Truth Magazine

By Ron Halbrook

July 4-6, 1974, the 9th Annual Unity Forum was held at Scarritt College in Nashville, Tennessee. Leroy Garrett proposed this forum while at Bethany College nine years ago; the forum moves from. campus to campus. The writer understands that the forums are usually held at some college which has historic connections with the effort to restore New Testament Christianity in America, but Scarritt is Methodist.

This year’s theme was “Free to Be One.” An effort was made to use men from differing backgrounds, including James L. Barton, Claire E. Berry, A. A. Boone, Ed Neely Cullum, Fred Hall, Roland K. Huff, and Robert Neil, all of Nashville; David Bobo of Indianapolis, Indiana; Pat Boone of Beverly Hills, California; Hall Crowder of Gallatin, Tennessee; Frank Allen Dennis of Cleveland, Mississippi; Robert O. Fife of Johnson City, Tennessee; Max Foster of Arkansas City, Kansas; Edward Fudge of Athens, Alabama; Leroy Garrett of Denton, Texas; Perry Gresham of Bethany, W. Virginia; Thomas; Langford of Lubbock, Texas; F. L. Lemley of Bonne Terre, Missouri. Each is associated with the Disciples of Christ, Christian Church, or churches of Christ, except Pat Boone now.

The United Church

David Bobo (“The Nature of the United Church”) said the Restoration Movement started well, but then had “steering problems.” “Restructure on simpler lines” is the solution; since “the New Testament does not give a standard blueprint for all churches,” each congregation should “design its own structure with emphasis on simplicity.” The early church was not guided by “patternism.” Phil. 1:1 suggests “city-wide organization,” and “benign monarchy (`monarchal bishops’) is better than the tyranny resulting from the “dogma of local autonomy.” Our approach to doctrinal division needs restructure in the united church. We agree on baptism and the Lord’s Supper as “essential.” Beyond that, we need both “freedom” and “unity” in the Spirit. “Literalists” lack the “sine qua non for the united church:” tolerance. “Unity in the Spirit” is found “beyond our disagreement over the letter or doctrine.” We must “make room for all . . . sincere expressions of worship,” as well as doctrine (including differences on “the Genesis account, inspiration, resurrection, the virgin birth”). After all, “Who can pontificate answers?”

Unity of the Spirit

According to Pat Boone (“The Unity of the Spirit”), we have “unity on Jesus, not doctrine.” The way to solve “clashes” and contradictions in scripture is to take what John says over other writers; “the beloved disciple” knew the Savior best. 1 John was read extensively to emphasize that one who acknowledges Jesus has come in the flesh is a child of God. But when Pat read, “Every one who loves is born of God,” he hesitated, then mused, “I can’t grapple with that; it is too broad for me, so I’ll just go on.” Pat was sorry to note that whereas the thief on the cross was not baptized, “We think we must convert people who are more dedicated than we are.” Jesus is “dealing with these people” because the Spirit is “not bound” by the word.

Pat’s wife and daughters spoke. One daughter was having her car gassed up when a young man drove up next to her and said, “I love Jesus.” She said she did, too, then asked, not knowing the boy, “How did you know I did’!” He answered, “We have the same Spirit,” and drove off.

Faith and Opinion

F. L. Lemley presided on the panel which discussed “How Do Faith and Opinion Relate to Unity and Fellowship’!” The first speaker was Edward Fudge. A key point urged by Ed was, “Fellowship and unity, therefore, do not mean the same thing.” (This and other quotes of Ed’s speech taken verbatim from tapes. Cf. William R. John, “Equating Fellowship ..with Being One in Christ,” Truth Magazine Sept. 12, 1974, p. 11.). “Unity” is a “state of being,” sharing “oneness” in Christ. But “fellowship” does not mean that “oneness” which is unity in Christ; it only means sharing or _”joint participation” in certain, actions.- Therefore those who are one in Christ (“unity”) may or, may not have “fellowship” in specified activities. Not sharing in a certain action (because it would violate one of the party’s conscience), does not exclude sharing in mutually-approved, actions “nor does it necessarily affect their essential oneness in Christ as members of his body . . . .” in short, lack of “fellowship” does not affect “unity” in Christ.

