Truth Magazine

By Bruce Edwards, Jr.

There are basically just two positions one may take as to the identity of the women Paul refers to in 1 Cor. 14:34, 35: (1) One is the view that Paul refers to all women, without qualification, hence “every adult human being who is not a man”; (2) The other view is that Paul contemplates a particular class of women, namely, those possessing spiritual gifts . . . gifts which would place the women on an equal standing ability-wise with men possessing such gifts in the assembly. This writer affirms the second view stated above.

Resolving the Tension Between Chapters 11 and 14

There is an obvious tension between chapters 11 and 14 of 1 Corinthians that must be resolved: does Paul grant permission, yea give instruction for the proper regulation of, women speaking in the assembly in chapter 11 and then repeal that permission just three chapters later? No doubt more brethren would be able to deal with this apparent contradiction more effectively if they did not assume that Paul was giving instructions in chapter 11 regarding “praying or prophesying” in the assembly. This assumption must be proven and not thoughtlessly granted. We would humbly suggest that the solution to this problem is to recognize: (1) that inspired speaking is involved in chapter 1 1 just as in chapter 14 and (2) that though the action for the man and woman is identical (i.e., “inspired speaking”), the place is more restricted for the woman according to 1 Cor. 14. We have now stated our position, let us now examine the evidence which compels such a conclusion.

An Appeal to the Original Language in the Context

In 1 Cor. 14:26-35, three times in succession Paul says “keep silence.” It is apparent to all that the first two times he uses this phrase he is calling for certain men to stop the exercise of a spiritual gift. In 1 Cor. 14:28, the apostle prohibits speaking in foreign tongues “if there be no interpreter.” In 1 Cor. 14:30, he prohibits prophets from constantly interrupting one another in order to gain the floor. In 1 Cor. 14:34, Paul uses the same terms (“keep silence”) to prohibit certain women from addressing the assembly. The question is: in view of the context of verses 26-35, what is the most likely explanation of the nature of the “speaking” that the women are to cease by the prohibition of the apostle? Simple logic demands that the speaking prohibited is of the same nature as the activity prohibited in verses 28 and 30, namely, inspired activity.

. .Some suggest that Paul was simply forbidding interruptive chatter or interrogative questioning but clearly the words “silence” and “speak” tie these verses into the larger context of prophetic activity. Notice the remarks of W. E. Vine regarding this section of Scripture: “The suggestion that the verb laleo, to speak, here signifies to chatter, is untenable. It has no support from its use elsewhere in this Epistle …. We may take, for instance, the use of the word in this very chapter. It is used eighteen times, of speaking in tongues, of prophesying (vv. 3, 29), of speaking with understanding, so as to instruct others (v. 19), and of the utterance of God through human agency (v. 21). Nor can the inference as to chattering be drawn from the distinction between laleo and lego, for any distinction lies in this, that laleo expresses the speaking in contrast to remaining silent (as in Acts 18:9, `speak, and hold not thy peace’), whereas lego points more to what is actually said . . . . The injunction was not against making noisy interruptions, but against taking part in oral ministry.”

In a similar way, C. K. Barrett argues in his commentary on 1 Corinthians, “Nor is it very convincing to argue that to speak (in verse 34, lalein) does not refer to such praying and prophesying, but to uninspired speech . . . . It is true that the verb does, in Classical Greek, bear the meaning ‘to chatter’, and it would be understandable that Paul should wish to stern an outburst of feminine loquacity; but in the New Testament, and in Paul, the verb normally does not have this meaning, and is used throughout chapter xiv (verses 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 11, 12., 18, 19, 21, 23, 27, 29, 39) in the sense of inspired speech.”

Our point is this: the context and the original language lend credence to the view that what is under consideration by Paul is not the correction of uninspired, interruptive chatter or loquacious questioning but rather the cessation of a vocal, spiritual gift exercised by a woman. In view of these things it seems more logical to conclude that Paul’s reference to “women” in verses 34 and 35 involves that group of women in the early church who were prophetesses-inspired speakers.

Why Would It Be a Shame?

The objection must surely be raised, “But what about Paul’s reference in verse 35 to women `asking their husbands at home’?” Does not this verse militate against the idea that prophetesses are involved? Not at all. We will have a great deal of trouble understanding Paul’s words to the Corinthians if we insist upon imposing our ideas of present-day assemblies upon the text. As can be seen from a simple reading of the 14th chapter, our assemblies have very little in common with the age of spiritual gifts and inspired assemblies. Obviously the principles of order and proper decorum still stand-God is not the author of confusion today, either. But in reality we have no comparable setting to the episode described in chapter 14 of 1 Corinthians; this period of “mutual edification,” the kind described in our text, passed away with the age of apostolic miracles.

