Truth Magazine

By Dennis L. Shaver

I BELIEVE the male is the stronger sex, and as such he is to give honor unto the woman, the weaker sex (Pet. 3:7).

I BELIEVE the man is to be the head (ruler) of the woman (Eph. 5:23).

I BELIEVE the woman is to submit herself unto the man (Eph. 5:22,24; 1 Tim. 2:11).

I BELIEVE the man is to love the woman as he loves himself (Eph. 5:28).

I BELIEVE the man has the primary responsibility of providing the income for the home (1 Tim. 5:8).

I BELIEVE women should bear children and be keepers at home (guide the affairs of the home) (1 Tim. 5:14).

I BELIEVE women must not usurp authority (be domineering, or have dominion) over the man (1 Tim. 2:12).

I BELIEVE a woman cannot, by the authority of God, preach in the assembly of the Lord’s people (1 Cor. 14:34,35).

I BELIEVE women are to be help-meets with the man (Gen. 2:18).

I BELIEVE women are to love, and respect their husbands (Eph. 5:33).

I BELIEVE a woman who realizes her place in God’s plan is worth more than all of earth’s riches (Prov. 31:10).

Truth Magazine, XX:5, p. 12
February 5, 1976

By Dan Walters

Brother Jerry R. Phillips has written a series of articles on miracles in Facts for Faith, a publication previously connected with the Gospel Guardian and edited by Brother Gordon Wilson. A number of his points have been made by other writers on miracles in recent years. It is my belief that these brethren are mistaken in their views and are making potentially dangerous statements concerning miracles.

Brother Phillips begins by defining miracles as “those events which nature, left to herself, could never produce.” It is his belief that miracles are in harmony with the laws of nature, and that they cannot be contradictions of nature since they both proceed from the same source. Any natural occurrence which shows the guiding hand of God is, according to Phillips, a miracle. Thus he goes on to include providence, discipline, and answered prayer among the miracles. Of each of these workings he says, “It is divine. It is above nature. It is a miracle.”

He does not teach that the spiritual gifts are still with us today, though he is less than emphatic in his denial of. this possibility. He says, “these manifestations of the Spirit were apparently temporary in that peculiar form . . . .” He also says that “a sophisticated study of 1 Cor. 13 may result in a variance of interpretation regarding the time and reason for the termination for these gifts. . . .” The conclusion that the gifts were terminated ” . . . is not to be taken as tantamount to the declaration that miracles have ceased. . . .”

I mention his lack of assurance on this question because it is my belief that his views make it impossible for anyone holding them to successfully oppose neo-pentecostalism. Let us return to his definition of miracles and see whether it is scriptural. All of the events described as miracles in the Bible are contrary to the laws of nature as we know them, even if nature were being influenced or guided in one direction or another. There is no instance where providence, discipline, or answered prayer within the confines of natural law is referred to as a miracle. Miracles were very definite events about which no honest person could be mistaken. This is illustrated by the fact that the miracles of Jesus are numbered. The turning of water into wine is called the “beginning of miracles,” (John 2:11). The healing of the nobleman’s son at Capernaum is called “the second miracle that Jesus did” (John 4:54). If any answered prayer or any act of providence were a miracle, then such miracles of Jesus could not be accurately numbered. It is true that Brother Phillips tries to separate the signs and wonders of New Testament times from “miracles” of today. But the point is that his definition of a miracle does not come from the Bible.

Miracles are harmonious with nature only in the sense that both come from God and both fulfill God’s purpose. But miracles do contradict nature in the sense that they defy certain natural laws which at all other times remain in operation. A miracle can best be called a temporary suspension of natural law.

Brother Phillips tries to prove that the miracles of Jesus were compatible with natural law by saying that they “were predicated on the fact that God had already ordained in nature similar events.” Of the first miracle of Jesus he says, “God has been making wine out of water since He first caused it to rain.” Nonsense! God has never done any such thing. Wine is composed not only of water but of acids and sugars which could never be derived from water in a million years by natural processes. Brother Phillips mentions other miracles which seem to fit his theory, but there is one miracle he completely ignores: the time that Jesus walked on the water. The natural laws of gravity and of the relative density of water and of human flesh preclude the possibility of anyone walking on the water as long as such laws remain in effect. One or more of these natural laws had to be suspended in order for Jesus to walk on the water. The only other possibility is that another unknown force came into play which allowed the body of Jesus to overcome normal hindrances. Such an additional force would nullify the effect of natural law and thus be equal to its suspension.