Unity in Christ “is manifested only by fellowship on a local basis in this congregational capacity and on an individual basis by the brotherly acceptance of others who are joined with Jesus.” “The relation of faith and opinion to unity and fellowship boils down it seems to me to this: how do brothers and sisters in a given assembly, one already in Jesus, deal with one another when they have differing consciences and scruples concerning the will of the Lord’!” Ed offered Romans 14 as the solution.

A groundwork was laid to the discussion of Romans 14 by defining “faith” early in the speech. It is used (1) “objectively” in Jude 3, (2) “subjectively” in Romans 10:17, (3) and in Romans 14:22-23 of “conscientious persuasion,” “binding on self and not others,” “personal conviction.”

Two basic rules guide (those who have “unity”) in seeking “fellowship.” First, one should never violate his conscientious persuasion or personal conviction, while seeking fellowship with others. Second, others who do not have the same scruple should submit to it anyway in cases where they are seeking fellowship with one who has the scruple. In every case, it must be understood that one who “violates his conscience, even if his conscience is wrong in forbidding a thing, sins.”

“Brothers who are separate because of honest differences involving congregational practice, cannot come together regardless of how much they love each other, until the impediment is removed for a clear conscience… I refer specifically to honest scripples over such issues as instrumental music in the assembly, congregational support of various institutions and societies, methods of cooperation, use of Bible classes, the number of containers used in the Lord’s Supper.”

So Romans 14 guides in dealing with these issues. Issues like instrumental music may separate brethren in regard to “fellowship” (sharing in the act of worship), but such practices are not sin (i.e., do not separate one from his “unity” in Christ).

The “impediment” spoken of is not an impediment to unity with Christ, not an objective sin, not a violation of “the faith” as used in Jude 3 (see Ed’s definition of faith). Rather, it is an impediment to fellowship in a given local church–a matter of “conscientious persuasion,” “personal conviction,” “binding on self and not others” except as necessary in specific cases to share with the man who has the scruple.

Ed does think those without the scrupple must bow to it rather than force a man to violate his personal conviction in specific instances where fellowship is sought with that man. On the other hand, the man with a “personal conviction” that instruments in worship are sinful, cannot consider the one who uses it as cut off from God. When Ed relates what God has “revealed explicitly” about the condemnation of sinners, “I’m not judging a brother.” But in many things like instrumental music and similar issues, God has not spoken expressly. We, cannot relate what God says about the destiny of sinners to these issues.

In the question period, Ed responded to Steve Wolfgang’s request for clarification by saying when one uses instruments and another does not, they have “disor un-fellowship, but not disunity.” They do not have fellowship in one act of worship, but they do have oneness, life, or unity in Christ. Gene Frost asked if one who does not use the instrument moves into a town that has only a church that uses it, should he consider the church heretical. Ed said he was “not sure,” which seemed to mean not necessarily; it would apparently depend on circumstances other than the mere use of instruments. In persuing this with Brother Frost and others after the formal program, Ed indicated such a church would have to give up the instrument to receive the brother, or else become heretical. (Note: According to Ed’s underlying concepts of “fellowship” and “unity,” the church was in unity with Christ before the man came, apparently would have to relinquish the instrument when the man came, but then could resume using it after his departure-all the while maintaining oneness, life, and unity in Christ.) Under Frost’s prodding, Ed conceded the church would be heretical if it had previously driven people off rather than relinquishing the instrument. In other words, Ed sees divisiveness as the objective sin and not merely worshipping with the instrument. (This has consistently been his position through the years.)