Evidently the assemblies in Corinth were quite vigorous-every prophet wanted to “have his say” . . . but then so did every “prophetess.” Paul reminds them that “as in all the churches of the saints” the women (prophetesses) were to “keep silence.” Their assemblies were confusing enough-they were not to add to the confusion by violating a Divine standard applicable in every assembly. Why would it be a shame? Because, as Paul told the Corinthians in chapter 11, the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. The Divine order cannot be set aside by the vigorous and engrossing debates of the Corinthian assemblies. The prophetess is not to dishonor her head, either by prophesying without a veil or by prophesying in an improper circumstance (1 Cor. 11:2-16; 14:34, 35).

It is not difficult to see the dilemma that Paul faced in Corinth. A prophet has the floor and begins an inspired discourse. A discussion ensues regarding the application and meaning of the truth uttered. A prophetess, fully-endowed with the gift of prophecy-on an equal basis, ability-wise, with the prophets in the assembly-wishes to raise a further point, or ask a pertinent question. This is out of order and must be condemned. Such an action violates the order that God has established between men and women (cf. 1 Tim. 2:815; Eph. 5:22-33). If the women desire to continue the discussion or ask questions, let them do it at home with their own husbands rather than overthrow the assembly. The assembly of God is to be a model community before the world-neither the church itself nor outsiders should get the impression from the meetings of the saints that this Divine order can be leisurely set aside.

Concluding Remarks

The fact that an assembly in which spiritual gifts are exercised is under consideration in 1 Corinthians 14 does not militate against the proper application of the principles involved today in our assemblies. Women today have no more license to usurp authority, “teach over a man” and thus violate the pattern revealed by God between male and female than did the Corinthian women. We see nothing inherent in our position that prohibits the authoritative application of these verses to the modern error of women preachers. In fact, it appears that such an argument is considerably strengthened when one realizes that not even inspired women, in the apostolic age, were allowed to overthrow the order of God. How much less appropriate it is then today for any to argue that female Christians have any right to dispense with the Divine order in the assembly of God.

We are not interested in establishing “standard Brotherhood Tradition” but only in understanding what the apostle Paul said to the Corinthian church and how that passage relates to contemporary faith and practice. Perhaps if all of us were less interested in compiling clever debate notes and more concerned about pursuing the diligent study of God’s word, we would have fewer occasions of sweeping generalities and unsubstantiated assertions in our writing efforts.

Truth Magazine XIX: 23, pp. 364-366
April 17, 1975

By Dan Waiters

Brother Bruce Edwards, Jr., has presented some excellent material in his series of articles on spiritual gifts. I would like to take issue with him on one point only. This concerns the women of 1 Cor. 14:34. First let us notice certain truths which Brother Edwards has emphasized. He says, “We need not wrest the term `silence’ here to mean `behave with quietness or tranquility’ or `partake of a reserved and submissive demeanor’! Quite literally, Paul means to `Shut up!’ ” No one could have put it plainer. Brother Edwards also points out that praying and prophesying in 1 Cor. 11 both involved the use of spiritual gifts and that these gifts were not used by women in the assembly. Such teaching is sorely needed. Many brethren say that 1 Cor. 11:1-16 does apply to public worship or the assembly of the church. If so, we have an example of inspired women preachers and a direct contradiction of 1 Cor. 14:34. Brother Edwards sees the fallacy of this and points it out.

But then Brother Edwards falls into the old trap of limiting the women whom Paul referred to in 1 Cor. 14:34, 35. For years debaters have limited the meaning to “wives of the prophets” in order to score points against no-class brethren. They have never offered any proof for this assumption. Then they have said that since the entire chapter deals with spiritual gifts, then nothing in it is relevant to us anyway. Thus they have rejected God’s statement: “It is a shame for women to speak in the church,” as presumptuously as any Baptist preacher ever rejected Mark 16:16. Brother Edwards does not take this position, but rather limits the women in verse 34 to women exercising spiritual gifts. He quotes from Ron Halbrook who apparently labors under the same misconception. (This can not be established from the quotation, but at least this is how Brother Edwards interprets Brother Halbrook.) This is evidently a brand new outlook on this question. Hopefully it will not survive long enough to become standard Brotherhood Tradition. 1 Cor. 14:35 totally demolishes it. Paul here says, “And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.” Here were women who wanted to ask questions concerning the teaching. They were not women prophets wishing to impart knowledge (though this would also be forbidden). They were women wishing to obtain knowledge by asking questions or entering into public discussion regarding the teaching being done. And Paul forbids this by making as plain a statement as -ever flowed from the pen of an inspired writer. He says, “It is a shame for women to speak in the church.” This is absolute and universal. Every adult human being who is not a man is a woman. All women are included in Paul’s statement. One would almost need professional help to misunderstand Paul!

The truth on this matter is of more importance than most of us seem to realize. Brethren have either limited or nullified both 1 Tim. 2:11, 12 and 1 Cor. 14:34, 35 so that most preachers dare not use either scripture authoritatively to teach anything definite. Yet these two passages, in their original power and simplicity, are the only definitive verses that stand between us and women preachers. The principle of women not exercising authority over men is not enough. Whether a woman is under subjection to the elders and to the other men of the church at the time she is delivering a public address or engaged in teaching a public class of men and women is a matter of judgment and interpretation. We could argue endlessly about it, without really convincing anyone. But if these two scriptures mean what they say, there can be no real misunderstanding or argument. There can be only rebellion if men and women decide not to be ruled by the law of God.

