to affirm his practice. His practice, the missionary society, was the issue. He affirmed its scripturalness. Every man stands in just this relationship to his practice. Now, the sponsoring church is the issue. The brethren who advocate this kind of cooperation ought to affirm it to be scriptural. Let some representative brethren among the sponsoring church advocates write a proposition like Briney's, inserting "Herald of Truth Radio and Television Program" in place of the names of Briney's missionary societies and we can have a debate on the real issues. Or, the same goes for the Lubbock Plan or any other of the brotherhood projects. The burden of proof rests upon the advocates of these schemes. It has not been argued by them that it is unscriptural for churches to cooperate by sending directly instead of through a sponsoring church. The scripturalness of such cooperation is unquestioned. This latter practice is not causing division; the sponsoring church is. It does seem that the advocates of such schemes would be willing to defend their practice! Further along in this report, attention will be called to a significant implication in this connection.
In the affirmation of his proposition the first two nights, Brother Hogland first employed a chart setting forth the apostasies. First on this chart was depicted the apostasy foretold in the New Testament. He showed by the use of Acts 20:28-31 that this apostasy was not in worship or in doctrine, but in organization. He showed from church history that it consisted of a tying together a plurality of churches under a bishop, which ultimately led to Rome. He then briefly traced the Reformation, followed by the Restoration Movement. He showed how defection occurred in Restoration ranks and that it was again in organization. He accurately related this defection to cooperation in evangelism, showing the missionary society to be the immediate cause of division. Then, he came to the present movement away from New Testament simplicity — the sponsoring church. He paralleled this movement to the controversy over the missionary society, showing it; too, is in organization. A second chart dealt with the cooperation God has authorized. This served to focus the attention of the audience on the fact that this is a question of New Testament authority. Brother Hogland showed from this chart that both sponsoring church and missionary society are unauthorized. A third chart by Brother Hogland served to demonstrate the New Testament pattern of cooperation. The sponsoring church advocates have sought to invalidate the New Testament pattern of cooperation by declaring a lack of uniformity in every instance of execution. In this chart he presented the scriptures describing the Lord's Supper and showed that from all these scriptures taken together do we have a complete picture of the communion. He did the same with the plan of salvation; showing that baptism, confession, repentance, or faith is not found in every passage. But the cumulative evidence of these passages establishes the conditions of salvation. This, of course, is a device every gospel preacher has used in setting forth the truth concerning the plan of salvation and the Lord's Supper. Brother Hogland then applied it to cooperation. He showed that while in one instance the common treasury and first day of the week for the collection are not mentioned and the elders receiving the contribution is not mentioned in the other, that when these scriptures are taken together (Acts 11:29,30; I Cor. 16:1-4: II Cor. 8, 9) the pattern is established.
In negation of Brother Hogland's proposition as well as in his affirmative, Brother Clement relied strongly upon the presentation of what he called inconsistencies. He had two or three charts for the presentation of these. He sought to show inconsistency between Hogland's position and the practice of the Park Hill elders. He sought to show inconsistency between Hogland's position and his practice. He also attacked several other brethren, calling them by name and accusing them of inconsistency. Hogland simply stated that he did not claim sinlessness for himself, the Park Hill elders, or the brethren named. He further showed these inconsistencies were no proper part of the discussion since both proposition read, "The Scriptures teach." It was very evident that Clement lacked scriptural proof either for his proposition or in denial of Hogland's affirmative. Else, he would not have relied so heavily on irrelevant matters.
Another of Clement's main "arguments" was the matter of fellowship. He began agitating the question in his first speech and if he failed to mention it in any subsequent speech, this writer does not remember it. His apparent intent was to make Hogland disfellowship him and those who stand with him. If there is any truth to the idea that one can tell what another is thinking by what he talks about constantly, then disfellowship must be pretty close to the hearts of these brethren who advocate the sponsoring church and human institutions through which the church may do her work. They certainly talk plenty concerning it, even as Brother Clement did in this debate.
