FRANKLIN T. PUCKETT: Powerful Proponent of the Prince of Peace

By Cecil Willis

Just this afternoon, I returned from a hurried trip to Florence, Alabama to attend the funeral services for that well-known and much beloved gospel preacher, Franklin T. Puckett. A few years ago, Boyd E. Morgan published a book about early preachers of the gospel in Arkansas. This book he entitled, Arkansas Angels. I am sure that by his usage of the word “Angel” when applied to a gospel preacher, he alluded to its primary meaning; that of “messenger.” Somehow, in my mind, Franklin Puckett has always been one, of those “Arkansas Angels,” though he was not mentioned in Morgan’s book which was published in 1967. By that time, the name of Franklin T. Puckett had become a “hiss and a by-word” to all those purveyors of digression in Arkansas and elsewhere.

Franklin Thomas Puckett was born near Melbourne, Arkansas June 21, 1908. But as long as I can remember knowing him, he has always called Calico Rock, Arkansas “home.” On December 25, 1974, Brother and Sister Puckett were spending a holiday with their daughter, Editha, and her family. Editha is married to Olin Kern, able preacher in his own right, who now works with the fine Plainfield, Indiana congregation. Brother Puckett became ill, and decided that it would be best for him to get back as soon as possible to Florence, Alabama, where he has lived and worked for the past several years with the College View congregation. After consulting his doctor, he was told that he had not yet suffered a heart attack, but conditions were such that he could have one to occur at any moment. Soon thereafter Frank did have a heart attack. It was so massive in nature that it ruptured the frontal part of his heart. Perhaps he suffered a stroke at the same time, or virtually at the same time. An aneurysm resulted, and he was in critical condition thereafter. Prior to his death, his temperature had risen to 107 degrees, which had he lived, would have very likely left him with brain damage. The brittle thread of life for him severed at about 2 A.M. on Thursday, January 16th. Funeral services were held on Friday the 17th at 2 P.M. at the College View meeting house, and his earthly remains were deposited in the bosom of mother earth in Florence, Alabama, a city which he much loved and where he twice had served as a full-time evangelist.

The College View meeting house, which probably can seat 500 people,- was filled and over-flowing. Several remarked that they had never seen so many gospel preachers at anyone’s funeral. Certainly more preachers would have attended had they known of his passing. The funeral service was conducted the day following his death. It seemed so appropriate that two men whom I also somehow think of as Arkansas preachers (Paul Keller and Eugene Britnell) should be chosen to speak at the funeral service. Like Puckett, Britnell and Keller have preached in many states, but much of their work has been done in Arkansas.

Frank Puckett was a Bible-preaching man. His lessons always were crammed full of Bible quotations, appropriately chosen and correctly used. Thus, fittingly, the funeral service was lavish with Scripture. I doubt if I ever attended a funeral service where more passages of Scripture were cited than were used as we met to honor the memory and the work of Franklin T. Puckett.

Frank and I were nearly kin-folks. He is related to Dwight King’s family, and Dwight married my wife’s sister, Aloah. So since 1949, I have known and been quite closely associated with Frank Puckett. There are many lessons to be garnered from the consideration of a long, useful, and steadfast life in God’s service. Please forgive me if I make this article a little longer than you might think befitting. But Frank Puckett was no ordinary man. We shall not soon see his equal again. A wide gap has been created in the ranks of the soldiers of Christ, and it will take some gallant service, perhaps by several men, to clue the ranks and to protect that part of the battle line which for so many years has been filled by that massive spiritual man, Franklin T. Puckett.

His Preparation

Isn’t it strange how many great men came from such unpretentious and unprestigous backgrounds? It seems that most of the great men are men who climbed from the lowest rung of the ladder. No knowledgeable Bible student would ever leave an assembly where Frank Puckett had done the preaching feeling that he had just listened to an uneducated preacher. Brother Puckett, I am told, finished only the ninth grade. Sometime later he completed his studies and took the necessary, test and was given teaching credentials and he taught in the public schools for ten years-from 1927 to 1937. Later on in life, he did additional college work, and taught in the Bible Department at Florida College from 19541957. But preaching was too much in his blood for him to stay tied down to a classroom. Thus, his teaching career was cut short by the impulsion he had to preach. Yet there are scores of gospel preachers who will carry and disseminate throughout their lives those great Bible lessons they learned at the feet of Franklin T. Puckett.

Frank began preaching in 1933. He often has told me of the influence that men like Joe Blue of Arkansas had on him. I shall long remember Frank telling about attending the famous Hardeman-Bogard Debate in Little Rock in 1938. Hardeman and Bogard (Baptist) were about the ablest men that could meet on the same platform on those subjects. Frank said the crowds were so large that one had to go two hours early in order to get a seat. One night when he walked in, the auditorium was completely filled and already the aisles were filled around the sides of the auditorium. Seated on the rostrum with Hardeman and Bogard were that trio of terrors to false teaching, J. D. Tant, Joe S, Warlick, and Joe Blue. Brother Blue happened to spot Frank, as he was standing in the doorway looking in vain for an empty seat. There just happened to be one extra chair on the rostrum, and Brother Blue motioned for Frank to come to sit there.