The second speaker on this panel was Thomas Langford, who said Ed’s speech left “very little to disagree on.” In rejecting “patternism” and “blueprintism,” he observed that “the faith” is not the correct interpretation of various issues, such as , instrumental music, Sunday schools, and missionary societies. He said there is no explicit, specific “warrant or condemnation” of these things in scripture. He opposes Sunday school classes, yet says all such issties involve “deductions and inferential truths” or “human reasoning.” Therefore, he not only believes such matters stave no effect on “unity” in Christ, but also none on “fellowship.” Langford pointed out to Fudge that some passages use unity and fellowship to mean the same thing, so he did not accept Fudge’s strict distinction. Fudge admitted that point in the question period, but told Langford he would “retain my distinction” as basically true.

Freedom

Ed Culluni presided during the discussion of “What Freedom in Christ Means to Me.” Max Fosters “freedom” began when he left the church he had worked with and was disfellowshipped. Freedom meant rejecting the New Testament pattern on church organization, giving women a public role, and participation in denominationalism. In their ultra-liberalism, Foster admitted his “free church” was dwindling. Fred Hall of the ultra-liberal Belmont church in Nashville. found freedom in “a supernaturally imparted love.” Christ “deals with me personally and tells me what to do and when to do.” James L. Barton of the First Christian Church in Nashville joined the chorus of glittering generalities; freedom is a fact, frightening (“regimentation is secure”), and fantastic. Even Ed Fudge was moved to ask what they all meant by their “law of love.” Barton told him, “If someone is not keeping a commandment of the Lord, I should help them learn it.” (Very good, until we get down to specifics. That’s just the problem with much of the questioner’s teaching, as well as the respondent’s teaching, in this case.-RH)

Heritage

“What Does Our Historic Heritage Mean to Us in Relation to Unity and Fellowship?” was answered by Perry Gresham of Bethany College. This notable among the Disciples of Christ gave an eloquent address comparing initial efforts in Jerusalem and in the American Restoration Movement. The general principles stated and the simplicity of his approach made Gresham’s speech a highlight to this writer. He spoke of “the time,” “the place,” and “the power,” then asked why not let now be the time again, here the place, and God the power. Of course getting down to specifics and applications is something else. For instance, he constantly spoke of “the winds of God sweeping through our lives” as on Pentecost, whatever that means apparently a liberal rationalization of the miraculous work of the Spirit in Acts 2. The “wind” had swept through men like Leroy Garrett, Carl Ketcherside, and Robert Fife, he claimed. Such nebulosity moved one observer to comment, “I never saw so little said in such a pretty way.”

More on the United Church

Robert O. Fife of Milligan College answered the question, “What Will the United Church Be Like?” It is already united in Christ; we simply need to “develop bridges in our own persons, to re-establish fellowship.” Differences over “open membership, missionary societies, instruments of music, Herald of Truth, multiple cups, millennial views” do not deny “the Person and Work of the Lord Jesus” and “ought never be treated as heresy.” Those who are separated over such issues can hold “sincere conviction,” yet should “begin somewhere along the spectrum” in coming closer together. Individuals can quietly work to form bridges in four areas.

“These four dimensions” for bridge-building, include (1) the “inter-personal” — “enrich the unity through friendship and association,” visit “schools” representing different views, read and write for “journals” of different groups, participate in different “conventions and lectureships.” (2) The intro-congregational-seek fellowship, at least in some areas, “with a congregation whose doctrine or practice I do not fully approve,” not in compromise, but in showing acceptance of “those `in error’ ” and in trying to “help” them. (3) The intercongregational differing “congregations support one another” in some activities such as “subsistence program(s) for the needy,” “evangelizing metropolitan centers,” “share Vacation Bible School `across the lines.’ ” (4) The extra-congregational-Christian Churches and churches of Christ doing some things “together beyond the realm of the worshipping congregation” such as “support the work of Juan Monroy in Spain . . . . Herald of Truth …. the Institute of Church Origins at Tiibingen . . . . Shiloh in New York City . . . . the Christian Service Center of Chicago . . . .”