Brother Phillips tries to show that miracles still occur by saying, “Any answered prayer is assistance from. God. Any assistance, from God based upon petition: could not be called a natural occurrence. Any supernatural occurrence is a miracle. If not, then we pray in vain.” He is unable to see how God can operate within the framework of natural law, without doing anything supernatural, and still cause certain events to occur which would not have occurred without His help. Why cannot the God who made nature use nature without going beyond any of the limitations He has imposed? There are many choices within nature. A man may live, or he may die. A flood may occur at a certain place at a certain time, or it may not. If God chooses to sometimes influence these choices in order to answer prayer, why must this be called a miracle or labeled as supernatural?

Brother Phillips would have us pray for miracles today. And I mean “honest-to-goodness” miracles. He says,. “For many prayer has become little more than meaningless formality bordering on blasphemous hypocrisy. It is no longer unusual to observe at the bedsides of those terminally ill a half-hearted, standing request for God to give the patient a restful night. Instead there should be the fervent, humble, dependent cry for the Father to heal the afflicted one.” Remember that this hypothetical patient is “terminally ill.” That means he is definitely dying and that there is no hope of his recovery. Still we are told to pray for his recovery-which would be indeed a miracle. Why not have the lame and the blind and the dying to come together in a public assembly and there let the preacher pray for them? Is there really any difference? If Brother Phillips is not advocating miraculous divine healing of the type accepted by Pentecostals, then he should explain himself. If I can pray for God to work a miracle and heal a dying man, then why cannot I pray to walk on the water in order to save a drowning swimmer?

No, brethren, we cannot have it both ways. Either miracles still occur or miracles have ceased. If they still occur, then we had better see about a union with the Holiness people. If they have ceased, then we should neither pray for them nor expect them. Brethren, some of us are not merely drifting; we are being swept along in the rapids and are about to plunge over Niagara Falls without even a barrel!

Truth Magazine, XX:5, p. 11-12
February 5, 1976

By Ron Halbrook

Satire speaks with a sparkle in its eye; and with a chuckle. Alerted by Satire’s mischievous grin, the listener looks behind surface humor and other appearances for the real meaning. Satire generally mixes the witty and the caustic, though one may be relied upon more heavily than the other from time to time. Its effort at clever humor is an effort to highlight the inconsistent and the incongruous. Not mere child’s play nor humor for its own sake of Satire employs expressions of ridicule, sarcasm, irony, and contempt for serious purposes. It exposes or attacks vice, follies, stupidities, abuses, and error. To employ Satire in one’s service, successfully, is. not easy. The “noose” prepared by Satire for another can all too easily end up on the wrong neck! Swift said, “It is as hard to satirize well a man of distinguished vices, as to praise well a man of distinguished virtues.”

Far from opposing all satire, we commend its proper use. Proper use is cautious and careful, and above all in the service of nothing but truth. Torch Magazine sometimes carries “Sessions in Satire.” This writer’s “Startling Report: Some Now Preach That Sin Consigns One to Hell!” is satirical (Truth Magazine, August 29, 1974, p. 12). But “Ridicule should never be used as a substitute for answering the arguments of an opponent . . . True, humor belongs to the family of truth” (Leslie B. Flynn, Serve Him With Mirth, pp. 80-1). In other words, satire is perverted and abused when it is resorted to as a mere gimmick of craftiness. There is a cunning, unscrupulous cleverness of “fleshly wisdom” which perverts and subverts by “good words and fair speeches.” But Paul said, “We . . . have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully” (Rom. 16:18; 2 Cor. 1:12; 4:1-2).

The very same Apostle recognized that “there are certain conditions which can be most successfully touched by the shafts of ridicule” (Pulpit Commentary, Vol. 19, p. 152). In 2 Cor. 4:8-10 and many other places, Paul employed “the weapon of satire.” With their claims of attainment, spirituality, knowledge, and regality, the Corinthians had assumed a position which “far transcended their early master.” “And all this without the insignificant aid of such a very commonplace teacher as Paul!” (ibid.). Charles Hodge, in his Exposition of the passage (p. 71), said,

That the passage is ironical, and even sarcastic; cannot be denied. This is not the only instance in which these weapons are used by the inspired writers. The prophets especially employ them freely…. The propriety of the use of weapons so dangerous depends on the occasion and the motive. If the thing assailed be both wicked and foolish, and if the motive be not the desire to give pain, but to convince and to convert, their use is justified by Scriptural examples.

