Sam here.

I sent a note to Lee, regarding an idea I had about the current "should we debate or should we discuss" issue, which is being run into the ground on a couple of threads.

He has graciously agreed to post our correspondence here, for all to see. Here'tis, with mine to him first:

"Lee: "I've had a thought. See what you think about it. "My hesitancy about engaging in formal debate hinges on two things primarily: 1) The amount of time it would require, in large blocks, to adequately treat the subject and format; 2) The question of who will state the proposition, and whether or nor it would be a proposition I think could be adequately defended or prosecuted. "There are ways to state the proppsition about this issue that would very strongly preclude on e side or the other from even having the possibility of arguing the issue, and many that would in fact be unarguable, not because of a paucity of evidence but because of the way the proposition is worded. "Anyway, that's not the thought I had. The thought I had was this: It seems from your recent posts that a big part of your decision to avoid the "free-wheeling discussion" was that you had so many people to answer so often, that you were overwhelmed by the size of the task, in terms of time and the number of replies and concurrent arguments you had to keep up. "So, since you have conceded to engage in one-on-one debate, I wonder if you would also be willing to engage (either simultaneously with the debate, or shortly after it) in what we could call a one-on-one discussion, without the formal structure and propostions of debate, but with the restriction of facing only one person, having to answer only one set of questions at a time, etc. "Whaddya think?

Sam"

Here is Lee's reply:

"Sam: "I think your idea is an excellent one and correctly recognizes most of my paramont concerns. I am more than willing to follow your suggestion. I do believe, because of current time constrains with my new job at AT&T, that it would not be possible for me to do this concurrently with the debate, though if others should insist, I would try to do my best if they would recognize and accept that I am laboring under such constrains. But it is my thought at the moment that shortly after the debate may be better for my current time constrains. I am more than willing to accept your fine suggestion and i appreciate very much the spirit in which you have made it. "I lke it, Sam! Your idea is excellent and if you should suggest it in the forum I will agree to participate in such a discussion. I would hope that such a discussion would be with you because of your often demonstrated wisdom and concern for genuine fairness. "Thank you for that suggestion and correct assessment of the situation. "Your Brother in Christ, E. Lee Saffold"

So, how 'bout the rest of you? Benjamin, I know that, for you, other issues have arisen. But perhaps you will be gracious enough to set them aside for now, with the understanding by most here that you and Lee have rather been talking at cross-purposes for a time.

Again I ask, waddya think?

-- Anonymous, June 07, 2000

Answers

D. Lee....

One correction......Jack was not the only one to accept the challenge to debate.

-- Anonymous, June 19, 2000

Ben.....

Please do not take this as a correction of you. It is more for my benefit and you can gain from it what you will.

Lately, the wisdom of Proverbs on learning to keep your mouth shut has been reaping me a great deal of benefits lately.....namely....helping me to feel that I have acted more "Christlike" in various tense situations.

Like I said in another post......lately, Lee has been an answer to prayer for me.

-- Anonymous, June 20, 2000

Did I use the word "lately" enough??

-- Anonymous, June 20, 2000

Well...

I haven't posted much of anything lately, but I can honestly say that I would personally love to be involved. I have researched and studied this topic for years and have made countless friends (and enemies) from folks in the a capella churches.

I respect Lee greatly as I think he may hold at least a little respect for myself and he would be very capable of defending the position of the a capella tradition.

-- Anonymous, June 08, 2000

Lee and JCEvang have been emailing each other concerning all of the rules and guidelines.... I'm not gonna make any rules...

They have been forwarding their correspondence to me...

Soon I will Start an entire Forum for the debate...

The two main debaters will be color coded... But everyone is free to jump in, and encouraged to do so.

The debaters will not be under any obligation to respond to the "free- wheelers"

In fact, since this will be a whole new forum... Free wheeling "side issues" can have their own threads....

We're almost there....

-- Anonymous, June 08, 2000

Sam,

Sorry I haven't answered your question to me (in your original posting on June 7) sooner. I took about a week's "vacation" from the forum (not even any "lurking") to try to catch up on some other things I was getting behind on and also to try to regain a clearer perspective on some of the "conversations" that had been taking place. As a result it wasn't until last night that I finally saw your suggestion and your question.

I think it's a good idea. Many times during the argument over discussion vs. debate, I felt like saying, "Lee, even if you participate in a regular discussion, you are under no compulsion to answer any particular comment from any one else. So if the big problem for you is the number of people who MIGHT be giving arguments on the other side, why not just declare that you will deal with one person at a time or one aspect of the matter at a time and then stick to it?" But I never got around to actually saying it because the correspondence was so lengthy as it was, and there always seemed to be some other aspect of the discussion that needed an answer more urgently. Also this idea seemed to me so elementary and so obvious that I thought it would have already occured to everyone. So I assumed that the real reasons for his objections must lie elsewhere.

