Truth Magazine

By Jeffery Kingry

No one is subject to more criticism than the man who lives by his conscience and tries to remain sensitive and open to the review of others. Truth Magazine and those associated with it have been subjected to gallons of vitriol over the years. Especially in the past months has the commentary on attitudes, motives, and efforts of the writers been thick. That’s OK by me. I personally prefer it that way. When brethren wave their hand in disgust and just stalk off in silence, I get worried. I want to know when I am getting off the track. I may not be able to see it in myself, but I am sure others will, and they are my friends if they point it out to me. I feel that most of those men I am acquainted with feel the same way.

We have seen in print and heard in private that Truth Magazine is a power-conglomerate out to weld the minds of the brethren. It has been pictured as a “preacher’s rag,” and a “college promoter.” Well, the paper does have influence of some sort over those who read it – wholesome or not, depending on the reader. It is subscribed to by preachers. The editor did go to Florida College, but do these facts prove the charge? Let’s be fair.

Can you imagine how long one could have remained on the staff of the Gospel Advocate and criticized anything remotely attached to the paper (even something not so remotely attached, like a college)? How long do you think a man would be a “name” of influence among the liberal brethren and remain openly critical of their institutions? How many times do you think one might be published in Mission Messenger or Restoration Review if he took a hard stand on 2 Jno. 9? When was the last time you saw an article that disagreed with anything of substance the editors of Integrity or Mission pushed?

If indeed the men associated with Truth Magazine were intent on amassing power over brethren and churches, would they pursue their goal by opening the pages of the magazine to representative criticism? In putting writers on its staff to produce material for you to read, why have they asked young, uninfluential, even non-influential men to write – if indeed power is their goal?

As far as being a “college promoter,” in five and a half years of writing, going back to 1969 when Truth Magazine started as a weekly, there have been 12 articles that deal directly with Florida College. Out of 2,250 articles by hundreds of different men, only twelve are written concerning the school. Six of those articles are a debate on the college question. Of the remaining six, three are a transcript of a speech Brother Cope made, and one was a half page introduction by the editor that said in part, “Brother Cope’s speech is not the type of article that ordinarily appears in Truth Magazine.” I hardly call that rabid promotion, do you?

Truth Magazine, though incorporated for legal and tax purposes, is nothing more than a few men trying to provide a ready forum for discussion of God’s word. Some tout it as a commercial-for profit-business. That is humorous really. Brother Willis should print the foundation’s income from time to time in comparison to its debts to show how really funny that is.

The religious journals published by faithful brethren are as one editor put it, “. . .a medium for individual Christians to share their knowledge and thoughts with other individuals. . .a few pieces of paper containing the thoughts of those whose articles it carries” (Needham, Torch, Jan. 1973, p.4,5). Or as the editor of Truth Magazine put it, “Truth Magazine’s editorial policy . . . (is) best described as `open forum’ style. This simply means that the editor has not taken upon himself the shocking responsibility of becoming a brotherhood censor . . . each writer will be responsible for those articles bearing his name . . . we have no illusion that even good, faithful brethren shall feel in every instance did we exercise the best judgment. In fact I suspect that there will be times when, after printing certain articles, that we ourselves shall doubt the wisdom of having done so. But, even so, we shall do our best with each issue to do what we believe to be right and best” (Willis, Truth Magazine, Vol. 6, p.220). You do not like what is being written in the papers? Write something better. That is not a taunt, but a sincere appeal from all those who love truth.

The pages of Truth Magazine are to me a forum, an avenue, a pulpit, an opportunity, that enables me as a teacher and preacher to do my work on a wider scale than I could do alone. I trust the editor of Truth Magazine because I openly and privately disagreed with him, even taken him to task, and have found him willing to do ‘the same for me, but with no disruption in our relationship as brethren because of it.

