*** w54 8/15 pp. 510-511 Questions From Readers ***
Questions From Readers
● Does the Watch Tower Society accept challenges to debate publicly the Scripturalness of various religious teachings?—J. P., United States.
Christ Jesus is recommended as “leaving you a model for you to follow his steps closely.” The methods he used to preach did not include debates. When in the course of events he was in the presence of the opposing religious leaders of his time he did enter into discussions with them, refuting their falsehoods and defending and preaching the truth of Jehovah’s Word. But he did not prearrange such meetings or formally assemble for such. In fact, relative to dealing with the false religious leaders he instructed his disciples: “Let them be. Blind guides is what they are. If, then, a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit.” Jesus set an example of preaching to assembled groups in public places, but the principal instruction he gave his disciples pertained to preaching at the doors of the people. Taking this as the model, Jehovah’s witnesses today concentrate on this method of preaching, at the same time using the additional methods of Jesus and the apostles.—1 Pet. 2:21; Matt. 15:14; 10:5-15; Acts 5:42; 20:20, NW.
Usually those wanting to debate are more interested in getting attention and publicity than they are in presenting the truth. It is not necessarily the truth that is acclaimed victorious by those who listen to a debate. Crowds are not always reasonable. They are swayed by bombastic oratory and showy eloquence aimed at the emotions rather than the mind. In a debate as much error as truth is presented, and by playing upon emotions and personal prejudices the final conclusions of many hearers may often favor the error. In the tense climate of a debate reason and logic are frequently ignored, except by one who has the spirit of Jehovah. A legally or judicially trained mind can separate the emotion from the fact and evaluate properly, but audiences generally are not so discerning. A more calm atmosphere is needed for unbiased thinking. Each side usually thinks it has won, and often some who were neutral or undecided find themselves more confused after the debating is over.
To determine the Scripturalness of a teaching we must go to the Bible and calmly weigh all the texts bearing on the point under consideration. The ideal place to do this is in a home, with the two or few involved sitting at a table with open Bibles, dispassionately considering the evidence to “make sure of all things; hold fast to what is right.” (1 Thess. 5:21, NW) If a person is in doubt as to a doctrine, he can have a minister from a religion that believes it come to his home and discuss it. The next evening he can have a minister from a group that says it is false. Or he may even wish to have a minister from each group there the same evening and ask questions and hear the discussion. Thus the truth will be more likely to get calm and careful attention, as also will the falsehood. Sincere ones honestly searching for the truth will see the advantage of this method, whereas those interested more in exciting controversy and grabbing publicity will clamor for the emotional, oratorical debate.
Christians do not debate with dissenters in their own congregation, knowing it can deteriorate into degrading bickering and quarreling: “Now I exhort you, brothers, to keep your eye on those who create divisions and causes for stumbling contrary to the teaching which you have learned, and avoid them.” Christians are also counseled: “Further, turn down foolish and speculative questionings, knowing they produce fights. But a slave of the Lord does not need to fight, but needs to be tactful toward all, qualified to teach, keeping himself restrained under evil, instructing with mildness those not favorably disposed, as perhaps God may give them repentance leading to an accurate knowledge of truth, and they may come back to their proper senses out from the snare of the Devil, seeing that they have been caught alive by him for the will of that one.” (Rom. 16:17; 2 Tim. 2:23-26, NW) Regardless of prior promises to the contrary, debates may lose restraint and mildness on the part of those not having the spirit of Jehovah and may degenerate into unbecoming quarreling and strife and emotionalism by such.
Hence the Watch Tower Society does not now adopt debating as a means of preaching the good news of the Kingdom. One of its representatives may be a guest speaker before a different denominational group, when invited, and may entertain questions afterward; but it is understood beforehand the session is not a debate and will not be allowed to deteriorate into such. The glorious good news deserves a dignified presentation, without a disorderly clamor by the opposers: “For God is a God, not of disorder, but of peace.”—1 Cor. 14:26-33, NW.