Truth Magazine XIX: 23, p. 364
April 17, 1975

By Ron Halbrook

Loose Use of “Legalism” By William Wallace

Others are giving forth an uncertain sound throwing the term legalism around loosely. The case of Brother William Wallace is a sad enigma. He did quite a lot of writing in his closing days of editing the Gospel Guardian that amounts to this, “There is something to be said in favor of both truth and error, so when we say our `something’ it would behoove us to come down gently in favor of truth and lightly in opposition to error-but not too hard either way.” It seems to be an application of the “there-is-so-much-good-in-the-worst-of-us-and-so-much-bad-in-the-best-of-us-that-it-ill-behooves-any-of-us-to-say-anything-bad-about-the-rest-of-us” philosophy to doctrinal error. Apparently the adage brought to mind recently by Brother James P. Needham applies to Brother Wallace, “He who lies down with dogs, will get up with fleas.” (1) Some of the articles written by Brother Wallace seem to be intended to disassociate him from the errors of Brother Fudge for which he has been covering in the past several months -but while coming out in favor of truth, he seems to fall all over himself trying to say something in favor of error.

In an editorial on “Not Under Law,” Brother Wallace proposes to discuss two “extremes.”(2) He rejects the position which denies “that there be any essential legal or constitutional aspects in the saving gospel or in saving truth” and which equates “conditional salvation or salvation by faith-plus-works” with “salvation by right, legal claim, merited or earned status.” But just about the time Brother Wallace might have turned to rebuke the other extreme claims to sinless perfection, moral uprightness, or humanistic righteousness (which do not need grace with its conditions) and the establishment of standards or norms for service to God which He did not authorize-the fleas started biting. Trying to write and scratch at the same time produced a case of profound confusion, so that the supposed rebuke of the opposite extreme came out sounding like the speech of those who hold the first extreme which he has just finished rejecting! He speaks out against legalism which thinks of salvation as involving “a condition or reward achieved by conforming to the do-its and don’t-do-its of statutes.” Such statements can only create confusion for one reading the Bible.

Is salvation not conditional on certain do-its and don’t-do-its revealed in God’s statutes? David wanted to “learn thy statutes” (Ps. 119:71). Therefore he constantly pled with God, “Teach me thy statutes” (vv. 12, 26, 64, 68, 124, 135). “I will delight myself in thy statutes: I will not forget thy word” (v. 16). “Thy servant did meditate in thy statutes” (v. 23). “Thy statutes have been my songs in the house of my pilgrimage” (v. 54). David said his safety depended on having “respect unto thy statutes continually” (v. 117). “Let my heart be sound in thy statutes” (v. 80). But why did David desire to learn, pray God to teach, delight in, meditate on, and have such profound respect for the statutes of God? “Teach me, O Lord, the way of thy statutes; and I shall keep it unto the end” (v. 33). Did David actually think his salvation was conditioned on obedience to the things revealed in those statutes-did he think he really had to keep those statutes to be saved? “O that my ways were directed to d keep thy statutes!… I will keep thy statutes: O forsake me not utterly. . . I cried with my whole heart; hear me, O Lord: I will keep thy statutes” (vv. 5, 8, 145). “I have inclined mine heart to perform thy statutes alway, even unto the end” (v. 112). David said he would not “forget thy statutes” because he recognized “Thou hast trodden down all them that err from thy statutes” (vv. 83, 118). “Salvation is far from the wicked: for they seek not thy statutes” (v. 155). If that does not teach the absolute necessity of certain “do-its and don’t-do-its of statutes” given by God, then words have no meaning.

Some who have drunk from the wells of denominational theology will complain that the attitude expressed by David applied only to the Old Law period, that because of the sinful nature of man such obedience is impossible, and that therefore God has relaxed or made provision for failure to meet the conditions of salvation. Or, that the only condition now is “faith” (used in a denominational sense). Not only are aliens told they must believe and be baptized to be saved, Christians are told they must mortify the sinful deeds of the body if they wish to continue in grace (Mark 16:16; Col. 3aff). The supposed contrast between God requiring obedience under the Old and somehow relaxing that requirement under the New is absolutely reversed by the inspired men! “For if the word spoken by angels was steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense of reward; How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation” which was revealed (including facts, promises, and commands) through Christ and the inspired men? (Heb. 2:1-4) What about Gal. 5:19-23. . . is Paul saying there once was the requirement of “conforming to the do-its and don’t-do-its” but not any more???