My own preference -- since Lee has said that something like this would resolve his biggest concern -- would be to just forget about the "debate" and start an "open" but "one-person-at-a-time" discussion. But I suppose the arrangements for the debate are too far advanced to abandon at this time.

Meanwhile, perhaps you and others would be interested in the following. My brother-in-law has a PhD in psychology and is a professor of psychology at a university in Texas. He has also done a lot of research in the field of psychology, and regularly presents papers, all over the world, on the results of his research. My feeling (and my main reason for opposing this particular debate) is that serious debates (as opposed to the intellectual exercise that goes by the name of debating in high schools and colleges) tend to re-inforce the prejudices of the participants rather than to change them, and therefore tend to be divisive. Since I hadn't been able to come up with much concrete evidence either to support or to knock down this feeling, I wrote to my brother in law to ask if he knew of any research that have any bearing on the question. Here are excerpts from our letters:

This is from my original letter to him:

"In terms of attitude change, attitude modification, etc., how does a formal debate compare with an informal discussion? I'm mainly concerned about the main participants, but any information on how the 'audience' might be affected would also be appreciated.

"I've been participating in a 'forum' over the internet. It deals with a variety of mainly religious issues, especially those of particular concern to Christian Churches and Churches of Christ. One subject that has come up is a matter that has led to serious division among our churches. I think that it needs to be thoroughly discussed in the interest of trying to restore greater unity. There is only one person (that I know of) who participates in the forum who is from the 'other' side, but he is quite vocal about all kinds of issues. He quite often makes a point of the fact that he disagrees with the rest of us on this particular issue, but he has steadfastly refused to discuss the issue itself unless someone will agree to doing it in the form of a formal 'debate' with a single agreed proposition, rules that both sides agree to, etc. He insists that this is the best way to discuss anything since the rules ensure that both sides 'play fair', etc.

"My 'gut feeling' is that formal debates are divisive, that even if they don't polarise the 'audience', they do tend to re-inforce the positions of the main protagonists. Therefore, since this is an issue over which we are already divided, and my concern is to try to rebuild unity, I have refused to participate if it is an actual debate.

"I know that 'mere discussions' can get awfully heated, and may differ little from actual debates in that respect, but I think there is a difference in that the protagonists have to declare their position and are committed to supporting their 'side', either to support or to refute the resolution being debated.

"The other man insists that it isn't necessarily so, that as far as he is concerned, the only differences between a discussion and a debate are that in a debate the number of participants is limited so it's not a 'free for all', and there are rules to make sure everyone plays fair. He says that he would be willing to change his own view (on the issue, but not on the question of debates versus discussions) if he sees that the other side has a strong enough case.

"I have tried to find evidence to either support my feelings on the matter or to ease my mind on them, but it has been so long since I last did any formal study of psychology, and my library in this area is limited to a half dozen or so textbooks from my undergraduate and master's degree studies, and I haven't been able to find what I want.

"The closest thing I've found so far is some studies on 'cognitive dissonance.' That SEEMS to support my feeling to some extent. If a person's attitude on something can be changed by being forced to declare an opposing view, wouldn't it be strengthened by being committed to defend a particular position in a formal debate? But that's not direct evidence. So I wondered if you could tell me anything, on either side -- either to support my gut feelings on the matter or to ease my mind on the subject."

Here is his reply:

"Your question is really interesting and I don't have a ready answer for it. I know of no research that compares discussion versus formal debate as methods of attitude change. Like you, I have the gut feeling that discussion is preferable. Most of the research into attitude change falls into either the traditional approach which began at Yale University in the 1940's and examines variations on the speaker, the message, and the audience for effectiveness or the current approach. The current approach goes under the name 'Elaboration Likelihood Model' and focuses on the cognitive processes involved when people receive a persuasive message. Neither the traditional nor the current work contains comparisons between formal debate and discussion for effectiveness.

"As I re-read your e-mail message and think about it, a couple of things come to mind that may be of use. Research from the traditional approach has shown very clearly that designing a persuasive message needs to take into account whether the audience already agrees with the message or not. Sometimes an audience already agrees with message and simply needs to be persuaded to take a firmer position. In that situation, a one-sided message giving only arguments in favor of the position is most effective. On the other hand, if the audience is either mixed--half in favor and half opposed--or if the audience is all opposed to the message--a two-sided message is more effective. This provides arguments on both sides of the issue but is generally crafted to provide stronger arguments on the side the speaker wishes to promote.

"This isn't exactly an answer to your question, but maybe it will be useful. In the absence of definitive research, I would agree with your gut feeling that discussion is the better approach. Good luck with your continuing project."

I know that this is not "proof" -- he says he doesn't know of any direct proof. But it is interesting that the "gut feeling" of someone who has a PhD in psychology, teaches psychology, and has done a lot of research on psychological issues should agree with my "gut feeling" on the main reason why I still do NOT feel that a formal "debate" ON THIS PARTICULAR TOPIC is appropriate. Not if our aim is really to resolve our differences and restore unity where there has been division.