Hardeman and Bogard were both experienced debaters. Bogard had participated in nearly 300 debates, about 100 of them with our brethren, or so I have been told. In his introductory remarks, Bogard cautioned the audience to leave the debating to himself and to Brother Hardeman. He said they were capable of handling it. Bogard then began to talk about how many debates he and Joe Warlick had conducted. They had debated seventeen times, and yet Bogard said they were still good friends: Bogard said they frequently exchanged setters and that whenever he went through the place where Warlick lived, he stopped by for a visit with Warlick, whenever possible. He continued by reporting that he and Warlick had even stayed at the same house during one debate; in fact, they even slept together. But Bogard said, “Of course, I was very careful to get up early the next morning and take a bath.” Brother Warlick commented: “And I would have slept a lot better if he had taken that bath the night before!”

J. D. Tant brought the evening paper with him and very obviously read it, page by page, while Bogard was making his first speech. Warlick, who was sitting right next to the pulpit stand, appeared to have gone to sleep. Puckett said Warlick’s enormously large head fell backward, and his mouth popped open, as though he were sound asleep. During Bogard’s speech, he misquoted a passage of Scripture. Brother Warlick just opened one eye, and with his head still flopped back, said quite loudly, “Quote it right, now!” And Bogard went back and correctly quoted the passage. But those were the days. It was in this kind of furnace that the mettle of Franklin T. Puckett was forged.

His Portrait

Hundreds and perhaps thousands of you personally knew Frank Puckett, but for those of you who did not have that good fortune, let me tell you just a little bit about him. He was a robust man, and was white headed as long as I can remember him. Just his appearance immediately conveyed to you a sense of quiet, but very strong and perhaps stern dignity. Some might say that he, bore the air of Southern Aristocracy. He was about as dignified a preacher as I ever knew . . . until he got his country fiddle out!! And then all that dignity left. What a time he then could have if there were a few others who would join with him in making some good country music.

Someone commented that Frank Puckett reminded them of what a Supreme Court Judge should look like. I suppose that would describe him about as well as anything I might try to put on paper. Yet with this somber and stern dignity, there was a tender-heart inside. Gene Britnell said at the funeral, “No man could be around Frank Puckett very long without feeling close to him.” He cared for other people. In many ways, Frank Puckett and Curtis .Porter made similar impressions upon me. When I first met them, I was awed by what I had heard of them, and now to be in their presence. One of the things that made me know those two men were different was that they sincerely seemed interested in what I, as a very unlearned and inexperienced preacher, had to say. I do not mean that they particularly thought I was about to teach them anything. They both forgot more than I will ever know. But they had time and the disposition to listen to me. This pulled them from this imaginary pedestal upon which I had supposed they sat, and made them lovable, ordinary gospel preachers to me. But they were by no means ordinary gospel preachers. Frank Puckett once in private conversation shortly after Brother Porter’s death said to me of W. Curtis Porter, “He was a great man, but he did not know it!” I can think of no more appropriate way to describe Frank Puckett.

During the early 1950’s, when the institutional issues were really being fought out, sizable elements of the liberals attended the Florida College Annual Lectures. During the “Open Forum” period, for several years they tried just to take over the discussion. Brother Puckett had been chosen as Moderator, and a fairer but sterner one, you never saw. It made no difference who the liberal preacher was, he was not about to bully Frank Puckett around in the Open Forum. Frank never once lost his composure, but neither did he ever once lose control over the Open Forum. His quiet, but strong, dignity never shined brighter in my estimation than on those heated and even hostile occasions.

His Preaching

Franklin T. Puckett was preeminently a gospel preacher. He taught school a while, farmed a while, taught in college a while, but he could not leave his love for gospel preaching. The appraisal of gospel preachers, I know, is a very subjective thing. I have said on several occasions that I thought that Roy E. Cogdill was the ablest preacher of the gospel in my generation. Other than Roy Cogdill, there was no other man whom I ever heard who approached such thoroughness in covering a subject in a sermon than Frank Puckett. Having heard him preach many times, whenever he finished one felt, “Well, now, that subject has been well covered.”

Brother Puckett did not enter the pulpit with three jokes he wanted to relate in his introduction. He was no imitation comedian. Did you ever see a preacher who was a good comedian? When Puckett got up to preach, he opened the Bible, and from that moment onward he amassed Scriptural evidence to set out the thesis which he had proposed for consideration on that occasion. A word much on the mind of Brother Puckett as a preacher was “balance.” He did not want to be an extremist on any issue. Other than by those who would have perverted the work arid the organization of the church, my guess is that you never heard anyone charge Frank Puckett with radicalism, or extremism. But somehow, when the smoke of battle had cleared away, it seems that Frank Puckett always came out of the fray standing for the truth.

I never heard Brother Puckett in debate, though he was principal participant in several and moderated for many others. Among his debates were the “BmersonPuckett” debate on Women Preachers and instrumental music in 1940. The “Puckett-Weaver” debate on baptism, sanctification, and miraculous healing occurred in 1944. In 1949 he debated a denominational preacher named Crowder on instrumental music. W. Curtis Porter was the best negative debater I ever heard, or after whom I have read. On the other hand, Alexander Campbell made a massive affirmative argument that simply overwhelmed his opponent. Roy Cogdill, in this regard, debated after the manner of Alexander Campbell. Though I never heard Puckett in debate, but judging from having heard him speak on many occasions, I know Franklin T. Puckett was a debater who amassed an insuperable affirmative that completely engulfed his opponent.

But primarily, one would have to say that Frank Puckett was a great Bible expositor. When he chose a paragraph of Scripture and proposed to discourse upon it from one to two hours, you could know that you were in for a real treat if you were one of those “whose delight is in the law of the Lord.”

His Proficiency

One certainly could count on one hand (and it probably would not take all five fingers in order to do so) the men who were held in higher esteem by the brethren nation-wide than Frank Puckett. He had preached in hundreds of gospel meetings in about 80% of the States of this nation. Frank did not commit himself on a position until he was sure he was on solid ground.

