Truth Magazine

By Donald P. Ames

(Editor’s Note: The following article written by Don Ames is published in reply to Brother Roy Cogdill’s request for help in defending the Akin Foundation. Brother Ames wrote me shortly after the article appeared regarding the fact that Brother Cogdill had requested that churches help in the legal defense of the Akin Foundation. When Brother Cogdill first submitted his article, I was reluctant to publish it because I did not want to get Cogdill Foundation tied in with the Akin Foundation in any way, especially since the Akin Foundation was presently under investigation and some of the Board members of that Foundation were also Board members of Cogdill Foundation. I did not catch the statement that Brother Cogdill made requesting that churches contribute to the legal defense fund for Akin Foundation until Brother Ames called it to my attention. I say this in spite of the fact that I read the articles which are printed in Truth Magazine several times before they are published. I just missed it.

At that time, I requested that Brother Ames correspond with Brother Cogdill to try to get the matter straightened out. As the article will continue to explain, Brother Cogdill believes that his statement is defensible and Brother Ames does not. Consequently, Brother Ames requested that I publish his response to Brother Cogdill, which I gladly will do.

I have been reluctant to make any comment about this matter for several reasons. First of all, I know so little about the Akin Foundation that I felt that I would be speaking with too little information should I say anything. Secondly, l have more than a little confidence in Brother Cogdill. Inasmuch as he knows the Akin Foundation better than I and is opposed to institutionalism, I did not believe he would consciously involve the church in institutionalism. Nevertheless, he is human and errs. Consequently, the cautions which brethren have sounded regarding our respect for other brethren blinding us to statements they make is something that needs to always be reiterated. Thirdly, so far as I know, not one church has contributed one dime to Brother Cogdill to tide legal defense of the Akin Foundation. This makes the discussion which follows more a matter of principle than a matter of practical application. Consequently, I have been hesitant to make any comment about this matter.

I guess that I now need to make a statement of my doctrinal convictions about the matter. I shall speak with reference to Cogdill Foundation rather than with reference to the Akin Foundation because I know more about the Cogdill Foundation than I do the Akin Foundation. I believe that it would be sinful for churches to make donations to Cogdill Foundation, as does every member of our Board of Directors, including Brother Cogdill. I do not believe that churches could make donations toward a legal defense of anything with which Cogdill Foundation may become involved without becoming guilty of sin; the Board of Directors, including Brother Cogdill, feels exactly the same way.

If the Akin Foundation is parallel in all essential respects to the Cogdill Foundation, my conclusions are the same with reference to it. It would certainly clarify the matter if someone associated with the Akin Foundation would let us know a little more about its organization, purpose, etc. Personally, I have enough questions in my mind that I could not conscientiously recommend that any church send any money for its legal defense. On the other hand, if the Foundation should be able to be legally defended, those who care enough about it should rally to its aid individually.

Furthermore, I resent the implications made by some among us that there has been a “cover-up” of sorts with reference to this matter. If there was any effort at “cover-up,” I am not aware of it. Some have been making wild charges without investigating the matter to see what is going on before making them. Frankly, I would prefer that some make a little more effort to believe the best about their fellow man than being guilty of evil surmising. With these statements having been made, I hope that the matter is laid to rest.)

In both the April 1, 1977 issue of the Gospel Guardian and the July 28, 1977 issue of Truth Magazine, Brother Roy E. Cogdill had an article regarding the Akin Foundation and the possibility of a successful defense of the continued use of those funds by faithful brethren. I have no quarrel with his efforts along that line and, if he is successful in. that defense (which now seems at least a little more hopeful, according to a note in Vanguard, 10-13-77), I will be among those rejoicing in his efforts, even though I have never been a recipient of any funds from the Akin Foundation and do not foresee any occasion for becoming such.

Likewise, in this article, I am not interested in seeking to determine who has been at fault in the dispute over the handling of the Akin Foundation funds. Frankly, I do not have adequate information to determine accurately who did what or who is at blame. This, those involved in it and with more information than I have, will have to determine. Those guilty (on whichever side) will have to answer for their deeds — if not in this life, in the life hereafter — whether right or wrong.