-- Anonymous, June 15, 2000

Brother Ben:

The debate will not be canceled unless you persuade brother Jack to withdraw and if you do that my challenge will still stand until I find someone with the courage of their convictions that is willing to debate instead of "debate over a quibble concerning an open discussion" which is all you can muster the courage to do.

Even your comparison of "gut feelings" with your brother-in-law prove to be useless. For even he admits that there is no concrete evidence that your position against debates is correct when he said the following;

""Your question is really interesting and I don't have a ready answer for it. I know of no research that compares discussion versus formal debate as methods of attitude change. Like you, I have the gut feeling that discussion is preferable."

SO all that we have here is a compaison of gut feelings with someone related to you that has every reason to have the same "gut feeling" that you have. This also demonstrates that you have nothing more than your "gut feeling" and the comparison of your "gut feeling with others to support your view that discussions are better than a fomal debate.

As far as being adversarial is concerned you have demonstrated and even admit in this post that "open discussions" do not prevent the advasarial spirit. Yet, you are not "conscientiously" opposed to the discussion format even though you admit that they also can be "adversarial" in nature. You are without doubt seriously inconsistent in your supposed reasons for avoiding debate.

In another thread you falsely claimed that you had long since given up on convincing me to participate in a discussion without a debate. But here you are again trying to "cancel" the debate because I have agreed to an open discussion as brother Sam suggested. So much for the truthfulness of that claim!

Now I will once again state very clearly. If this debate is canceled there will be no discussion whatsoever with me on this subject and you will have what you really want. You can now allow every one to think that the opposing side has been treated fairly and that they have no need to fear that they are being disobedient to the Lord.

But I will contact those who have shown interest in this matter and I will give them the opportunity to hear the other side as they have requested of me. They will hear the truth on this matter. Now if you are so convinced that my position is not the truth then you are welcome to debate it with me. But I will not be forced by you or anyone else to an open discussion if you manage to encourage these brethern to "cancel the debate". I will also tell you this. I will never stop reminding the people in this forium that none are willing to debate this subject if it is cancelled. I will ask them to continually ask themselves the question, "what are these brethren afaid for you to see and hear?" Why do they so adamantly avoid an FAIR debate.

Brother Sam:

Now Sam, I did not agree to "canceling the debate". I even warned that an open discussion would lead to such a suggestion. You should be able to see from this that brother Ben's only purpose is to avoid the debate and prevent it from happening. I will have nothing to do with him in relation to this matter until after the debate. If the deabte is canceled then I will have nothing to do with anyone in relation to this subject. I will say whatever I want and anyone that challenges what I have said will be given the opportunity to debate. If they do not debate there will be no discussion.

Now the rest of my words are not directed toward you Sam because you have been fair and Just. I address the rest of this post to those who simply refuse to debate this subject and object to allowing a fair hearing on the matter in such a format.

Now, I have made it clear that I will debate this subject with anyone. That is now all that I will do. You either believe instrumental music is authoriuzed in the scriptures or you do not. If you do you can meet me in debate. Otherwise I will never be convinced that you honestly believe you can prove that it is a scriptural practice.

So brother Sam, thanks to Ben's intention of using this suggestion of yours as a means of persuading others to cancel the debate I hereby inform you that if there is no debate there will be no discussion either. THis does not mean that I will be silent but it does mean that I will make arguments and offer to debate anyone who wishes to challenge them. But their will never be an "open discussion" with me on this matter until I am allowed a fair opportunity to debate this subject. That is my final word on the matter. I appreciate your attempt to make peace. Your suggestion was wise and good. But Brother Ben, with his adversarial spirit, came in here and suggested that we cancel the debate knowing that such is completely unacceptable to me. Now your actions were honorable but his words were deliberately advasarial.

So, I appreciate very much your efforts and wish that Brother Ben could understand your ability to get my agreement to an open discussion when others had failed. But now this is how it will be as far as I am concerned:

NO DABATE = NO OPEN DISCUSSION with me on the matter.

I withdraw my willingness to engage in a "freewheeling discussion" because of this underhanded way of trying to use it to as an excuss to "cancel the debate". That is all Brother Ben cares about. He just cannot bear to give the opposing side a "fair" hearing which he knows a debate ensures and he knows that cannot trust that an "open discussion" with one such as this will be fair in any way. He has completely destroyed your best efforts to resolve this matter in a reasonable fashion.

So now, either those of you who believe that instrumental music is authorized in the scriptures are wiulling to defend that position in a fair and honorable debate or you are not. I have challenged all of you to debate the matter. The only one willing to do so has been brother Jack Prentice. We shall now have to wait and see if he will withdraw because Brother Ben would like for him to do so. If he does then it will be clear to all who read this forum that you are not willing to defend your position in a formal debate. Your unwillingness to do so is completely unreasonable upon any other basis than the simple fact that your position cannot be successfully defended in a formal debate.

