THE KANSAS DISCUSSION by Smith Sharp; Chas. F. Stevens

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Oct 26, 1876

THE KANSAS DISCUSSION.

By Smith Sharp; Chas. F. Stevens

When the truth was first preached at Rock Creek, two years ago last summer, and the people began to embrace it, our Disciple friends became uneasy, and challenged us for a discussion. We invited them to preach in our tent, and we would review. They accepted our invitation. We, with all our people, were satisfied with the result; but not so with our Disciple friends. From that time they began pressing a discussion. At our camp-meeting last May they renewed their challenge. Bro. White promised that if both parties demanded a discussion, and the Disciples would furnish a representative man, the S. D. Adventists would do the same. One Eld. Shick, who was represented as the “peer of the west,” was chosen as their man. From what we knew and heard of him we feared he would make the debate unpleasant by slurring and ridiculing when he could find a chance. But as he was urged as their best and strongest man, we accepted him after binding him by rules to stick to the Bible and to the question. So after an agreement was signed to debate the Sabbath, Sunday, Immortality, Death of the Wicked and Kingdom questions, for three days each, Bro. Canright came, and the debate began in our tent Oct. 10. From the first, Eld. Shick complained of the rules, which he said he was compelled to adopt or have no discussion. He particularly complained of the rule requiring three days on each question and the one confining him to the Bible.

He contended that notwithstanding the agreement required three days’ debate on the Sunday question, as he was on the affirmative he had a right to close when he should choose to do so; and he gave notice that he would do so at the close of the second day, at farthest. The debate on the Sabbath question occupied three full days. Eld. Shick took the same position usually taken by the Disciples, claiming no Sabbath for man to keep until Sinai, and the abolition of the law at the cross. So far from answering Bro. Canright’s arguments, he did not attempt to answer his main points. No attempt was made to overthrow his position on the covenants, the two laws, and many other points.

Very early in the discussion of the first proposition, Eld. S. broke over the rule and commenced reading from H. C. Carver’s book, also calling Bro. White “old daddy White,” and was called to order by the moderators. After he had affirmed for one session that Sunday was set apart by divine example to be sacredly observed by Christians, we saw that we would have to make some concessions and shorten the time on this question, or have a fuss with him. He and all who heard him evidently felt that he was utterly failing to make any showing in favor of Sunday; so to save this and shorten the time (which otherwise would have been fifteen days), we dropped one question, and shortened the time on the others, the whole discussion thus lasting but seven days.

The attendance was very small except on Sunday, when the tent was full. The end of the wicked was in debate. Eld. S. tried to bring in the conscious state of the dead, and so brought up the rich man and Lazarus. He complained so bitterly of being shut out of history that Eld. C. told him to bring it on. So he spent much time reading the spurious article in Josephus on Hades. Bro. C. admitted it all, and asked what that had to do with the end of the wicked. As it had no bearing upon the point, it only made him appear ridiculous. Then he spent a long time in reviewing the ministration of angels, and ended with an exhortation.

As he had boasted so much about what he would do if he could only go to history, Bro. C. challenged him to discuss either the Immortality or Sunday question from history. When put to the test, as we expected, he backed down, and, to evade the point, vented his pent up hatred against Bro. and Sr. White, and the rest of us generally. In his closing speech Sunday afternoon, he went clear out of the way, to slur “Old Ellen White and her visions,” and was again stopped by the moderators. The following day he acknowledged that he should have said Mrs. White.

The debate closed with apparently good feeling. After the close, Eld. S. virtually acknowledged that he was dissatisfied, by announcing that he would preach the following night at the school-house near by, and inviting all to come and hear the visions of Mrs. E. G. White reviewed, and her teachings compared with the Bible.

SMITH SHARP, CHAS. F. STEVENS.