But, what does bother me was the closing remarks of Brother Cogdill’s article referred to above. Here he stated, “Those of you who through the years have been supported by and have participated in its help, what will you do to help preserve it — both churches and individuals (emp. mine-DPA) are urged to respond.” Having already written several letters to Brother Cogdill about this statement, and as time is marching on, I feel it important to express my convictions about this

statement, and let Brothel Cogdill make whatever reply he may wish to my remarks.

First of all, I do not believe churches have any scriptural justification at all to become involved in the defense of the Akin Foundation! Hence, for them to do so would be, I believe, a sin. If I am in error in this conclusion, I welcome the proof from the word of God wherein I have erred.

Let us take a look at exactly what is involved. The Akin Foundation is a “private religious foundation” (so recognized by Rother Cogdill also in his letter of 9-13-77)! The money, under the control of the board of that “private religious foundation,” may well eventually be distributed to various faithful congregations as the board so determines. However, until the time of such distribution, the funds are strictly those of the Foundation; no church or churches have any right whatsoever to dictate how those funds are to be used. This being so, where is the scriptural justification for churches to contribute to the defense of a “private religious foundation”– be it the Akin Foundation, an orphan home, or the Cogdill Foundation? If there is scriptural justification for such, I have failed to find it; and, in light of 2 John 9, I contend that to do so would be a misuse of the Lord’s money by those churches so involved.

In his letter to me of September 13, 1977, Brother Cogdill offered the following as justification for “a congregation making a contribution toward a fund to compensate a lawyer for performing legal services for a righteous cause”:

(l) Drawing up a deed for a church for church property.

(2) Clearing the title to church property.

(3) Defending the tide to church property against trespassers.

(4) Prosecuting those who vasdaiaae or disturb the use d church property for proper purposes.

(5) Seeking an injunction against resurgent individuals who interrupt or seek to prevent the proper functioning of the church or in rebellion against the elders of the church in functioning in their proper authority.

(6) Defending the church against a slander or libel suit brought by a member withdrawn from.

(7) Etc., etc.

Without even questioning these points, the fact remains there is no parallel between this argument and what is involved in churches contributing to the defense of the Akin Foundation. One involves the action of one congregation in defense of its right to work and function; the other involves the right of many churches to contribute to a lawyer in defense of a fund belonging to a “private religious foundation.” The very closest one could come in making a parallel would be to assign the funds of this “private religious foundation” to all the churches of. Christ! (And, in so doing, remember the same logic can be applied to the Cogdill Foundation, an orphan home, or whatever else may be slipped in under the same cover!) Hence, one could then activate the church universal to come to the defense of “its” fund. Then, all local congregations would be obligated to contribute for the preservation of this fund belonging to the church universal, on the same basis of logic one church would be called upon to defend its own property. If not, why not? This logic is a renunciation of the very principles of church activities and oversight versus the activation of the church universal concept that we have, battled with our liberal and apostate brethren over the past 140 years.

I wish Brother Cogdill success in his defense of the continued use of the funds of the Akin Foundation by faithful brethren — but not under those terms! I hope various individuals who have been benefitted by the Akin Foundation will aid him in the expenses of such a legal defence. However, I do not believe Brother Cogdill has fully thought through the implications of his statement in his zeal to defend what he deems a worthy cause — or else he did not actually mean what he said in his article. I therefore urge him to pause, think if over, and retract his statement. I also urge congregations to pause and think for themselves before coming to the aid of a “private religious foundation” to hire a lawyer for $90 per hour to defend its fund, even if the board of that “private religious foundation” might someday designate a portion of that fund to some specific congregation!

If the church itself is placed in such a position that we must violate the word of God to maintain control of the funds of a “private religious foundation” for our existence, then my advise is let the funds go! I hope we never become so dependent upon any “private religious foundation” that the word of God is compromised in order to preserve the operation of that “private religious foundation”! Nor that we ever allow our love and respect for the dedication, of any faithful brother ever to become such we do not have the courage to call a careless statement into question.