*** yb75 pp. 54-56 Part 1—United States of America ***
In what later appeared to be an attempt by the Pittsburgh ministerial alliance to discredit C. T. Russell’s scholarship and Biblical views, on March 10, 1903, Dr. E. L. Eaton, minister of the North Avenue Methodist Episcopal Church, challenged Russell to a six-day debate. During each session of this debate, held that autumn in Allegheny’s Carnegie Hall, on the whole Russell came off victorious. Among other things, he Scripturally maintained that the souls of the dead are unconscious while their bodies are in the grave and that the object of both Christ’s second coming and the millennium is the blessing of all the families of the earth. Russell also made a very strong Biblical denial of the hellfire doctrine. Reportedly, one clergyman approached him after the last session of the debate and said: “I am glad to see you turn the hose on hell and put out the fire.” Interestingly, after this debate many members of Eaton’s congregation became Bible Students.
Another significant debate took place on February 23-28, 1908, at Cincinnati, Ohio, between C. T. Russell and L. S. White of the “Disciple” denomination. Thousands attended. Russell courageously upheld such Scriptural teachings as the unconscious state of the dead between death and resurrection, and Biblically maintained that Christ’s second coming will precede the millennium and that the object of both is the blessing of all families of the earth. Hazelle and Helen Krull were present and tell us: “Beauty and harmony of truth and fine Scriptural arguments on each subject of debate stood out in stark contrast to the confusing teachings of men. At one point ‘Elder White,’ spokesman and debater for the opposing views, in desperation said that he was reminded of a sign over a blacksmith shop reading ‘All kinds of twisting and turning done here.’ But, to the honest truth seeker, was a demonstration of ‘handling the word of the truth aright’ [on the part of Russell; 2 Tim. 2:15], with resultant harmony.” The Krull sisters recall that Jehovah blessed Brother Russell with His spirit to present the truth ably, and they term the event “a triumph of truth over error.”
J. F. Rutherford accepted a Baptist debate challenge in behalf of the Watch Tower Society against J. H. Troy. It took place in April 1915 at the Trinity Auditorium in Los Angeles, California, before an audience of 12,000 (with an estimated 10,000 being turned away for lack of space) during the four nights of the debate. Rutherford was victorious in courageously defending Bible truth.
In the twelve years following the Eaton-Russell debate, other debating challenges were accepted by God’s servants, though the opponents, perhaps out of fear, usually called off the engagements. C. T. Russell himself did not favor debates, for he was aware of their disadvantages for Christians. In The Watch Tower of May 1, 1915, he pointed out, among other things, that ‘those who are of the truth are bound by the Golden Rule and their presentation must be along absolutely fair lines, whereas their opponents seem to have no restrictions or restraints.’ “Any kind of argument,” wrote Russell, “regardless of the context, regardless of the Golden Rule, regardless of everything, is considered permissible.” He also stated: “So far as the Editor is concerned, he has no desire for further debates. He does not favor debating, believing that it rarely accomplishes good and often arouses anger, malice, bitterness, etc., in both speakers and hearers. Rather he sets before those who desire to hear it, orally and in print, the message of the Lord’s Word and leaves to opponents such presentations of the error as they see fit to make and find opportunity to exploit.—Hebrews 4:12.”
Bible discourses themselves afforded better opportunities to present Scriptural truths, and C. T. Russell often spoke to large audiences. During the years of 1905 to 1907, for instance, he toured the United States and Canada by special train or car and conducted a series of one-day conventions. His public lecture then was “To Hell and Back.” Delivered before packed houses in nearly every large city in both countries, this discourse featured a humorous, imaginary trip to hell and back. Louise Cosby recalls that Russell agreed to give this lecture in Lynchburg, Virginia, and she says: “My father had big posters made advertising this lecture and got permission to place them on the front of the streetcars. This was quite amusing and people asked, If this car takes us to hell, will it bring us back?”
*** dx30-85 Debates ***
Rutherford-Westlake: g30 5/28 566-567
Rutherford challenges clergy: fc40 30; co 4; g36 7/29 677; g36 8/12 719-720; g36 11/18 127; g34 1/31 268-269; cs33 41-42; g32 5/25 515-531
