Truth Magazine

By Leo Rogol

It is certain now that the Nixon administration is not the only group in trouble over violation of law and guilty of unethical behavior. Now the Highland church and its elders in Abilene, Texas, have committed an illegal act. And it may get them in serious trouble with the federal government. Who would ever believe that such an “infallible” institution as Herald of Truth would get into so much trouble? Why, don’t you know that to question-and above all, to criticize-the Herald of Truth was the same as to blaspheme against heaven? Especially with such an “infallible” guide as Batsell B. Baxter, who also is head of the Bible department at David Lipscomb College, as featured speaker on H.O.T.?

Fraudulent Use of U.S. Postal Service

In Contending For The Faith, March 1974, pg. 4, Ira Rice, Jr. reports this illegal action taken by the Highland elders:

“I have it upon reliable evidence (and if you doubt this, you may write to E.R. Harper for verification) that this large white folder (or some of them may have been on brown paper), enclosing Baxter’s letter, together with the letter from the Highland elders, was sent out to you with David Lipscomb College imprint WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE, CONSENT OR PERMISSION FROM THE COLLEGE AT NASHVILLE! “. . David Lipscomb College DID NOT FURNISH HIGHLAND WITH THOSE ENVELOPES. They either bought them-and then stamped the return address of the college in the upper-left-hand corner, or they made them up themselves and stamped the college’s return address upon the folder.” (Emph. his-LR)

Notice the two-fold deception practiced by the Highland elders. First they use the address of David Lipscomb College without their knowledge, apparently to make it appear that DLC lends their approval and support to the whole matter at Highland. Next we see that they use deception with regard to U.S. Postal authorities. In case some of you do not know what this means, I’ll let Ira Rice inform you:

“According to Federal Postal Law, the permit on the folder must agree with the address of the sending party on the folder. The permit on the folder you received had only the permit of the Highland Church of Christ. This is in violation of the Federal Postal Laws and if pressed could cause the Highland elders serious trouble.”

That this was an obvious form of deception against DLC and churches is further proven by Rice:

“Upon reliable authority, I now understand that DLC President Athens Clay Pullias has written to the elders of the Highland Church of Christ requesting an explanation as well as a retraction of this unlawful act which has embarrassed the college and could cause the Post Office at Abiline to receive severe reprimands for allowing this folder to pass.”

A Real Mix-up

Now all this really puts all those involved in a real hard bind. The implications of all this are far more reaching than we may realize.

Batsell B. Baxter plays a dual role. He is head of the Bible department at DLC and is speaker for the H.O.T. TV program. And since his letter was sent along with that of the Highland elders, it is preposterous to think he had no knowledge of what was going on. On the other hand, if the Highland elders tricked him that badly, which further indicts them of mis-conduct, how can he stand working with them any longer? Hence, he is implicated in this illegal act. This casts grave reflections upon the Bible department of that school, as well as upon the school itself.

Besides this incident, how could it be that a man in such a key position as speaker on the TV program would be so ignorant of, or blind to, the happenings at the Highland church? Pentecostalism, infidelity, and many other rank sins exist in that church; and yet he goes on as if nothing is wrong! Doesn’t he know or doesn’t he care what is written in 2 John 11: “For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.”? By his fellowship with that church in their project he is directly involved. This indicts him as the most flagrant violator of the scriptural principle of fellowship and at the same time casts serious reflection upon the Bible department at DLC.

Considering this matter from his viewpoint, we know he thinks there is nothing wrong with such an arrangement as sponsoring churches. But I am certain that even from his viewpoint he can not scripturally defend these evils that are happening at Highland. And he can’t say that he just fellowships them in the area of evangelism while he has nothing to do with the sins in the church. My friends, you take it all in a package deal, or you have none of it.

But then, this indicts that school as being “partakers of his evil deeds,” They keep a man on their faculty who is directly connected with the sins at Highland. So DLC must equally share the guilt with Baxter of being party to the sins at the Highland and share in the guilt of illegal use of a postal permit-which they simultaneously condemn. They are going to have completely to sever any relationship with Baxter, dismiss him from the school, or share in the blame in this incident of an illegal act. Is Lipscomb College going to demand that Baxter withdraws himself from all connections with Highland? And if not, are they going to dismiss him from the school? If they do neither, they will have to sweep all this “under the rug,” or shut up, and by this failure in taking action, let their brotherhood know they neither object to the fraudulent use of their letter-head, nor to the sins at Highland. I am a bit curious to know just what they will do about all this mess.