He was without doubt the most informed man among us on Calvinism. For two or three years, I have again and again literally begged him to step into this current discussion and help to expose those who have accepted Calvinism or Neo-Calvinism; whether they accepted this false doctrine deliberately or inadvertently, the result of its teaching is the same. The greatest tragedy of the sudden death of Frank Puckett, in my judgment, is that he took all this now so badly needed knowledge to the grave with him. Had several men of Puckett’s knowledge and spiritual stature used the pages of the various journals available to them, this new wave of Calvinism sweeping across the churches could have been reduced to a mere ripple. Make no doubt about it: Frank Puckett taught against the errors of accepting the doctrine of the imputed personal righteousness of Christ to the Christian, and against the error that God unconditionally forgives sin. In fact, probably the very day you are reading this article, Frank Puckett (had he lived) would have been engaged in teaching an intensive series of studies on Calvinism in Florence.

Frank was a thorough student. Whenever he attacked a problem, he drove to the,heart of it. When he decided that he wanted to learn Greek and Hebrew, he simply persisted until he had become competent in both languages. In fact, he also was scheduled to be teaching a class in Biblical Greek at this very moment, had he not been snatched from our midst.

Just to illustrate the type of student he was, elsewhere in this issue I am publishing a long letter that he wrote me in response to a request I made that he do some research for me in regard to a textual variant in the reading of Acts 12:25. This was just prior to my debate with Clifton Inman on sponsoring churches in Parkersburg, West Virginia in 1966. Back then, the liberals felt they should at least try to find authority for a sponsoring church in the Bible. In the interim of nearly a decade, they have come to the place where they find it easier to deny the binding nature of apostolic examples or necessary inferences than to try to present Biblical authority, either generically or specifically, for a sponsoring church.

But nearly ten years ago, these liberal brethren were looking as closely as possible at every verse in the Bible to try to find something that looked like a 42nd cousin to a sponsoring church. So some of them learned that some of the ancient manuscripts on Acts 12:25 indicated that Paul and Barnabas returned `from Jerusalem,” supposedly having delivered to the Jerusalem elders the relief sent by the brethren in Antioch for all the needy brethren in Judea. You say, you don’t see a sponsoring church in `from Jerusalem”? Well, you see, you have to supply a little missing information, which the brother who is looking for Bible authority for a sponsoring church is plenty ready to do.

So . . . they suppose that since some copies of the ancient manuscripts state ?hat Paul and Barnabas returned `from Jerusalem,” this therefore proves that Jerusalem was the sponsoring church. Paul and Barnabas supposedly delivered the relief to the Jerusalem elders, and they distributed it to the brethren throughout Judea. A liberal preacher who has nothing better to offer than this kind of an argument is no better off than the Baptist who denies the inspiration of Mark 16:9-20 in an effort to deny that baptism is essential to salvation. Perhaps others of you might need access sometime to this same information, so I am now publishing Brother Puckett’s letter to me. This gives you some idea of the thoroughness of his scholarship, when he felt he must really dig into a question. Keep in mind that he was merely doing some private study to help a friend. He was not writing an article for public consumption. But this type of work was typical of Frank Puckett’s thoroughness. And . . . there just might be a liberal or two still around who is naive enough to think that he can build a castle upon the flimsy textual controversy of whether Acts 12:25 says “from Jerusalem” or “to Jerusalem.” When I make a trip to Texas, I usually return “from Houston,” but that does not mean that I did not visit any other city in Texas.

On various occasions, when I have been trying to convince some competent brother that it does not take superhuman power to preach the gospel, I frequently have said that ‘preaching is about 90 percent work, and 10 percent ability.” I still sincerely believe that. But the tools of trade to a gospel preacher are books, carefully chosen and with which he is well familiar-and I might add, paid for by dollars that his wife and family might like to have seen used for some other urgent need.

Those who know me probably would say that I have some kind of “hang-up” on old books that deal with divine truth. Ah!! It was there that Frank and I could strike up a warm discussion. He had the best collection of religious debates owned by any individual known to me. I have heard that his close friend and protoge, Paul Keller, also has a tremendously valuable collection of debates. If I may bragg a little, Frank’s was the only collection of debates privately owned that I ever saw that was more complete than my own. He had some debates that I just thought I had to have!! I offered him nearly anything that I could get my hands upon for certain select ones, but he always wanted twice their worth in return, but in debate books. I became so exasperated at times trying to trade with him that I was nearly tempted to swipe the ones I wanted But Frank Puckett loved good books, and his shelves were not filled’ with a lot of worthless denominational trash. Define the word however you will, it must still be said that Franklin T. Puckett was indeed a Bible “scholar.” His was a degree of scholarship and knowledge of the Word, but predicated upon his constant implicit trust in its verbal inspiration, which few men before him have attained, and which very few after him are likely to attain.

His Partner

Aside from being, the light of his life and the love of his heart, Sister Puckett was also a partner in the work of Frank Puckett. Eugene Britnell best expressed it at the funeral:. “There could never have been a Frank Puckett without an Evelyn Puckett.” For several years, he and I lived in the same city, and I had the chance to see not only him, but also her at work. Sister Puckett made no great fanfare about her portion- in the Lord’s work. In fact, most would hardly know she was so deeply engaged in it.

The life of a preacher’s wife is not easy. Particularly is this true of that wife who happens to be’ married to a preacher who does a lot of travel in connection with his gospel work. There are scores of things about which such a wife could whine and complain. But in all the days that I have known Sister Puckett, never once did I hear any remark indicative that she would have Frank doing anything else. Though she went about her work quietly, yet it was obvious that she supplied that quiet, serene strength that every gospel preacher needs is order to do his work well.