Brother Hogland replied to his disfellowship talk by saying the purpose of the discussion was not disfellowship but to try to elicit truth and for brethren to come closer together on the truth, and not to widen the breach. Hogland further pointed out fellowship comes from walking in the light of God's revealed truth. Disfellowship is the result of getting out of the light and actually exists when one removes himself from the light, whether any formal recognition is made or not. Again, we say it is not hard to tell where a brother's heart lies who is forever talking "disfellowship."
In his affirmative Clement, as we have already noted, continued to rely heavily upon the inconsistency charge. His proposition, already quoted in this summary, is the Deaver-Warren "argument" to try to justify brotherhood projects. It is worthy of note that each time Clement came to make a speech in affirmation of the "constituent elements," "component parts" and "total situation" proposition, he prefaced the speech with the statement he was glad to be "contending for the faith." Hence, according to him this proposition is a part of the faith once for all revealed to the saints. This, we took to be highly singular in view of the fact this argument never saw the light of day until November, 1955, when it was pressed into the defense of Herald of Truth by Brother Harper in the Tant-Harper Debate in Abilene.
Apparently, the "total situation" has undergone a drastic reduction at the hands of its makers, Deaver and Warren. Instead of the numerous "elements" and "components" to which audiences and readers have previously been treated, Clement, coached by Deaver, declared his proposition was divided into three parts. (1) One church has the right to contribute to another church; (2) which has assumed the oversight of a work; (3) to which both churches sustained equal relation before the assumption of the oversight. And what scriptural proof was adduced to prove these three components of his proposition? Acts 15 and Colossians 4:16. These were the scriptures given. He went to Acts 15 and the Jerusalem conference. He took the epistle written during this gathering and alleged it was sent by the Jerusalem church to the church at Antioch and others. This he declared to be parallel to one church sending a tract to another. In Colossians 4:16, Paul ordered that his inspired epistle be read among the Laodiceans, and Clement said it was another instance of a church sending a tract to another church.
Hogland showed how Clement misapplied these passages. In the first place the writing involved in these passages were inspired epistles, not tracts. Second, the sending of them was not church action but the action of inspired apostles. Paul went to the Jerusalem meeting by revelation. The epistle was written by inspiration. (Acts 15:28.) The epistle was not an agreement reached by majority decision but an apostolic sentence governed by inspiration. (Acts 15:18.) The sending of the epistle was directed by the apostles and concurred in by the church. It would be impossible to have a comparable situation without inspired apostles. In the Colossian passage we have the same thing. Paul directed that his inspired epistle be read by the Laodiceans. Again, it is not church action but apostolic action.
But even if these passages taught what Clement tried to make them, he would have been far from sustaining the practice of the advocates of the brotherhood projects. It is at this point we wish to relate, what appeared to us, one of the most significant admissions made by either disputant. On the first night of Clement's affirmative of the proposition devised by Deaver and Warren, Ragland asked this question in writing, "Is the Herald of Truth an application of what you are defending in your proposition?" Clement's reply taken directly from the tape was, "The true arrangement of Herald of Truth, yes. Not some perverted or misapplied arrangement. What is actually taking place, yes, is an application of my proposition." While these brethren have steadfastly refused affirm the scripturalness of such an arrangement as the foregoing, preferring to take refuge in this nebulous proposition; when faced with a showdown as Clement was by this question, they are forced to admit the proposition includes such arrangements. So, the readers might observe that this proposition is admittedly what we knew it to be all along — a devious attempt to defend the "brotherhood" projects.
The debate was a good one. While not attracting the interest from afar that some of the discussions have, it will do real good in the Fort Smith area. Many earnest, inquiring seekers of truth attended and studied. They will continue to study, stimulated by this debate. It was an eventful four days for those attending. In this paper we have endeavored to give a general summary of the discussion.