What a dilemma! Pullias sent a letter to Highland, denouncing their actions in which Baxter was implicated–and yet they retain him on the faculty and Head of the Bible department. This is a hard pill for DLC to swallow. By the way, I just wonder if they sent Baxter a similar letter? Did they reprimand him???

What further complicates this entire situation is that Baxter had long been a champion for Lipscomb’s unscriptural scheme of getting churches to support that school out of their treasuries. What a further dilemma! Brethren: churches sent contributions to the college upon the basis of the “infallible” claims Baxter made that it was scriptural; upon their confidence in him as a learned Bible scholar. And now a church, along with Baxter, played this foul trick on that very school Baxter was so effective and instrumental in getting brethren and churches to support! But the school is under obligation to him, or as it is said in some places, “beholdin’ to him.” What an embarrassing situation!

Baxter worked long and hard to raise money (unscripturally) for the school. But now he is a partaker in an illegal act against the very school he had so long helped to nurture and develop. The school is indebted to him for his services and yet the President must send a letter to Highland protesting against illegal actions and unfair dealings against the school; actions in which Baxter took part.

But there are still further serious implications. Some years ago Lipscomb College solicited and received money from the federal government upon the basis that it was a secular school with no connection with the church. Certainly, these advocates of “Separation of Church and State” would not dream of asking money for an educational institution if it had any connection with the church! But then, one forgets certain unimportant incidentals. They turned right around and asked churches to support the school because it was doing service for the church! I suppose they already forgot all about the money they received from Uncle Sam. After all, could churches support a secular institution that asked for and received money from the government? They had either to forget that Lipscomb was a church-related school to get federal aid, or they had to forget it was a secular school to get money from churches. It appears they forgot both at the exact time that it was convenient to do so, or they were dishonest on either count.

Now you have a church using a college as a tool for furthering its project. But of course, Baxter said it was right for the college to be supported by the church because it was doing it a service, so why can’t the college use the church if the church helps to support it? And of course, upon this same basis Highland had the right to use the college to help promote its project (And yet it was right for the government to support the college because it was in no way connected with the church.) Then they abused the federal government by an illegal use of mailing permit to deceive churches into thinking that the college endorsed and sanctioned the dealings of the Highland church. And they deceived the school by doing something illegally which the college knew nothing about. Just think! The government helped them with money, and they turn around and trick the government. Baxter tells churches it is right to send money to the college and he deceives both churches and the college, by taking part in this illegal act.

It will be interesting to observe further actions in this matter. ‘What will the school do about Baxter? What will the Highland elders do about their illegal use of Lipscomb’s name? And what will DLC do about Highland’s disgraceful act? We shall see what we shall see. Perhaps nothing?

In all this I am reminded of what Paul wrote: “That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world” (Phil. 2:15). Talk about an energy crisis! It is so critical at Highland that the “light” cannot “shine” anymore. “Crooked and perverse nation”-what has Highland on the world? It is keeping right up with the “crooked” and “perverse.”

We are all aware of the digression of the past century. But that digression was not as embarrassing as this present one. These elders at Highland really out-did anything I ever heard of among the former digression. By the way, I wonder if “Herald of Truth No. 2” will be any different? How long will it be before it too will turn out like it’s “daddy,” No. I? After all, “Like father, like son.” Herald of-Truth-what a misnomer!

Truth Magazine, XVIII:39, p. 8-10
August 8, 1974

By Larry Ray Hafley

A tract published by Calvary Baptist Church in Oak Forest, Illinois, and entitled “19 Reasons Why A Christian Cannot Be Lost!” has been given to me with the request that I review its teaching. The author of the “19 Reasons” is not specifically stated, but the name of “Dr. William F. Schroeder, Pastor” is on it, so we shall hold him responsible and accountable. If “Dr.” Schroeder hollers “Uncle,” we will consent to take him off the hook. We trust “Pastor” Schroeder will ultimately be led to disavow the ’79 Reasons, “anyway, but if he is not the author he has only to say so. I know I would not want to be accused of writing the tract! I can think of “19” good “reasons” why I would not want to be listed as the author of it.

“I. He Has Been Chosen”

“This was before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4). Why would God choose me before the foundation of the world if I were to be lost again? Is Christ not Omniscient and does He not know all? If I could be lost again, His choice was poor.”

Reply: God’s choice was not individual and particular. It was corporate and general. God did not choose you, you, and you and fail to pick me or Dr. Schroeder. The thing God purposed by His grace “before the foundation of the world” was that all who were in Chris( would be saved (Eph. 1). He did not specify each particular person (I Jn. 4,:14).

The Doctor’s questions are based on a false assumption. But let us proceed on his theory. If God chose some to be saved, it follows that He chose some to be damned. Now, does Mr. Schroeder preach the gospel to the lost? Does he save any to whom he preaches the gospel? Assuredly, he would say he does. Then, we might ask him concerning a chosen damned one who is afterward saved by hearing the gospel, “Why would God choose me before the foundation of the world to be doomed if I were to be saved?” Or to paraphrase the “Pastor, ” “If I could be saved again, His choice was poor.”

“2. God’s Foreknowledge”

“God’s Word says, ‘He knew,’ or ‘foreknew,’ that I would be saved (Rom. 8:29). If God foreknew I was going to be saved, why not that I would backslide and be lost? If He foreknew my salvation, why not my backsliding9 It is reasonable to ask, ‘If He knew I would backslide, why did He save me in the first place. Surely the Lord foreknew what I would do before He saved me. His foreknowledge of my failure afterwards did not stop Him from saving me.”

Reply: Again, if God “foreknew” each individual who is saved, He “foreknew” each one who is lost. Dr. Schroeder says he preaches to and saves the lost. Thus, “It is reasonable to ask, >If God knew I would be saved by hearing the gospel, why did he damn me in the first place?= Surely the Lord foreknew what I would do before He saved me.” This is “Dr.” Schroeder’s prescription on the other side of the matter. It is as foolish and fatal on one side as it is on the other.

“3. Predestinated@

“I was predestinated to be saved (Eph. 1:5).

(1) God foreknew I would be saved (Rom. 8:29).

(2) Because He foreknew, I was predestinated (Rom. 8:29, 30).

(3) Because I was predestinated, I was called (Rom. 8:30).

(4) Because I was called, I was justified (Rom. 8:30).

(5) Because I was justified, I was glorified (Rom. 8:30).

“This is according to the foreknowledge of God. If a Christian can be lost again, then God’s foreknowledge is no good, for His Word says that God’s foreknowledge saw the Christian even glorified.”

Reply: In the reverse and converse of Mr. Schroeder, a lost one may say, “I was predestinated to be lost (Eph. 1:5). (1) God foreknew I would be lost. (2) Because He foreknew, I was predestinated to be lost (Rom. 8:29, 30). (3) Because I was predestinated to be lost, I was not called (Rom. 8:30). (4) Because I was not called, I was not justified (Rom. 8:30). (5) Because I was not justified, I was not glorified” (Rom. 8:30). This is according to the foreknowledge of God. If a lost person can be saved, then God’s foreknowledge is no good, for His Word says that God’s foreknowledge saw the lost person even condemned.”

The conditions of Romans 8 show that verses 29 and 30 have no reference to a specific person’s predestination. Salvation is conditional–if we “walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit” (Rom. 8:4). “For if ye live after the flesh ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live” (Rom. 8:13). We are “joint heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together” (Rom. 8:17).

The church, the corporate body, exists “according to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Eph. 3:11). It is spoken of without respect to any particular individual’s obedience or disobedience. “All things” which are “according to his purpose” are the plans and purposes of God from all eternity which are centered and seated in Christ (Eph. 1: 10, 11). “The called” are the saved as a class. There is no reference to individual predestination, justification, and glorification. “All things” gathered together in Christ work together in Christ (Rom. 8:28, 29; Eph. 1:10, 11). The general subject is redemption and reconciliation. “All things” that God purposed and proposed have been consummated in Christ and enunciated in the gospel.

“4. Born Again”

“A Christian has been ‘Born Again,’ ‘born from above’ (John 3:5, 6). He has been ‘born of God’ (I John 5: 1). If a Christian is born, may he be unborn? It is impossible to be I unborn,’ therefore it is not possible to be lost if born from above.”

Reply: Physically, it is impossible to be unborn, but it is possible to be denied and disinherited; it is possible to lose all blessings of sonship. A Father cannot undo his paternity, but he can refuse privileges that accrue to the child if the child is wayward and rebellious. God called Israel His “children.” They were “his sons” and “his daughters” (Deut. 32:19, 20), But to the disobedient he said, “I will . . . disinherit them” (Num. 14:12). The same is true today. “If we deny him, he also will deny us” (2 Tim. 2:12).

Dr. Schroeder treats us to statements on being “born again.” Surely, a “Dr.” should know something about births, and he asks, “If a Christian is born, may he be unborn? It is impossible to be ‘unborn,’ therefore it is not possible to be lost if born from above.” Well, I Am not an obstetrician nor a pediatrician, but the Bible says sinners are “children of the Devil” 0 Jn. 3: 10). It says their Father is the Devil (Jn. 8:44). That means, in a figure, they are begotten or born of the Devil. Question: “If a child of the Devil is born, may he be unborn? It is impossible to be “unborn,’ therefore it is not possible to be saved if born from below.” Now, let the Dr. make a delivery for us. Children are born of the Devil. Does the good Dr. believe they can be “unborn” and be saved? We trust that the Dr. himself will not go into hard labor over this matter, but it is his own obstetric principle that we are prodding him with. All have sinned; all are thus “children of the Devil.” Since “It is impossible to be ‘unborn,’ therefore,” no one will be saved-that is universal damnation according to the Dr.’s rules of birth. Will our Dr. make a house call and examine this patient’s dilemma for us? Will he attempt to clarify or “explainify” this matter for us? Or, are we going to have to induce labor to get him to answer? Only a quack Dr. keeps silent when genuine skills are needed.

“5. Eternal Life, A Present Possession”

“Every Christian is given eternal life by Christ. ‘I give unto them eternal life’ (John 10:28). He now has this life (I John 5:13). This life is not for ten, twenty or thirty years, not as long as we hold out, but it is for eternity, forever (John 6:47; John 5:24; John 3:36; 1 John 5:12, 13). One cannot be lost when he has eternal life.”

Reply; Jesus gives eternal life, but this life, this gift, is conditional. Eternal life is given to those who hear and believe (Jn. 5:24; 6:47), but one may cease to hear and quit believing (Prov. 28:9; Heb. 3:12; Psa. 106:12, 24). What then?

“God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son” (I Jn. 5:11). Eternal life is where? It “is in his Son.” But one may choose not to abide in Christ-“if a man abide not in me” (Jn. 15:6). One who does not abide in Christ does not have eternal life, for “this life is in his Son.”

Eternal life is “not for … as long as we hold out,” the tract says. But the Bible says Christ is “a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end” (Heb. 3:6). “For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end” (Heb. 3:14). Those reconciled by the blood are to be presented “holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight if ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel” (Col. 1:21-23). Eternal life is eternal, but it is not given unconditionally eternally.

Christians have eternal life in promise (I Jn. 2:25). We now live “In hope of eternal life” (Titus 1:2). Eternal life is “that which is to come” 0 Tim. 4:8). “In the world to come life everlasting” will be given to the faithful (Lk. 18:30; Rom. 2:6, 7).

“6. A New Nature”

“Every Christian possesses a new nature (2 Pet. 1:4), God’s nature. If a Christian could be lost with such a nature, this would bring God down to a human level, and God’s nature would be lost.”

Reply: 2 Peter 1:4 does not say that Christians are “possessors of the divine nature.” It says “partakers of the divine nature.” We do not possess, rather we share or have fellowship, of the divine nature. Our possessions in 2 Peter 1:4 are “exceeding great and precious promises” which have been “given unto us” and “by these”, we become “partakers of the divine nature.” A reverse paraphrase of “Pastor” Schroeder’s statement may. shed some light. “Every unbeliever possessed an old nature, the Devil’s. If an unbeliever can be saved with such a nature, this would bring the Devil up to a divine level and the Devil’s nature would be saved.” Does this prove that an unbeliever cannot become a believer and be saved? No, it does not, and when it is explained, it clarifies Mr. Schroeder’s statement.

But 2 Peter also says “Give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall” (1:10). Some “bought” by the Lord will deny Him “and bring upon themselves swift destruction” (2:1). “For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning” (2:20). “Beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness” (3:17). Why these statements if 1:4 shows one cannot be lost?

(To be continued)

Truth Magazine, XVIII:39, p. 6-8
August 8, 1974

By Steve Wolfgang

Shortly before his death in 1878, the venerable Benjamin Franklin, editor of the American Christian Review (which one historian has called “the most influential Disciples journal” during this period of the Restoration Movement 1 ), wrote to the young preacher, Daniel Sommer. Eight years later, Sommer would assume the editorship of the Review. In the letter, Franklin urged his young protege to “write yourself into the affections and confidence of the brethren, while I am still at the helm, so that when I fall, you may be a necessity, as I am now.”2

Since I began preaching several years ago, some older preachers have offered similar advice to me, suggesting that I submit “short, simple articles” to the various “brotherhood journals” for the purpose of “writing oneself into the confidence of the brethren.” My inclination, however, has been to wait until becoming somewhat more experienced, and especially until I felt I had something to say instead of merely having to say something. Had I wanted to chop up a number of graduate and undergraduate term papers into article form (as some young writers apparently have done), I might well have been inscripturated by now into the brethren’s confidence. But I trust that the brethren will consider what is said on the basis of its merit rather than on the reputation (or lack of same) of the writer.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with brethren having confidence in someone based upon past experience. Nor is there anything sinful in a person using for good whatever influence he may have with others. Some of the present denouncers of “centers of brotherhood influence,” “power structures,” “paper and publishing combines,” etc., seemingly do not recognize that they are using the same type of “paper and publishing combine” to accomplish the same end (influencing brethren). Try as they may to piously disclaim any attempt to control or exert influence over other people, they cannot escape the fact that is exactly the effect they have and denunciations of others from such sources come with rather poor grace!

Additionally, some no doubt well-intentioned brethren recently have criticized human institutions (such as colleges and/ or papers which teach the Bible) using another human institution (a paper) to teach what they suppose to be the truth. One hears references to “classical Sommerism” and “the Sommer position” and wonders if those who use them realize what they refer to. There is something Brother Sommer apparently could never see-that in vociferously defending the Lord=s church from human institutions, he was utilizing a human institution (his paper, the Review) to teach what he understood the Bible to teach. Nor was he able, logically, to avoid the force of the argument by pleading that the Review was not “incorporated” or Aorganized” as such, but merely owned and operated by himself and his family. It yet remained a human institution, something other than the church.

It may well be that the brethren who are so vocally using human institutions (papers) to castigate other human institutions (such as a college), and who are quick to point to the “unwarranted influence” that a school might have. might profit from reading some history. For instance, an historical judgment which has been stated by more than one analyst of the movement is well stated by Earl West:

“Colleges, as a general rule, have not fostered the thinking of brethren on certain issues, but rather have reflected the opinion of the majority after the issues have arisen …. The charge, therefore, that the Bible schools have been the cause of digression is a generalization of very little historical accuracy. Rather, just the opposite is true. The chief sources of opinion and policy in the brotherhood have always been the brotherhood publications …. Digression in the restoration movement began not with colleges but with papers, which is to say influential editors and writers. It was not until after they had swung the opinions of the brotherhood into one line or another that the colleges began to take up the issues and become champions of them.@3

Of course, the cliche that the Restoration movement has had editors rather than bishops (as in, for instance, the Methodist church) has been repeated perhaps as often as almost any other phrase in the history of the movement. While this may be true, and while it is perhaps true that some have abused their influence over others, it is also true that some who criticize others are the worst offenders!

