Recently I came across something I thought would be of interest to the group.
It is a recorded debate between one of the leading Christian intellects of his
day, Alexander Campbell, and an opponent named Skinner. What is so fascinating
is that this was just like these e-mail debates...only much more detailed and
delivered by snail mail. But they were published in certain periodicals, and
just like here there was a posting, then a reply, then another reply, etc. It
took weeks, months and years, though, to do what we do in several days.
What is even more interesting is some of the verbiage. I mean, these guys knew
the language, and how to poke a petard with style. I'm going to post a couple
of excerpts just to give you the flavor. This debate took place in the
religious press in 1835-1839. Things got started, and then Mr. Skinner wrote:
"I regret to find, on the perusal of your April letter, that it is no reply,
nor even an attempt to reply to my last. I did hope, my dear Sir, when I
engaged in a discussion of the all important subject of controversy between
us, that I had found an honorable and high-minded opponent, who would stand
forth with Christian candor and manly boldness in defence of what he considers
the truth and holy sanctions of the Gospel of Christ--one who felt himself
above those little quibbles and stratagems, those bandyings of words about
challenges, and the substitution of new and multiform questions for debate,
unnecessary laws of evidence, rules of discussion, etc., etc., to the neglect
of the main point at issue. And I will still cherish the fond hope that what
to me appears, in your letter now before me, to be a departure from the course
of the honorable and high-minded Christian controversialist, is only an
exception to your general character--that you will shortly return from this
strange digression and resume the discussion of the points on which we are
already at issue, and fully investigate them pro bono publico."
Wow! And that was just the first paragraph! There followed a lengthy post on
several points at issue.
Mr. Campbell then posted a reply, which began like this:
"I have risen from the perusal of your epistle with a higher esteem for your
understanding, if not for you courteousness. True indeed, you reply not the
most gracefully with these most reasonable requisitions. If you sincerely
regarded these matters which are as universal as religious controversy, as
"little quibbles and stratagems, those bandyings of words about challenges,"
etc., etc., why did you finally come up to all these "little quibbles" and
show that you felt that they were not what your words represent them! I can
not, then, sincerely thank you for your very courteous apology for me in
making my demand "an exception to my general character" of being "an honorable
and high-minded Christian controversialist."
And he launched into the issues. At one point he said Skinner's letter was
"headless, pointless, widespread declamation," and that "there is not in said
letter a single scripture quoted in its true meaning, or a single argument
that will bear the line and plummet of sound sense and logical discretion"
Campbell concluded with this:
"The concluding paragraphs of your epistle are reserved for another occasion.
The sequel will, perhaps, furnish the best comment upon them. Confidence in
one's self, or in the goodness of one's cause, and the swaggering style of
gasconade, are weak logic and easily rebutted. But, my good Sir, the dignity
of the cause which I espouse commands a dignified defence, and therefore I can
not descend to the playfulness or frivolity of every smart and piquant
expression, which, in the exuberance of your fancy, you may deem amusing to
your readers."
Skinner responds:
"Your affected sneers at the "impotency" of my February letter, your calling
it "headless, pointless, widespread declamation," saying "there is not in said
letter a single scripture quoted in its true meaning, or a single argument
that will bear the line and plummet of sound sense and logical discretion,"
may pass with our readers for what they are worth--bare unsupported
ASSERTIONS."
[Sound familiar?]
Campbell began his next reply:
"I will not spend time in replying to your constant imputations of timidity or
unfairness, or some sinister influence, as controlling or giving direction to
all my movements in reference to your vauntings, challengings, or "modest
requests."
Anyway, you get the picture. The debate makes up a 400 page book! But doesn't
it all look so familiar? The only difference is the command of words they had
back then, and the depth with which they tackled the issues (this issue was
Universalism, Skinner for, Campbell against, and man, did they ever dig in). I
love one word Campbell used. I had to look it up. "Gasconade." That means a
"boast or boasting; bravado."
Hope you enjoyed that. Debate is a wonderful thing. In fact, in the 1800s, it
was a chief entertainment in cities. People would pack the halls and listen
for 4, 8, sometimes 12 hours to intellectual combat.
So let's not shrink from a vigorous defense of the faith, or our cause,
whatever it may be. Let us challenge our opponents when they need it, hold
them to support their positions, and do the same with ours. Even if it means a
little gasconade every now and again.
Jim