Brother Wallace complains of “legalism” being “a law system which threatens penalties and demands lustrations.” He adds that the “motivation. . . is to merit, deserve, and earn-and to thus escape from the penalties.”(3) Now obviously “escape” cannot come by personal merit or by earning salvation. But the system of redemption does indeed threaten penalties and demand obedience to outward acts that may seem unnecessary (especially to those who do not understand what it is to “walk by faith”). It does indeed promise and deliver “escape from the penalties” of sin. “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom. 6:23). Sinners who come to God by obedient faith must have the right motive, but that includes a healthy fear of the penalties of disobedience along with a genuine love for the One who did so much to deliver us from such penalties.

In connection with the above quote from Wallace and one to follow, we ask our readers to recall the words of Baptist D. B. Ray already given. “. . . fear alone. . . moves the Campbellites to obedience. All those who attempt to keep the ordinances through fear of punishment alone are not the children of God.” Ray concluded, “If we are Christians, we love God because he first loved us, and then we will keep his commandments. . .”(4) Of course denominationalists teach that obedience is the fruit of salvation and of love for God who has already saved by grace. The faith which saves and which makes one already saved supposedly precedes the obedience; therefore the obedience is not enacted through fear of punishment, but only comes as the fruit of the faith which saved axed as the fruit of love for God who saved.(5)Now hear these garbled, uncertain sounds from Brother Wallace in his “Not Under Law,”

“We are not under law, seeking statutory salvation, but law is in us as we respond in appreciation of the grace of God. We are motivated and moved, by what Jesus did for us, to do what he wants us to do, for him. We do his will not because of a legalistic `have-to’ attitude, but because of an appreciative `want-to’ spirit.”

As already pointed out, he says some things which come down on the side of truth, and some which come down (lightly) against the side of error; but in statements like the above ones, he seems to be coming down on the “side” of the middle! Why must we separate the motives of loving God and fearing the penalties of disobedience? Why must we separate wanting to serve God from having to do so? Does not Eph. 5 teach the wife she ;must be in submission to the husband and at the same time show the husband how to make her want to do so? Are faith and baptism absolutely necessary (Mk. 16:16)? Does not obedience to the gospel include a clear understanding, yea a genuine fear, that “he that believeth not shall be damned”? Must we mortify the sinful deeds of the body? Do we have to? Yes, and we also want to do these things! We both have to and want to put off “the works of the flesh. . . which are these . . . . ” We both have to and want to bear “the fruit of the Spirit” in our lives (Gal. 5:19-23). What about preaching lessons on a text like this one: “Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man” (Eccl. 12:13). Or what about lessons on the return of the Lord “in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Thess. 1:7-9). Similarly, we should preach “the goodness of God (that) leadeth thee to repentance” (Rom. 2:4). “Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God” (Rom.11:22). (To Be Continued Next Week)

Endnotes

1. James P. Needham, “Gospel Preachers, Scholars and Scholarship,” Torch, Aug. 1974, p. 4.

2. William E. Wallace, “Not Under Law,” Gospel Guardian, Vol. 26, No. 19 (Sept. 12, 1974), pp. 290-292.

3. Ibid.

4. Ray, op. cit.

5. A typical expression of this view is found in material published by the Southern Baptist Convention. The “condition on which we are saved” is “faith.” Once we are saved, ‘faith produces works …. Our works exhibit our faith as the fruit exhibits the life of the tree.” Since the works exhibit faith and life which already exist, anyone who thinks the works themselves are required in order to save does “not understand the nature of the saved life.” Harold W. Tribble, Our Doctrines (Nashville: Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, 1936), pp. 80-81. Before brother Wallace found it necessary to say something in favor of error-which grew out of his efforts to cover up for Edward Fudge-he could write in marked contrast both to Baptist doctrine and to Ed Fudge’s warmed-over denominational doctrine. Brother Wallace dug an article out of “A file of old articles,” so old he did not remember writing the article, and therefore an article written before the Fudge debacle. The title is “The Two Great Commandments” and demonstrates his ability to speak in words too plain to be misunderstood. His unambiguous comments there would have been an excellent substitute for his ambiguous “Not Under Law” article. The old article says nothing in favor of error, and constitutes legalism by Fudge’s terms. Wallace~ says, “The only adequate expression of the sinner’s love for God is his full obedience to the things which God has enjoined upon Him …. obedience to God is not only a fruit, but also a root-both an effort and a cause, as shown in the latter part of John 14:21. Our obedience not only expresses adequately our love for God, but keeps us within the grace and blessings of the Heavenly Father …. As love for God requires action, so does love for neighbor. These rules of action are found in the word of God. Some of them are negative, while others are positive . . . . The test of our love for God and neighbor is in our submission to the laws or commandments, by which these relationships have been regulated. There is no other test. By this, we shall stand or fall in the day of judgment.” William Wallace , “The Two Great Commandments,” Gospel Guardian, Vol. 26, No. 26 (Oct. 31, 1974), pp. 409-410. Contrast this emphasis on full obedience, obedience both an effort and cause of Salvation, obedience keeping us in grace, rules of action both positive and negative (i.e., the statues of God require do-its and don’t-do-its), and The test of love is obedience to laws or commandments-There is no other test-By this we stand or fall!, contrast, I say, this emphasis with the hedging in his “Not Under Law. “

