Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 14
NEED_DATE
NUMBER 39, PAGE 8-9b,13b

Jones - McCaghren Debate

H. L. Bruce

Monday night, Sept. 24, was the fifth night of the debate. The last half of the debate was being conducted in the Lakewood building where Brother McCaghren preaches. The first half was at the Pruett and Lobit meeting house. Attendance was good thus far and continued to be throughout the discussion. Interest was high.

The proposition for the last two nights (being alternated on Tuesday night) had to do with the scope of the congregation's responsibility in benevolence, and read: "The scriptures teach that 'aliens' can be given benevolent assistance from the church treasury." H. C. McCaghren affirmed and W. R. Jones denied.

Brother McCaghren began by putting forth efforts to justify some hard things that he had said, and accused his opposition of having changed. Brother McCaghren, in answer to some questions, took the following positions: Actual child care is not necessarily benevolent, it could be mercenary. Paul and messengers were not guilty of misusing the collection for the saints. God's law of love extends to all men but some will not accept it "individual" and "church" responsibility are the same when such is a religious duty and every member is charged. Individual Christians may be able to do good which the church cannot do.

Brother McCaghren made a false approach to James 1:27 by saying that the question is not "who" the responsibility belongs to, but "what" pure and undefiled religion is. He tried to connect the thought that Jas. 1:27 tied the widow and orphan together and since 1 Tim. 5:16 made the widow a ward of the church, therefore, the orphan was also He referred to Jas. 1:25 and tried to parallel it with Rev. 2:5-7 and conclude that since the church was involved in Rev. 2, it also was in Jas. 1.

By going to Gal. 1:2 and noting that the book was addressed to the churches of Galatia, Bro. McCaghren concluded that the inherent responsibilities of Gal. 6:10 was placed upon the church. McCaghren asked "Is there any reason, brethren, to conclude that visitation of the orphans or doing good unto all men is impossible as church action?" He had earlier argued that the church couldn't do such; that it was the work of the home. It is of interest to note when discussing with such literal brethren that they argue that Jas. 1:27 is to the home, and the church is not to do the work of the home; and then, in order to tie the institution on to the collection plate, they will reverse themselves and say that Jas 1.27 is to the church and that the church can participate in such visitation.

McCaghren climaxed one of his prejudicial appeals by accusing his opposition of taking the position that the church could pay for a nursery, baby crib, bottle warmer, diaper box, etc., but couldn't send medicine, food and clothing to a SICK baby at home. He argued that to agree with Jones you must conclude that it is sinful to: (1). Place an alien child in a crib paid for out of the church treasury. (2). Allow aliens to use phone when the bill is paid out of the church treasury. (3) Allow aliens to get a drink of water when water bill is paid out of church treasury. (4). Allow alien to come into church building paid for out of church treasury to get out of rain. (5). Furnish New Testament to alien when paid for out of church treasury. (He had formerly labeled the giving of a New Testament as evangelistic but now has it in the benevolent category.) (6). Furnish clothing in which to baptize alien if paid for out of church treasury. McCaghren made these charges and labeled them "anti-ism gone to seed."

From Luke 10:25-37 McCaghren tried to arouse some thoughts to his favor rather than take a position. From the Story of the "Good Samaritan" he asked that the Samaritan be supplanted. He asked whose work it was and who helped the man in need. What could the church do, pass by on the other side? Or, assist as did the Samaritan?

Brother Jones called brother McCaghren's as well as the audience's attention to the responsibility of McCaghren; which evidently McCaghren never did realize, namely: that McCaghren was obligated to prove his position from the scriptures, not merely try to prove his opposition inconsistent.

In focusing the issue brother Jones asked the question: "What is the real issue?" He pointed out that the issue was not: (1) Preacher support by individuals, because such was authorized in Gal. 6:6. (2) Preachers' support by churches, for such was authorized in 2 Cor. 11:8; Phil. 4:15. (3) Relief of saints by individuals, for such was authorized in Gal. 6:10. (4) Relief of saints by churches, such was authorized in 1 Cor. 16:1-2. (5) Relief of aliens by individuals, such was authorized in Gal. 6:10. Then what is the real issue? The real issue focused on the relief of aliens by churches. That is and was the real issue at debate. Where is the authority for churches relieving aliens? McCaghren failed to produce such during the course of the debate.

