The Flannery - Inman Debate
On the nights of January 16, 17, 19, 20, 1961 brethren E. L. Flannery and Clifton Inman engaged each other in a discussion of the question of institutionalism. Brother Flannery is the preacher for the Downtown congregation in Lawrenceburg, Tenn., and brother Inman is editor of the Bible Herald. Brethren Bill Heinselman and Kenneth Adams assisted brother Inman in the discussion and brother Franklin T. Puckett and this writer helped brother Flannery.
On the first two nights brother Flannery affirmed and brother Inman denied the following proposition: "It is unscriptural for a church to make a contract with a radio or T. V. network to televise or broadcast a program which will be heard nationwide and to receive funds from other churches to bear the portion of the expense of such broadcasting and televising as is beyond the power of the sponsoring church to pay." On the last two evenings brother Inman affirmed and brother Flannery denied that "A church may scripturally, from its common treasury, give funds to a corporate body which has been organized to care for homeless children."
This discussion was significant I believe for two reasons. First both disputants were invited by the West Broad congregation in Columbus, Ohio, to meet and discuss these matters. This same congregation, where brother Paul K. Williams is the preacher, rented the Starling Junior High School auditorium so that there would be plenty of room to accommodate the gathering since the building at West Broad would not take care of the anticipated crowd. Thus, the West Broad congregation took the lead in having a discussion of this kind in the Columbus, Ohio, area, which served well the entire state of Ohio.
The second reason for this discussion being significant was that both men conducted their part of the discussion as Christians. In previous discussions, sometimes one disputant would not conduct himself as he should. However, this was not true of this discussion. Both men conducted themselves in such a way as to show the audience that they had the utmost confidence in each other and that each were seeking to know the truth. Along with the propositions signed, both men signed the following: "The speakers recognize each other as brethren, and will conduct themselves, according, leaving bitterness and invectiveness out of their speeches, yet using all power they possess in setting forth what each believes to be the truth on these propositions." Each did as they had agreed.
All who were involved in this discussion tried to make it a discussion of issues and not of personalities. There have been too many debates in which it was the desire to show someone to be inconsistent, to expose someone rather than to expose the error the individual was teaching. This was not the attitude of either brethren Flannery or Inman. The correspondence before the discussion showed the determined effort upon the part of both to discuss the issues. On Aug. 24, 1960, brother Inman wrote to brother Flannery:
"I do not know why I should be felt obligated to discuss a proposition just because Guy N. Woods discussed it. We are not to discuss what Guy N. Woods has taught, is teaching, or will teach. We are to discuss (I hope) what the Scriptures teach." (Emphasis mine, TGO)
In A Letter To Brother Inman, Brother Flannery Wrote, Oct. 21, 1960:
"I'm sure we can have a good study, that it will do good, that we can present our beliefs without sarcasm and ridicule. Let us determine to do that and it will be helpful to the audience to study the issues."
Again On Oct. 28, 1960, Brother Flannery Wrote:
"Brother Inman, I will expect you to press each point with vigor. I shall do the best I can, too. But let us each try to stick to issues as related to Bible teachings and present day efforts at application of its teaching. Would it not be fine at the close of our debate if both of us could sincerely say that the other had not misrepresented the other, had not dealt harshly or unbecomingly toward the other. If it were to be printed let us conduct the debate in such a way that neither of us in years to come might regret statements made. I believe you will, and I "aim to try." Before the heat of conflict I want to ask you to reprove me if I get off the tract and treat you in an un-Christian way. The great value of Campbell's debates are the issues studied and the minimum of personalities involved."
When there would be a slip of the tongue by either speaker, all would have a good laugh and the debate would go on.
Brother Inman Said In His First Speech The Second Night:
"I think I have been a little more vehement in the things I have said this evening, but that is not because I have no animosity toward brother Flannery at all, and to show that I don't whatever time I have left, that half a minute or whatever it is, it is yours brother Flannery."
This article has not been an attempt to review the things said, rather to point out two outstanding things about the discussion. It would do good elsewhere for churches to follow the footsteps of the West Broad church in Columbus, Ohio, and invite both men to discuss these issues before the church. Then when such is done, if both disputants would follow in the way that brethren Flannery and Inman did, much good would be done. May the day come when such a discussion can be had in every area of our country.