Truth Magazine XIX: 23, pp. 362-363
April 17, 1975

By Cecil Willis

Several months of time have elapsed since the article published last week was written. Were it not for the fact that Lindy has indicted my veracity in various places, as is evidenced by reports from several with whom he has talked, and has charged explicitly that I misrepresented hire in one of his letters to me, I think I would be disposed to drop the matter and say no more about our “doctrinal” differences. But for instance, in a letter received from him August 5, 1974, he says on the one hand, “I have no intention of making a liar out of you . . .,” but in the same letter he charged that I had “greatly misrepresented (his) views” and “have not told the truth about a number of incidental matters.” I do wish he would be specific in regard to the things about which he said I lied.

To be called a liar, with me, is no slight charge. Personally, it is very unpalatable to become embroiled publicly with one whom I have considered a close personal friend for many years. I wish the matter could be dropped now, but I think that brethren need to know that Lindy has joined up with the crowd us who believe that “sins” like instrumental music and involvement with congregations which are contributing to human organizations will not cause one to be lost, unless the person so involved knowingly, high-handedly, presumptuous and rebelliously continues in such practice in open defiance to what he knows to be teaching of God’s word.

Keep this in mind: If such “sins” will not cause one to be lost, then we should be fellowshipping that brother! One puts himself in a ridiculous position when he teaches, openly or by implication, that one can have unbroken fellowship with God while he commits these “sins,” but that he cannot share in our fellowship here. I intend to continue to say it so often that no one can forget it, or overlook it: These brethren who have been advocating these Calvinistic concepts regarding the imputation of the personal righteousness of Christ to sinners on the day of Judgment, and who are loosening their views on fellowship and grace, are doing so in order try to establish some kind of rationale that will permit them to fellowship those who introduce and use such innovations as instrumental music and human organizations to the worship an organization of the congregation. Do not let any of them deceive you as to their ultimate goal as they beat around in the obscure bushes regarding whether one must confess every sin explicitly and by name, or while they pose hypothetical cases upon which they want us to pass judgment as to such a person’s eternal salvation or damnation, or while they try to expand upon God’s grace so as to continue to include among the saved impentitent sinners who have neither confessed their sins nor asked forgiveness of them-if theirs be sins that result either from ignorance or from the weakness of the flesh. They may wander around in the theological woods for ever so long, but it already is very evident where they intend to make their exit from those woods.

It is my judgment that Brother Lindy McDaniel is being use as a pawn by others, and that he is simply repeating what some close friend or friends of his have told him, but which close friend or friends have not as yet been willing to put such positions in print for public scrutiny. Of course, Edward Fudge, Leroy Garrett, Carl Ketcherside and others have explicitly stated their positions on the grace-fellowship question. Some brethren are so blind they will not believe that these brethren believe what they do, even while they them selves freely admit it. Lindy’s influence toward digression does not come entirely from the above named brethren, though he does hold several very similar positions on some pertinent points. The pervading and misleading influence over him, in all probability, come from a preacher or preachers in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area. It would very interesting to hear the tapes of Brother Fudge’s recent lectures on “Unity in Diversity” which were given in October, 1974 at the meeting house of the Arlington, Texas church, where Brother Hubert Moss, preaches. Furthermore, it would be very interesting to hear the five sermons Brother Moss has preached on the Christian having the present possession of eternal life, but I understand these tapes are said to belong to Brother Hubert Moss and are not available for public consumption; i.e., for public consumption outside of Arlington!

Articles in “Truth Magazine”

Previous to last week’s article, there have appeared three articles pertaining to Brother McDaniel’s compromising position. You may locate these articles by consulting the May 23, 1974 issue, the August 8, 1974 issue, and the September 19, 1974 issue. Brother McDaniel became very upset because I inserted the word “doctrinal” into a statement made by him in the May, 1974 issue of Pitching for the Master. Brother McDaniel did not think the nature of our differences should be paraded before the public. I also did not think our differences should be paraded before the non-Christian public, but inasmuch as he chose to inform them of our “differences,” I insisted that it be known that these “differences” were doctrinal rather than personal. I am aware of the fact that many brethren have little or no interest in lengthy articles, especially when they are articles that expose the error of some prominent member of the church. Furthermore, some do not think that personal letters should be quoted publicly. I am not quite as squeamish about that as are some of my brethren, but when divine truth, the well-being of the Lord’s church, or my personal veracity are involved, I will quote freely and extensively from personal letters, as I intend to continue to do before this series of articles is completed. Brother McDaniel has said he .intends to make no response to what I say. That is entirely his prerogative, but if he did not want this matter to be dealt with publicly, he should not have charged that I misrepresented him and said that I “have not told the truth about a number of incidental matters.”