False teachers, sometimes with smug self-confidence, may lightly scorn “the day of small things” when the faithful people of God set out to work. But when the work begins to progress, anger joins astonishment to produce scorn and ridicule. The classic example is found in Neh. 2-4. The Jews returned from captivity and said, “Let us rise up and build. So they strengthened their hands for this good work.” At first their enemies “laughed us to scorn, and despised us.” “But it came to pass, that when Sanballat heard that we builded the wall, he was wroth, and took great indignation, and mocked the Jews.” Can these weaklings erect a wall of defense? Who will help them, their gods? Do they think this is the work of a day? And what will they do for materials – “revive the stones out of the heaps of the rubbish which are burned?” Tobiah could hardly wait to add his sarcasm to the taunts of Sanballat, so he caps off the satire of the Jews’ labor with this scornful barb: “Even that which they build, if a fox go up, he shall even break down their stone wall.” Not because he opposed satire but because it had been pressed into the service of wrongdoing, Nehemiah prayed, “Hear, O our God; for we are despised: and turn their reproach upon their own head.” “To the shallow judgment of the Samaritans, Nehemiah and his workmen seemed to be engaged in a work that would come to nought – they would ‘have their labor for their pains;’ but their contempt was wholly misplaced.” Though satire has its proper uses in the service to truth, “it is the favorite weapon of wrong in its weakness. When men can do nothing else, they can laugh at goodness and virtue” (Pulpit Commentary, Vol: 7, p. 40).

In their own effort to stop the Jews, the Samaritans used every trick of ingenuity and might of power. All to no avail. “The last laugh” was on them. Neither their power nor their subtlety could stop that miserable little band of Jews from “turning ashes into stone.” Their reproach turned “upon their own head” – but it was no laughing matter. It is never a time for levity or flippancy when people “oppose themselves” in evil, error, and wrongdoing (2 Tim. 2:25). In tears rather than laughter, Paul told the Jews after their rejection of the gospel of Christ, “Seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles” (Acts 13:46). Yet he could say, “Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved” (Rom. 10:1):

When the heathen, people, kings, and rulers took counsel against Jehovah and His Messiah, that counsel included a perverted use of satire (cf. Matt. 26:68; 27:29, 40,42). Imagine the incongruity of puny men, mere creatures of dust, rising up against the purposes of mighty Jehovah, the I AM of all Eternity! “He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision. . . . YET HAVE I SET MY KING UPON MY HOLY HILL OF ZION” (Ps. 2 emp. mine RH). Their reproach returned “upon their own head.” Paul returned the reproach of scorners “upon their own head” when he spoke of the gospel as “foolishness,” using their own terms. “For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness …. hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? . . . . it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe” (1 Cor. 1:18ff). When false teachers “proposed to enter on new regions of truth,” John apparently made “a sarcastic reference to (their) professed higher knowledge.” “Whosoever goeth onward (or forward) and abideth not in the teaching of Christ, hath not God” (2 Jn. 9). (Cf, B. F. Westcott, The Epistles of St. John, p. 230; W. E. Vine, The Epistles of John, p. 118). When John exposed the folly of false teachers’ claims to superiority, the shame they attempted to cast upon the “old foggies,” “mossbacks,” “stand-pat-ers,” “guardians of orthodoxy,” and “anti-progressives” fell back upon their own heads. ERROR CANNOT STAND LIGHT! It hides behind clever slogans, crafty ridicule, scornful satire, and any other cover darkness can provide.

Faith Magazine: Use Or Abuse of Satire?