More on Freedom

“The Blessings and Perils of Christian Freedom in Our Time” by A. A. Boone (pentecostal; Pat’s father; recently disfellowshipped in Nashville), Hall Crowder (premillennial), and Frank Allen Dennis (ultra-liberal) was an appeal for unity of those who agree and disagree with their views. – Along the same line, the printed program said, “No one asked to surrender any truth he holds or endorse any error on the part of others.” Leroy Garrett’s premise is that in Christ and by the Spirit members of the Disciples of Christ, Christian Churches, and churches of Christ are united regardless of “any truth” or “error” which separates them outwardly. Therefore he constantly commended those who are “non-instrumental,” or “non-class” or “one-cup,” for “staying among those people” which share such convictions, yet are working for broader concepts of unity.

Truth Magazine XVIII: 7, pp. 104-106
December 19, 1974

By Larry Ray Hafley

QUESTION:

From Indiana: “Is it scriptural to change a mid-week meeting service from group singing to Bible study or a Preacher Training Class under a stumbling block objection? The stumbling block consists of a family that feels their presence is not bound at the monthly singing service on Wednesday or Thursday night but is bound for Bible study or a Preacher Training Class scheduled instead. Since this is a stumbling block to them, is it scriptural to change the service under this pretense after studying with the family and showing them they are bound to attend the assembly unless providentially hindered? I realize the mid-week service could be changed to all preaching or studying, but can the above stumbling block objection be scripturally used as “the reason?”

REPLY:

What? Is “group singing” not “teaching and admonishing one another” (Col. 3:16)? It is a spiritual service because it consists of “spiritual songs.” This family’s feeling is capricious, arbitrary and self-serving. Truly, their reasoning, if not their sincerity, is suspect at best and weird at worst! There is nothing in the Bible nor in a “stumbling block objection” that says one household’s excuse for forsaking an assembly is to dictate the worship program of the church. Continue to study with them. Do not waste your time in endless wrangling that tends toward strife. Live an example before, them.

Stumbling Block Scriptures”

“Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather that no man put a stumbling block or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way” (Rom. 14:13). This passage is probably one our querist had in mind. It tells brethren who differ over a matter of indifference not to condemn one another (Rom. 14:5, 6, 13). Both are received and accepted of God (Rom. 14:3, 4). But singing is not comparable to the eating of meats or the esteeming of days. It is not something which a church may regard or disregard. It is necessary for a church to develop its talents and abilities in praising God in song.

“It is good neither to eat flesh or drink wine nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak” (Rom. 14:21). Remember, Paul is discussing matters of personal insignificance in the context. He is not saying brethren must succumb to the whims of every brother. He says, if necessary, abstain and refrain from those contextual inconsequential items that trip, offend, or weaken a brother. He does not say, “Put away an authorized function of the church if some brother decides to use it as a pretense not to do what God has commanded.” Will attending a special singing service cause one to stumble?

“Wherefore if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend” (1 Cor. 8:13). This text is dealing with “things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols” (1 Cor. 8:4). If a brother is “emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols” while he considers it to be in honor of a god, he sins and so do you by leading him to do it against his weak conscience (1 Cor. 8:7-12). If this family in question is “emboldened” to attend a singing service, will they sin when they do? No, hence, the text is not applicable.

Conclusion

If every scruple of every saint had to be bowed to, the church could not function. Suppose a family argued they were not preachers, therefore, they did not have to attend a “Preacher Training Class.” Should we disband the class for them? I know brethren who feel that no Sunday evening or mid-week service is essential to attend, and they do not attend. Shall we do away with those worship periods lest they sin by not attending? On and on we could go. Teach such people. Pray for them, but do not engage in contentious shouting matches that demean the gospel and embitter the soul. They are babes. Be patient with little babies, but do, not pet them. Too much acquiescent petting spoils babies, both the physical and the spiritual kind.