In the article published last week, one flip-flop by Brother McDaniel on the ever expanding grace issue was documented. He at first believed the truth and stood solidly for it for ten or more years. But in 1972 he admitted that he had gotten “caught up in this ‘grace’ business, ” and then he got straightened out again. He even said in 1972 that he could see that “the concept of grace’ that is being advocated today by various individuals is simply the forerunner of views advocated by Ketcherside.” His assessment then was exactly correct. But now he has once again “been caught up in this grace’ business” which he then admitted “is simply the forerunner of the views advocated by Ketcherside.”And ever since we have been having to deal with this most recent affinity of his for this error, he has been squealing like a little pig caught in a fence.

The Beginning of 1973

In January, 1973 I was invited to speak on “Congregational Cooperation” at the Abilene Christian College “Preacher Forum.” Reuel Lemmons was to respond to my speech. I flew into Houston, and then found out that the Abilene, Texas airport was “iced in” and thus was closed. Brother McDaniel was planning on attending the discussion period at ACC, so I prevailed upon him to permit me to ride to Abilene, along with some others, with him. It took us all night, on icy roads, to get to Abilene. At that time, there were several former Florida College students at ACC who also had been “caught up in this grace’ business.” One of those so involved was Brother Ronni Compton of Baytown, Texas, and a former member of the congregation where Lindy then attended. Harry Pickup, Jr., and Melvin Curry of Florida College were there, as also was James W. Adams. Altogether, there were probably twenty faithful gospel preachers there. Several late-hour and very lengthy sessions were held with those young ex-Florida College students who have been “caught up in this ‘grace’ business.” Late one night in one of the discussions I thought I detected an inclination on the part of Lindv to sway back to the other sides I mentioned this fact to a friend or two, who also are close friends of Brother McDaniel. But it appeared, for the most part, that Brother McDaniel once again had his feet planted upon solid doctrinal ground. Most of our correspondence during the early and middle part of 1973 pertained to getting out Pitching for the Master, Lindy’s baseball career, and other unimportant personal matters.

Allan Martin Letter

I might add, however, that Allan E. Martin, originally of Pekin, Indiana, but who then was riving in Chalfont, Pennsylvania wrote a sixteen page letter to Brother Edward Fudge, copies of which Brother Martin obviously mailed to several other people. Brother Martin simply was writing to tell Brother Fudge how comforting his booklet, The Grace of God, had been to him. Brother Martin told Brother Fudge, “I first became interested in your writings several years ago when I read your article on faith and opinion in the Gospel Guardian . . . . Then a couple of years later I got a copy of your tract, The Grace of God, and was impressed with it to the extent that I ordered a half dozen more.” After James Adams’ articles began to appear, Brother Martin commented, “. . . Recently Brother Lindy McDaniel recommended the tract (The Grace of God-CW) to me as a tract that helped him to better understand the subject of grace.” (My emphasis-CW) Brother artm then continued with several pages of praise for the great good he had gotten from Brother Fudges’ writings.

Then toward the close of his long letter, Brother Martin said to Brother Fudge: “I would like to place out for consideration a matter that has troubled me for years on end. I would to God that I knew exactly the truth on the matter. That is the matter of the time of observance of the Lord’s supper. We observe it every Sunday because of Acts 20:7,” and he says that to do so is a matter of conscience with him. Then Brother Martin adds, “Yet, I realize that my matter of conscience is just that-my own personal conscience in the matter, and I cannot tell another that he will go to hell if he makes it his practice to partake other than on Sunday. I can say that about the works of the flesh (Gal. 5:19-21).” Brother Martin continues: “. . . I recognize that it is my conviction and that I cannot be absolutely certain in my own mind that it is definitely displeasing to God to partake other than on Sunday.” Brother Martin then stated that he doubted if any court in the land would rule from Acts 20:7 “the exclusiveness of Sunday as the day to partake.” He says that he thinks a court of law might rule that Sunday was “permissible,” or even perhaps “recommended.” He states that “Precedent is very valuable in courts to establish the propriety of a practice, but not necessarily the exclusiveness of a practice.” What answer Brother Fudge gave to this brother’s question, I do not know.

However, note that though Lindy previously had been “caught up in this grace’ business, ” but supposedly had gotten straightened out, he had just “recently . . . recommended” Brother Fudge’s tract, which was one of the main modern sources of this perverted ” `grace’ business” into which Brother McDaniel said he had been “caught up.”

Lindy’s Marion Visit

On September 20, and 21, 1973, Lindy visited with me in Marion. At this time I had decided that I must get out of local work and had asked the brethren at Westside in Marion to secure someone to replace me. I was then in the process of trying to arrange privately my personal support for the next year. I had been promised about $75 per week in support by an individual in Ohio. Lindy, at that time, was trying to negotiate a two-year contract with the New York Yankees, and told me that if he got the kind of contract he wanted and expected to get from the Yankees, he also would be in position financially to assist personally in my support. I mention this fact only because some have said that it was because Lindy did not assist in my support that I wrote my “‘In’ and ‘Out’ of Grace” article, which appeared May 23, 1974.

