Paragould Debate

[Page 12]

     A discussion lasting four nights was held at Paragould, Arkansas between W. Curtis Porter and Guy N. Woods. The question concerned the right of churches to build and maintain such benevolent organizations as Boles, Tipton, Southern Christian, and other such orphan homes. Guy N. Woods defended the right to create benevolent societies to provide such homes. Bro. Porter opposed them as being on a parallel with the missionary society. It is the candid opinion of this scribe that Bro. Porter won a decisive victory for the one body. We have never seen a more complete devastation of an opponent than his exposure of Bro. Woods on the final night. The latter was simply "hanging on the ropes." However, this was not accomplished so much by affirmative argument as by revealing the tactics of the opposition. We have heard a great deal of "the Christian atmosphere" of Bible Colleges, but if that product is to be judged by the conduct of the college representatives, we would prefer to act a little more like heathen.

     The debate is a typical example of how two inconsistent factions can meet in forensic combat. Both groups defend some organizations to do religious service. They are merely disagreed over which to destroy and which to defend. Neither group is seriously laboring for restoration of the primitive order. Bro. Porter opposes orphan homes in the charitable realm, but supports the Gospel Guardian Corporation, which is chartered for propagation of the Christian religion. Bro. Woods opposes the missionary society, and retains other human organizations.

     No one can be inconsistent and be right. One cannot ride a horse in two opposite directions at the same time. If Bro. Woods will be consistent he must endorse the Missionary Society; just as Bro. Porter must give up his endorsement

[Page 13]

of the Gospel Guardian Corporation and Bible Colleges. The contention of the Gospel Guardian writers that these may be supported privately, but not out of the church treasury, is ridiculous and absurd. If they have a right to exist to do what they are doing, they have a right to the support of the whole congregation.

     Bro. Tant suggested putting a box in the vestibule clearly labeled with the name of the organization, and allow individuals to drop contributions therein, on the basis that it is better to sin in the anteroom than in the auditorium. Such suggestions stem from ignorance of the primitive order. The early congregations did not even have a "church treasury" in the sense these men fling the term around. It would never have occurred to the apostles that they could personally support some human organization to function in the religious realm, and then forbid all of the saints to do it. That is modern "Church of Christ-ism" which is just as sectarian as any other "ism."

     The churches all over the southland are rent and torn with strife. The condition is worsening day by day. Faction-ism is rampant among them. The party spirit lifts its ugly head in every direction. The chickens are coming home to roost! There is a solution to this problem. However, the hatred and animosity toward the Mission Messenger and its editor, almost precludes the hope that either side will give consideration to what we offer. It is "the kiss of death" in the southland to brand one as holding the same position as Ketcherside. However, we expect to offer a scriptural solution when space becomes available. In the meantime, our hearts are saddened by the shameful spectacle presented by "The Church of Christ."