Brother Douthitt's Proposal
Brother Ira A. Douthitt thinks it is time for the college issue and the orphan home issue to be debated. On another page this week we carry an article from him, setting forth a proposition which he says he worked out "off to myself, in my room,...without a word of suggestion from any person."
Well, the editor of the Guardian is now writing these lines off in the solitude of his own room, all by himself alone, without anybody else being present, and he concurs heartily with brother Douthitt's statement that "it is time for a debate.' As a matter of fact, we put forth rather strenuous efforts nearly two years ago to arrange for a discussion of these matters with brother Brewer and brother Cogdill doing the debating but without success. We are unable to agree with brother Brewer on a proposition fairly setting forth the issues, he seeming to feel that he was the issue rather than the orphan home and college question, and that these were only side-issues raised in an unholy effort to discredit him. He said, "In denying that this issue was raised as a part of the purpose and of the long-continued effort to discredit and condemn G. C. Brewer, you confirm the charge that it is that exactly.'
In spite of that disappointment, however, we are willing to try again. And without the necessity of any kind of consultation at all with anybody we think we can state categorically that not a one of the men brother Douthitt suggests (Cled and Foy Wallace, C. R. Nichol, and Roy Cogdill) would have the least interest either in affirming or denying that any practice is "as scriptural: as' some other practice, or that any set of elders "have the same right' to do something that Christians have to do something else! That sounds exactly like the old digressive proposition of sixty years ago that "the congregation has as much right to use an organ as the song leader has to use a tuning fork!'
Simple Propositions
If brother Douthitt is truly sincere in wanting a debate (and we take it that he is), then let him affirm or deny simple, unequivocal propositions that set forth the issues. In that Lawrenceburg meeting with Cogdill to which he refers in his article, brother Douthitt said that he had never studied the question and didn't know which side of it he was on, but did want to debate it. That was when Cogdill laughingly told him there'd certainly be no honor or credit in whipping him in a debate if that was all the understanding he had of the issues involved. No doubt brother Douthitt has studied the question since that meeting, and will agree to some simple, clear-cut propositions on it.
We take it that everybody will agree either that (1) it is right, or that (2) it is not right for the churches to support a secular college in which the Bible is taught along with other subjects. Brother Douthitt obviously thinks it is scripturally right for the churches so to do. We suggest, therefore, that he affirm this proposition RESOLVED: That the work of a school such as Abilene Christian College and David Lipscomb College, in which the Bible is taught along with secular subjects, is a part of the mission of the Lord's church, and is, therefore, to be supported out of the treasuries of the congregations.
Again, we take it that all will agree either that (1)
it is right, or that (2) it is not right for the churches to do their benevolent work through an organization controlled by a board of directors made up of members from the various contributing congregations. Apparently brother Douthitt thinks that it is right for them to do so. Then we suggest that he affirm this proposition:
RESOLVED: That it is scripturally right for the churches to do their benevolent work through an organization (such as Tennessee Orphan Home, or Childhaven) controlled and operated by a board of directors made up of members from various contributing churches.
And while we're on the subject, 'we'll just include one more item in the list. We take it that everybody will agree either that (1) it is right, or that (2) it is not right for the churches to do their evangelistic work through an organization controlled by a board of directors made up of members from the various contributing congregations.
If brother Douthitt thinks that it is right then we suggest that he affirm this proposition:
RESOLVED: That it is scripturally right for the churches to do their evangelistic work through an organization (such as Tennessee Christian Missionary Assembly Incorporated) controlled and operated by a board of directors made up of members from various contributing congregations.
These three propositions will cover the ground. They will afford full opportunity for a careful, earnest study of the whole matter. If brother Douthitt will affirm them, we are confident at least one of the four men he named (the two Wallace's, Nichols, or Cogdill) will deny. Or, if none of them, we have a still better solution which we will mention in a moment.
Oral Or Written?
There are several considerations why we think such a proposed discussion should be written rather than oral. For one thing, it is quite conceivable that none of the churches in Nashville would want the debate to be held in that city. It would be poor manners, not to mention poor Christianity, to come in uninvited. In the second place, there are multiplied thousands of brethren who are, intensely interested in these matters who could not attend an oral debate, but who would eagerly read and study a written discussion. Since it is the over-all good of the churches we seek, this factor alone would weigh heavily in favor of a written study. In the third place, a written discussion would eliminate all those appeals to the moment, to gain the favor of a listening audience, which so often hinder an oral discussion. There would be time for the participants to weigh every word and every statement, to think through carefully every argument advanced either by themselves or by others, and to bring to bear on the question all the light, wisdom; and understanding which can come only from calm reflection and unhurried study.
The Gospel Guardian will be happy to furnish the medium through which the discussion can be made available to the reading public. We will enlarge the paper sufficiently during its course to take care of all the material the participants may submit.
An "All-Douthitt' Debate?
And here is the "better solution" of which we spoke above: how about an "all-Douthitt'' debate? We've not discussed the matter with brother Cecil B, Douthitt; but we believe we know his convictions in the matter. And if brother Ira will sign the affirmative of the above propositions, we will do our best to get Cecil to undertake the negative! This would eliminate all possibility for any kind of strained relations between the participants, and would guarantee a debate on the very highest plane. So far as the Guardian is concerned, we are perfectly willing to trust the defense of what we consider the truth in these matters to the very able hands of brother Cecil B. Douthitt. And if the brethren who defend the "institutional trends' among us are as willing to leave their cause in the hands of brother Ira, we can look forward to a most profitable study. Yes, "it is time for a debate!'
— F. Y. T.