The Issues Before Us
All during my debate with Guy N. Woods he contended that "the issue between us is caring for destitute children." Actually we were debating the proposition of churches of Christ building and maintaining benevolent organizations. I debated W. L. Totty twice on the proposition of churches of Christ building and maintaining benevolent organizations. But all through both debates Totty contended that "the issue between us is caring for destitute children." So obsessed with the "care of destitute children" were these two so-called debaters that neither of them ever one time admitted that we were discussing the building and maintaining of benevolent organizations. Thus the three debates were a farce.
During the course of my last debate with Totty he wrote out a prejudicial proposition about the church caring for starving children and said if I would sign it, I could come to Garfield Heights where he preaches in Indianapolis and debate it. I signed it and he backed out and refuses to let me come. Thus he has my signature under false pretense! But he gleefully declares now that Grider has admitted that the only issue between us is "caring for destitute children." The truth is caring for children is one minor facet of several major issues which confront us. I must say that I have never encountered a denominational preacher who demanded such a prejudicial handicap before he would debate me as Totty demands. If a Baptist preacher would say he would debate me if I would affirm that all Baptist mothers who have died are now in hell, we would have a situation comparable to Totty's "offer"(?) to debate me on the "outlandish" proposition he wrote out and lied to get me to sign.
The real issue in the field of benevolence is can churches of Christ build and maintain benevolent organizations. The issue is not can the church help children. In the first place the church does help (indirectly) children of saints when they help the saints. And in the second place if it could be shown that churches could scripturally help children, the church could employ somebody to do the work without turning the work over to some other organization with the church losing the oversight of the work. What we have is brethren who want to insist that the church can build and maintain benevolent organizations but who lack the nerve to defend such in public discussion. Hence they discuss something else when they do sign to debate the question and all the while they clamor to debate a "side issue" which is highly prejudicial in their favor. I am persuaded that they know what the real issue is but that they are too cowardly to debate it and too hypocritical to admit it. One facet of benevolence is whom can the church support or assist. The "issue" in that facet is can the church assist anybody but saints? Will Totty debate that issue of that facet of the benevolence question? Oh, no! That wouldn't give him enough handicap. That wouldn't give him enough appeal for sympathy. So what will the mighty mite debate? He must word the proposition and he must use the words "hungry" and "destitute" and "children" and make it sound as bad as possible. But he won't even debate his prejudicial proposition where he said he would debate it. No, my friends, the real issue in benevolence is can millionaire and near-millionaire corporations such as Tipton and Boles orphan homes continue to bleed the churches white? Can churches of Christ subsidize millionaire corporations is the issue. I don't blame the liberals for covering up the issue and clamoring for a sugar stick to debate on.
In the field of evangelism the issue is can churches of Christ pool their resources under a group of men to preach the gospel. But will the liberals debate that issue? A thousand times no! That talk about how right it is to preach on radio and television! They talk about how wrong it is to oppose gospel preaching! And actually most of the time they are discussing evangelism they will drop back to the "hungry, destitute children" and talk about how bad it is to oppose all these "good works." They want to cover up the fact that a group of elders is overseeing the evangelistic work of 2000 churches by talking about how right it is to preach on television. They want to cover up the fact that we have a brotherhood eldership with a brotherhood treasury overseeing a brotherhood work by talking about how much free time they can get from the net works. (Incidentally when one says he can get free time on network television to preach the truth he shows that he doesn't know what the truth is and that he has no intention of preaching the truth.) The Catholics can pressure the networks and forbid them to show a film about Martin Luther. Do you think for a minute that the Catholics would permit the networks to give time to any church to condemn Catholicism? The truth is the "Herald of Truth" speakers preach to suit the Catholics and brag that Catholics do not oppose their programs. Yes the issues is pooling of resources of churches under a board.
In the field of edification the real issue is shall the church edify its members and prepare men for elders and evangelism or shall a human institution do that, being subsidized by churches. The liberals know this is the issue but there isn't a man in the church who will debate the issue. No wonder they keep crying "anti," "orphan haters," and "church splitters." What if the people actually took a look at the real issues among us.
The real issues are clearly set forth among us. There is no doubt about what the issue is in benevolence, in evangelism, and in edification. Once more: In benevolence, the issue is: Can churches of Christ build and maintain benevolent organizations. Will the liberals debate it? You can't run after one of them fast enough to get him to debate it. Woods used to but he has quit. Totty used to but he has quit. In evangelism, the issue is: Can churches of Christ pool their resources under a board for the purpose of preaching? Will the liberals debate it? You can't run after one of them fast enough to get him to debate it. Woods used to but he has quit. Totty used to but he has quit. In edification, the issue is: Can churches of Christ contribute to Colleges and other human institutions? Will the liberals debate it? You can't run after one of them fast enough to get him to debate it. They never would debate that question. They never will! Why, oh why, won't these men debate these three basic issues? I believe it is because they know they have departed the faith. They know their doctrines won't stand an investigation. I believe they are too cowardly to debate the real issues.
But they are "brave"(?) souls. They will debate. They will debate what they call "the only issue." They will debate if you give them a sugar stick, prejudicial proposition. That is they will debate it away from home! They won't even debate their sugar stick proposition at home. They will tell you they will until you sign the proposition and then they will back up like a crawfish. No, these men are not preachers. These men are not defenders of the faith. These men are false teachers. These men are perverters of the Word. These men are cowards. They have a false doctrine and they know it is false. Therefore, they will attempt no defense of it on fair propositions. They are washed up. They are done for. They are through. There will be no more debates with the liberals. They can't stand it.
— 2914 7th Street, Meridian, Mississippi