Truth Magazine XVIII: 7, p. 103
December 19, 1974

By John McCort

Brethren sometimes fall into the trap of taking passages out of context and misapplying them in a zealous attempt to disprove false doctrines. When trying to disprove false doctrines, we should use our utmost discretion not to twist passages and draw conclusions that are not there. One misapplied passage exposed can seriously damage an attempt to teach an individual the truth.

Brethren have misapplied 1 Pet. 3:4 in an attempt to prove that the spirit of man is immortal. Although I firmly believe in the immortal nature of man, 1 Pet. 3:4 is not the passage to use in trying to establish that point. This passage has been widely used by brethren both in written and public debate. A close examination of the passage reveals nothing about the immortality of man’s spirit.

I Pet. 3:4 states, “But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.” (KJV) The American Standard translation states; “But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in the incorruptible apparel of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.” Some brethren have made the argument that the word “incorruptible” (aphtharto) literally means “immortal.” This word is used to describe God in 1 Tim. 1:17, “Now unto the King eternal, immortal (aphtharto) . . . .” They then draw the conclusion that since God is immortal and Peter says that woman are to have the immortal apparel of a meek and quiet spirit, that it logically follows that man possesses an immortal spirit.

The key to understanding this passage is determining what gives the spirit the immortal quality in this passage. Is Peter saying in this passage that all mankind possesses this much to be desired incorruptible spirit? No!! In the previous verse (vs. 3) Peter states, “Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, or wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel.” Peter is contrasting the outward man with the inward man. The emphasis of the woman when she becomes a Christian should not be on adorning a body which will soon be wrinkled and ugly. The Christian woman is to emphasize the adorning of the heart in the incorruptible apparel of a meek and quiet spirit. Peter is not saying that all men have an incorruptible spirit, but that the meekness and quietness are what give the spirit the imperishable (immortal) quality; a quality which only Christian women possess. Certainly a loud and aggressive spirit in a woman would not be described as “incorruptible” or “immortal.” Since a meek and quiet spirit is incorruptible (immortal), then a loud and aggressive spirit (in a woman) would likewise be corruptible (mortal). The Phillips translation of the Bible expresses the thought very lucidly, “. . . in the imperishable quality of a quiet and gentle spirit . . . .”

The word spirit in 1 Pet. 3:4, according to the scholars, has no reference to the immortal part of man but rather refers to the disposition or temperament of man. A. T. Robertson states, “Pneuma (spirit) is here disposition or temper (Bigg), unlike any other use in the N.T.” (A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures In The New Testament, Vol. 6, p. 109) Lenski comments, “Without the incorruption of a meek and quiet spirit the hidden man of the heart would be filled with a vain, proud, self-assertive spirit, the mark of an unregenerate heart. Pneuma is to be understood in the ethical sense of temperament or character.” (R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of Peter, John, And Jude, p. 131)

Lest I be misunderstood, I want categorically to state that I believe in the immortality of the soul. I believe there is a host of passages to establish that doctrine. I do not believe, though, this passage should be used in defense of this position.

Truth Magazine XVIII: 7, p. 102
December 19, 1974

By Cecil Willis

Brother W. W. Otey told me once that in seventy years of gospel preaching, he had never preached a sermon with which he was completely pleased one hour afterward. He could always think of some things that he should have said, but that had been left out. Or, he could think of some things that were said that should have been said differently, if said at all. Each sermon lacked something; head-power, or heart-power, as he put it. Which merely is to say that nearly all of us have 20/20 vision hindsight-wise.

In the last issue of Volume Eighteen we carried our usual Author-Subject Index. But it was suggested in a staff meeting of Truth Magazine personnel in Memphis in July that a Topical Index would be tremendously helpful to those who made it a practice to preserve their issues of Truth Magazine, or to those who purchase Bound Volumes. Furthermore, any research to be done in such bound volumes in years to come would be made much easier, if we published a Topical Index. Brother Jeffery Kingry volunteered to prepare the detailed Topical Index, which involved a tremendous amount of work on his part, and considerable extra expense on our part. Your reaction to the Topical Index will help us to assess its value, and to determine whether it should be prepared and published each year.