Meanwhile, Lindy was traded to Kansas City, and he and I both therefore understood that he had no binding commitment to me for support. It was conditioned upon his getting the kind of two-year contract that he sought from the New York Yankees. In a letter to him dated October 23, 1973, I said to Lindy: “Knowing the uncertainty of your contract situation, I know you cannot now make any definite commitment as to what you might be able to contribute to the Foundation to help in my support next year …. I will not count the $150 (per month-CW) as a definite promise until your contract picture is cleared up, for I know that it is contingent on you getting a suitable contract.” Lindy had written me on October 15, 1973: “Should I be traded to Houston, that may alter my proposed support of you somewhat, but I don’t think my figure will be affected much . . . . However, what I could do in supporting your work should I remain in the game will still be around $150 per month.” My above quoted October 23rd letter was in response to Lindy’s comments just quoted from his October 15, 1973 letter. Neither of us ever felt that he had made any kind of binding commitment toward me. Such mundane explanations as this would not be necessary to disclose publicly if there were not brethren who immediately begin to judge the motives of a brother when he differs publicly with another. Some actually have said that I “wrote up” Lindy because he would not assist in my support financially. Both Lindy and I know that is not the truth.

The Crisis Begins to Come

Meanwhile, Lindy was traded to Kansas City. Soon thereafter he called me and told me that he would be unable financially to help in my support, but then wnet on to add that he could not now do so in good conscience, even if he had ample money with which to do it. He told me that he no longer could “fellowship” me in the work that I was doing in attacking the Calvinistic grace concept that was being promulgated by some among us. From this point onward, I intend to quote extensively from my letters and his in order that the public may know what precipitated the Cogdill Foundation to decide no longer to publish Pitching for the Master.

Lindy’s December 11, 1973 Letter

Though I wrote Lindy on December 10th following our telephone conversation, I think it best that I quote his December 11th letter first. Our letters evidently passed each other in the mail, and it really makes very little difference which letter is read first. But I have chosen to quote his letter first.

“It might be well if I expressed myself more clearly as to our last conversation over the phone wherein I expressed some doubts as to my being able to support you. This has recently come up because of the very strong attack against men connected with Gospel Guardian. In the light of the nature of this controversy, and the strong language that is being used, I must be extremely careful in involving myself without proper information, and I have been somewhat disappointed in the documentation. Currently I have another disadvantage in that for some reason I am not receiving Truth Magazine. You might check on this for me.

“I feel confident that you and I are agreed as to the basic principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ, how to establish scriptural authority, etc. I also realize that strong measures are sometimes needed to combat error. I do not believe in a `soft’ approach if the situation calls for a `strong’ approach. Our problem seems to be in the area of judgment. I cannot agree with your assessment of William Wallace and the Gospel Guardian, but I also realize that you probably possess information that I do not. I simply need time to weigh the problem.

“Since my support of you in a sense throws me into the heart of the fight, I have deemed it wise to settle my mind completely on these matters before I take such a step. I hope that you understand and accept that this is the sole reason for my hesitancy. I certainly believe that the basic concepts of grace and fellowship as taught and held by Carl Ketcherside are wrong; but I am not nearly as convinced as to the errors of some of the others who have been linked to the grace movement. However, I am convinced that many are struggling with the issues of our day, and are trying to come to a better understanding of God’s word. We must be careful not to discourage honest investigation with our `strong rebukes’ and insinuations.’ It might very well be that 1 will come to see some of the change in emphasis as very dangerous and destructive, and come to view it as getting further away from the Bible instead of closer. I hope that I will always stand strongly opposed to anything that would destroy the meaning and effectiveness of the gospel of Jesus Christ.”

Please note that while Lindy previously had stated unequivocally that this “grace business” into which he had been caught up “is simply the forerunner of views advocated by Ketcherside, ” yet by December 11, 1973 he was “not nearly as convinced as to the errors of some of the others who have been linked to the grace movement.” Yet it was to these very ones that he hastened to write in late 1972 to `attempt to guide them (those whom Lindy had referred to as “these boys”-CW) back to the old paths.’ ” I am perfectly willing, at this juncture in time, to let the knowledgeable public decide as to whether my “assessment of William Wallace and the Gospel Guardian” was correct or incorrect.

My December 10, 1973 Letter

As the December 10, 1973 letter which I am about to quote shows, I stated very clearly that with Lindy “feeling the way you do about the matter, under no circumstance could I in good conscience now accept support from you.” Yet this was long before our Conroe, Texas meeting which occurred in February, 1974, and about six months before I made any comment regarding Lindy’s switch of positions in Truth Magazine. My first article that dealt with his fast-change act was in the May 23, 1974 issue of Truth Magazine. If anyone wants to go on believing that I made an attack upon Lindy because he refused to support me, with this evidence in his hand, he will just have to go on believing it. Nothing I could say would change his mind anyway. Following is the greater portion of my letter written one day before Lindy wrote the preceding letter. Evidently, he and I had reached the same conclusion regarding any potential support from him to me. He could not give it with a clear conscience, and I could not have received it with a clear conscience. So that should forever settle the support aspect of this controversy, which really never has had any bearing on our disagreements, and both Lindy and I have known that all along, and both have so stated as much on several occasions. But now to my letter:

“Its Monday night now, and I just have finished with my paste-up of your January issue of Pitching For the Master. Ever since my conversation with you via telephone the other day, I have intended to write this letter. I have postponed it a few days to be sure that I did not hastily say anything I should not say.