THat will hence forth be my view of the matter and absolutely nothing can now be said to convince me that anyone other than Jack Prentice has confidence that he can defend his position in a formal debate. If he withdraws then I will be surely convinced that NONE of you believe that your position can be defended in a formal debate.

Now we will either debate this subject or not but the matter of an "open discussion" with me on this subject is not an option. It is hereby canceled. It will not ever happen unless and until we have a formal debate of this subject.

So I do hope that Brother Jack does not withdraw. For he is the only one that is willing to grant a fair hearing of this issue.

I now await the debate. Nothing that anyone says from henceforth will persuade me to discuss this matter in any other forum. You are far too afraid of formal debate for anyone to believe that you seriously believe that you can defend your position on instrumental music in debate.

Yes, I said AFRAID and I meant it. You can accuse me of anything you like. You can affirm that I am wrong and that you are not really afraid but sincerely concienciously against debates. But I will not believe you because you have shown that you are not against being adversarial in your so-called open discussions so why are you suddenly "conscientious" when it comes to debate?" This nonsense is pure HYPOCRISY at it's very best. I cannot "debate" because it is adversarial but I can be as adversarial as I like so long as we are involved in an "open dicussion"! Nonsense! Enough! Either Debate this subject or I for one will forever believe that you would not defend your position in fair, honest, and honorable debate.

So it is up to you, if this subject really matters then we will have a debate and I will have a fair opportunity to present the arguments. But otherwise I will not be convinced of your sincerity in the least.

We have wasted enough of MY time and everyone elses time on whether we will debate or discuss. There is no difference between the two except that A DEBATE HAS GUIDELINES THAT ALLOWS FOR A FAIR AND ORGANIZED DISCUSSION OF THE ISSUE. No other format can garantee this fairness. Now that is the last word I have to say about it.

I await the debate with brother Jack. The rest of you can just watch or convince Him to "cancel" but I will not discuss the matter any other way.

You Choose, but I will definitely continue to challenge you to debate the subject fairly.

Your Brother In Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 15, 2000

Lee Saffold, you said to me,

"In another thread you falsely claimed that you had long since given up on convincing me to participate in a discussion without a debate. But here you are again trying to 'cancel' the debate because I have agreed to an open discussion as brother Sam suggested. So much for the truthfulness of that claim!"

Quit being so paranoid! Did I ask anyone to cancel the debate?

All I said was, "My own preference -- since Lee has said that something like this would resolve his biggest concern -- would be to just forget about the 'debate' and start an 'open' but 'one-person-at-a-time' discussion." And in the very next sentence, I conceded, "But I suppose the arrangements for the debate are too far advanced to abandon at this time."

This is still my preference. Should I lie and say that it isn't? Should I refrain from saying anything about debates versus discussions since you are so sensitive on the issue? Perhaps I should. But Sam brought up this idea and asked for my comments on it. I was answering his question, including stating that my preference for having a discussion of some kind rather than a formal debate still stood. But I did not suggest, recommend, request or advise that the debate be called off. In fact, I conceded that plans were probably too far advanced for anyone (except possibly me) to be inclined to call it off at this point.

You keep talking about people being unwilling to face you in the context of "fair and honorable debate" (you have used that specific phrase many times). I resent the apparent implication that discussions cannot or will not be conducted in a "fair and honourable" way. I particularly resent the apparent implication (since this has said most often in the context of specific references to me and things I have said) that I would not behave in a fair and honourable way myself.

Later, you said,

"I will say whatever I want and anyone that challenges what I have said will be given the opportunity to debate. If they do not debate there will be no discussion." And later: "This does not mean that I will be silent but it does mean that I will make arguments and offer to debate anyone who wishes to challenge them. But their will never be an 'open discussion' with me on this matter until I am allowed a fair opportunity to debate this subject. That is my final word on the matter."

I want to be sure I understand that correctly. Are you saying that you reserve for yourself the right to come in at any time and say anything you like about the musical instrument, but that if anyone tries to answer what you have said, you will not say anything further unless they agree to a formal debate? (In fact, judging by your conduct toward me, you would probably give them the choice of either engaging in a formal debate or being accused of trying, by making any response at all, to "goad" or "provoke" you to do something you have declared you will not do, and of "fear" of discussing the matter in a "fair and honourable" manner.)

That doesn't sound like a very "fair and honourable" approach to me. As I've said before, it is no wonder that you want to build a fence of rules around yourself. You expect that others will treat you in as underhanded a way as you have declared you will treat them.