Though Frank is now gone from our midst here on earth, Sister Puckett is the kind of woman that will go on living and go on doing what her Lord (and Frank) would have her to sio. Wherever she is, she will be one of those “worthy” women who continues quietly to go about doing her Master’s work.

His Posterity

Brother and Sister Puckett had but one child, a daughter named Editha. She is married to Olin Kern, an Indiana-born preacher, who recently returned to work with the Plainfield church just West of Indianapolis. Olin worked in Marion previous to my coming here in 1966. Most recently, he has spent several years in Blytheville, Arkansas. Olin and Editha have two children whom they are nurturing is the chastening and admonition of the Lord. The influence of Frank Puckett’s “sojourn” upon this earth will be evidenced in the lives and work of Olin and Editha and their children for years to come. My only regret for the grandchildren is that perhaps they are not yet old enough to know what a truly great servant of the Lord their grandfather was, and perhaps they will not remember all those noble traits that made him the great man that he was.

His Perpetuity

The preaching of Frank Puckett is not finished. Even his oral preaching is not finished, for there are scores of brethren who have tapes of sermons that Frank has preached that they will now cherish as never before. Though every preacher wants to “be his own man” so to speak, none of us really is. Even subconsciously we seem to emulate the characteristics of the men whom we admire. Having spent fifteen years or so in close association with a preacher of Frank’s calibre, certainly Olin will have been made a better preacher thereby.

Then think of the scores of preachers, both young and old, who have sat at his feet and absorbed the wonderful lessons Frank taught. I shall never forget the lessons he preached on Romans and Ephesians. That which he taught shall be used again and again as we attempt to attend to those duties assigned to us by the Captain of our salvation. Already I have heard of several who now are hurriedly seeking to acquire tape recordings of certain lessons Brother Puckett taught. Indeed it must be said of him that, like Abel, “he being dead yet speaketh.”

His Prospect

Though there was weeping at his death, as did those at the death of Lazarus (John 11), yet there also was rejoicing at his hope of glory. The very first song sung by the congregation assembled for the funeral was “Blessed Be the Name.” That must have pleased Frank! He would have had everyone concentrating on Him who is our hope, rather than on him who so recently had died in the hope of glory.

Little of my time is spent in reading poetry, except that which was written by divine inspiration. But a few pertinent quotes comes to mind as I reflect upon the life, labors, and legacy of Franklin T. Puckett. Emily Dickinson said:

“If I can stop one heart from breaking,

I shall not live in vain;

If I can ease one life the aching,

Or cool one pain,

Or help one fainting robin

Upon his nest again,

I shall not live in vain.”

It is wonderful just to contemplate the number of redeemed souls who will be in heaven because there was a man named Frank Puckett who preached Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.

Frank’s life had been spent in preparation for this transition that we call “death.” He knew its inevitability. Some may ask “Why” as he was stricken in the strength of mature manhood. As has been said of the soldier or cowboy, “He died with his boots on.” If each one of us could choose his way to leave this world, many of us would choose to leave it as did Frank, without having to endure those painful and helpless years of wasting into nothingness. Alfred Tennyson’s poem, “Crossing the Bar, ” seems appropriate here.

“Sunset and evening star,

And one clear call for me,

And may there be no moaning of the bar,

When I put out to sea.

“But such a tide as moving seems asleep,

Too full for sound and foam,

When that which drew from out the boundless deep

Turns Again home.

“Twilight and evening bell,

And after that the dark!

And may there be no sadness of farewell,

When I embark;

“For tho’ from out our bourne of time and place

The flood may bear me far,

I hope to see my Pilot face to face

When I have crossed the bar.”

But Henry Wadsworth Longfellow’s “A Psalm of Life” seems even more poignant to me as I reflect upon Frank’s “Home-going.”

“Tell me not, in mournful numbers,

Life is but an empty dream!

For the soul is dead that slumbers,

And things are not what they seem.

“Life is real! Life is earnest!

And the grave is not its goal;

Dust thou art, to dust returnest,

Was not spoken of the soul.

“Not enjoyment, and not sorrow,

Is our destined end or way;

But to act, that each tomorrow

Find us farther than today.

“Art is long, and Time is fleeting,

And our hearts, though stout and brave

Still, like muffled drums, are beating

Funeral marches to the grave.

“In the world’s broad field of battle,

In the bivouac of life,

Be not like dumb, driven cattle!

Be a hero in the strife!

“Trust no Future, howe’er pleasant!

Let the dead Past bury its dead!

Act in the living Present!

Heart within, and God o’erhead!

“Lives of great men all remind us

We can make our lives sublime,

And, departing, leave behind us

Footprints on the sands of time.

“Footprints, that perhaps another,

Sailing o’er life’s solemn main,

A forlorn and shipwrecked brother,

Seeing, shall take heart again.

“Let us then be up and doing,

With a heart for any fate;

Still achieving, still pursuing,

Learn to labor and to wait.”

Close

Partings here are indeed sad, but won’t it be wonderful over there, where we can meet to part no more? Frank Puckett in his life did help somebody (thousands of them!), and thus his living was not in vain. Having crossed the bar, he now has gone to meet his Pilot face to face, a meeting for which he had been decades in preparing. Blessed thought it is, “Dust thou art, to dust returnest, Was not spoken of the soul.” That vibrant spirit, which sojourned in that robust tabernacle of clay that we thought of as Frank Puckett, lives on. Frank left his “Footprints on the sands of time.” Every time his footprint fitted exactly into the footprints of Jesus, let us likewise walk therein. The song writer put it beautifully when it was said, “We’ll say Good night here, but Good morning up there.” Let us thank God that there was a Frank Puckett, and may his tribe increase.

