"Preachers Wrongfully Blamed"

I note in the last Guide an article blaming preachers for debating on Socialism, claiming Socialism to be a political party.

Please allow me the reply, as one of these preachers, just this word. I have held four debates with Socialists. First with L. L. Rhodes; he challenged me while I was in a meeting to debate the following question: "The Scriptures teach that no man can be a Christian and oppose Socialism." And I was perfectly confident that I could be a Christian and oppose any "isms." I debated it three hours with him. I'm sure he won't do so again.

I next debated with Stanley J. Clark. I know not how the debate came up, and third, I said once that, "These brethren who think Socialism is a political party are badly mistaken. It is a system of Infidel philosophy, and the political feature is tacked on to it for a catch." This I said in preaching. The next morning I was called on to make it good. Stanley J. Clark was selected, and I met him in a six session debate. In both these debates we had the same propositions. Now to show the nature of them and what is debated by preachers, I show them.

I affirmed: "The Bible is of super-human origin, teaches a perfect code of morals, and is infallible in its teaching." Clark denied.

Then he affirmed: "The fundamental principle of Socialism, economic determinism, is true; that is, economic causes have produced the present system with its prevailing historical political, moral, and religious ideas."

Now I say that no man can be a Christian and believe what Clark affirmed. Yet the Socialist organization puts him out, and indorses [sic] him in his affirmation and as this is the "Fundamental principles of Socialism," then socialism is, in its fundamentals, infidel.

But in this last debate with Mr. Clark, these Socialists, who thought they could be Christians too, demanded that I meet Bro. (?) W. L. Thurman. So I continued the debate four days more—eight sessions, in which I affirmed two days that, "The church of which I, J. W. Chism, am a member, is identical in doctrine and practice with the church described in the New Testament."

"Bro. (?) W. L. Thurman" denied this proposition and twice stated publicly that, "The church is not worth the ink it takes to write the word." Then he affirmed, "Socialism is a right, and offers remedy for social evils."

Of course, as a Christian, and a gospel preacher, knowing that the gospel in not only the remedy but the only remedy, I denied his proposition.

I hope that these brethren who think that a man can be a Christian and a Socialist, too, will take up the study of real, "sure enough" Socialism and find out what it really is before they begin to maintain that it is like democracy and republicanism, political.

Permit me to say whenever a democrat or republican will take the position that a man cannot be a Christian and oppose them, etc., I am ready for the fight.

I am yours in Christ, earnestly contending for the faith once delivered to the saints.

Observations

What are some noteworthy observations concerning this brief article? First, Brother Chism set the record straight. Some were accusing faithful brethren for the debates that were taking place on the subject of Socialism, which was not true. Chism was challenged while engaged in a gospel meeting. So often, preachers have been accused of starting problems when they have done nothing more than answered a challenge given to them. Now, it would have been all right for Chism to instigate a discussion, but in this instance, the Socialists wanted the debate.

Today, how many gospel meetings are going on, and how many debates? Times have changed. Gospel meetings once were common—and not just for four days—but for one or two weeks. Debates occurred with far greater frequency than they do today. We perhaps hear of two debates a year, but they once occurred all over the country. Now it is rare for instructors in a school of preaching to debate anyone, which seems peculiar. Preachers once had to debate in order to preach a gospel meeting in a certain locale.

Now, however, most religious denominations, along with many members of the Lord's church, just don't want such discussions. We live in the postmodern climate of, "Everyone is right." So why debate anything—if everyone is right in what they believe? As for gospel meetings, some churches have not had one in more than a decade.

The Debate Propositions

Who else would deny that the Bible is of super-human origin, teaches a perfect code of morals, and is infallible in its teaching—except an Infidel? Certainly, no one calling himself a Christian can deny the Divine origin of the Bible. If it is not of God, then we may as well toss it away; only students of literature would find any value in it, as they do Shakespeare. And who offers a better moral system than the New Testament? Oh, others have concocted some, but none of them have ever worked. Robert Owen failed, as have communities based on manmade principles.

The one who seeks to replace the Holy Scriptures must do one of two things: 1) He must either acknowledge that he knows of nothing that works better or that we don't need any system of morality at all, which certainly seems foolish; or 2) He must come up with a better arrangement than that provided by God. In more than two centuries, no one has ever been able to accomplish that. In fact, the evidence shows that the more "socialistic" a city becomes, the worse the living conditions become. It is far from true that Socialism is the remedy for social evils. Consider the communities operated by this philosophy. One will find nothing akin to Utopia—but rather crime-infested neighborhoods where innocent children are randomly shot.

The reason that Socialism and Communism fail is that "sharing the wealth" is by compulsion, not generosity of spirit. Only Christianity teaches people to love God and one another as the two greatest commandments. When people love God, many things are possible because people give willingly—not by constraint. Those who receive the blessings of God are usually eager to share, but those who have to scrape by because the government has taken the proceeds of their hard work find themselves resentful and more prone to selfishness.

All one needs to do to see which system works better is to look honestly at the evidence. Look at the way the United States has prospered versus nations in South America. How has Cuba flourished under Castro's Communism? Those who have not been put to death are driving around in cars from the 50s—the last good economy that Cuba had. How are the Russian people faring under Communism? How many millions did Stalin kill? Does anyone really know? One thing is certain: Communism has no respect for human life.

One of Chism's debate opponents said that the word church was not worth the ink it takes to write it. Really? When did Socialism produce the results seen in the brethren in Macedonia? Paul says of them that they gave out of "their deep poverty." In fact, they were "freely willing" to give to the poor saints in Jerusalem. "This they did, not as we had hoped, but first gave themselves to the Lord, and then to us by the will of God" (2 Cor. 8:1-5). Is there some Socialistic equivalent to what these brethren did?

And they did so because they were Christians, members of the church of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. They not only had been taught compassion and helpfulness and love to other members of the body of Christ; they embraced those principles and rejoiced that they had the opportunity to display it. One might be happy about giving something to help others, but to go beyond all expectation is when people can truly achieve a level of satisfaction not otherwise found. Paul expressed this concept by his steadfast insistence upon working so as not to be a burden to others. He made it clear he had every right to expect support for his work, but to be able not to use it after all was a source of joy and comfort to him (2 Cor. 11:9-10). The church is the greatest entity to which any human being can aspire to belong.

Those who do not know what they are saying shouldn't be: