Truth Magazine

By Jeffery Kingry

Where does one draw the line between godly ambition and selfish ambition? Is it possible to tell the difference between a zeal that is sincere and one that is bitter? James seemed to think so. When he wrote concerning the wisdom that should characterize the teacher of truth he said, “Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? Let him show out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom. But if ye have bitter envying (pikros zelos) and strife (eritheia) in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth” (Jas. 3:13,14). Paraphrased another way James was saying, “Who seeks to be known as a wise and understanding teacher? The method is to demonstrate that wisdom by the loveliness of one’s character. Let that character demonstrate that all is prompted by a gentle spirit. But, if your wisdom is characterized by a zeal that is bitter (pikros zelos) and by selfish ambition (eritheia), do not be arrogant of your accomplishments, for you are false to what God’s truth demands of a teacher.”

I make no pretenses at being a Greek scholar, but the scholarly books that are available to all agree that there is a fine line of definition in zelos between “to envy, be jealous” and “to imitate emulously, strive after with zeal” (Thayer, p. 271). Zelos is a word that can and is used to describe a sincere zeal to copy and follow that which is good (cf. 2 Cor. 7:7; Rom. 10:2).

The same thing is true of the word eritheia. It originally meant “To spin wool, work in wool” (Thayer. p. 249. The meaning eventually came to be applied to “one electioneering or intriguing for office–a courting distinction; a desire to put oneself forward” (Thayer, ibid). It is a word that means to work for hire, and that eventually came to be used to describe one who used every base method available to gain selfish ends.

The truth does not lie in semantics, though, as much as it does in human nature. James is warning us of that sharp, bright, and extremely quick “wisdom” that works so hard for the wrong ends, and points out to us how susceptible teachers of truth are to such. There is a fine line between a sincere desire to copy the good in other men, and a jealous, envious, copying of the deeds of other men to attain or surpass the status of the one envied. There is a fine line between praise and pay for a work well done, and working for the praise and pay.

James points out for the teacher’s self-examination that the true wisdom, the true zeal, the true ambition is something that is pure from all selfish motive. The divine wisdom brings men together with each other in God. This wisdom is not jealous of its own rights and self-justification, but offers the same reasonableness to its critics as it would like to receive itself. God’s wisdom is easily approached, far from arrogant or self-inflated. The wisdom from above is sensitive to the needs of others and gives of itself without any partiality or falseness (Jas. 3:17).

But that other kind of zeal, ambition, and knowledge which is selfish seeks worldly prestige, power, and return. It is always characterized by disorder. Instead of producing peace among men, it produces hard feelings, isolation, and a divided mind (Jas. 3:15,16). As long as this` `kind of motivation and attitude prevails, good and happy lives founded in right living can never find fruit. It takes a truely wise man sowing the seeds of right-relationships between men and God to harvest the fruit of righteousness. One cannot reap unity in Christ by sowing selfishness (3:18).

In preaching, teaching, writing, and in our relationships with one another, we would do well to remember James’ admonition. We can teach the truth, and lose our reward because of our attitude or method (Phil. 1:15-16). It is possible to “say it the wrong ay.” To be sure, the responsibility to obey truth, no matter how it is taught, is a responsibility of the hearer. But the fact that we teach truth does not absolve us of using all the wisdom, longsuffering, gentleness, and care we are able to muster as teachers. God judges not only the act, but the thought and the intent of the heart as well. The goal in our teaching is to bring men to truth; not to win a cheap personal victory over another (2 Tim. 2:24-26). We teach truth and oppose error because we wish to see those enslaved by error to come out to the light. We are to use the verbal tool that best fits the job – but one tool does not fit every situation (Jude 22,23).

That kind of teaching that is more concerned with promoting self than truth is damnable-and ought to be. That kind of teacher who puts on a zeal for truth in order to garner prestige as a “killer” in debate is headed straight from hell. That kind of bitter rebuke that is intent on destroying another, rather than restoring, is common with the snarling of beasts of prey. For us to deny that such exists among our brethren is to deny the motivation behind the words of James. The words of the Spirit are not empty admonition, but are directed towards the nature and inclinations of man. We can assure one another by saying that such sins do not affect any of us (1 Jno. 1:8), but we would only be deceiving ourselves. It was not for naught that the Lord warned us, “Be not many of you teachers, knowing we shall receive greater condemnation.”

Truth Magazine, XVIII:44, p. 10
September 12, 1974

By Bruce Edwards, Jr.

Honest and diligent scholarship should be the hallmark of every Christian’s faith. “Giving diligence to present ourselves approved unto God” (2 Tim, 2:15), involves a conscientious study and absorption of God’s word into our hearts, minds and souls. Unfortunately, most of us fall woefully short of the heavenly calling in regard to personal study of and devotion to the Scriptures. Relying for the most part on “in-class” assembly studies, we seldom “crack the book” at home. Most subscribe to a magazine or two and the newspaper, but few too many purchase any religiously oriented publications for family consumption. But just as the carpenter or plumber needs his tools, so does the diligent student of the Bible. A good Bible dictionary, concordance, and word study volume should be in the possession of every brother and sister seeking to “increase in the knowledge of God.”

Bible Study Failures

Ignorance among brethren is as old as Paul’s letters to Corinth, but it seems that such should not be so in our age of mass media communicative techniques and availability of study, material in paperback form. The problem lay in improper attitudes and concepts of Bible study. Many brethren have been accustomed to having the Bible spoon fed to them in neat little portions for so long that they are truly unable to attempt a study of the Scriptures on their own. Independent study is unheard of and Bible “knowledge” consists of little more than finely packaged formulas (“Here are the `five steps of salvation’ for you”) or deceptively simplified refutations (“Now just memorize these three simple facts and you can meet any evolutionist”). As a result, most are conditioned to “proof-text” study; i.e., they “go fishing” as it were, in the Bible to “prove” their favorite doctrines. Characteristically, these “studies” ignore contexts, overlook word usages, and pervert the author’s intent following headlong into a twisted and distorted “interpretation” of a text.

Examples

Amos 6:5 is often used by zealous brethren to help refute instrumental music, but a close consideration of the context will reveal that there is no real connection to be seen. “Liberal” brethren cite James 1:27 or Gal. 6:10 in a feeble attempt to justify their institutionalism. Another manipulates 1 Cor. 11 to “prove” that the covering needs to be worn today, ignoring the context of spiritual gifts and speaking under inspiration. Still another cites the KJV rendition of Acts 19:37 to “prove” that it is alright to call the meeting house a “church.” All of these examples show the folly of “proof-text” scholarship.

Conclusion

There is nothing inherently wrong with “simplification,” “formulas,” or “packaged refutations” as long as they accurately present the full Biblical view of a given topic; but therein lies the rub! Much of the time these “condensations” are “proof-texts” that zealots have grabbed in a desperate attempt to further their positions. May we all refrain from “proof-texting” and rather dig deep into the depth of Scripture to find out what God has said… and not what we would like Him to have said. The Bible was not, as some intimate, written as a casebook for religious debaters. A shaky, hastily contrived “proof-text” will add nothing to a Scriptural defense, as neither will an oversimplified compilation of random, out-of-context Scriptures thrown together. Let us come to the Bible to learn and not to prove.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:44, p. 9
September 12, 1974

By Dick Blackford

There are other subjects on which I had rather write, but perhaps none more needful than this one. The drug problem which permeates our society knows no boundaries. In the Third Annual Report To The U.S. Congress from the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare (1973), after giving us some sobering statistics of this widespread problem, the National Institute On Drug Abuse in their book on Marihuana and Health said this: “Rates did not differ significantly among racial groups and ONLY SLIGHTLY BY RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION. There is no new data suggesting that these patterns have changed…” (p. 23). Members of the church of Christ are not exempt. This writer is familiar with three congregations which have been troubled with the problem among their young. No doubt there are others which have not yet discovered an existing problem. There is some new and revealing information in some recent studies that I would like to share with you.

Marijuana Is Harmful

There is no dispute that other drugs are harmful (amphetamines, barbiturates, LSD, Heroin, etc.). Our remarks will be confined (for the most part) to marijuana, as it is the point of controversy. There is a movement underway to legalize it. “When smoked, marihuana quickly enters the bloodstream and acts on the brain and nervous system. It affects the user’s mood and thinking. Some scientists report that the drug accumulates in the liver. … The more obvious physical reactions include rapid heart beat, lowering of body temperature, and sometimes reddening of the eyes. The drug also changes blood sugar levels, stimulates the appetite, and dehydrates the body. . . . “1 The sense of time and distance of many users frequently becomes distorted. A MINUTE MAY SEEM LIKE AN HOUR. SOMETHING NEAR MAY SEEM FAR AWAY.”2 “In a set of experiments designed to study the effects of alcohol and marihuana on driving-related visual functions, it was found that ‘marihuana interfered with PERIPHERAL VISION as well as CENTRAL VISION to a greater extent than alcohol under a wider variety of task demands… there is sufficient evidence at this time to justify the warning that even social doses of marihuana may impair performance sufficiently to lead to motor vehicle accidents. . . 3

A study has been made in “personality predictors” to see what kinds of people are most apt to take drugs. This was made on junior and senior high students and their characteristics before they experimented with drugs. According to the study of students in six selected school systems near Boston,. . a small number of characteristics were quite in evidence among students who later, in 1972, would use marihuana… Among these characteristics were: rebelliousness, low grade point average, cigarette smoking, and favorable attitude toward cigarette smoking. Among these, rebelliousness toward authorities and rules was the strongest predictor. All of these characteristics were more true’ of marijuana users than nonusers, and more true of heavier users than of light users. . . “4 Evidence is overwhelming that drugs (marijuana included) can harm the body and mind. Many young people have been brainwashed into thinking that “marijuana is harmless.” That statement is false to the core. Some have been too prejudiced to accept the facts. Youth is not exempt from prejudice and can be just as stubborn and hypocritical as they sometimes accuse the older generation of being.

Another statement is that “Marijuana does not mean automatic graduation to hard narcotics and is not addicting.” There is just enough truth in that statement to lead to real tragedy for anyone who believes it is complete truth. Scientists have stressed that while marijuana is not addicting, it can produce a drug dependency. `A study of 970 white, male drug addicts admitted to the Addiction Research Center at Lexington, Kentucky from 16 states . . .disclosed that 764 of them, or nearly 80%, had prior histories of marijuana use. On the average, they were two years younger than other addicts at the time of their first arrest and were determined to be TWICE AS LIKELY to become heroin addicts as were nonusers of marijuana.”5

Another defence is “It’s my body and my mind and it’s nobody’s business what I use.” This statement too, is false to the core. Dallas County (Texas) District Attorney Henry Wade has pointed out that “smoking marijuana while driving an automobile, baby-sitting, fighting in battles, flying an airplane, or performing any ONE OF THOUSANDS OF ACTS can, and does, endanger the lives of people other than the user. “6 Thus it becomes everybody’s business.

Bad Company: A Basic Factor in Drug Abuse

“The teenagers’ use is CLOSELY CORRELATED WITH USE BY HIS FRIENDS. When none of a teenager’s friends reported use of drugs, ONLY ONE OUT OF FIFTEEN youngsters themselves reported use. When all of their friends reported use, NINE OUT OF TEN had also used the drug…. THE MORE PEER-ORIENTED AS OPPOSED TO PARENT-ORIENTED THE YOUNGSTER IS, THE MORE LIKELY HE IS TO BE A USER (by peer-oriented is meant the amount of time spent with friends, greater reliance on advice of friends than on that of parents, etc.).”7

“One study has focused on the sources of information used by elementary and secondary students in various states of acquaintance with marihuana. The sources of information about marihuana mentioned most frequently by all students… were parents, television, and friends. BUT THERE WERE DISTINCT DIFFERENCES IN THE TYPES OF SOURCES ACCEPTED BY STUDENTS AT VARIOUS GRADE LEVELS. For 5th graders, television and – parents were most significant: for 7th graders, FRIENDS and television: and for 11th graders, FRIENDS AND OTHER STUDENTS played the largest role. In general. younger children use more socially approved sources compared with older students (who tend to rely on ‘non-authority sources). The authors commented that many students appear unaware of the influence process surrounding their decisions about marihuana use.”8

Somewhere between the fifth and seventh grades parents are losing their young people to their companions. Our youth must remember that the poorest excuse for doing anything is “everybody else is doing it.” Evil companionships still corrupt good morals (1 Cor. 15:33; Prov. 1:10-19).

Marijuana also silences the conscience. `A person using marihuana finds it harder to make decisions that require clear thinking. And he finds himself MORE EASILY OPEN TO OTHER PEOPLES SUGGESTIONS… 9 This is why drugs and sex go together. A boy not on drugs is less likely to make sexual advances toward a girl. A girl who uses drugs is more easily influenced to have sex. Many boys who use drugs know this too. That is why they influence their girlfriends to try drugs. About as many females now use marijuana as do males.

When a person=s conscience is dulled or silenced, he is more likely to commit a crime. Intoxication (whether alcohol or other drugs) creates a false courage-usually more courage than sense. A high percentage of crimes are committed by people under the influence of liquor or other drugs. They can get “courage” in bottle, a pill, or a marijuana cigarette.

Why?

The major reason for our drug problem, as given by the National District Attorney’s Association, is the belief that medicine can solve every problem. Parents program their children to believe that there is a pill for every problem. One of the greatest forms of drug abuse is the misuse of tranquilizers and pep pills by well-meaning parents. There are pills to make you sleep, wake you up, keep you alert, help you make it through the day (plus cigarettes and coffee between pills) etc. Pills are “problem solvers.” Alcohol and drug abuse are substitutes for suicide and are chosen for the same reason-a desire for easy solutions and escape from reality. We live in a drug-oriented society. The Christian should beware! Not too surprisingly, drug use by children is related to drug use by parents. When both parents use drugs such as alcohol, TOBACCO (pay attention brethren) and other psychoactive drugs, there is a greater likelihood that their children will use marihuana… The probability of drug use is also associated with such factors as LACK OF FAMILY COHESIVENESS, use of other medications and LESS PARENTAL EMPHASIS ON SELF-CONTROL.”10

Not many doctors will tell their patients to use self control. It is easier to prescribe pills. If you go wanting pills, they will nearly always give them to you. After all, pills are “miracle workers.” I have nothing against the medical profession. I think it is great. But they are not infallible. No one is. Self-control could solve most of the problems that people (even Christians) are depending on drugs to solve (tobacco is a drug and the difference between it and other drugs is one of degree). Christians are to exercise self-control (I Cor. 9:27; 2 Pet. 1:6).

Notice also in the preceding quote that a “lack of family cohesiveness” is a part of the drug problem. Two young girls in the school system here who had been using drugs said they felt like they “had been rejected by their fathers.” Too many fathers think they have “more important things to do” than rear children (Eph. 6:4). Such “fathers” are worse than infidels (I Tim. 5:8). They should teach their children to honor good men and women, not Timothy Learys, Janis Joplins, and weirdos who eat live chickens, feathers and all (Alice Coopers).

So you want to expand your mind? You can stretch it all out of shape and warp it with drugs, if you want to call that “mind expansion.” However, the real secret to mind expansion is found in Proverbs 1:7. And if you really want fo get “stoned,” try drinking wet cement. It’s guaranteed to work. In the meantime, do not be afraid of reality. Forget your nickel bags, dime bags, tripweed, etc.-roaches too (drug terms). “Blowing your mind” is nothing to brag about. There’s nothing new about it. You could stay that way, you know. Many have.

Footnotes

The information contained in this article about marijuana is only what has been discovered up to the present. Authorities are not through studying it yet; which is all the more reason to avoid experimenting with it.

It should be remembered that with the exception of Lifeline, the other sources quoted herein are not concerned with this subject from a moral standpoint, all of which should convince young people that they were not just trying to put somebody down. (All caps in the quotations were by me).

1. Marihuana. Some Questions And Answers, Tract by Public Information Branch National Institute of Mental Health, Chevy Chase, Md. 20015. U.S. Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1969.

2. Life Line Freedom Talk, No. 62, Dallas, Texas 75206, December 28, 1970.

3. Marihuana and Health; Third Annual.Report to the U.S. Congress From The Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. National Institute On Drug Abuse, 1973, p.14,15

4. Ibid., p.37.

5. American Criminal Law Quarterly 7:174, “Marijuana And Relevant: Problems,” G. Joseph Tauro, Spring 1969.

6. Life Line.

7. Marihuana and Health. p.7.

8. Ibid., p.34.

9. Marihuana, Some Questions and Answers.

10. Marihuana and Health, p.7.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:44, p. 6-8
September 12, 1974

By Cecil Willis

Last week we devoted some time to a discussion of some writers’ and preachers’ disposition to make a show of the wisdom, of this world in their preaching and writing. The illustration that was used regarding the study done by two “scholars” of the usage of participles in Paul’s epistles well demonstrates the trend in modern education, and especially in graduate and post-graduate work done in the field of religion. This trend is to one of ever greater emphasis upon specialization. Someone has said, “We are learning more and more, about less and less, until if we are not careful, before long we are going to know everything about nothing. “I read once of where supposedly one aged Greek linguist was asked what changes would he make in his life, if he were permitted to live it over again. He was not only a specialist in Greek; his special specialty was the Greek noun. This aged Greek noun specialist is reported to have said: “If I could live my life over again, I think I would confine my study to the dative case of the Greek noun.” Wasn’t it Solomon who said, “much learning is a weariness of the flesh,” and “in much wisdom there is much grief; and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow”?

Several years ago, Guy N. Woods reviewed some articles written by G. C. Brewer in which Brewer was advocating and defending the church support of Bible colleges. Woods said of Brewer’s argumentation that it was “as clear as a sea of mud.” This is exactly the reaction that I feel after some of our growing-softer brethren get done explaining what they meant when they said something that brethren allegedly misunderstood.

Weasel Words

Some brethren become adroit at using weasel words. They use words that get them out of a tight spot, but they reserve for those words some special, private definition. In so doing, they think they maintain their own integrity, while they placate their inquiring brethren. When a brother uses this reprehensible duplicity, there is about as much integrity in him as there is in the little boy who thinks it is all right to lie, if behind his back, he has his fingers crossed.

In a recent issue of the Gospel Guardian, Brother Edward Fudge purported to answer some questions that have been asked of him regarding his position on the subject of fellowship. This long article was reproduced in tract form, a copy of which I have before me. If ever I saw an instance of a brother equivocating, I would have to say, “Brother Fudge, thou art the man!” I am not going to attempt a review of the entire article. I want us merely to notice what he said about whether he believed the usage of mechanical instrumental music in worship to be sinful or not.

“Where do you stand on instrumental music? I believe that instrumental music is wrong in the corporate assembly of Christians, that it is without scriptural authority, that it is not the Lord’s will for His children today. Therefore I do not use it, I preach against it, and I would encourage anyone who does use it to leave it off, for the reasons I have given above.” And then he adds his customary little commercial about his tract, in this instance on instrumental music.

On the surface, the answer given by Brother Fudge appears to be clear-cut, and as strong a statement as anyone would be expected to make. But the fact of the matter is, Edward Fudge believes today about instrumental music the same thing he has believed for about ten years. Though he says mechanical instrumental music “is wrong,” is without scriptural authority,” and “is not the Lord’s will for His children today,” Brother Fudge still does not believe anyone will be lost for using it, unless that person knows instrumental music to be sinful, and then deliberately and high-handedly continues to use it. This is where he has always stood on the matter, at least so long as I have known him.

Last fall things got a little warm on Brother Fudge around his hometown, Athens, Alabama. Finally, enough pressure was built up among brethren that Brother Fudge was forced to state publicly that which he had never before said, and until that day had refused to say, namely, that instrumental music in worship is SINFUL. But when Brother Fudge was pressed before his hometown brethren, he knew he must not refuse to state that instrumental music was sinful, or he was going to be in bad trouble with his hometown brethren.

Brother Fudge has a Master’s Degree in Greek. But would you believe that it was only within the week before his public confrontation is Athens that he learned the definition of the Greek word harmartia? Until that very day, Brother Fudge repeatedly had refused to label instrumental music as sinful. Brother Bill Wallace prodded Brother Fudge, and tried to show him that saying instrumental music was sinful, was not to put instrumental music in the same category as fornication, theft, etc. So on that fateful Sunday afternoon last Fall in Athens, Brother Fudge finally did say that he believed instrumental music was sinful. . .to the infinite surprise of those who had talked frequently and at great length with him on the matter, and yet evidently to the complete satisfaction of those brethren who were sympathetic with him. Brother Fudge said he had learned just that past week that sin meant “to miss the mark.” Is that really the first time you ever knew that, Brother Fudge? I knew that by the time I was in eighth grade, and I barely got through one course in Greek in college. The country preachers at whose feet I sat as a little boy taught us very early in life that to sin meant “to miss the mark.” Do you suppose my attainment of such a profound understanding of the Greek word harmartia may qualify me to receive a Master’s Degree in Greek? If the Abilene Christian College administrators really believed that you got a Master’s Degree in Greek without learning the definition of sin, would their faces ever be red! If they had the power to do so, I suspect that they would like to rescind the granting of your degree.

But let us note another question Brother Fudge poses to himself, and then note his answer. “But Is it a sin?” “I believe that it is, in the accepted definition of ‘sin’ as ‘missing the mark.’ My previous answer clearly shows that. Some, however, have apparently wanted to play judge and jury and assign to hell without further ado all who use instrumental worship. This I have refused to do, and, when it has been clear that this was the meaning being given to ‘sin’ I have refused to use that word. I have always believed, however, that instrumental music’ misses the mark’ of God’s will, and that in that biblical meaning of the term, it is sinful.”

Now if that bunch of theological double-talk satisfies the brethren who have had doubts about Brother Fudge’s soundness, we are in worse trouble than we thought. The word “sin” is his weasel word, in this instance. He makes his play to the audience by stating that he does not intend to play God, and decide the destiny of those who use instrumental music in worship. Brother Fudge, do you play “judge and jury, and assign to hell without further ado” all those who have not been immersed for the remission of sins? Nobody has ever asked’ Brother Fudge to “play judge and jury.” The Lord Jesus Christ shall judge us all, according to His word, and according to our works.

What Brother Fudge really has said is that he thinks that instrumental music is sinful, but he refuses to say that he believes that persons who commit that sin will be lost. One sly little differentiation which Brother Fudge injects is that of saying a thing is “wrong,” but then refusing to say that it is “sinful,” if one means by sinful an act that will cause one to be lost. It would be very helpful to us all, Brother Fudge, if you would prepare for us a list of those things which are “sinful,” but which will not cause one to be lost, and another list consisting of those things which are “sinful,” but which will cause one to be lost. Or, do you refuse “to play judge and jury” to the extent that you will not state that any specific sin will cause one to be lost?

Also, Brother Fudge, would you please tell us what other acts are “wrong,” “without scriptural authority,” and are no part of “the Lord’s will for His children today” which you put in the same category as mechanical instrumental music? Is the act of sprinkling such a “sin”? Do you “play judge and jury” on those who do not immerse? It is my understanding that you merely go one step further than Brother Carl Ketcherside and Brother Leroy Garrett. They; do not hesitate to “play judge and jury” upon those who have not been immersed, but step down from their judgment throne from that point onward. Brother Fudge does not hesitate to “play judge and jury” on persons until they have been immersed ‘for the remission of sins, ” and then he descends from his judgment throne. Is this a correct representation of your position, Brother Fudge? If not, then “explain and clarify” your position for us further.

What is so bad about “sin,” if it will not cause one to be lost? The Catholics have their catalog of “venial” and “mortal” sins. There is not a hair’s difference between their position on two categories of sin, and that of Brother Fudge. Brother Fudge also has his list of sins that will cause one to be lost, and another list of sins that will not cause one to be lost, if we just could get him to publish his list. A few weeks ago, Brother William Wallace, Gospel Guardian Editor, published a list of 84 things upon which brethren are said to differ. Now would you please help us all and tell us which of these will cause one to be lost, and which will not cause one to be lost? Now do not give us any more of this “refuse to play judge and jury” bit. You already have played “judge and jury,” when you state that one can do something in worship that is “wrong,” without scriptural authority,” “is not the Lord’s will,” and “sinful,” yet not be lost eternally for doing such a thing. Did God somewhere state that one could commit an act which fits the descriptive terms just quoted from you, and still be saved, though he neither repents, confesses, nor prays for forgiveness? If God stated that somewhere, please cite the reference. I have no knowledge of such a statement by God. If God did not make such a statement, who empowered you to make this libertarian declaration? It can only be by your own “judge and jury” decree.

Here We Are Again

Several years ago, Brother James W. Adams wrote an extensive review of the Roy Deaver-Tom Warren “Constituent Element-Component Part” argument, as they sought o justify their defection from the truth into institutionalism. Brother Adams used a not-so-popular, but very appropriate, title for his series, “Round and Round the Mulberry Bush.” Such a title would be very appropriate also for the antics and announcements of Brother Edward Fudge. Regardless of what he says, and how he amplifies it or explains it, he always come out at the same place. In every effort he has made so far, he has concluded that “sins” such as instrumental music and institutionalism will not cause one to be lost, unless knowingly and high-handedly done. Now it as logically follows, as that night follows day, that if God is going to receive these “sinners” into His eternal fellowship, we certainly should not exclude them from our fellowship here. This is where Brother Fudge began, and now after nearly years of theological gyrations, we are now back again just where we started. He still believes that we should receive into our fellowship those who practice the usage of instrumental music in worship, and those who use the congregation’s funds to support human institutions. He maintains that we should receive into our fellowship those who would corrupt the worship, and pervert the organization of the church. Brother Fudge has tried the “silent treatment” act, and now the “explanation route” has been followed. But we are still right where we were two years ago. This, our brother who is an Associate Editor of the Gospel Guardian, and whose family owns that influential journal, is contending that we should receive into our fellowship the “instrumentalists, ” and the “institutionalisms,

“because the “sins” which they commit will not cause one to be lost.

Like the liberals of a quarter a century ago, it appears that Brother Fudge will soon learn that the “dignified silence treatment” is much the better course to follow for his cause, than the open forum discussion, and I predict he will now go back into theological hibernation, hoping that when he awakes next Spring, the warm Spring weather will make brethren more receptive to his loose views on fellowship.

Meanwhile, Brother Fudge, please do not insult our intelligence by anymore of this weasel-word theological gobbledygook. Most of the brethren can see right through it anyway, and you only reflect upon your own integrity and upon our intelligence when you give explanations that do not explain, or when you make differentiations without a difference, or when you tell us that “sin” (for the remission of which Christ died) will not cause anyone to be lost in Hell. I prefer silence to insult, and your latest effort to exonerate yourself is a mere insult to the intelligence of brethren.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:44, p. 2-5
September 12, 1974