Is it Cowardice? by John H. Waggoner

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · May 9, 1871

Is it Cowardice?

By John H. Waggoner

At different times the question has been raised whether it is proper to engage in discussions with spiritualists. This question being definitely settled in my mind, I would be pleased to give the reasons for my decision.

That there might be circumstances under which it would be advisable to debate with a spiritualist, or that a question might arise which justice to the cause of truth would demand should be discussed, I cannot deny. But such cases I consider very rare; so rare that they may well be considered as exceptions to the rule. It is my settled conviction that, as a general rule, it is our duty to abstain from discussions with that class of people.

But then they will say we are afraid to meet them. So far as discussions are concerned this is not true. We are not afraid of their arguments; we are not afraid to meet any alleged facts that they can present. So far as their influence is concerned, we do not consider it prudent to throw ourselves in contact with it unnecessarily. That influence which is often styled mesmeric or psychologic, we call Satanic. That it is so, we are assured by the Scriptures and by observation. And being assured of this, shall we be blamed because we shun it? Would you commend him who would complacently behold his child playing with a viper? We profess none of that kind of bravery manifested by the boy who jumped into the river at the risk of his life, merely to prove that he would not take a dare!

We must act on convictions of duty, and to do so, we must have the object of our action so clearly defined, that it can reasonably form the basis of intelligent conviction. What object, I then ask, can we have in debating with spiritualists? How do we stand related to them? Let us consider their position.

We charge them with denying God, the creator and judge. They admit it, and blaspheme his name to verify their admission.

We charge them with denying our Saviour Jesus Christ. They admit it, and revile his name, nature, and offices.

We charge that they deny all responsibility and accountability, thus giving loose rein to the passions and propensities of mankind. They admit it, and aver that it is a sort of atheism to attach blame to any action. (A. J. Davis.) That every desire, “whether it be called good or bad,” is pure and God-given. (Dr. A. B. Child.) That all sin is for man’s spiritual good, “that human progress is slow or rapid as the sin is small or great;” that “there is no criminal act that is not an experience of usefulness—a valuable experience to the inner being of the man who committed it;” that open violation “of the ten commandments indicates mature development;” that their “divine use is in their violation;” that the commandments, “Thou shalt not kill, &c., “are the mandates of hell.” (Dr. Child.)

We charge them with a disregard of the institution of marriage. They admit it; and openly avow their intention to wage a war against the institution of marriage until it is destroyed. (Moses Hull, Warren Chase, and a host of writers and lecturers.)

Need I add to this? Does not this embrace every abomination of which we can form a conception? And in all this they delight and glory! And what ground for discussion is there in all this? Can there be any doubt of the inevitable results of such teachings and of belief in them?

But they may claim that there is an issue here. We affirm that the actions referred to are wrong. They say every action is right; that it is because of our limited conceptions of things that we consider murder, adultery, &c., morally and really wrong; and challenge us to discuss this point. We most emphatically decline the controversy. We must refuse to give character to their position by such a discussion. We cannot consent to outrage the moral sense of mankind as to admit that this is a debatable point. He who asserts his right to do wrong; who says he has a God-given right to gratify every desire, to murder, to commit adultery, &c., places himself beyond the bounds of honorable controversy. Such a horrible perversion of the judgment can result only from corruption of the heart. And the man or woman who can stand up and avow such sentiments without blushing, is more fit for the penitentiary or the lunatic asylum, than for the arena of honorable debate.

The only chance left for controversy is, whether these communications and sentiments come from the spirits of the dead or the spirits of devils. This was a ground of controversy in the earlier stages of spiritualism, before their sentiments were so clearly avowed, or their character so well known. They deny that they are the spirits of devils, but no one who understands their position, as briefly characterized herein, can reasonably deny that they are devilish spirits. Imagine, if you please, a character formed after the model presented by spiritualistic authors, formed upon a denial of all law, of all responsibility, loosed from all moral restraint, entirely destitute of reverence or respect for all authority. Can you form any idea of a devil worse than this? Spiritualists are the last people who should deny the existence of the devil, furnishing as they do, such vivid illustrations of his character in the principles, or rather lack of principles, which they avow.

As we have no fear to meet their arguments, so we have no fear of their influence, though it be Satanic, when we are assured that we are in the line of duty. Then, and then only, can we rely upon divine protection.

Here is my reason. Before we can consent to enter the field of general debate with them, it must be shown that they are entitled to the privilege by showing that this reason is not valid.

J. H. WAGGONER.

Burlington, Mich.