Debate Thy Cause
by Earl Kimbrough
Searching the Scriptures, January 1984
Religious debating in the nineteenth century became what one historian calls a "serious American indoor sport." Many at the time certainly practiced this method of defending and spreading their beliefs. But no people used it more effectively than the restorers of New Testament Christianity. Most of the outstanding preachers among "the disciples of Christ" before 1900 engaged in debate. The questions discussed cover a wide range of differences between them and the various religions popular in pioneer society, not excluding rising cults and "free-thinkers".
The restorers became so skilled in using the Scriptures to establish basic Bible truth that by the end of the century few opponents of ability and influence were willing to debate them. This, together with growing liberalism among the Restoration leaders themselves and a lessening of denominational zeal among others, led to a general disinterest in debating in the early years of the present century. Polemic warfare largely became a thing of the past, with some notable exceptions.
However, the more conservative brethren in the churches of Christ continued the practice wherever willing antagonists could be found. Debating had become so ingrained in them that no "sound" preacher would refuse to debate his cause, nor speak out against debating. Some very able brethren debated so often that they came to be known as "debaters", or "debating brethren". But the more liberal brethren tended to regard debating as foreign to "Christ-like behavior". No doubt their acceptance of unscriptural innovations contributed to their loss of interest. Conservative brethren may have been about right in concluding that those who did not believe in debating did so for the same reason that "the old muley cow doesn't believe in hooking".
The prominent "debaters" in the Restoration movement differed widely in their ideas and methods of debating. Alexander Campbell thought that only the most talented brethren should represent the truth in debate and that only the ablest men of the opposition should be met. He also seemed to believe that once an issue had been thrashed out in debate by the best men on both sides, there was little need to continue debating that issue. His was an idealistic concept that fitted very well into the post-millennial drama he espoused, but time and circumstances proved it impractical. Nevertheless, Campbell set a standard of excellence in debating that probably remains unsurpassed.
Tolbert Fanning, like Campbell, felt that only the highest order of conduct should characterize opponents in discussing differences. With this in mind, he agreed on one occasion to debate a Methodist preacher named Chapman at Lebanon, Tennessee; but the man turned out to be less than honorable. Fanning made his opening speech in his customary dignified manner. His points were assertive rather than argumentative, and he expressed them in clear and forceful language, confirming each with appropriate Scripture.
When Chapman arose to speak, he began with a bombastic quotation from Alexander Seikirk:
“I am monarch of all I survey. My right there is none to dispute, from the center, all round to the sea, I am lord of the fowl and the brute.” He bore down on the last word with oratorical force, pointing significantly to Fanning, lest any dimwit miss his haughty application. The uncultured portion of the audience roared with laughter. As T. B. Larimore tells it, "Brother Fanning, without uttering a word or seeming to recognize even the existence of his discourteous adversary, quietly, but quickly, picked up his hat and his book and went home" (Franklin College and Its Influence, p. 414.)
While the nobility of Campbell and Fanning is admirable, the approach of C. R. Nichol was far more practical. Asked if he would debate a man whom he knew to be "ungentlemanly in deportment and unchaste in language",
Nichol replied: “Yes if the church he proposed to represent endorsed him, for it is not the man I am proposing to meet, but the doctrine he has espoused and of which he is an exponent; and bearing the endorsement of his brethren, if such he has where the debate is had, he becomes their representative, and his conduct reflects on them, not on me.” (Gospel Advocate, February 22, 1934.)
Nichol went on to say: “Debates properly conducted are productive of much good. I know of hundreds who have been convinced of the truth in debates I have engaged in, when possibly they would never been led from the false teaching of denominationalism but for the debate; but I will never knowingly engage in a debate where the opposition does not have a following, nor will I engage in a debate where there is a faithful congregation of Christians over their protest.” (Ibid.)
Clark Braden of Illinois, who preached the gospel for more than fifty years before 1915, held about 130 debates with all sorts of opponents, eighteen of whom were Mormons. His 1884 debate with the Mormon in Ohio "virtually exterminated Mormonism in that state", according to one historian. During the last twenty years of his life "every prominent champion of infidelity" backed out of debating with Braden. He had little respect for his brethren who belittle debating, and once said, "When you get so very good and so very refined and cultured that you are unwilling to debate, you will know more than God Almighty, you are better than Jesus Christ, and you are purer than the Holy Spirit". (The Disciples of Christ in Ohio, p. 72.)
Within a month after Joe S. Warlick met F. L. DuPont, then the leading Texas debater for the Baptists, the Baptist church at Bedford where the debate was held moved "lock, stock, and barrel" to a neighboring town. More than fifty people obeyed the gospel after a debate at Lockney, Texas, and one Baptist moderator, pastor of the endorsing church, quit preaching and moved to New Mexico to farm, as did the Baptist moderator in Warlick's debate with J. M. Brandy.
Few would seriously deny that debate as a method of teaching has fallen on hard times. Well-meaning brethren have contributed to this by "mounting the polemic platform" without sufficient preparation and knowledge to successfully carry the issue. Others have failed to conduct themselves in a manner becoming of Christian soldiers on service. And some debates have been carried out in a circus atmosphere, or more like a spiritual wrestling match, leading one good brother to express the view that on such an occasion, "They ought to sell tickets".
No doubt the days of great debates are gone forever, but there is no reason to abandon the practice. Jesus, the apostles, and other first-century preachers debated their cause successfully. They did so because:
- their cause was right;
- they were prepared to meet the opposition; and
- they conducted themselves as godly men.
Debates still do good and accomplish what preaching and writing cannot accomplish. It will be a sad day in the history of the Lord's people if we become "so very good and so very refined and cultured" that honorable debating is no longer held in honor. But that day very well may come.
Half a century ago, Cled E. Wallace said, "Brethren who think debating never did any good missed something by being born too late." But one does not need to be an octogenarian to know that debates have, and still do, accomplish good. Aside from what history and experience tell us about debating, the word of God also testifies in its favor. Could it be that those who see no good in debating have missed something because they have quit reading their Bible too soon?
