The Utility Of Debates
Prior to engaging in religious debates, Alexander Campbell was doubtful of the propriety and utility of such, but the experience gained and the observation made concerning the good resulting from them led to a change of his estimation of their worth. He is credited with the statement that a week's debating is worth a year's preaching. The attitude of the members of the Lord's body through the years has been one of genuine interest in, and an addiction to, public discussions. Certainly no one should feel obligated to affirm that all debates are good in order to believe that they afford a fine medium of expression and a splendid method of instruction. They offer a wonderful way to ascertain the truth on disputed questions by hearing and weighing the respective merits of the conflicting positions.
The church grew as a result of debates with the Baptists and other denominations, when such were carried on in a becoming manner. However, the sects have largely learned that debates are unprofitable for them, since their peculiar tenets could not withstand the examination to which they were subjected in debate with gospel preachers. The digressives attempted, rather feebly it is granted, a defense of their innovations for a season, but these days are now past. They, too, have learned they cannot withstand the truth and triumph over it in the defense of their errors, but rather their true position becomes evident as it is contrasted with the teaching of the scriptures. In the light of these brief observations it comes as no real surprise that brethren within the church today are rapidly displaying an aloofness toward defending some of the things they are engaging in, but which they persist in the practice of regardless of the sincere remonstrances of devout and learned brethren. The brotherhood movements and institutional operations have come under questioning by many whose long years of sound, able and devout service to the Christ merits respectful consideration by all. Yet they are being ignored and being subjected to a contemptible silence by the leading lights among the liberals.
Brother G. K. Wallace pridefully views himself as a decoy employed by those who oppose the things he espouses, in an effort to secure an audience which they know they cannot secure without the attraction offered by his presence and participation in the desired discussions. Of the same temper is a statement by Brother Guy N. Woods, in correspondence with me, that I have sought to use him as a decoy to draw others to a discussion in which they feel no interest whatsoever. It is to be wondered why they feel no interest whatsoever in the things they are doing with respect to the question of whether they are scriptural or not? This is a severe indictment Brother Woods brings against his brethren identified with him as touching the issues before the church. It has been my understanding through the years that Christians are abidingly interested in proving all things and holding fast to that which is good, at least we have always so avowed and are so commanded. I wonder if these brethren have ever invited their audiences, particularly sectarians, to point out any thing they teach or practice for which they cannot give a "thus saith the Lord." I feel confident they have. However, they are no longer so generous, at least in regard to extending such courtesies to their own brethren.
Inasmuch as notice has been given in the Gospel Guardian of the efforts being made to arrange a debate in Houston between brethren Guy Woods and Roy Cogdill, it is only proper that it be made known that Brother Woods, while initially expressing an interest in such a discussion, as suggested by my first letter to him to meet Cogdill here in the Music Hall, saw fit to change his mind and require as conditional to his engaging in such that it be (1) "in the Norhill building," and (2) be "limited to this congregation." Finally, in the course of the correspondence, it became known as stated by him that he thinks the building here where the congregation meets, and owned by them, is the only place where the elders have rightful jurisdiction. Thus the church here would be acting without the bounds of their rights to rent another building, such as the Music Hall for such an engagement! Evidently this persuasion was an after-thought with him, inasmuch as he did feel an interest at first in a discussion other than as conducted in the building where only the elders have rightful jurisdiction. Hence, according to Brother Woods, a congregation may exist with elders, and owning no property the elders would be without any jurisdiction at all. Too, any act committed by a member off the premises of the church property would be without the bounds of the elders jurisdiction. Verily, the legs of the lame are not equal.
The labored contention of Brother Woods, in endeavoring to escape this debate, was that there is not sufficient agitation and interest in these matters to warrant it here, yet through the years he has repeatedly engaged the anti-Bible Class brethren in discussions, and the degree of interest in, and numbers involved in that persuasion has never been comparable to the general interest in these current questions disturbing the church. The correspondence is too voluminous to note all he says, but in conclusion of this notice of his attitude and remarks, he depicts me and others as engaged in a movement which will destroy our usefulness, and, too, the church of Christ. This is a terrible indictment on both scores, and if I felt as he thus does I would regard the invitation and opportunity of opposing such a disastrous course as imposing a responsibility I would fear to disregard and decline.
Yes, Sectarians generally, and the Digressives entirely, learned through a number of debates that it is best for them to avoid a continuance of them. These brethren have been more apt students, and with only a very few discussions they are learning how to evade having others. We are strongly inclined toward the suspicion they are averse toward such for exactly the same reason the others mentioned are unwilling to defend their cause. It is a foregone conclusion that either they are wrong in promoting these programs and institutions or we are wrong in opposing them; we bath cannot be right. Too, the only possible way it can ever be determined which is right is by study, discussion, a full and free exchange of the fruits of our study characterized by fraternal regard and affection. When either side is unwilling to thus do they are promoting division. May God forbid that any of us shall be found guilty in the last day of this fearful offense toward the Christ who prayed we be one through the words of the apostles.
However, a possible solution to this apparent impasse suggests itself to me. Inasmuch as these brethren feel they are simply besought to be decoys, and thus their great and imposing influence capitalized on, it would remove this distasteful aspect of the matter if they should arrange a debate among themselves. For instance, Brother Wallace believes Boles Home is unscriptural, whereas Brother Oler believes Maude Carpenter Home to be unscriptural and each believes the other to be scriptural, a discussion between them would be most appropriate.
Brother Wallace could affirm the scripturalness of Maude Carpenter and Tipton's, and Brother Oler could deny it; Brother Oler could affirm the scripturalness of Boles, and Brother Wallace could deny it. Then, Brother Woods could be a most satisfactory moderator, because of his complete impartiality, since he believes both are scriptural. The audience would be made up to a very substantial degree of impartial hearers, who believe neither to be scriptural. Neither disputant would feel obligated to waste time charging and chiding the other with the accusation he doesn't believe in caring for orphans at all, but could form a duet and sing that tune as directed to those of us in the audience. Because of the respectability of both disputants in such a discussion, neither would feel he was painfully condescending to a plane of becoming a mere decoy for the benefit of the other, but could really quack like live ducks, unless they became dead ducks at the hands of each other.