The Cogdill-Woods Debate
The debate between Roy E. Cogdill and Guy N. Woods, scheduled for Birmingham, Alabama, November 17-23, is certainly calculated to be one of the most significant of our generation. We believe it will be the most outstanding so far as national interest is concerned of any debate since the famous Norris-Wallace encounter in Fort Worth, Texas, in 1934. We know of gospel preachers who are coming from as far away as California and Oregon; and of the scores we've talked to about the debate, we have found only two or three who were fairly certain they could not attend. The auditorium will accommodate about 2500 people, but it will undoubtedly be filled to overflowing from the first session.
There are three things that make this debate of unusual interest — the city, the disputants, and the issues. Birmingham, home of the venerable John T. Lewis, has long been recognized as a city in which the cause of Christ was unusually strong. There are some twenty-five to thirty congregations in the area, and there has probably been less disturbance and trouble through the years in Birmingham than in any city of comparable size in the nation. An unusual degree of harmony, peace, and goodwill has characterized the area. The churches have been conservative, pervaded by a spirit of piety and strict adherence to New Testament teaching. Even at this late date, when so many cities have gone almost "whole-hog" into the fields of recreational and social activities among the churches, and when the institutional and promotional schemes have become so popular, Birmingham has remained relatively unaffected by the onrushing tide. Not over three or four congregations have begun to follow the popular course; and even within these congregations there is a strong element of resistance to the "social gospel" enthusiasm.
Roy E. Cogdill and Guy N. Woods are the logical men to meet in this momentous discussion. Brother Cogdill has not been a debater through his preaching career, having had less than half a dozen all told. Brother Woods has had wide experience as a debater, having engaged in well over one hundred discussions, and is certainly as well qualified as anyone who might be named to defend the teachings and practices which have become such a heated point of controversy among the disciples. The men are about of the same age; both have been before the brotherhood for thirty years or more; each is clearly representative. Cogdill's book on "The New Testament Church" has been used as a text-book in hundreds of congregations for the last eighteen years, and Woods' writings through the religious journals and in Sunday School literature have made him widely known. If Brother Woods cannot sustain the teachings in question, then we do not hesitate to say that no man can sustain them by the Scriptures; if Cogdill cannot demonstrate that Woods' position violates New Testament teaching, then we do not believe any man will ever be able to so demonstrate.
The issues in this debate are two: the benevolent work of the church and the evangelistic work of the church; and the question is whether or not the church can do its work, either benevolent or evangelistic, through some other organization than the church. That organization may be either outside the framework of the church or inside the framework of the church, but it is something other than the church.
Many brethren feel that the present controversy within the brotherhood has already gone beyond the point of no return, that a division is inevitable, and that the only thing to do now is to make strenuous efforts to save as many individuals and congregations as possible from' "digression" or "anti-ism", depending on how one stands. Others are still hopeful that the ultimate and final tragedy of open division can be avoided. They feel that the possibility of division should be the very last thing to be considered, and that all these efforts to disfellowship, quarantine, and "brand" brethren in the Lord should be discouraged in every way possible. It has been historically true that brotherly discussion has generally promoted peace and unity, while one-sided and "closed mind" attitudes have made division inevitable. If the Christian Standard under Isaac Errett had been as willing as was the Gospel Advocate under David Lipscomb to carry both sides of the instrumental music and missionary society controversy, it is quite within the realm of possibility that the division could have been avoided, and that brethren could have been united on Bible teaching. Truth has nothing to fear in honest investigation; only error needs the protection of an "iron curtain" of censorship.
If brethren from everywhere will come to this Birmingham debate with good-will, open hearts, and love for one another as well as love for the truth, this may well be the turning point of the present controversy. We do not anticipate that all who come will immediately come to agreement; but we do believe that the tide can be turned in the direction of peace and agreement. Why should it not be so? Ignorance, prejudice, malice, and ill-will are the foes of truth and peace; let all these things be left behind. And let brethren meet as brethren for a prayerful study and discussion of the teaching of God's word. Brethren Cogdill and Woods are quite capable of directing the study, each from his own conviction and point of view. Let all who come listen with keen and attentive ears, and with a prayerful determination to know TRUTH, and to accept it.