The warning of Moses, “Be sure your sin will find you out,” is kin to the prayer of Nehemiah, “Turn their reproach upon their own head” (Num. 32:23). It has come time for the unmanly perpetrator of Falth Magazine to bear the shame and reproach he sought to heap upon others. For those unacquainted with this satire, it appeared in January of 1974 and was mailed to churches all over the country (which raises the interesting question: Who supplied the capital for such an expensive feat?). It was a parody of Truth Magazine, including grossly distorted sketches of brethren Cecil Willis and James W. Adams with articles supposedly by each of them. The former is represented as a self-willed dictator (“Caesar Willsit”) and the latter as an arrogant character-assassin. In a listing of “Associate Editors” (by use of the initials of the Apostles), Brother Adams is presented as a conniving traitor to Christ and as having gain rather than godliness for his goal (in the place of Judas Iscariot). By means of a comic strip, the spirit of Truth Magazine is pictured as that of a “brotherhood watchdog,” “keeper of orthodoxy,” and Final Judge of the hearts of brethren. (The comic implies that no one can judge what or who is “sound or unsound,” thus making Tit. 1:9 and 2:1,15 ludicrous.) Through satire, Willis and Adams are ridiculed as (1) claiming to “know the hearts of everybody else,” (2) repeating gossip without attempting to separate rumor from fact, (3) creating the “fellowship-unity” controversy, (4) “dealing in personalities,” (5) engaging in such crimes for sake of “competition with other faithful papers,” and to promote “business interests,” (6) seeking “the pre-eminence” by using the specific tactics of Diotrephes, (7) “jealousy” at those who “have accomplished a great deal more already than I had when I was their ages,” (8) never changing “on anything,” (9) using a style of writing calculated to “impress with my intellect readers who really cannot understand” the style; (10) being “guilty of worse sins, by my attitude and conduct, than those of which I am accusing” others, (11) regarding “preaching within the context of a passage” as dangerous, and (12) attacking maliciously those who promote “love and unity” in the church. An effort is also made to present and defend the Ketcherside-Garrett-Fudge twisting of 2 John 9.

JERRY PHILLIPS (of St. Charles, Missouri; preacher for the church at St. Charles, near St. Louis) has finally confessed, under pressure, his part in this shameful matter. He shows no remorse for it. Some brethren have been overly impressed with the purely human element in Jerry’s satire: it is articulate, witty, artistic, and sardonic. (The same can be said for the satirical joke denominationalists tell. Scene in heaven: “Who is that little group inside that high wall separated from the rest of the redeemed?” “Oh, that’s the ‘church of Christ.’ They think they’re the only ones here!”) Except for his attempt to discuss 2 John 9, Brother Phillips is meanly vindictive and sadistic in his “dealing with personalities” alone. “When humor becomes meanly vindictive, it may proceed past sarcasm, snobbery, scorn and end in sadism” (Flynn, op. cit., p. 81). As Jack Gibbert said of Phillip’s Falth, it is “a costly slick stab in the back” (Truth Magazine, Mar. 20, 1975, p. 6). When Adams and Willis have named persons, it has been in connection with specific doctrinal issues being discussed. In our use of satire, we have invariably signed our names. Omitting the Biblical pattern of spiritual responsibility in satire (for masterful examples, see 1 Kgs. 18:27 and 22:15), Jerry tries to hide behind what he conceives to be his literary “right to remain anonymous.” As he suggested in Falth, he did everything possible “to insure the anonymity of the satirists.” As the elders in Eau Gallie, Florida, commented, “No servant of the Lord would be ashamed or afraid to sign his name to his writing if it was calculated to glorify God (1 Pet. 4:11)” (Truth Magazine, Mar. 28, 1974, p. 2).

Enemies Aroused

The poem is true which says, “He who has mingled in the fray of duty, that the brave endure, Must have made foes!” Paul found that his every effort for truth at Corinth was scorned and ridiculed by false teachers. He was caricatured as a fickle and, feeble minded, pitiable appearing, common laborer too ashamed of himself to accept wages (see 2 Cor.). When he in turn exposed their false teaching; it was all too obvious why they created a comic character to guffaw at! What kind of enemies have brethren Willis and Adams aroused? To see what Jerry Phillips stands for – and fails to stand for – is to understand why he was so intemperately aroused against Truth Magazine. As James Adams noted on Falth, “Many times, the greatest compliment to an individual and the position he occupies is the character of those who oppose them” (Truth Magazine, June 6, 1974, p. 6). What are the facts about Jerry Phillip’s doctrinal stance?