Truth Magazine XIX: 15, pp. 227-232
February 20, 1975

THAT’S A GOOD QUESTION

By Larry Ray Hafley

QUESTION:

From Alabama: `Does Matthew 18:22 apply in a case where d person is about to divorce his mate for the cause of fornication?”

REPLY:

“Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Till seven times? Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, until seven times: but until seventy times seven” (Matt. 18:21, 22). “And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery” (Matt. 19:9).

Now read the question again. The “except it be for fornication” clause is not in Matthew 18:22. The Lord did not say, “Forgive your brother unless the sin he commits is fornication.” He said forgive all who truly and sincerely repent. “Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him” (Lk. 17:3).

It would be easy to cease here and repose and reflect on the above answer, but there is more to our querist’s inquiry than is immediately apparent. The only reason one may scripturally put away a companion and marry another is fornication. May one put away his or her mate and marry another if the guilty party is penitent? I respond in the affirmative. The issue in this case is not forgiveness. One must forgive the penitent party (Matt. 18:21, 22). However, repentance and forgiveness do not do away with the “except it be for fornication” clause. One who commits fornication may be “put away.” The innocent party may “marry another” without committing adultery. The Lord did not say, “Put away for fornication unless it be forgiven.” He did not say, “Except it be for fornication that is unrepented of.” He said, “Except it be for fornication:”

True, the fornicator can receive forgiveness. Consider this–one who puts away his spouse for just any reason may later obtain forgiveness of the Lord, but his forgiveness does not permit him to marry another. God’s forgiveness is available, but it does not allow the individual to retain all his former rights. So, in this case.

One may put his marriage mate away “for fornication.” That is what the Lord said. When one commits the sin, he may be put away for it. If the offended partner chooses to continue the marriage, that is his prerogative. This is the course that ideally should be followed in such difficult times, but there is no obligation for the innocent party to do so. Required to forgive? Yes. Free to put away the other because of fornication and marry another? Yes. In a case where one puts away his companion for burning the toast, the Lord is (I hesitate to say “required”) willing to forgive, but He is not willing to allow that person to marry another.

Caution and Conclusion

Matthew 19:9 does not demand that one put away his mate. Hopefully, the relationship can be restored. What I have said is controversial, and I am painfully conscious of that fact, but it is what I believe to be the truth. However, let me say that the case is theoretical and hypothetical. It seems unlikely that sincere penitence and genuine forgiveness would allow . the putting away process to occur. After one is over the hurt and shame and the disgust and depression and humiliation that has been done to them by the sin of fornication, would they then proceed with the putting away after granting forgiveness?

Oh, the grief and agony caused by sin in the marriage relationship! But what is worse than ruined homes and wrecked lives is lost souls. Mom and dad, what are you teaching your children with respect to the sacredness and sanctity of the home? Do not wait until they are engaged to begin telling them of the seriousness of marriage. Start now while there is hope.

Truth Magazine XIX: 15, p. 226
February 20, 1975

Journalistic Compromise Demonstrated

By Ron Halbrook

(Or, How To Write Thirty-eight Times In Digressive Papers Without Being Cut Off)

Doubtless it is one of the great philosophic challenges of this age to find out how a gospel preacher can write thirty-eight (yes, 38!) times for digressive papers without being cut off. Well, hold your breath, dear reader, because the deepest secrets of wisdom will be unveiled in this article. The answer will no longer have to wait on the assured (always-coming-but-never-quite-there) results of philosophic theorizers and theoretic philosophers. An axiom of teaching is that demonstrations are extremely effective. In answering the great question before us at this ecumenical hour, we shall present a demonstration case.

What a shame that the secrets of wisdom have eluded those brethren who have given their all to resist digression in the last twenty-five years. How often they found their efforts blocked by closed-door policies in so many pulpits and publications. Though deprived of the deep insights about to be revealed, these valiant souls persisted in a militant, aggressive, and plainspoken stand for truth and against error. They fought centralization in church organization and a host of social-gospel practices. They fought and they fought hard. They doubtless made errors in judgment along the way, but they also kept great principles of divine truth before them all the way through. But when all is said and done, this fact remains: there was something about the way they conducted the fight that caused the doors to be shut on every one of these soldiers without exception. A few kept a foot or a finger in the door a little longer than some others. But in the end, the doors were shut to them, one and all.

The case we are about to witness makes evident why the doors were shut, and reveals (are you still holding your breath?) how brethren could have written in digressive papers without being cut off. Fearing the reader cannot wait until the end of this article, we shall reveal the key at the beginning. The remainder of the article will then demonstrate an actual case of the use of that key.

The long lost key is: When writing in a paper which defends a particular innovation, do not apply the great principles of divine truth in direct opposition to that particular innovation. Watch closely and do not miss the point, brethren. It is permissible to attack other innovations not defended by the paper in which a writer desires to write. The key is do not deal specifically with the particular innovation defended by that particular paper. In the past, brethren who have resisted and tried to roll back the tide of digression, have consistently violated this rule. In other words, they have persisted in directly applying divine truth in opposition to the innovations accepted and defended by the listening audience. In fact, they generally called a failure to make such application “compromise.” But in this Aquarian (pronounced “Aesopian”) Age, we can be sure that what used to be compromise is no longer compromise. Like a lot of other things, compromise “just ain’t what it used to be” since the horse-and-buggy days turned into the jet age.