Our Critics

Constructive criticism is helpful to any person, who will receive it in the right way. Some of our severest critics also are some of our best friends. It always is good to listen to criticism, for it just might be the case that one’s critic is correct. On the other hand, trying to please every critic would not only bring one to complete frustration; it would drive him insane! So we know that Truth Magazine is not going to please everyone.

Critics often generalize, and make such broad criticisms that one hardly knows where to begin, if he were disposed to try to implement any of the recommendations made by his critics. As most preachers already have learned, one’s critics frequently hear only what they want to hear. To the super-sensitive liberal, every admonition to follow closely the instructions of the Lord is counted as one more sermon “on the issues.”

Luther Blackmon told me once that the .fellow who “got under his skin” the most was that fellow who gets up close in your face, turns red with anger, shakes his finger under your nose, calls you a liar, and then proves it! So with the thought in mind that our critics who so persistently (and yet so inconsistently) criticize us for criticizing just might be right, we have carefully reviewed the contents of Volume Eighteen.

Some have charged that ours is an unbalanced paper, and that about all we do is to criticize someone else. We have been accused of riding, one issue to death, which is not in itself such a bad idea if that issue happens to entail the teaching of false doctrine. We would like to stamp out error, if we could do so. We would like to do all within our power to eradicate error. Some have even charged that a few people do all the writing in Truth Magazine. Some others write to criticize us for publishing so much material from brethren who are not generally well-known. With just these few criticisms listed, one already can see the impossibility of pleasing everywhere. A good many years ago I resolved in my mind Who it was that I was trying to please, and thereafter have not been unduly upset if my efforts to please Him did not please some of my family, brethren, or neighbors.

Contents of Volume Eighteen

With both Indexes readily at hand, it was quite easy generally to summarize the contents of Volume Eighteen. For instance, I discovered that articles had been published from 141 different brethren during the year. I think that nearly any editor would tell you that he could produce a better quality paper, if he confined his writers to those on his staff. If he could not, he is a rather poor chooser of staff personnel. But a paper written exclusively by a few carefully selected staff personnel will not draw the wider reader interest that one seeks. Furthermore, if no one will give an inexperienced writer a chance to write, how do we think younger men ever will become abler writers? We deliberately publish some articles primarily to encourage inexperienced writers to write more that their literary abilities, if any, may be enhanced.

Approximately 475 articles were published in Volume Eighteen. They covered a wide range of subjects. In fact, Brother Kingry found it necessary to list articles under 115 different topical headings. A careful examination of the number of listings under each heading easily will enable one to tell .which subjects were being given the most attention during the year. At the same time, an examination of the Topical Index even surprised me. I was not conscious of the fact that the 824 pages published last year had touched upon so many different subjects. In many instances, one article would deal with several sub-headings, and thus may have been listed under more than one topical heading. But following are some of the topics covered in Volume Eighteen, and the number following each Topical heading is indicative of the number of articles appearing that touch upon that subject.

Alcohol	3
Apostles	4
Atheism	3
Attendance	4
Biblical Authority	23
Baptism	17
Baptist Church Doctrine	19
Benevolence	5
Book Reviews	22
Calvinism	14
Children	7
Christian Living	36
Church	38
Church News reports (and cover pictures of meeting houses of churches from 21 States and foreign countries)	49
Current Events on the Religious Scene	15
Debates (Articles and Reports)	12
Denominationalism	25
Discipline	4
Drugs	5
Evidences	9
Evolution	4
Fellowship	43
Civil Government	6
Grace	14
Happiness	5
Hypocrisy	7
Influence	9
Inspiration	4
Instrumental Music	10
Interpretation (Biblical)	10
Jehovah’s Witnesses	5
Kingdom	9
Liberalism	19
Materialism	4
Millennialism	3
Miracles	7
Modesty	6
News Briefs	29
Obedience	24
Old Testament	15
Parents	6
Personal Work	5
Pornography	3
Prayer	5
Preachers	9
Reactions (to all forms of false doctrines)	60
Salvation	12
Scripture Exegesis	39
Sin	16
Subjectivism	5
Teaching Methods	15
Truth (not referring to Truth Magazine)	15
Unity	5
Word Studies	6
Worldliness	19