In response to McCaghren's position that Paul and messengers didn't misuse the collection, brother Jones extended the thought to the design of the collection.

Since the collection was designed to relieve needy saints (Rom. 15:25-26,31; 1 Cor. 16:1-2; 2 Cor. 8:4; 2 Cor. 9:1; 2 Cor. 9:12) and Paul and the messengers didn't misuse it — it went for the relief of needy saints and thus McCaghren was robbed of his habitual abuse of 2 Cor. 9:13.

In response to McCaghren's erroneous reasoning that the religious duty of the church and individual are the same, brother Jones pointed out that in such reasoning McCaghren perverted Jas. 1:27; Gal. 6:10; Matt. 5:43-48; Matt. 25:41-46; Lk. 10: 25-37, the context of which shows the action to be individual. The logical conclusion of brother McCaghren's approach would prove: (1). The branches to be churches (Jno. 15:1-6), thus denominations. (2). Congregations were baptized (Gal. 3:27).

(3). The religious people allowed the sectarians to do the work and were thus praised in so doing. (Lk. 10:25-37)

(4). Congregational circumcision. (Gal. 6:12)

From Jas. 1:27 brother Jones pointed out the "who" is important — that there was not only a subject and action but also an application. From such expressions, in the context, as "his," "any man," "his tongue," "this man," "himself," we learn that the application is to the individual.

In response to McCaghren's argument on Jas. 1:27 and 1 Tim. 5:16, brother Jones pointed out that because the widow and orphan were connected in James 1:27 and that the widow of 1 Tim. 5:16 was church responsibility, did not mean that the orphan of Jas. 1:27 was church responsibility. To illustrate, he observed that in Acts 2:38 repentance and baptism were connected for the remission of sins but that they were not always together. In Acts 8:22, repentance is mentioned, in the absence of baptism, coupled with prayer to acquire remission for the erring Christian.

On Gal. 6:10, brother Jones pointed out that the word "good" was of significance and did not always mean benevolence. From Eph. 4:28 we learn that working with one's hands is described as being "good," and since a man could honorably work with his hands and operate a school, a business, a recreation center, a hospital, etc., all of which would be good, should we conclude that such was right and proper for the church? Therefore, the church is not authorized to perform Gal. 6:10.

In the case where the church is not to help the child, that was brought up by McCaghren, no doubt for prejudicial purposes, brother Jones pointed out that, even though the church couldn't help, that didn't mean that the child would not be helped. Individuals had been assigned that responsibility.

McCaghren overlooked the fact that the child was individual responsibility and continued to argue that according to Jones the church couldn't buy a jug of water for a sick baby. He tried to continue to play up some inconsistencies of the Pruett and Lobit church. Brother Jones replied that he was sure that such, if he so desired, could be pointed out where the Lakewood congregation as well as the writers of the co-Worker had been inconsistent, but such was not the way to prove anything to be scriptural.

Brother Jones, in response to McCaghren's argument about an alien drinking out of the water fountain, ably differentiated between an act of benevolence and acts of courtesy and hospitality. Not every drink of water is benevolence.

Bro. McCaghren, had he been right — even though he wasn't, was very uncouth at times. He would quarrel at certain individuals in the audience. At one time he implied that he thought that certain ones were possibly "idols." (Such is liberal debating!) As far as I know at this time, the elders of the church where brother McCaghren preaches have allowed him to get by with such, neither reprimanding him nor issuing any public statement with regard to his statements, implications, and insinuations.

Brother Jones appealed to the audience to respect the context; who is addressed and the involved action. Throughout the debate there was a striking contrast between the two avenues of approach. Brother Jones was appealing to divine authority in the absence of emotional stories, intimidations, sophistry, sentimentality and tradition. Loyal brethren 'in the Baytown area are satisfied that a good job was done.

— 204 South Street, Baytown, Tex.