But enough said with tongue in cheek. Let’s turn to some cold, hard facts. What follows is a list of articles written by Brother Edward Fudge of Athens, Alabama. We shall not attempt to review these articles. The mere appearance of these articles in digressive papers over an extended period of time is shame enough in itself for those who believe today that compromise is exactly what it used to be just as truth is! Most of those reading this article have no access to back issues of Firm Foundation and Christian Standard. The Foundation defends centralized arrangements for the work of churches as well as social-gospel practices; the Standard defends all that and more, including instrumental music in worship. The Standard is published by members of the Christian Church denomination (as distinguished from the most radical group which tolerates Modernism and other forms of unbelief-the Disciples of Christ). Since most readers do not have access to these papers, the publication of this list of articles should serve several purposes: (1) show how compromise works, (2) help explain why a battle has raged over “new” concepts on grace, unity, and fellowship; (3) aid confused brethren in understanding that Fudge is not a poor, country bumkin unfairly pushed into the limelight for youthful mistakes, but is in fact an accomplished writer in major digressive journals. Fudge is a leading force, a significant symbol, a powerful influence in this battle,, especially to the young. This list of Ed’s writings should help some older men see how Fudge has come to be so prominently projected into modern problems over, grace, unity, fellowship, and alleged compromise.

More readers of this article are more familiar with Firm Foundation than with Christian Standard. First v16i will list issues of the Foundation in which Ed Fudge’s writings have appeared; some brief summaries of these articles and some comments thereon will be included.

Vol. 84, No. 20 (May 16, 1967), p. 322, “Lest We Forget.” Redeemed people should have a transforming influence in society, but the church should not be given over to social concerns. No application is made to, social-gospel practices defended by Firm Foundation. Any conservative, “evangelical” paper could comfortably print this piece.

Vol. 84, No. 36 (Sept. 5, 1967), p. 568, “Faith, or Merely Opinion.” “It is ours to refute” or put “into practice” the view that church centralization and social gospel practices are “matters of ‘opinion’ “-matters upon which we cannot expect nor require “unity of opinion.” Ed defends the view that such matters can be practiced as a “freedom” subject to the limitation that they not be. “impose(d) . . . on others.” This article had first appeared in Christian Standard (Sept. 5, 1967); editor Lemmons was so impressed that he reproduced it. Editor Charles Holt was also impressed, so reproduced it in Sentinel of Truth (Sept., 1967). Holt recommended this article as the final solution to problems of division, in a lengthy editorial entitled ” ‘Personal’ From The Editor: Faith, or Merely Opinion?” which lambasted “Anti or Conservative Churches of Christ.”

Vol. 84, No. 45 (Nov. 7, 1967), p. 716, “Emphasis: Christ.” Here we are told that we need more emphasis on “the timeless Christ” rather than on “a first-century church” or “a twentieth-century one . . . .”

Vol. 84, No. 50 (Dec. 12, 1967), p. 806, “Christian Unity-Second Thoughts.” True believers are already one in Christ, therefore neither doctrinal compromise nor “unity of understanding” are necessary for the “Christian unity” discussed in John 17, 1 Cor. 11:10, 2 John 9, and Eph. 4. The Bible has some role in unity, but actually we are united in Christ, not upon the Bible.

Vol. 85, No. 4 (Jan. 23, 1968), p. 53, “Christian Unity: Ephesians 4:1-6.” Here Ed presents the denominational view that the seven one’s of Eph. 4 are not a “platform for unity” but are “unities already possessed by the Ephesians . . . . On the basis of what they already share in the Spirit, he is now urging them to put aside grievances …. This passage then has no direct relation to doctrinal unity, but deals with a unity described in verse 2.” So we are united “in the Spirit” while disunited doctrinally!

Vol. 85, No. 5 (Jan. 30, 1968), p. 67, “Counterfeit Cross-Bearing. ” In the New Testament, “good works and the abstinence from bad ones are not in order to earn salvation and grace, but because of God’s gift in Christ . . . .” We all agree obedience cannot earn God’s grace (Lk. 17:10), but Ed says here what every Baptist book on my book shelf says about obedience: it is the fruit of grace rather than an indispensable condition of grace. We “work” because we are saved; not in order to be saved.

Vol. 85, No. 10 (Mar. 5, 1968), p. 151, 153, “Christian Unity: 1 Cor. 1:10ff.” This passage admonishes unity of purpose and aim, not “doctrinal unity.” Issues do not cause division, but only “a party spirit (factiousness),” because in Christ “Christians can differ” doctrinally “without tearing the body into shreds.”

Vol. 85, No. 20 (May 14, 1968), p. 311, “Christian Unity: 2 John 9.” The passage cannot be applied to “differences or arguments between saints on how best to please the Christ in whom they all believe.” Thus the passage has nothing to do with issues like centralization, social-gospel practices, or instrumental music. The Christian Standard was as glad to print this good bit of news in November as Firm Foundation was in May!

Vol. 85, No. 28 (July 9, 1968), p. 441, ” ‘Doctrine’ and ‘Morals.’ “

Vol. 86, No. 8 (Feb. 25, 1969), p. 120, “Government and God.”

Vol. 86, No. 14 (Apr. 8, 1969), p. 214, 218, “Truth, Error, and the Grace of God.”