Brother Robert Turner wrote an excellent article on “Rally Points” in the April issue of Plain Talk. His words strike at the core of what really bothers most brethren about the papers. “Brethren may “rally around” well known (and therefore influential) gospel preachers or congregations. We may rationalize that since they teach truth, to support them is to support truth. But even Paul was one step removed from the true center for loyalty, Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 11:1). We must not allow school, paper, or even preacher loyalties to sever us from Christ, brethren, or heaven.” Kent Ellis, editor of the Bible Standard put it another way, “If editors are simply editors, papers make useful servants, but if editors become bishops, papers make bad masters’,’ (Ellis, Bible Standard, Vol. 2, No. 12, p.146).

Nobody that I know who is associated with Truth Magazine claims to be perfect – but those godly men that I do know are striving for perfection. It is axiomatic that such effort requires change. Attitudes, methods, and words have been used that have proven to be wrong by all of us. The true measure of any man is his willingness to adapt to the will of God. I do not see that attitude among the forces of evil, do you brethren? Those afraid of saying “God-speed” to right-teaching because they are fearful that someone might cry out “Party-man” are guilty of the charge themselves.

Truth Magazine is nothing. But whatever truth is carried in it, what few lives it helps to understand truth is worth all the money and effort it takes.

Truth Magazine XVIII: 2, pp. 22-23
November 14, 1974

By Jerry Parks

One of the first problems that our new president had to face has proven to be one of great magnitude and consequence. It was the problem of what to do with the former president. How to remain just and yet show mercy. Quite a problem indeed! To show mercy is truly admirable yet what about the demands of justice’! To look at the other side of the picture, we know that our society is built on the principle of justice; that no man is above the law; that law violators must suffer the penalty for breaking the law or else our system of law and order collapses.

The course chosen by our new president, however; is not the reason for this article. Anyone who is at all familiar with the Bible is aware that the problem under consideration has a familiar ring to it. Where have we heard of this type of situation before? Why of course! God’s dealing with mankind! What we call the “scheme of redemption.”

In Eph. 1, Paul tells of all the things God has done for man. One of these things is expressed in verse 8 where he says that God has “abounded towards us in all wisdom and prudence.” Yes, the title of this article has reference to the wisdom of God, not man.

When man chose to violate God’s law, God had to follow through with the penalty or else sacrifice the principle of justice. Yet God, who is full of mercy, provided through His infinite wisdom, a ray of hope for fallen man. He provided a way that He could remain just and yet be the justifier of man. How’! By letting His Son die in our place. This is exactly what Paul was talking about in Rom. 3:23-26 when he said, “For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.”

When we see the similarity between God’s problem with man and the president’s problem with the former president, then truly such words as propitiation; reconciliation; atonement; redemption; etc. all spring to life as we read of them and declare “behold what wisdom God has shown in providing salvation for man.”

The modernist has scoffed at the idea of the atoning blood of Christ. Will they come to the aid of the president and show him a way to demonstrate justice and at the same time be the justifier of man! We shall see.

Truth Magazine XVIII: 2, p. 25
November 4, 1974

By James W. Adams

Debates of the formal, oral variety tend to bring out the party spirit which seems to be latent in each one of us in one degree or another. In this fact, lies one of the dangers of such confrontations among brethren. Particularly is this true when the issue involved is not within itself of such character as to demand a severance of fellowship between those holding diverse views regarding it. Prima facie evidence of the party spirit ordinarily is found in the reports which are written of such debates by the opposing parties involved. Each “side” claims “a great victory for truth” and sheds crocodile tears over the alleged “impotence and confusion” of the opposition. Then, of course, there are always those persons who, in their modest judgment, could have done so much better than either participant, and who can identify endlessly all of the mistakes that were obvious to any “logical mind” or “experienced debater.” All of which is noted for the purpose of suggesting that this report will not be of, that variety.