-- Anonymous, June 16, 2000

A disclaimer first: I am resigned to the fact that the debate probably will take place, and also that Lee means what he says -- that he will not discuss the issues unless he can have his precious debate first. So this is NOT some underhanded attempt to "goad" or "provoke" him into changing his mind. But he has raised issues, cast doubts, attacked, etc. things I have said in the past, and I think I have as much right to defend them as he does to attack them -- and WITHOUT having what I say characterised as yet another attempt to force him to change his mind. So here goes:

Regarding what my brother-in-law said about debates versus discussions:

When someone works in a field, they develop a certain intuition regarding matters in that field. Even when they can't consciously point to specific evidence, their unconscious mind knows whether certain things "fit" with the evidence that is known or not.

Lee, you have said that you work in the field of tele-communications. I don't recall if you have ever said what exactly you do, but I assume that you have some degree of expertise in the area where you work. If we are discussing a matter that falls within your area of expertise, and you wanted to do something a certain way because of your "feeling" that this was the best way, even though you couldn't point to specific evidence to "prove" it, I would tend to accept your "gut feeling" on the matter, especially if I had no concrete evidence to prove the contrary.

My degrees are not in psychology. My undergraduate degrees are a Bachelor of Sacred Literature and a Bachelor of Theology (in missions). At the undergraduate level, I think I only had one course in psychology. However, my master's degree is a Master of Arts in Social Science, specifically in the field of "Human Resource Leadership." As part of the requirements for that degree I took several courses in Social Psychology, Attitude Formation and Change, and related fields. I have been a missionary, working cross-culturally, trying to change or modify people's beliefs and attitudes for 25 years. My brother-in-law does have a PhD in psychology, and has taught and done research in the field for well over 25 years.

I don't know of any research that has been done specifically on this particular question, and my brother-in-law says he doesn't think there is any. (I can point to some that is relevant -- for example, the studies on "cognitive dissonance" which I referred to in my letter to him.) But the sum total of what we both have studied and the work we both have done in the field of attitude formation and change and our experiences in trying to change peoples opinions has led us both to the intuitive feeling that formal debates lead to further polarisation on the issues, while informal discussions would be more likely to lead to a resolution of differences.

As long as I continue to believe that this is the case, I will resist participating in debates on issues where I think we should be seeking greater understanding and greater unity.

Meanwhile, all we have in response from Lee Saffold is his assurance that he himself is open to being persuaded (though his responses on other issues make me increasingly doubt that), the scorn he pours on my concerns about this matter, and his talk about debates being "fair and honourable" (as though an informal discussion between Christians is bound to be unfair and dishonourable).

Lee, what are your credentials in the area of psychology? On what basis do you contend that your own "gut feeling" about the matter (since you also cannot point to concrete evidence to disprove what I fear) is so superior to mine?

As I said at the beginning, it looks increasingly as though the debate will take place anyway. I am very sad that that is the case, since I think all that will happen is that each person involved will simply go away with his/her own preconceptions further hardened.

Despite that, however, this posting is NOT some last-ditch attempt to bring you all around to my point of view and abort the debate. I just feel that Lee has so clouded what I was trying to say by twisting things around to seem to say things I hadn't said (or even to say directly, in a few cases, that I had said things I hadn't said), and cast so much scorn on my beliefs and fears* about this, that I felt I needed to try one more time to explain just what I do mean and how I arrived at that position.

(*Yes, I will admit that I am afraid, but about ONE thing and one thing ONLY. I am NOT afraid of debates. I am NOT afraid of losing this debate if I were to participate. I am NOT afraid that I might find some cherished beliefs about musical instruments are in error. I AM afraid that this debate, far from clarifying issues and helping people to understand each other better and to be more united, will only lead to a hardening of positions and further misunderstandings. Any good that MIGHT come out of it could come just as easily from an informal "discussion", and with a "debate" there may be enough bad to more than outweigh that good.)

-- Anonymous, June 16, 2000

Brother Ben:

You have said:

This is still my preference. Should I lie and say that it isn't? Should I refrain from saying anything about debates versus discussions since you are so sensitive on the issue? Perhaps I should. But Sam brought up this idea and asked for my comments on it. I was answering his question, including stating that my preference for having a discussion of some kind rather than a formal debate still stood. But I did not suggest, recommend, request or advise that the debate be called off. In fact, I conceded that plans were probably too far advanced for anyone (except possibly me) to be inclined to call it off at this point.

Now, Brother Ben here is what you suggested:

My own preference -- since Lee has said that something like this would resolve his biggest concern -- would be to just forget about the "debate" and start an "open" but "one-person-at-a-time" discussion. But I suppose the arrangements for the debate are too far advanced to abandon at this time.

Now your have used your preference to suggest that we just forget about the debate. Now there just is no way to forget about the debate and conduct it at the same time! If we follow what you have suggested as your preference the result would be a cancellation of the debate. So for you to pretend that you have not thereby suggested at least that the debate be canceled is not true. You have without doubt made such a suggestion in stating your preference that we forget about the debate. You even recognized that your statement might be construed as a suggestion or a recommendation when you say that you think the arrangements for the debate are too advanced to abandon at this time. You would not have said this if you were not aware that someone might recognize and seek to accept your clear suggestion that it should be abandoned. You are with those words suggesting that the debate be abandoned as your preference but admitting that such may not be possible because the arrangements are too far advanced for your suggestion to be acted upon. The implication is clear that if the arrangements are not too advanced we could possibly abandon or just forget about the debate.