Ed says brethren “sometimes lean” toward “the notion that one can be saved by his own accomplishments or learning . . . .” “We can love all brethren in Christ as beloved saints who also need God’s grace. We can leave off all name-calling (‘anti,’ ‘liberal,’ ‘digressive,’ etc.) and party spirit.” What interesting reading for Firm Foundation subscribers: in spite of their innovations, they stand. in God’s grace, are not to be described as “digressive,” and anyone who so identifies them manifests a “party spirit.”

Vol. 86, No. 29 (July 22, 1969), p. 454, “Spending the Day with Jesus.” This warns against “speaking of peacemakers as ‘soft.’ “

Vol. 86, No. 31 (Aug. 5, 1969), p. 485, “Under Divine Orders.” When Ed warned against “inventing schemes and pushing projects because we thought our job was to get results,” he had a perfect opportunity to make applications direly needed in the Foundation. As he leaves it, it can be “all things to all men.”

Vol. 86, No. 44 (Nov. 4, 1969), p. 697, “Undenominational Christianity.” “We often hear the question raised as to whether there are Christians in all the denominations . . . . As to whether there are Christians in this place, or that, it should be enough to cite these words of inspiration”: 2 Tim. 2:19 (i.e., the Lord knows). This is a nice middle-of-the-road position, but in this case the Lord not only knows but also has revealed that all the saved are in the body of Christ. If all the saved are in the church of Christ, then none are in human denominations. It should be enough to cite Eph. 1:3 and Gal. 5:20: all Christians are “in this place,” in Christ, in his body: none are in “that,” in sects, in man-made bodies teaching the doctrines of men.

Vol. 86, No. 50 (Dec. 16, 1969), p. 787, “The Church As the New Creation.” Ed says nothing about the absolute necessity of the church conforming to the New Testament standard, but says God’s people “are the New Testament church-not through their own attainment to God’s standard, but through Christ’s attainment, accompanied by the greatest Swap-Out in eternal history.” Ed constantly confuses man’s part in salvation with God’s, as though each excludes the other; he sounds like a .Baptist preacher half the time, talking about since God did His part in salvation’s story, therefore man does not have to do such-and-such a thing to be saved.

Vol. 87, No. 10 (Mar. 10, 1970), p. 149, “Is Moodley Better Than Naicker ” Denominational names, “and we might as well include progressive, anti, liberal, conservative, etc.,” are all “party labels” which should not be used. Some of these words correctly describe attitudes toward Bible authority, as Ed can find by consulting a dictionary; so used, they are proper, descriptive terms. One’s basic attitude toward Bible authority shapes his outlook toward a host of modern innovations and determines whether he will accept or reject them. Church historians will record this fact. We are not guilty of party-ism when we observe and describe this division in basic attitude.

Vol. 87, No. 27 July 7, 1970, p. 419, “Jesus and `Old Glory’. “

Vol. 87, No. 49 (Dec. 8, 1970), p. 776, “Don’t Be Embarrassed to Believe!”

Vol. 88, No. 14 (Apr. 6, 1971), p. 217, “People Are Listening But Who’s Talking?” “Modern religious thinkers, ” including some ecumenicists, are thinking and “we ought to be ready to move into the conversations at whatever level the Lord gives an opening, in the interest of New Testament truth. To speak is not to compromise nor is it endorsement to listen.” Yes, brethren will agree; but here is the question a lot of us are asking that Ed is not answering, “What is it to speak, and to fail to speak the very thing the audience needs most to hear???” Such “conversations” are both “compromise” and “endorsement,” even if unwitting.

Vol. 88, No. 24 (June 15, 1971), p. 374, 379, “A Case Against Instrumental Music in Christian Worship.” “Ed sent this article to editor E. V. Hayden of the Christian Standard,” but he “chose not to print it . . . .” Ed has always felt the instrument is better left off; this piece presents his reasons. So nothing Ed has written in “opposition” to instrumental music ever appears in the Standard, though it might in Firm Foundation or Gospel Guardian. And, nothing he has written in “opposition” to centralization, institutionalism, or social-gospel-ism appears in the Foundation, though it might in the Guardian. He has established this pattern over an entire decade. This is accomodation and compromise-chameleon-like, his writings blend in perfectly with the different-colored background of each paper he has written for!

Vol. 89, No. 9 (Feb. 29, 1972), p. 134, “Four Kinds of Unity.” There are: oneness of relationship (Jn. 17, 1 Cor. 12, Eph. 4); allegiance (1 Cor. 1:10, no application to “doctrinal differences”); attitude and ambition (Phil. 2:14, not unity of thought, only mutual concern); understanding (Eph. 4:13-16, unity of understanding not “commanded” because it is only the “ultimate goal” of “spiritual maturity”).

Vol. 89, No. 22 (May 30, 1972), p. 340, “God Will Be God. “

Vol. 89, No. 23 (June 6, 1972), p. 364-365, “God Will Be God” (concluded).

Vol. 89, No. 23 (June 6, 1972), p. 359, “God Will Be Judge. ” These three issues contain Ed’s reinterpretation of Lev. 10; like a lot of other passages that have come under Ed’s scrutiny, Lev. 10 does not mean what it used to mean. Here is the heart of the Fudge (Garrett-Ketcherside) position on the passage, “Nadab and Abihu sin in the course of their worship and are smitten dead by God on the spot. The younger two, Eleasar and Ithamar, sin in the course of their worship, and are forgiven and spared.” Why the difference? The latter “involved a false piety, not a flagrant pride.” When the “motives” are right in false worship, God forgives. Apparently, if Nadab and Abihu had acted with pure “motives” (and Fudge does not offer to prove they did not), they might have been spared in their sinful worship.