In 1969, Jerry was with the University church in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Ed Fudge conducted a meeting on “Unity,” advocating fellowship with brethren who are liberal-minded on institutionalism and related apostasy. Taking Fudge’s line at face value, Phillips began announcing the meetings of such liberal-minded people and calling on such men to lead prayer in public services of the church. Those opposed to such compromise were gradually driven off, so that the church reversed its former stand and openly avowed liberalism after Phillips moved away (Truth Magazine, Sept. 27, 1973, p. 4).

1972 found Jerry with the church on Elm St. in St. Charles, Missouri. His bulletin for December 6 of that year announced “THE HARTFORD FORUM” including these speakers: Wayne T, Hall, Harold Key, Grayson H. Ensign, Leon Fancher, Charles Holt, Boyce Mouton, Kirk Prine, Roy Weece; Hoy Ledbetter, Leroy Garrett. While denying any desire to endorse or compromise, notice how he ends up describing the occasion: “It is merely a gathering of brethren who love the Lord and desire to learn more about His word and each other. Plan to go. You’ll be glad you did. Food will be served by the ladies of the church.” Where did he learn that apostates like Key; Holt, Ledbetter, and Garrett “love the Lord” and desire His word? They may claim such, but Christ rejects such claims on account of “their fruits” (Matt. 7:20-23; Lk. 6:46). They’ are “blind leaders of the blind,” and Phillips was derelict in his duty by encouraging brethren to sit at the feet of such men without clearly identifying their character (Matt. 15:814): Phillips’ view of “loving the Lord” is denominational, not Biblical (Jn. 14:15, 21; 15:14; 1 Jn. 5:1-3).

The same bulletin promoted Dunn Road Chapel’s (a church long under Ketcherside’s influence) “WINTER YOUTH STUDY,” for December 29-31, 1972. “It promises to bean enlightening and faith-building experience. . . . The church has invited W. Carl Ketcherside and Gordon Wilson to conduct the study with the assistance of Rod Langston and Bernie Crum. Brethren Wilson and Ketcherside will also be the evening speakers on Friday and Saturday of that week; respectively.” Jerry speaks of “concentrated study and devotionals” and “a God-centered, scripture-filled, faith building” experience, but never a word about the dangers of sitting of the feet of false teachers “in sheep’s clothing” (Matt. 7:15-20). Nor does he express the least caution or reservation about the entertainment program included, or about Wilson’s compromising position on the same program with Ketcherside. What Jerry Phillips, Gordon Wilson, Ed Fudge and others do not seem to realize is that the only kind of compromise possible with false teachers is the kind that occurred between the bear and the hunter. The hunter got a new fur coat … and the bear a full stomach! The sad experience of many young men now lost to the cause of truth, is proof aplenty:

Conclusion

Falth mentions “the satirists”-plural. Whoever the other perpetrators may be, Jerry Phillips must bear his own reproach upon his own head. After the initial “heehaw” is over, nothing remains but sadness. Sadness for Jerry’s sake. Sadness for the sake of churches and individuals who are duped by such deceivers. If Jerry cannot find room in his heart for repentance, and will not seek to repair the damage he has done, then at least let him learn this one thing. “Tricksters, like those who produced Falth Magazine, are not going to laugh us out of the arena” in the battle against error and for truth. Nor have we forgotten what all this maneuvering is for. ALL THIS “MANEUVERING IS SIMPLY AN EFFORT TO AUGMENT AND THEN TO DEFEND A BROADENING OF OUR FELLOWSHIP” BEYOND THE LINES LAID DOWN IN HOLY WRIT (Truth Magazine, Mar. 7; 1974, p. 6). They shall not pass. Their reproach shall be upon their own head.

Truth Magazine, XX:6, p. 8-10
February 5, 1976

By Cecil Willis

Immediately before the recent Florida College lectures (January 28-31), there was mailed out a new paper called Falth Magazine, which was printed almost exactly like the format of Truth Magazine. Ordinarily I would not reply to anonymous literature, but I have learned that this paper was mailed all over the nation. It pretended to be a satirical parody of Truth Magazine. It constitutes the lowest smear attack I have ever seen in twenty years of following religious journalism. The paper consists of eight pages, printed in two-color, as we print Truth Magazine. Not only does Falth Magazine solicit contributions, but it also advertises that additional copies may be ordered at the price of $1.00 per copy. Should you doubt anything I am about to say about it, let me suggest that you order a copy of it, should it be the case that you have not seen it already. Checks are to be made payable to Falth Magazine, and sent to Ms. Paula Murray, 4438 Nichols Parkway, Kansas City, Missouri 64111.