Truth Magazine XXII: 2, pp. 43-44
January 12, 1978

By Irvin Himmel

The God of heaven offers bountiful blessings to mankind. The spiritual blessings made available by means of the gospel, and the favors which God grants His children in response to their prayers, are not dispensed unconditionally. While it is true that He makes the sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust (Matt. 5:45), many divine blessings are granted only to those who comply with stated requirements.

Consider the great and precious promises of the gospel. God does not force salvation where it is not wanted. Eternal life is not promised to men who refuse to believe and obey Christ. The gospel persuades but does not coerce. Principles of truth can be taught to people with willing hearts, but these principles cannot be forced on the unwilling. We cannot fire the gospel into one’s soul as a gun might be used to fire bullets into his body and compel him against his will to submit.

Some men and women have no more appreciation for the gospel than a dog would have for something sacred; the truth means about as much to them as pearls would mean to swine. God’s holy word cannot be forced on profane persons. Jesus said in Matt. 7:6, “Give not that which is holy unto dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.”

In the next several verses of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus showed that God’s wonderful spiritual blessings may be enjoyed by people who desire them. There must be a willingness to turn to God and an eagerness for His good gifts. Here is how the Lord expresses it: “Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened” (Matt. 7:7,8). Note the threefold exhortation: Ask, seek, knock!

Ask

There are several Greek words translated into English by the verb “ask.” Vine says the word used in this passage “more frequently suggests the attitude of a suppliant, the petition of one who is lesser in position than he to whom the petition is made.” Hendriksen agrees with this; he says, “The verb is used with respect to a petition which by an inferior is addressed to a superior.”

We “ask” because there is want or need. Asking implies humility and recognition of some need. The word under consideration is sometimes translated into English as “desire.” For example, it is used in Mk. 11:24 where Jesus said, “What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them.” The asking that results in receiving is an asking that comes from deep desire.

Seek

This means to search or look for something. We seek for that which we desire to find. Certain women came to the tomb of Jesus early in the morning on the first day of the week, expecting to complete the process of anointing His body. They entered the tomb but the body was gone. They were much perplexed. Two men appeared in shining garments and said, “Why seek ye the living among the dead?” (Lk. 24:5). It was pointless to search for the living and risen Christ among the dead. This is an example of how the word “seek” is used. For other examples, see Matt. 6:33; Col. 3:1; Rom. 2:7.

Knock

This verb, when used literally, means to rap on a door. One knocks on a door when he is seeking admittance or permission to enter. Figuratively, we must “knock” to be admitted into God’s favors. It is not necessary that we knock the door down, but the thought is that of expressing the desire for entrance. God opens the door of divine favor when men have enough interest to approach God according to the terms of His will.

When the gospel was preached in Jerusalem in Acts 2, the hearers were pricked in their heart and raised the question, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” They were asking what to do because their interest had been aroused and they were now seeking to know how their sins could be remitted. To use a figure of speech, they were knocking on the door. Peter, who had been given the keys of the kingdom, unlocked the door by telling them to repent and be baptized. Their asking resulted in their receiving; their seeking resulted in their finding; their knocking resulted in the door’s being opened. See Acts 2:41.

When the eunuch from Ethiopia was approached by Philip the evangelist in Acts 8, he was asked if he understood what he was reading. The eunuch admitted that he needed help, and he “desired” Philip to come up and sit with him in the chariot. Here was a man anxious to learn the truth. He was asking, searching, and knocking at the door. Philip preached unto him Jesus. The eunuch believed and was baptized.

The jailor at Philippi asked Paul and Silas, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” (Acts 16:31). He was seeking the way into God’s favor. To use a figure of speech, he was knocking at the door of the kingdom. He was told to believe on the Lord, the word was spoken to him, and he and his household were baptized.