These are by no means all the listings in the Topical Index, but I think these are enough to show you that Truth Magazine does carry a wider variety of material than you might otherwise have supposed. No doubt there are several Biblical areas that we did overlook, or at least slight. If so, those overlooked areas would be good ones upon which, you might prepare carefully studied and well-written manuscripts. There is not a single word of divine Truth that will be excluded from the pages of Truth Magazine. As in our preaching, so is it in our writing: we intend fully to preach the gospel of Christ (Rom. 15:19); to declare the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27). Whatever our short-comings may be, perhaps you can help us to correct them.

Articles By Staff Members

In the first issue of Volume Nineteen (November 7th), we announced the addition of several new staff writers. Following is a listing of the staff members and the number of articles written by each one:

James W. Adams	5
Donald P. Ames	8
O.C. Birdwell	3
Luther Blackmon	9
Roy E. Cogdill	6
Karl Diestelkamp	30
Bruce Edwards, Jr.	12
George T. Eldridge	4
Larry Hafley	38
Ron Halbrook	14
Irvin Himmel	10
Ferrell Jenkins	1
Jeffrey Kingry	25
John McCort	5
Harry Ozment	5
Earl Robertson	2
Jimmy Tuten	19
Mike Willis	27
Steve Wolfgang	4
Cecil Willis	49

Summary

Our new Topical Index is not quite complete. Brother Kingry did a splendid job on the first 44 issues, but a less thorough job was done on the last 7 issues. Very likely there are some mistakes in these Indexes, though I went over it three times, and even checked out every listing and page number. All in all, Volume Eighteen to me looks like a fairly well rounded religious journal. It appears to me that it would not be entirely out of place for it to be in the home of nearly any Christian. Perhaps we have inadvertently, indeed have, produced that nebulous something frequently referred to kts a “family magazine” about which some of the brethren have had so much to say.

But Volume Eighteen is now past history. We must work on the present number, Volume Nineteen. We hope to keep the paper fairly well balanced, but still tilted. just enough that it is not hesitant to fire away at any digressive teaching that begins to surface among us. If a magazine such as Truth Magazine does not appeal to you, we are sorry that is the case. But we think there is a need for just such a paper, and we intend to continue basically in the manner in which we have proceeded thus far.

If you feel that Truth Magazine serves a useful purpose among brethren, we would appreciate a kind word from you about the paper to some friend who is a Christian who needs to be reading a paper like this one. Unfortunately, the people who need to read a paper like Truth Magazine the most are the ones who are the least likely to buy it. Perhaps a worthy gesture on your part would be to send such a friend a free subscription to Truth Magazine. We certainly would appreciate your partnership in this work, demonstrated by your willingness to spend your hard-earned money to send this paper, to someone else who can afford it, but who has so little interest in spiritual matters that he is unwilling to spend a few dollars a year on such a publication. If you were to do as suggested and send a free subscription, or a group of free subscriptions purchased on our reduced group-subscription rate, in all probability the brethren to whom you send this paper will someday come to appreciate your interest in their spiritual growth, and certainly their Bible knowledge would be enhanced by considering the writings of 141 gospel preachers, writing on 115 different Bible topics, and consisting of nearly 500 different articles. Where else can you get so much for just $7.50 per year? We think Truth Magazine subscriptions are a bargain. A Truth Magazine subscription, as we often have said (since we borrowed, the idea from someone else), is a gift that can be opened 50 times a year.

Truth Magazine XVIII: 7, pp. 99-102
December 19, 1974