p. 53 | FORCED TO DISCUSS by Dudley Marvin Canright

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Aug 8, 1878

“FORCED TO DISCUSS.”

By Dudley Marvin Canright

In reading the reports of our brethren, we frequently meet with the statement that they were “forced to discuss” with such and such a minister against their wish and judgment in the matter. Then will follow an account of a discussion lasting from two to seven days in the midst of a course of lectures. In the past I have said and done the same thing myself, but, I think now, for the last time.

After having a long and fair opportunity to observe, I am satisfied that we nearly always lose by holding a set debate with any one during a course of lectures. However well we may defend the truth, and however badly our opponent may fail, yet our chance for a real gain to the cause is very small. Indeed, in a large majority of cases it is a great injury to the cause of truth. The reasons for this are easily seen.

1. A discussion will always draw out a crowd, many more than we can get to our own meetings. When the debate is ended, there will, of necessity, be a great falling off in the attendance. This alone gives a bad impression. It looks as though the mass of the people were satisfied, and cared to hear us no further.

2. Our opponents have no such difficulty to contend with. They generally come to the place only for the debate, and leave when it is ended. This makes it appear as if the crowd went to hear them and not us; or, if they are resident ministers, they have only their regular Sunday services, which the people will attend any way.

3. When a debate of several days is closed, every one is tired out, and so we have no fair chance to get the people out again to our meetings for some time. Hence we always have small congregations after a debate.

4. People always suppose that when they have heard a debate, they have heard all that can be said on both sides of the subject. So they think there is no use of going to hear us further. They are now fully prepared to decide the whole subject without further trouble. Hence, again, they stay away. But we all know that in a debate it is frequently impossible to use some of our very best proofs. Neither time nor the nature of the case will admit of it. Here our opponents have the advantage.

5. If our opponents can succeed in distracting the attention of the people, they will break up our interest, however poor their arguments may be. And here is the real objection to a discussion during a course of lectures. It is almost sure to confuse the people, tire them out, or get up so strong a party feeling that the crowd will not come again. This means defeat to us, and that is all our opponents care for.

6. However careful we may be, strong personal feelings and sharp words are almost sure to come in in an animated debate. This creates hard feelings and contentions in the community, for which we are generally held responsible.

7. Generally a discussion finds many undecided, convicted of duty, but more than willing to find some excuse to evade the cross if possible. A sharp opponent can often raise objections enough to satisfy them to remain where they are. If these can only be kept from moving, it is all our enemies care. Hence a discussion at such a time gives them much the advantage over us.

For these and other reasons I am fully settled that it is not wise for us to hold a regular debate until after our course of lectures is fully closed. And even then, the less debating the better. If a debate must be held during a course of lectures, make it very short—one evening or a day at most. Then go right on with your meetings.

But will they not force us into it any way? No; for how can they debate with us if we will not debate with them? But will not a refusal on our part to debate hurt us more than a discussion? Will they not boast over us, and will not the people think we are afraid to meet them? Well, suppose they do; still the question is, which is the worst for the cause, this or a debate then and there?

But I have learned by trial that no such terrible results follow a refusal to debate. Tell the people plainly on the start and all the way through, especially if a debate is proposed, that you will on no account discuss with any one till you have first fairly presented all your doctrines with your reasons for them; the people have heard the other side all their lifetime, and now it is but fair that we give our side fully, so that they may know our faith before we are required to hold a discussion. Make this point plain, and generally the most, if not all, your audience will be in sympathy with you.

If you will not hold a set discussion, in many cases your opponents will preach one or more discourses against you. Well, let them do so, and then promptly review them. This makes them the attacking party, and gives you the sympathy of the people. Then it gives you the last discourse every time, which is a great advantage. Nor is it generally best to dismiss your audience to hear the opposition, if you can hold the most of them and have some one to hear your opponent’s sermon, so as to review it. Fill your own appointments and hold your own audience as far as possible.

Frequently we have made a mistake in opening our tents for opposition speakers. Sometimes it is best to do so; but to let in a man whom the community does not generally indorse simply because he challenges, is poor policy. If he has a message for the people, let him do as we do, find his own place for speaking and pay his own bills.

D. M. CANRIGHT.