If one asks and does not receive, it is because he is not asking in accordance with God’s will. If one seeks and does not find, he may be seeking the wrong thing, or searching in the wrong place. If one knocks but the door is not opened, it may be that he is knocking on the wrong door, or he may be seeking admittance on his own terms instead of God’s terms.

It is understood that one must ask, seek, and knock in the right way, in the right attitude, and in accordance with God’s will. This is true of the sinner who seeks to enter God’s kingdom, and it is true of the Christian who seeks God’s blessings through the avenue of prayer.

Truth Magazine XXII: 2, pp. 42-43
January 12, 1978

By Connie W. Adams

(Editor’s Note: Upon receiving Brother Hardin’s reply to my charges against him, I sent a copy of it to Brother Connie Adams with the request that he write a reply to the charges made against him by Brother Hardin. It appeared to me that Brother Hardin was using the opportunity to respond to me which I granted him as an opportunity of publicly presenting his side of the conflict with the editor of Searching The Scriptures. Frankly, I neither appreciated it nor had any intention of publishing it without answering it. Since the matter did not personally involve me and I did not want to give any more “warped” understandings of the situation, I requested that Brother Adams respond to Brother Hardin’s charges. Here is his brief statement.)

In his response to Mike Willis, Arnold Hardin has left the impression that he was treated unfairly in our exchange in Searching The Scriptures. We carried two articles from J. T. Smith and two from Arnold Hardin on the subjects over which they differed. In further correspondence Brother Hardin insisted that he had been misrepresented. Because of that, I wrote an article in which I raised a series of questions, the answers to which would have resolved the question of misrepresentation. Brother Hardin responded in a six page manuscript. We marked some statements which involved the impugning of motives, sent the manuscript back to him and asked him to either delete these three of four sentences or else re-state them in such a way as not to get, personal or impugn motives. He responded with a very bitter letter, refused to change anything about it, charged again that I never meant to treat him fairly and said he would circulate his response on his own.

We asked Brother Hardin to comply with the same rules which we insist that all writers for Searching The Scriptures observe. We have returned manuscripts to writers who submit materials under assigned headings with the request that such references be omitted. Deleting the sentences in question had no material bearing on the subject at hand. The offer I made to him then still stands: if he will either delete or re-word the objectionable sentences, we will gladly carry his article and respond to it. This offer was published in Searching The Scriptures as a matter of record. We would like very much for our readers to see what he said in reply to the questions we raised since we are convinced his replies serve to verify what we have said about his convictions. There the matter stands, and will continue to stand, until Brother Hardin decides to comply with the same terms which all other writers in Searching The Scriptures are asked` to observe. We believe this is fair and serves the best interest of all concerned, and especially our readers.

Truth Magazine XXII: 2, p. 40
January 12, 1978

By Arnold Hardin

I honestly do not know the proper manner in which to answer the editorial. When much younger, I would have torn into the Editor befitting the role of a “wolf.” Being older (pushing sixty) I am more conscious of human frailties and ignorance. Therefore, I pray that I may be as charitable with the frailties of my young brother as I know my heavenly Father must be with me. The Editor says that “I am calling on faithful Christians to drive the wolves out from us.” He has turned “wolf hunter” and I seem to be the old wolf that is huffing and blowing on his door and, bless his heart, he is not too certain whether that house is made of straw or brick. He just knows the old wolf is out there howling! It is disconcerting! He chided me in a letter for not feeling that sending our bulletin to him would be profitable. He remarked, “It seems to me that every time you fellows decide to redraw your circle of fellowship so that it can include .more brethren, that I am somehow left out.” I say to my brother that he is in my fellowship and I will love him as a brother, even though some of his ways could use a little refinement. But after complaining that he was left out of someone’s fellowship (including me), he now wants all to know that he wants no part of fellowship with me and is taking the lead in driving me out. It would be helpful if he would make up his mind! I seek only God’s fellowship and whether he succeeds in driving me out or not will in no way affect that fellowship. If he wants mine — he has it! If he does not — so be it!