For the benefit of those of you who may not already have seen a copy of this sinister document, let me quote from it. Brother James W. Adams and I get most of the attention in this journal. Caricatures are presented of James W. Adams and me, and ridicule is made of what we have said on the grace-fellowship-heresy. The paper pretends to have been edited by someone named “Caesar Willsit.” They even have a picture drawn in the paper that is supposed to look like me. James W. Adams is referred to as “J.A.W.”, which constitutes but a re-ordering of the initials of his name. A number of brethren whose names have been used in the course of this discussion on grace and fellowship are given new, but very similar appellatives. Brother Carl Ketcherside is referred to as “Coil Datcherside,” Brother Edward Fudge as “Egghead Budge,” Brother Randall Trainer as “`Camel Strainer,” and Brother Homer Hailey as “Hosea Holy.”

In addition to changing Truth Magazine’s name to Falth Magazine, they refer to Carl Ketcherside’s paper, Mission Messenger, as Missing Messages, and Florida College is labeled “Flatter College.” On the Masthead of the paper, after listing Caesar Willsit as Editor, the Associate Editors are listed with one-letter or two-letter abbreviations. But if you will merely read through the list, you will discover that these abbreviations match the names of the apostles of Christ, except that “J.A.W.” (James W. Adams) is listed in the place of Judas Iscariot.

Also in the Masthead it is stated, “To insure the anonymity of the satirists, refuse to deny your own possible participation in the creation of Falth Magazine. Whoever asks you will already suspect you anyway! Reply that satirists, whether friend or foe, have aright to remain anonymous, and then point to the request you are now reading to give justification for not committing yourself.” The Falth Magazine is filled with lies and character assassinations from beginning to end. I never have read the rule which said that God gave satirists he right to lie, with impunity.

Caesar Willsit

In the section devoted to me, there are several lies told. These anonymous writers have me saying, “we know the hearts of everyone else. . . ” Another lie told on me is that I make a claim to divine inspiration, and therefore can give divine revelation. They put words in my mouth as though I were God Almighty.. I am quoted as saying, “We make no claim for direct revelation in some of the things which we write. We desire to write only the faith. Thus saith the Lord.” Not only does this statement constitute a blatant lie, for which Ananias and Sapphira were struck dead, but if anyone were to believe what they say in regard to this matter, my reputation as gospel preacher would have been defamed and damaged. I suggest that the writers of Falth Magazine might profitably read a definition: of “libel.” Webster’s Third Unabridged Dictionary defines”libel” like this: “handbill or circular esp. attacking or defaming someone . . . a written or oral defamatory statement or a representation or suggestion that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression . . . a statement or representation published without just cause or excuse, expressed either in print or in writings or by pictures, effigies, or by other signs intending to expose another to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule: defamation of a person by means of written statement, pictures, or other visible signs.”

“LA.W.”

Brother James W. Adams is treated even more shamefully. They quote him as saying, “I have decided, without apology, to (1) prate against them with malicious words, (2) refuse to receive them, (3) forbid others to receive them and (4) cast them out of the church.” It would be very interesting to hear the purveyors of that lie try to prove what they charge in a court of law. Brother Adams also is quoted as saying: “I have never changed on anything, and I never will.” That is but another lie told by our “satirists.” Furthermore, they put these words in the mouth of James Adams: “A passage is better interpreted by going from place to place in the scripture than by remaining with the context (emphasis mine, JAW).” No man on earth ever heard James Adams say anything that is even remotely akin to such a stupid rule. If deeds like this do not hold up a man, unjustly, to criticism and ridicule, would someone tell me what one would have to do to be guilty of libel? Of course, one is not guilty until proven to be such in a court of law.

Furthermore, these “satirists” run a full-page ad on the back cover entitled, “Special Offer.” The ad states, “Now available for the first time!!! … photostatic copies of J.A.W.’s secret files. Clear, un-retouched copies of past bulletins, personal letters, tape transcripts, diaries, discarded memos, health records, birth certificates, baptismal papers, and love letters! … Best collection of evil accounts in the conservative brotherhood! … You send us the name of any brother in your congregation and we will send you all the damaging evidence we have on him!!!”