But then you come back and pretend that you did not suggest that the debate be cancelled. Though you did not use the word cancelled the result of following what you without doubt have suggested, as your preference would be the cancellation or in the words that you used the abandonment of the debate. Now you are not being truthful about this matter Brother Ben. For you have clearly suggested that we forget about the debate. And you clearly understood that we would conclude from your words that you meant that you would like to see us abandon it except that you believed that the arrangements had gone too far for that to be possible. Knowing all along that no such arrangements can go too far to be reversed if the majority of those involved should follow what is suggested by your stated preference.

But now you want us to believe you when you say that you have not suggested such a thing! Anyone who can read can see the clear suggestion that you have made concerning this matter and the fact that even you recognized that others would perceive you to be making such a suggestion.

Your suggestion is there that we forget about the debate. The arrangements have not gone too far for it to be cancelled but we simply refuse to forget about it as you have suggested.

So we will have the debate, not because the arrangements have gone too far to abandon it but because it is the right thing to do. Your assumptions without proof that it will necessarily be a bad thing notwithstanding.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, June 16, 2000

It is probably not worth dignifying the above with a serious response, but I will try.

Lee, I can see from your response how someone with the prejudices and antipathy toward me that you have somehow developed, and the over-sensitivity that you have on this issue, might take that paragraph as a "suggestion." But I am the one who wrote it, and I am the only one (except for God) who knows what was in my mind and my heart when I wrote it. I have said that I long ago gave up on trying to "stop" the debate or to persuade others not to participate. That is the truth. When you accused me of lying because I said what I had about my PREFERENCE being for the debate not to take place -- saying that I was still trying to stop it, I wrote and clarified what I meant and emphasised that there was no such intent when I wrote it. Once again -- WHEN I WROTE IT, I HAD NO THOUGHT THAT ANYONE WOULD BE INFLUENCED OR SHOULD BE INFLUENCED TO CALL OFF THE DEBATE BY WHAT I SAID ABOUT MY PERSONAL PREFERENCES ON THE MATTER.

I was just stating that my views had not changed. I would still "prefer" for it not to take place, even though I realise it probably will. I certainly have as much right to say that as you do to continue harping on how certain people are unwilling to face you in a "fair and honourable" debate, and to make insinuations about my motives for that.

Now you come back to tell me that you know my mind better than I know it myself!! That it WAS a suggestion, even though I did not intend it as one.

I think there's only one more thing worth saying, and that is to repeat what I said to you previously in another thread:

"You would do far better to spend less time writing reams of words attacking people for things they have not said and do not mean (perhaps things that your prejudices make you want to THINK they have said, even though they haven't), and more time reading and trying to understand what people really are saying. MOST of what you keep saying about me and my positions and what I am supposed to have said is grossly distorted. Even when you have quoted my own words, you have 'proof texted', selecting bits that SEEM to say what you want to portray me as saying, and leaving out other parts that would explain what I really meant. (See your June 2 answer to Sam Loveall for an example.) On a few occasions when I have said something that actually was ambiguous (e.g. in using the word 'fear'), I have later explained myself, but you ignore the explanations. I would like to believe that the distortions are unintentional and not deliberate, which is why I have kept trying, so many times, to explain myself. If that's the case -- that you really are having such great difficulty understanding my real meaning -- then you need to take time to read more carefully before making a response (and go back and slowly and CAREFULLY re-read what I have already said, because it is a waste of time to repeat myself too many times)."

-- Anonymous, June 16, 2000

After writing the above, I went back and re-read what I had said in the WHOLE of the posting that Lee claims was a "suggestion" that the debate be dropped. I also re-read Sam's posting to which I was responding. All this reminded me of some of the feelings I had when I wrote it, which I had forgotten in the heat of Lee's attack on me and my earlier responses.

Perhaps I should have done this sooner. Lee would probably like me to say that I now realise it was a "suggestion" after all. That's not the case. I knew that never was in my mind. As I have said more than once, I LONG AGO gave up trying to persuade anyone else that they ought to "abandon" (by any words) the debate.

The emotion that did arise in me when I re-read the whole of the earlier portions of this thread, and the emotion which was in my mind when I wrote the earlier posting, was a kind of wistful, "If only ...." If something like this would have disposed of Lee's main objections to something other than a formal debate, and if he might have been persuaded to accept a compromise* on this, then it is too bad no-one suggested it earlier, before the plans for the debate were so far advanced. Judging from Lee's response, however, I guess he probably would not have accepted it after all.