He says, “many have been fighting some kind of phantom which they think might possibly exist known as ‘political brethren trying to control the Churches of Christ.'” Indeed many are concerned about the “party spirit” and control among “us.” His Editorial is just another reason why! He calls on other brethren that write to help out in this culling out process. One much respected preacher recently wrote me saying, “I must observe that I see the party spirit much in decline. The last few years have created a marked trend among brethren toward more independent thinking and activity-churches and individuals are turned off by what appears to be attempts of paper and organizational interests to direct the affairs of the brotherhood, and I think the personnel of such interest have received the message.” Some have and some have not as evidenced by this purge that is being carried on through Truth Magazine. Willis says, “I know how much it means to have another brother `amen’ what one has said; the absence of ‘amens’ certainly hurt Truth Magazine several years ago when we were having to expose Edward Fudge, Jerry Phillips, Carl Ketcherside and Leroy Garrett. Consequently, I want to rather thoroughly examine some of the work which Brother Arnold Hardin has written in the past few years that our brethren might see where he stands.” Truth Magazine should not only have been hurt — it should have been put out of business for the manner in which brethren (such as Fudge and McDaniel) were treated! The Editor in our exchanges refuses to allow me to respond to his attacks upon the truth I have written. He wants to drive out the old bad wolf but, he is too frightened at the sight of the old critter to walk up and examine his fangs. Brother Willis those fangs may be completely artificial –take a chance!

He captioned his Editorial “Has Arnold Hardin Left Us?” Most of you were asking-Who’s Arnold Hardin? Most of you have never heard me nor read what I have written. But who is the “us” in his question? I did not know (forgive me this oversight brethren) that one had to be of “us” in order to be a child of God — a free man or woman in Christ. I am considered by the “us” as a wolf because I have dared let it be known that I do not intend to wear some one’s brand and be put in a pen marked “us.” And legalism cannot permit that! So these Editors hide behind their editorial “us” and shoot at me with their “pea-shooters.” Since Willis considers me a wolf why is he unwilling to discuss these differences. He accuses me of teaching Calvinism. I categorically deny it! He refuses to discuss these charges — other than this answer to this Editorial. In his last letter to me he wrote, “Frankly, I have no intentions for the paper to have a long drawn out exchange over this matter.” Beloved readers this is the standard policy it seems with any number of the “us.” I shall set forth factual proof of that as I notice some of his erroneous “facts” in just a moment. Since he feels I am worthy of being driven out then why is he reluctant to take unto himself the task of proving his outrageous charges? I suggest that you the readers let the Editor know of your wishes in this matter. After all, you pay the bill! The excerpts he gives of what I have written, I stand behind the truths in each. I have written much on these themes and I welcome the Editor, yea invite, him to review what I have written and then give me equal space to reply and expose what I consider to be error on his part. This is fair! This “head hunting” business is devilish!

Willis says, “It is because I want to lend my support to my brethren who are exposing the forces of evil in every high place that I want to consider the place in which Arnold Hardin stands.” Too much honor is done me. I have never walked in “high places.” But I am ready to defend truth down in the “lower places” where I dwell. Willis mentions the attack made upon me and God’s truth by J.T. Smith in Searching The Scriptures. He says Smith presented evidence to show I teach Baptist doctrine. Sheer nonsense! He mentioned Connie Adams having something then to say about it. He concluded, “The March, 1977 issue of Searching The Scriptures contained another article pertaining to Arnold Hardin in which Brother Adams asked him to respond to a series of eleven questions. Since that issue, I have not seen anything in Searching The Scriptures regarding the apostasy of Arnold Hardin.”

Charity demands that I recognize our brother’s warped understanding just here to be because he is evidently honestly unaware of the facts in the case. But he should be more factual in other matters as well — as we shall show in a moment. He would have you to believe that this old wolf got, not just two feet, but four feet caught in Adam’s trap! That somehow this old wolf managed to free himself but, with a bleeding and mangled body for the experience. That in such a wretched condition the old wolf dragged his broken body into the woods-never to be heard from again. And yet here is the same old wolf threatening the sheepfold, and this time, it is Willis that must teach that old scared critter a lesson that surely this time will scare the wits out of him! He asks for help though!