I am not a lawyer, but I certainly would hate to have written the above ad, and have to face it in court. I would be fearful that it might be a costly little bit of fun. The writers of Falth Magazine write as though they are just having fun. But the issues we are being forced to discuss are not one bit funny to me. Brethren have taken some loose positions in order to try to broaden our fellowship, so as to permit us to fellowship some of the liberal brethren, and perhaps a few from the Christian Church. As these discussions continue, do not let anyone confuse you about why the discussions are occurring. Some brethren, unscripturally, are trying to devise some means of justifying a broadened fellowship. All the theological contortions we are witnessing, and we shall witness yet more, are but necessary efforts to try to maintain some semblance of consistency while also trying to broaden our fellowship.

Those with whom we are in controversy will have to do as they see fit in regard to Falth Magazine. One of those with whom we have been in controversy was overheard to say, “I have mixed emotions about it.” One thing is for sure, if I were in their shoes and had nothing to do with preparing and mailing out Falth Magazine, I would immediately denounce it and disavow it in the sharpest possible terms. This would be a good time for those who are so opposed to “journalistic abuse” to get on their high-horse and really fire away. Lets just watch and see how much the creators of Falth Magazine are scored for what is the foulest blow I have seen struck in about twenty years of following writings among brethren.

The only person’s name appearing in Falth Magazine is that of Ms. Paula Murray. She is not a Christian. She operates a mail forwarding service. She stated she had nothing to do with the publication or with its mailing. Yet she is acting as the agent of Falth Magazine. So she is implicated. Let it just be said now that the Cogdill Foundation intends to use every righteous and legal means at our disposal in order to try to find out who the publishers of Faith Magazine really are. Once their names are made known to the brotherhood, the reprehension of the brotherhood for such a vile deed will constitute severe punishment for its perpetrators.

In view of the indication given in the Masthead that each has been instructed “to deny your own possible participation in the creation of Faith Magazine,” one is made to wonder if indeed its real creators will do so under oath, and thus perjure themselves. Or will these bold heroes permit Ms. Paula Murray to bear the whole burden of defending the creators of Faith Magazine. Only two reasons come to my mind as to why anyone would write any piece of material such as Faith Magazine anonymously. Those two, reasons are: (1) the writer is ashamed of what he has to say; or (2) The writer is afraid for others to know he said it. These reasons are the cause for my selection of the title of this article, “Yellow Journalism.” I think the writers of Falth Magazine are ashamed and perhaps now also afraid to reveal themselves.

The bold writers of Faith Magazine may leave Ms. Paula Murray in the position where Brother Edward Fudge has left Brother William Wallace. Brother Wallace has been running around the country like a chicken with its head cut off trying to defend Brother Fudge. A man of candor and integrity would be ashamed to put his friend in the position in which Brother Fudge has placed Brother Wallace. Brother Wallace has written to churches all over the country asking permission to come to speak on “The Gospel Guardian, Past, Present, and Future.” Brethren would hang me to the nearest tree if I were to write for permission to speak in church meeting houses on “Truth Magazine, Past, Present; and Future.” And if I did that, I should be sharply criticized. The Cogdill Foundation (like the C.E.I. Company) is a human organization, and has no more right to use the church’s facilities to discuss its business activities than a college or a service station would have. Remember that Brother Wallace is the one who has been speaking of “power structures” and “organizational combines,” etc. But now he has asked churches all over the land to permit him to come to speak on “The Gospel Guardian, Past, Present, and Future.”

I attended one of those meetings (the Louisville one), and heard a tape recording of one of the others. It did not take very long to discuss “The Gospel Guardian, Past, Present, and Future.” The issue rather quickly became, “Edward Fudge, Past, Present, and Future,” Brother Wallace seems unable to understand why brethren are so concerned about Brother Edward Fudge. It is because they see some things Brother Wallace refuses to see. Brethren pretty generally know about Brother Fudge’s past and present false teaching. Since his family now owns the Gospel Guardian, and Brother Fudge is an Associate Editor and heir-apparent, is it any wonder that brethren would become concerned about the future of the Gospel Guardian?