(*Lest Lee wrest this word out of context too, and try to make it look as though my views are different from what they really are, and different from what I have declared elsewhere, I guess I'd better clarify. I would never compromise on something that is clearly taught in the word of God, but I do think that compromise is appropriate in other areas where it does not affect our following the will of God. And I think this matter of discussion versus debate is one where we should have attempted to find a compromise.)

-- Anonymous, June 17, 2000

Ben,

Lee has compromised. He has participated in many open discussions on this forum, and not once has any (except Jack) accepted his offer of debate.

I do not believe a debate will cause anymore division or adversity than an open discussion would. See some of the old promise keepers threads for an example or baptism threads.

If you do not wish to debate THIS ISSUE that is your option. There are those of us who would like to see THIS ISSUE and others debated. I would like to see both arguments presented logically, and in an orderly manner, which rarely happens, I believe in an open discussion.

The debate in and of itself will not cause division. When you have two people reading Gods word and coming up with the opposite conclusion, that causes division and controversy. The debate does not cause that, the opposite beliefs do. I believe the debate will give those of us lurking a chance to study logically, learn, grow, and gain insight. We can gain insight not only about the issue itself, but also with each other. Understanding more fully where we stand with one another, and where we are coming from.

Please, if the debate of this issue goes against your conscience as you have stated in the past...DO NOT JOIN IN OR LURK!

-- Anonymous, June 17, 2000

Dear Sis. Lee Muse,

I'm not sure what prompted what you said about Lee having compromised -- whether it was what I said about my wistful thought that if the idea had come up sooner, Lee Saffold might have been willing to take part in an informal discussion of the subject without insisting on a formal debate, or the paragraph in parentheses at the end in which I tried to clarify my attitude toward "compromise."

The latter was prompted by SEVERAL PARAGRAPHS in one of his diatribes against me in the "It's time for a serious debate ....." thread. Despite the fact that I had not, as far as I could remember, EVER used the word "compromise" in any of my postings (certainly any recent ones about the subject at hand), he accused me of wanting to foster a "spirit of compromise" on the issue of musical instruments, and then went from there to accuse me of being willing to compromise on Biblical doctrine when what we all should do is to work towards absolute obedience to what the Bible teaches. I wrote (in that thread) in response to that, affirming that I also believe in absolute conformity to whatever is actually taught in God's word and would not compromise or encourage compromise on anything on which there is a "thus saith the Lord". Then I found myself, a day or two later, using the very word "compromise" in another posting in another thread, saying that I wished we could have compromised on this other issue. Knowing his fondness for "proof-texting" and how he has often picked single words and short phrases of mine out of context to make it appear that I am lying and/or inconsistent in what I say, I felt it necessary to clarify and emphasise just what kinds of things I will not compromise on and which kinds of things I think we ought to compromise on.

As to whether Lee Saffold himself ever compromises, I guess I'll have to take your word for it. I haven't really seen it yet myself, but you've been participating in this forum longer than I have.

Yes, I have seen him participate in a number of "open discussions" -- which is why it is hard to understand why he is so adamant that he will only deal with certain questions in the context of a formal debate. But I have never seen him change his mind or "compromise" on the question of whether to discuss or debate a certain topic.

What has happened in all the threads where I have seen him declare that he wanted to "debate" something is that what has been a lively discussion up to that point suddenly comes to a "screeching halt." No one, until now, has ever taken him up on his challenge to debate. (And I seriously doubt if anyone would have this time if I hadn't persisted in pressing the issue because I think this subject needs a thorough airing, even though I still strongly believe that a formal debate is the wrong way to do it.) But neither has anyone continued to discuss the issue once he pronounced the "death knell" by challenging the "opposition" to a debate but nothing but a debate.

However, as far as I've seen, no-one before me has persisted in insisting that if something is worth "debating", it is also definitely worth "discussing" (and probably needs to be "aired" by some means), and no-one before Sam has suggested any compromise that he has come even close to accepting. And you can see how he has reacted to this. Not only does he continue to refuse to compromise on the procedural (NOT doctrinal) issue of discussion versus debate, but he has become increasingly abusive of me personally because I have occasionally mentioned (in response to Sam's direct question to me, and occasionally in response to things that Lee himself has said) that I still hold the same views on the subject.

You said, "The debate in and of itself will not cause division. When you have two people reading Gods word and coming up with the opposite conclusion, that causes division and controversy. The debate does not cause that, the opposite beliefs do."

That's a "straw man". It sounds like a good answer to what Lee Saffold would like to have everybody believe that I have said, but has little bearing on what I have actually said. It is precisely BECAUSE divisions already exist -- and on a matter that we SHOULD be treating as a matter of opinion, preference, and personal conscience, rather than as a matter of essential doctrine -- that I oppose a formal debate.