When one undertakes to write, he assumes the same responsibility as when he teaches in any other medium (James 3:1). However, by writing, he may be reaching an audience of thousands instead of tens or hundreds. Of course, one needs to teach the truth at all times-whether the audience consists of one or one thousand. But when the possibility exists for teaching so great a potential audience, one needs to pay strict attention to what he teaches. While religious error taught to one may have as its result the loss of a soul or, at the very least, confusion of scriptural concepts, the same error, taught before a large audience, by a sort of ” multiplier effect,” may have even more far-reaching consequences. Thus, one who teaches publicly, either orally or by written articles, should have no aversion to anyone questioning what he may teach. In fact, in view of the responsibility he bears, he should welcome such criticism. Some brethren seem to feel that they can write virtually whatever they please, without regard to the implications of what they may teach, and then withdraw to their ivory towers, behind a facade of piety, if someone disagrees with or even questions their assertions. I have even heard some brethren suggest that they should be able to teach what they please publicly, but all critics have the right to question them only privately! I suppose they feel that such is a “scriptural” (?) position.

Let me conclude these random reflections on writers and their influence by offering for your consideration some remarks made by a venerable soldier of the cross who preached for about three quartrs of a century. Brother W. W. Otey made the following observation:

A. . . it is very likely that they (non-writing preachers – SW) would do the cause as much good as a preacher whose name frequently appears in print. The mere fact that a man=s name appears often in print is no proof that he will give you satisfaction as a preacher. Nor is the fact that a man’s name is seldom seen in print any proof that he is not a good preacher. I have known of churches sending long distances for a preacher to hold a meeting and then say, ‘We were disappointed. He does not preach as well as he writes.’ I have known of churches sending for. preachers whose names seldom appear in print and then say, ‘Why have we not heard of you before? “4

It may be that, there are some today who are infatuated with those who write. There have been instances of preachers moving to a new work and then “lining up” solely influential writer-preachers and / or editors to hold meetings. Some brethren seem to think that if a brother does not write that he may not be able to preach! One capable preaching brother, who is probably as well informed as anyone on subjects such as evolution, Catholicism, and current religious thinking, but who has not written extensively in “brotherhood periodicals,” told me several years ago that some brethren had expressed amazement at his being asked to work with a certain church because “they had never heard of him!” And surely most of us have had the experience of hearing a preacher who is not nearly as effective in “Pulpit work” as in “editorializing.” Each one has his own place and should use such talents as he has-but such typecasting and stereotyping of brethren is not conducive to the most effective use of available talent.

May we all use whatever influence for good we may have, and encourage others to do likewise. Let us not develop an “Elijah complex” when others do not work exactly as we do, or as we think they ought to. Let us listen to what our brethren are saying-and accept truth, wherever it is taught, Without respect to who may teach it. “Consider what I say, and the Lord give thee understanding in all things” (2 Timothy 2:7),.

Footnotes:

1. David Edwin Harrell, Jr., The Social Sources of Division in the Disciples of Christ, 1865-1900: The Disciples of Christ and American Society, Volume II (Atlanta: Publishing Systems, Incorporated, 1973), p. 17

2. Letter from Franklin to Sommer, May 30, 1878; letter from Sommer to Review owner Edwin Alden, October 30, 1878; Daniel Sommer “History,” American Christian Review, (March 3, 1887), p. 65; see Eari Irvin West, The Search for the Ancient Order. A History of the Restoration Movement, 1849-1906 (Volume 11, 1866-1906; Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1954), pp. 299-302, 306-315.

3. Ibid., II, 461-462.

4. “Facts and Reflections,” Octographic Review, XLVIII: 43 (October 24, 1905), pp. 4-5.

Preacher Needed

Truth Magazine, XVIII:39, p. 4-6
August 8, 1974

By Cecil Willis

There have been a good many rumors, and a considerable stir, about the fact that I added the word “doctrinal” into an article written by Lindy McDaniel in the last issue of Pitching For the Master to be published by the Cogdill Foundation. It is true that I added the word “doctrinal” to Brother McDaniel’s discussion of the differences that occasioned us mutually to decide that Pitching For the Master should be separated from the Cogdill Foundation.