The debate should be allowed to stand .upon; its own merits. Each person who heard it can judge for himself as to the strength or weakness of the argumentation and make up his own mind relative to the issue involved. Numerous tape recordings were made which will be w played to many others. The debate will lie published and hundreds of others, perhaps even thousands will have the opportunity of carefully reading every word that was said; weighing judiciously all of the argument, and reaching their own conclusions away from the often prejudicial heat of oral controversy. Relative to this discussion, for a number of very good reasons, I would consider it highly improper and a reflection upon the disputants to rehash in detail in this report the arguments of the debate, or to attempt to give a personal evaluation of their merits.

The debate in question was conducted September 23, 24, 26, and 27, 1974 in the auditorium of the Pasadena, Texas High School. Although the debate itself arose as a result of articles on each side of the issue involved appearing in church bulletins, it was considered advisable that no church be identified with the arrangement and “sponsorship” of the discussion. I shall not rehearse the circumstances which led to this decision for two reasons: (1) My statements might be regarded as partisan; (2) they are already a matter of public record.

The disputants in the debate were: Cecil Willis of Marion, Indiana, elder of the Westside church in that city, well known gospel preacher, and capable editor of Truth Magazine, himself an alumnus of Florida College; and Jesse G. Jerkins of Denton, Texas, preacher for the conservative congregation of that city, also a well known preacher and writer, and a brother with a well deserved reputation for proficiency in public, oral debate. Willis also has participated with credit in several such debates. Both of these men are of high moral character, sincere and devoted Christians, considerably above the average in native intelligence and acquired ability and knowledge, and are, in my judgment, both completely representative of the positions they espoused in the debate.

The decorum of the debate was impeccable. Both disputants treated one another with courtesy and kindness and, in every way, conducted themselves with dignity and proper restraint becoming to men professing to be Christians and gentlemen. The behavior of the audience, except for one slight display of partisan fervor in the form of audible laughter and “omens,” was irreproachable. The debate demonstrated beyond question that such encounters do not have to assume the character of “dog fights” nor do they have to result in brethren “biting and devouring one another.” Each disputant pressed his points with zeal, but did not allow his arguments to descend to the level of mere personal attacks or destructive character assassination. This is not to say that the actions of particular persons which were deemed by the disputants to be relevant to the discussion of the issue involved were not thoroughly explored; but even this was done in good spirit and without rancor.

The propositions discussed in the debate had to do with the right of such organizations as Florida College to exist: and function, and to be supported and utilized by Christians. Brother Willis affirmed the right of such organizations to exist, function, and be supported by Christians on, the ground that they are business organizations selling services and/or products, hence doing a work not charged by Christ to a local congregation, and are to be justified by Scripture on the basis of generic authority. Brother Jenkins opposed such organizations on the ground that “God has authorized only one collective. to employ, support, and oversee men” in the teaching of His Word; namely, the local congregation, hence that any other collective so functioning is unscriptural. Jenkins defined a “collective” as a body of persons characterized by “agreement, common oversight, and pooled resources.”

Willis insisted that Jenkins’ definition of a “collective” involved him in many gross inconsistencies in that Jenkins endorses and utilizes many arrangements, among them publishing houses, which logically qualify under said definition as “collectives” and arbitrarily rejects others such as Florida College. Jerkins, on the other hand, denied that a parallel exists between publishing houses which employ, support and oversee men in teaching the word of God through the medium of the printed page and Florida College employing, supporting, and overseeing men in teaching the word of God through the medium of oral instruction in the classroom. The issue was joined here and the majority of the argument pro and con was in reference to the scriptural validity of these two antithetical concepts.

The debate did not arouse great enthusiasm among the Christians of the Greater Houston area. Attendance ranged from 250 to 300 people. A large number or these were preachers from all parts of the country. I judge from these facts that, as yet, the issue poses no problem relative to the peace of the churches. However, it could do so if the matter is needlessly and irresponsibly agitated from the pulpit and in the bulletins of the churches. Since the issue involves what the individual is permitted by Scripture to do, it should remain just that, an individual matter. It should not become the concern of the churches as such, nor should lines be drawn solely on the basis of the personal conviction of an individual with reference to the matter.