Of course debates do not CAUSE division. But when real division already exists, I strongly believe that a SERIOUS debate (as opposed, as I've said previously, to the intellectual exercise that goes by the name of "debate" in high schools and colleges) will tend to strengthen the divisions that already exist -- at least with the debaters themselves, and possibly also with any of the "audience" that did already have some kind of view already formed on the issue.

I believe that on this particular issue we should be seeking greater understanding and greater tolerance, rather than trying to "prove" or "disprove" some "resolution". I WANT Lee Saffold to present his views (and I want to "be there" when he does, no matter what the format), and I want the other side to present theirs/ours. But I would prefer for it to be done in the context most likely to promote understanding and tolerance rather than the one I believe is almost guaranteed to cause further hardening of existing prejudices.

I'm afraid that what has happened in this thread and in the "It's time for a serious debate ..." thread and the "Peanut Butter sandwiches" thread could be taken as "proof" of EITHER Lee's contention, that things can get just as polarised and adversarial in a discussion as in a formal debate, OR mine, that debates themselves tend to promote "harden" division.

Although this hasn't been a formal debate as such, things have become deplorably polarised and adversarial. But it seems to me that the more adversarial the "discussion" has become, the more it has become like an actual debate, and vice versa -- the more it has become like an actual debate, the more adversarial it has become.

I would have prefered if, rather than either side trying to "prove" a case (which Lee seems to be already trying to do through the claims that he is making about his arguments, though without revealing much of the arguments themselves), we could just address questions to each other about "what makes you think this?", "how would you deal with that?", "to what extent do you apply that?" -- trying, primarily, to first understand and, secondly, to "test the limits" or challenge the consistency of the other side's understanding and practices. That would still have given us "a chance to study logically, learn, grow, and gain insight", but without the bitterness that is already coming into this forum before we even get to the debate itself.

There have been times when Lee has plainly not "played fair" in things he has done. He says that this is because he is under no obligation to "follow the rules" when there are no rules. I contend, first, that ethical and Christian conduct is ethical and Christian conduct, no matter what "format" the discussion follows, and, second, that the specific areas where he refuses to "play fair" are areas that are unlikely to be covered in "rules of debate". That being the case, I wonder if he is any more likely to "play fair" in a debate than in this discussion.

You closed by saying, "Please, if the debate of this issue goes against your conscience as you have stated in the past...DO NOT JOIN IN OR LURK!"

You misunderstand my position. My conscience did not and does not allow me to be one of the actual debaters. It does not allow me to encourage having a formal format for the discussion of these issues.

But I want to know what he has to say. If the debate does take place (and I agree with what Danny said elsewhere, that it is taking an awfully long time to get started), I will certainly be "attending". If it doesn't happen (and the fact that it is taking so long, plus the fact that no debate with Lee Saffold in this forum has ever yet taken place, makes me sceptical), I will almost certainly be back onto him urging him to accept some kind of compromise so that we can hear what he has to say.

As to whether or not I will participate in any way, I'm still struggling with that. I could not conscientiously encourage such a format on this issue. But if it is taking place anyway, despite my protests, what should I do? If both sides are managing well on their own, I'll probably just observe. But if EITHER side misuses Scripture in presenting its case, my respect for the Word of God will probably force me to feel that I should point this out.

-- Anonymous, June 19, 2000

Hello All! I have enjoyed lurking in this forum and have appreciated having my thinking challenged by opposite positions of many issues. I personally LIKE the idea of an *official* debate, one that will stick to the issues and not be sidetracked by rabbit trails and personal defenses when one's feelings are hurt. One lesson that still seems unlearned here in the forum, is the ability to discuss IDEAS w/o taking everything SO personally! Guess we're just too human! Keep up the good work folks, and thanks, for all the studying, past AND present, that enables you all to encourage us *lurkers* with your words of wisdom!

-- Anonymous, June 19, 2000

Will any "rules of official debate" make Lee give up his ingrained habit (which I have observed in numerous threads and not just the ones where I have been up against him personally) of ascribing beliefs to other people that they have not espoused and twisting the things they have said so far out of recognition as to make it seem as though they have said things they have not? I wait to be convinced.

-- Anonymous, June 19, 2000

Sorry. That MAY have been "hitting below the belt." It is something I have been wondering, the more radical he has gotten in what he has said, but should I have said it so bluntly ....? I've been trying to avoid copying his tactic of personal attacks, but that may have strayed over the line.

-- Anonymous, June 19, 2000

Gentlemen and Ladies,

Please allow me to speak in behalf of Jay Wilson. He is interested in the official debate offered here in this forum, but he is travelling extensively right now, preaching throughout the east and midwest U.S. He has asked that we offer his acceptance to the debate and set up the proposition(s) and/or format for him at the discretion of those offering the debate and ours. Please consider his acceptance, since some are hesitant to debate at this time, understandably so for many and varied reasons.

-- Anonymous, June 23, 2000

Danny,

I stand corrected.

-- Anonymous, June 23, 2000