Brethren in several of these meetings have asked, “Why is not Brother Fudge out defending his own teaching, since it is very evident that it was primarily his teaching that caused apprehensions about the future of the Gospel Guardian?” Brother Wallace can, at that point, only force a little smile, shrug his shoulders, hold up his hands and say something like this, “I do not know why Brother Fudge is not out defending his own teaching. I have tried to get him to come out and defend his teaching. But it would take a lot of smoking out to get him in a meeting like this.” If one of my friends were to force me repeatedly into such an awkward position as Brother Wallace is in, we would not be friends very long.

All of that regarding Fudge and Wallace was said to preface this remark: I wonder if those bold writers of Falth Magazine are going to permit Ms. Paula Murray to bear the cost of defending them from their dastardly deed. Or, are they willing to step forth, acknowledge themselves as the authors and promoters of Falth Magazine or not? I stated we intend to use available legal means to try to ascertain who the backers of Falth Magazine are. Brethren have the right to know who these grand and bold heroes are. It may be necessary to take appropriate legal action, which is costly both to those who initiate the action as well as to those who are named as defendants, in order to learn the identity of the producers of Faith Magazine. In view of their Masthead statement, they may think that protection of their anonymity is sufficient reason to lie under oath, or they could take the “Fifth Amendment.” On the other hand, if the producers of Falth Magazine will identify themselves, we will proceed no further with legal action. Even if legal action were taken against Ms. Paula Murray and her mail forwarding firm (which serves as agent for Falth Magazine), it may be impossible yet to learn who is back of Falth Magazine. But brethren have the right to know, and those who wrote Falth Magazine also need to learn that when one writes, he has obligations not only before God, but also before the laws of the Land.

The perpetrators of Falth Magazine may have been just jesting, but it is difficult for me to conceive of persons enjoying a little fun enough to pay several hundreds of dollars just to have a little fun. If that is all they were doing, they ought to apologize to the brotherhood for making a mockery of serious discussion of Bible themes. If they were not jesting, then their attack was of the most vicious and lawless sort. The producers of Falth Magazine, whether one or many and whether young or old, ought publicly to apologize for their mocking production, and we would let the matter stop right there. But until someone either identifies himself or themselves, we can only proceed with step by step legal action against a non-Christian and her business firm and seek to learn who really is back of this mischievous deed.

I suggest to the producers of Falth Magazine that God already knows who you are, and it is just slightly possible that brethren eventually will know who you are. It would be much the more honorable thing to identify yourself than for us to have to try to smoke you out. Is it that you are afraid of what you have written; or that; you are so ashamed of it, that you insist upon protecting your anonymity? A deed like this, if never corrected, had better be kept quiet throughout your lifetimes. I think it would take brethren a good while to cease to associate you in their minds with Faith Magazine, and that association will not do either your reputation or character any good in the minds of thinking brethren.

This is probably all we shall have to say about Falth Magazine. I hope now we can be done with game playing and character assassination, and get on with the discussion of issues that are disturbing some brethren and destroying others. I had hoped this discussion soon could be brought to a close, but brethren are now using. other denominational error in order to try to justify their loose position on the grace-fellowship question. So we now must go into a discussion of some other denominational doctrines that were refuted on a thousand rostrums in years gone by as brethren contested truth with error in their debates with sectarians. But some of our brethren evidently have not heard of those conflicts of yesteryear, and the outcome of those truth-error confrontations. The sectarians learned from those confrontations that it would be best if they not debate anymore. Like Brother Fudge, they removed themselves from the arena of debate, as though debate was beneath their dignity.

But some naive brethren are now laying out once again those thread-worn arguments made by sectarians. Evidently, they are doing so sincerely. Thus, we must fight again in this generation some battles which were fought and won in generations past and gone. But the victories of yesteryear do not suffice for today, The Christian today must also “fight the good fight of faith.” Tricksters, like those. who produced Falth Magazine, are not going to laugh us out of the arena of debate.

Evidently they think their ridicule is more potent than their argument. But others are sincere, and for the sake of these, we must once again discuss matters that at least border on the “once-in-grace, always-in-grace” Baptist position and the question, of whether .the Christian is now in possession of eternal life. These are some of the latest elements being injected into this overall conflict. But I repeat: All of this theological maneuvering is simply an effort to augment and then to defend a broadening of our fellowship so as to take it some liberal brethren, and others whose “hearts are right with God,” in spite of their moral sins, or doctrinal defections.

Truth Magazine, XX:5, p. 3-7
February 5, 1976