Brother Robert Craig of Austin, Texas served as moderator for Brother Jenkins, and Brethren Robert McDonald, Glen Burt, and others as his helpers. I served as moderator for Cecil Willis and Brethren Larry Hafley, John McCort and others as his helpers. Everything done by all participants was in a mutual spirit of good will and helpfulness. As evidence of the continued good feeling between Willis and Jenkins, Brother Jenkins graciously extended to Brother Willis the invitation to speak at Denton the Lord’s day following the debate, and Willis just as graciously accepted. May this continue to be the attitude among all who differ relative to this subject. It would be tragic, indeed, for brethren and churches to discriminate against one another on this basis. It would be equally tragic for gospel preachers to be discriminated against solely on this basis in reference to calls for meetings and such like. It is my fervent hope and prayer to God that it may not come to this.

The debate will be published. Announcements will be made from time to time in Truth Magazine relative to the progress being made and the approximate time of delivery. It would be helpful for those who plan to buy the book to send in their orders now. No money need be sent, but your advance orders would help tremendously.

Truth Magazine XVIII: 2, pp. 24-25
November 14, 1974

By Robert L. McDonald

“Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.” (Matt 18:15)

Of the admonitions in the Word of God, the above quoted appears to be one of the most difficult for brethren to heed. It is not because it is so difficult to understand, for there is nothing in the text to warrant misunderstanding. The difficulty lies in one or both parties being unwilling to take the initial step for reconciliation.

Jesus said, “If thy brother shall trespass against thee. . .” The word “trespass” comes from the Greek (hamartese), defined by Thayer, “to commit sin:” According to the Analytical Greek Lexicon, this verb “is strictly the expression of a momentary or transient single action . . . . It is, however, used of a prolonged action, if there is no positive need to make a direct expression of that circumstance. It is thus of constant use in the narrative of past transactions.” The study of the word itself is to show the sin referred to is not necessarily a continuous act. It may be a single or prolonged action.

Further, “go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone.” “Fault” (elenxo) is defined, “to convict, reprove, rebuke.” (W. E. Vine) Evidently, the innocent person has an obligation to show the error of his brother in Christ -the two being alone! Notice other translations of this text:

“Go and reprove him in private.” (New American Standard)

“Go and while alone with him show him the wrong.” (Williams)

“When you and he are alone together. ” (Living Oracles)

Albert Barnes has commented on this verse and it is passed on for your consideration: “In the original it is ‘go and reprove him.’ Seek an explanation of his conduct, and if he has done wrong, administer a friendly and brotherly reproof. This is required to be done alone: 1st, That he may have an opportunity of explaining his conduct. In nine cases out of ten, where one supposes that he has been injured, a little friendly conversation would set the matter right and prevent difficulty. 2nd, That he may have an opportunity of acknowledging his offense or making reparation, if he has done an injury to the cause of religion. This should not be blazoned abroad. It can do no good – it does injury; it is what the enemies of religion wish. Christ is often wounded in the house of his friends; and religion, as well as an injured brother, often suffers by spreading such faults before the world.”(Commentary, Matt. 18:15)

One may ask, “Have you known of Matthew 18:15 being followed today?” The answer is in the affirmative. This writer has personally been involved in the instructions contained in this divine directive. In addition, I have known of brethren who have seen the importance of maintaining a proper relationship with their brethrenand often strained relationships have been restored when brethren sincerely follow the teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ. Even if none of us has known of such action, we would not be excused by our neglect. “Go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone” is directed to you and me!

What is the objective? “If he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.” Genuine love for one’s brother prompts the innocent to take the initiative to bring about restoration. True love and genuine concern for another’s soul has been demonstrated! No hypocrisy here! Applause by men is not coveted! This humble soul is doing what he can to bring about reconciliation, and “if he shall hear thee, thou has gained thy brother.”

Truth Magazine XVIII: 2, pp. 20-21
November 14, 1974