“Earlier you had indicated the possibility of you helping some in my personal support in 1974. I have given up my full-time work here as of January 1st. At all times I fully understood the possibility of you helping in my support was contingent upon you signing a suitable baseball contract. In our telephone conversation, you indicated that you now could not make any promise of support, and your position in regard to that completely is understood.

“However, you also said that even if you were in financial position to help in my support, you were not sure you could “fellowship” me in that way, in view of the manner in which the discussion on “Fellowship” has been carried on. I am aware of the fact that you cannot keep up with the papers and that you do not try to do so during the baseball season. I know you just now are digging into your reading for the whole year. But it upsets me very much that you state you cannot have fellowship with me, in view of the manner in which the controversy has been conducted.

“That statement poses an interesting question for me. If you cannot ‘fellowship” (have partnership) me, can I have partnership with you? I do so, through the work I do on your paper every month. You may think you pay for the work that is done. It is true that in recent months Brother Whitehead has begun to receive $10 a week for his work. But I never have received one cent for any work, travel, or telephone calls that I have made trying to see after your paper. So I am having partnership with a brother who cannot in good-conscience have partnership with me.

“Lindy, it is so strange to me that brethren, as they pretend to loosen their views and position on fellowship, find it impossible for them to fellowship certain brethren whom before they could fellowship. Do you have any explanation for this unusual phenomenon?

“Since you say you are unsure you can have fellowship with me now, I think it would be best that you make some different arrangements about your paper as soon as possible. It is not my intention immediately to discontinue the paper, or to necessitate a change so hurriedly as to embarrass you or hinder you in continuing the paper. But I have about had enough of this unevenness and uncertainty of each baseball season. During the baseball season, you are so involved that you cannot keep up on what is going on. Then at the end of the season, you reassess things to see if you still can fellowship us. In my case, that means, whether you are willing to let me go ahead and do another year of work free for you.

“Please do not conclude that your not being able to help support me has anything to do with my decision in this matter. Feeling the way you do about the matter, under no circumstance could I in good conscience now accept support from you. Nor can I under present conditions in good conscience continue to share in the work of getting out your paper each month.

“I am sorry that these circumstances are the case, but your reaction the other day left me no alternative. I have waited now about two weeks to respond, and I still feel precisely the way now that I felt then. Please let me know as soon as possible what decision you reach in regard to Pitching For the Master.

“It is my intention to attend the ACC Preacher Forum again this year, though I have not as yet made arrangements to do so.

“Incidentally, no one influenced me to make this decision. During this past week Bill Wallace has appeared three times to speak in regard to `The Gospel Guardian: Its Past, Present, and Future.’ Having talked with him twice, he left me with no doubt as to where Ed Fudge stands. Bill said that Ed considers Adams and me as “beasts” that are ready to devour him. He publicly used the term “beasts” several times. It also is strange to me how rough some of these false teachers can get while they are telling us about the meek spirit with which the Lord endowed them.”

Conclusion

But I must now bring this article to a close. As distasteful to me as it is to have to trace two years of Lindy’s meanderings on the grace-fellowship issue, I feel that for clarification and exoneration of what I have said publicly, complete documentation should be given. Lindy has drifted erratically, wandered, wavered, wobbled, and floated around more on this issue than, as I said before, the best “fork ball” pitch he ever served up to any batter.

It long has been my personal intention, and that of Truth Magazine, to oppose pernicious and insidious error whenever it raises its head, whether it be-inside or outside of the Lord’s church, and whether it be promulgated by friend or foe. In this case, the promoter of this error happens to be a very close personal friend, and that makes the opposition to the error taught all the more difficult. But truth must take precedence over friendship, and I sincerely believe Brother McDaniel has backslidden into the quagmire of this “grace business, “which he formerly said was “simply the forerunner of the views advocated by Ketcherside.”

I intend to show, before this series concludes, that Lindy has been on both sides of the grace-fellowship issue twice! Reuel Lemmons is said to have the unique ability to wine equally as strongly on both sides of nearly any issue. Though Brother McDaniel may not be quite the equal of an experienced writer like Reuel Lemmons, yet he has one superior trait to Lemmons; Brother McDaniel can do the double-flip-flop faster than Lemmons has ever executed it, at least up until now. We will continue with this unpleasant task next week.

(To Be Continued Next Week)

Truth Magazine XIX: 23, pp. 355-360
April 17, 1975