A Reply To Rader's Review Of Sutton Hawk Debate
Brother Dorris V. Rader reviewed the debate between Carrol R. Sutton and this writer in the September 14, 1978 issue of Truth Magazine. Brother Rader is guilty of inaccurate reporting, misrepresentation, and putting words in my mouth. I hardly think this is Christian or fair
Brother Rader referred to a question Brother Sutton gave me on Monday night. The question was, "Do you believe the following proposition: `The Scriptures teach the church may arrange, oversee and provide for the preaching of the gospel and this arrangement is not an evangelistic organization (institution) such as the United Christian Missionary Society'?" I replied, "No." On Wednesday night the same ,question was submitted to me and this time I saw what he was asking and replied "Yes." Brother Sutton naturally called my contradictory answers to my attention, which I would expect him to do. I explained to him and th~,audience why I was answering it as I did that night but in the confusion of the moment, forgot which night I had given the wrong reply. However, Brother Rader has me making the following statement in your paper. "I don't know why I answered both ways. I don't have to explain. Which ever one is correct is what I meant." What I said was, "I don't believe the church can utilize it. (The United Christian Missionary Society, RM; don't believe it has any place in preaching the gospel; and so that is the way I would answer that. So, I answered it wrong in one or the other, I'll not take time to see whether I mis-answered it Monday night or tonight, but which ever one was correct, that's the way I believe it. Anyway, I've explained what I believe on it."
Do you brethren believe in misrepresenting a brother? Surely not. If you have the truth, you do not have to put words in a brother's mouth to win your position.
I thought Brother Rader's review was amusing in that he had me putting a 10 year old orphan in diapers for the church to change, but failed to explain that I used my 15 year old nephew who was in a coma and had to be diapered, but neither Rader nor Sutton took the time to remember that. I even asked Brother Sutton, "could the church take care of my 15 year old nephew (diaper him) if he was the charge of the church?" I do not remember his saying anything about that.
The debate will be printed and then folks can see whether I replied to these matters or not. It was a good debate and one that I am not ashamed of, either from the conduct of the discussion, or my part in it.
Truth Magazine XXIII: 3, p. 59