Lindy is quite up-set because our “doctrinal” differences are paraded before a goodly number of non-Christian people who receive the paper. However, Lindy should not have sought to give any explanation at all as to why the paper would thenceforth be published elsewhere and by others. The mere fact that he had been traded to the Kansas City Royals would have been enough explanation, if any at all was to be given to these non-Christians.

I seriously doubt the wisdom of making any statement at all about our “differences,” but if Lindy was going to tell the non-Christian public (as well as the Christians who receive his paper, who probably would constitute 50% of his subscription list) about, these “differences,” I insisted that something more definite than “differences” be told them. In an accompanying letter, Brother McDaniel offered me the opportunity to make a statement also as to why the Cogdill Foundation no longer would be publishing Pitching For the Master, However, Lindy left me exactly three lines in which to make my statement. So rather than try to state anything about the problem in just three lines, I thought the explanation that our, “differences” were doctrinal rather than personal would be an improvement in the statement.

As long as we have published Lindy’s paper, I have had the entire responsibility of correcting his manuscript before sending it for typesetting, then of proofing it, and pasting it up for photographing. On occasions, I have had to delete several paragraphs in order to make an article fit the space available. On other occasions, I have had to write or “borrow” an article to fill the available space. I have had completely free reins to attend to these matters, at Lindy’s specific authorization.

Lindy has a good “fast ball,” and an excellent “fork pitch,” but I think even he would admit that spelling and grammar are not his forte. I suspect he would have been more than a little irritated if, after every correction I made, I had insisted (CW), indicating that I had made the change. Can you imagine the howl that would have gone up if I had deleted two or three paragraphs of Lindy’s article, in order to insert the one he authorized me also to write in that final issue? Had I written such an article, I will guarantee you that it would have spelled out specifically the points upon which we differ, and they pertain to “grace” and ‘fellowship.” Lindy himself admits that we do have “doctrinal” differences, but he says that it is our attitude about, these differences that necessitated the separation of Pitching, For,, the Master from the Cogdill Foundation. But whether we fellowship “instrumentalists” and “institutionalists,” to me goes a good bit deeper than just attitude. And that is what our “differences” were all about.

An article is in my hand from Brother McDaniel regarding my insertion of the word “doctrinal” into his article. Perhaps I should have initialed “doctrinal@ (CW), but I doubt that, he would have been any happier. And I refused to let the paper go out under the auspices of the Cogdill Foundation, and with my name listed as “Associate Editor” without some further explanation. The issue already was a month late when I received his article. I had never contacted him before for corrections I made in his articles, nor has he ever before objected to any correction, addition, or deletion that it has been necessary for me to make. Without the least trepidation, I fully and completely accept the responsibility for adding the word “doctrinal” to his statement about our differences, for he knows that we did have Voctrinal” differences, which we discussed for twelve or-fourteen hours ip February at Conroe, Texas in the home of Brother Roy E. Cogdill. I have no apology to make for doing so, and would do it again, if he proceeded to tell the Christian and non-Christian public about our “differences,” without revealing the nature of those differences.

I am writing Brother McDaniel to see if he really wants the article he sent to me published, for if I publish it, I must write a reply to it, and in my reply it will be necessary that I document his vacillation on the subject of “grace@ and Afellowship@ for at least two years. Lindy has wobbled around more on these subjects in the last two years than has the best “fork pitch” he ever served up to a batter! If he continues to insist that his article be published about my insertion of the word “doctrinal” into his statement about our “differences,” in which article he demands that I apologize for the insertion, and for misrepresenting his position, and insists that we have never discussed these matters until very recently, then I see no alternative but to publish his article (out of fairness), but also to reply to it (in order to present the whole truth on the matter).

Until I hear from Lindy, this article will suffice to tell you that I did insert the word “doctrinal,” and why I did so, and if you want greater explanation, let Brother McDaniel ask for it, and it will be forthcoming, in ample supply. I am sorry to see Lindy line up again with an element that seems determined to turn the Lord’s church into a sort of ecumenical conglomeration, and I have sought diligently for about two years to prevent this from happening, as a considerable host of brethren already know, including Brother Lindy McDaniel. To borrow Robert Jackson’s favorite expression again: “We shall see what we shall see!”

Truth Magazine, XVIII:39, p. 3
August 8, 1974