Vol. 90, No. 11 (Mar. 13, 1973), p. 166, “THEOS in John 1:1.”

Vol. 90, No. 39 ,(Sept. 25, 1973), p. 612, “Human Institutions: A Reminder.” Publishing houses, papers, etc. are not indispensible to the Lord’s cause, so should be used wisely. Surely (?) Fudge would agree that institutionalism through church support of “human institutions” is an abuse of such institutions (as well as of the church); if so, he never breaths a word of it to the Foundation audience.

Vol. 90,’ No. 51 (Dec. 10, 1973), p. 803, “Church Politics. “

Vol. 91, No. 4 (Jan. 22, 1974), p. 51, “Our Divine Representative.” Included is the doctrine of the perfect obedience or righteousness of Christ imputed to Christians.

Vol. 91, No. 26 (June 25, 1974), p. 408, “How To Be God’s Friend. “

One can get the tenor of Fudge’s journalistic compromise from the material above’ so we will list without summary or comment his writings in the Christian Standard.

Sept. 12, 1964, p. 8, “Conformed or Transformed?”

Oct. 23, 1965, p. 8, “The Enemy Demands Surrender.” Apr. 1, 1967, p. 3, “That They All May Be One.”

July 8, 1967, p. 5, “Faith, or Merely Opinion?”

May 18, 1968, p. 6, “Christian Unity-Second Thoughts.”

Oct. 5, 1968, p. 9, “The Lord’s Supper. “

Oct. 19, 1968, p. 9, “New Testament Doctrine and Morals. “

Nov. 30, 1968, p. 5, “Christian Unity: 2 John 9.”

July 7, 1974, p. 9, “Checkpoints of Our Religion. “

Since Brother Fudge offers so much prophetic insight for the re-interpretation of so many passages (Lev. 10, Gal. 1:8-9, Eph. 4:1-6; 1 Cor. 1:10, 2 Jn. 9, Jude 3, etc.), perhaps he should be compared to a Biblical prophet. How about a new version of Nathan? Suppose Nathan had told his parable in such a way as to avoid the very application his listener needed most to hear? Suppose David had used a court policy allowing the prophets to enter with him into “dialogpe” and “conversations,” but forbidding specific application of specific lessons that would convict David of guilt. Suppose Nathan had preached his prophetic parable for an entire decade in David’s court, in keeping with such a policy or had written in the Mosaic Standard or the Sinaitic Foundation or the Temple Guardian, in keeping with such accomodation. Perhaps the Herald of Truth could make a new film staring Edward Fudge entitled “Nathan Revisited” or “Nathan Without The Thou-Art-The-Man.” That is exactly the role Brother Fudge has filled for a decade: Nathan without the “thou-art-the-man!”

In all seriousness, the tragedy of such a Nathan would have been a David never convicted of his guilt. Such a Nathan would not have been faithful to God even if his every parable was true-and in Ed’s case, there has been plenty of false teaching in addition to journalistic compromise.

Brethren, let us “eschew evil,” including the evil of journalistic compromise. Let a picture of the tragedy of such compromise be burned into our hearts: the tragedy of lost souls!

Truth Magazine XIX: 14, pp. 219-222
February 13, 1975

Our Neighbors Weed Patch and Discipline

By Larry R. Houchen

It seems that the majority of people enjoy growing and maintaining yards which are virtually free from weeds. A neat looking yard is one to be proud of and one which enhances the house setting. However, there always seems to be one in the neighborhood who allows just weeds to dominate his yard, creating an “eye-sore” for the whop neighborhood. The fellow who lives just across the cul-de-sac from us is just such a person. The way he shows little concern in regard to his yard is parallel to the way some brethren regard their erring brethren.

This neighbor of ours moved into, his brand new house almost two years ago. A tractor with a rototiller rig had leveled his property and had made it suitable for planting. Within weeks his yard was one mass of weeds. A few weeks later he cut off low-hanging limbs and piled them in the back of his yard. Every few weeks the neighbor would have his boy cut the weeds with the mower. After a year and one-half of mowing around the pile of limbs, the weeds in the midst of the pile had grown quite high. Finally, much to our relief, last April our neighbor had the limbs hauled away. He then rented a tractor with a rototiller and prepared his ground for planting. (Although he left the weeds that were growing along the curb and other places which. required manually pulling out the weeds, it was a step in the right direction). Our neighbor planted his grass seed. At last, it seemed as if a long awaited improvement had come! Finally our neighbor mowed his weeds down the other day.

Erring brethren are weeds which need to be properly taken care of. It amazed me that the apparent attitude of our neighbor was that the grass would smother out the weeds. Do you suppose erring brethren will be smothered out by ignoring them?

Yes, our neighbor mowed his weeds down, but the weeds are still there and spreading. His futile attempt to eliminate his weeds reminded me of a father who slapped his son’s hand and admonished him to be a good boy when the boy had deliberately set fire to the couch. Some brethren make a yearly (or sometimes not so frequent) pilgrimage to an erring brother’s house to plead with the brother to repent. In between times, or mowings, the “weed” continues to spread its bad seed. Do you suppose removing the “weed” in God’s way might help?

Brethren put much emphasis on baptism, and this they should, since baptism is a command of God which is often neglected. But brethren, let us “rightly divide the word of truth” and emphasize other matters which are neglected. (See Matt. 18:15-17; Rom. 16:17, 18; 1 Cor. 5; 2 Cor. 13:1, 2; 2 Thess. 3:6-15; 2 Jn. 9-11).

Truth Magazine XIX: 14, p. 218
February 13, 1975