The facts are these! I replied to Smith’s attack and then Adams felt he should take up the battle. He sent me eleven questions challenging me to answer with a yes or no, or, very briefly. I replied that I would be happy to comply though most of them needed examination so that the readers could know what was involved. I also conditioned answering upon the condition he would also answer questions I would put to him. He agreed! I worked long on the manuscript and sent it to him. He returned it refusing to print it! I then printed it and sent it to those whose names were listed in Searching The Scriptures. Is it any wonder so many are fed up with such “party politics”?

He condemns me for a letter written to an Editor that is associated with brethren on the institutional questions. The Editor has done some good writing concerning grace and related themes. For this he has been under attack from the legalists among those brethren. I commended him for writing as he was doing. He requested permission to print some material that appeared in our bulletin. He knows I am an “anti” but in our exchanges he has never been ugly about it. I can only wish some of “us” could learn such manners. All my life I have never felt it a mark of apostasy to commend others on points of truth with which I was in agreement. It is shameful that other preachers have been called on the carpet for daring to do the same thing. This is the terrible malady of legalism that I have been documenting among us. Disagree with some brother on any subject and they will seek to drive you out! This is the legalism of the first century. Even dare to commend some one’s writings, with whom you may have disagreements in other areas of truth and you are tagged as an apostate. If such legalism was not so tragic it would be laughable! Yater Tant has printed articles from me in Vanguard. Bless his heart he is contaminated and did not know it. He even published a letter recently from Leroy Garrett. Willis you should write up our Brother Tant, for indeed, there is some “big game” for you to blast!

When because of conscience (conviction) I took my stand against those things involved in institutionalism it cost me dearly. I had to go in another direction from the one man that I would have followed almost anywhere-Reuel Lemmons. He and I have exchanged letters over these many years relative to the problems. He respects and loves me and so are my feelings toward him. I did not know there was a “headquarters” to which I had to report before commending him or anyone for truth I believe to be taught. But this legalism is affecting all segments of “a many-splintered church.” Recently in the Firm Foundation a preacher wrote, “But now a couple of other features of Christianity are being challenged as to whether or not they are essential. No, not by denominational people, by preachers and members of churches of Christ. Just this week one such preacher told me he had pretty much ‘written off (Reuel Lemmons) because he had ‘become a preacher of love and grace’ “. Beloved nothing on earth scares legalists as does God’s grace! Should I get the chance to explore these themes I will prove it.

Willis can see no difference between gospel and doctrinal instructions. So he condemns unity-in-diversity. I challenge him to prove there to be any other kind among God’s people! With such misunderstanding he then makes false charges and reaches erroneous conclusions against those that would oppose him. He mentions others as believing that such things as instrumental music; premillennialism, etc. are of no consequence and we should not divide over them. He then remarked, “Arnold Hardin has accepted this position as well.” That is pure slander! And everyone that knows me can testify to such slander! I challenge you to prove it or retract it!

The editorial contains so many twisted “facts” one may overlook some. Brother Willis this is the policy that caused the magazine to suffer and its sufferings may not be over. He charges me with denying the binding force of examples and necessary inferences. I would be happy to discuss this with you as well. He wrote, “As evidence of this, I cite the following quotation from Arnold’s review of Foy Vinson.” He then quoted from the Sept., 1977 issue of The Persuader. Well, it so happens that it was in no manner a review of Foy Vinson, but rather, a review of another brother. In view of judgment, unfounded charges based on such “facts” is serious.

Brother Willis tells me that he will be examining some of these matters later and will in conjunction with them mention my name again. Since I fully expect not to be given the right of fair rebuttal, then, let me suggest that if any of you readers of Truth Magazine desire to examine the other side we invite you to request our bulletin. We send it only to those requesting it. You will at least have an opportunity to read some things you are not reading about too much elsewhere.

Truth Magazine XXII: 2, pp. 38-39
January 12, 1978