Truth Magazine

By James W. Adams

Trouble among the churches of the Lord did not begin with the Gospel Advocate’s and Tolbert Fanning’s and David Lipscomb’s fight against instrumental music and missionary societies. It did not originate with the Gospel Guardian’s fight against centralized control and oversight and human institutionalism, nor did it first spring from Truth Magazine’s current opposition to Ketchersideism in any or all of its forms. It began among the churches while apostles of Christ were yet living. Because of difficulties among brethren springing from false doctrine and bad attitudes, James wrote:

AWho 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 and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth. This wisdom deseendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish. For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work. But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace@ (Jas. 3:13-18).

James raises the question: “Who is a wise man?” Then, he answers his question. If I know my heart, and I believe I do, I desire in all matters of controversy among brethren to be a “wise man” as defined by James’ inspired statement. With this as a guide, I should like to make some observations concerning a recent editorial in the Gospel Guardian written by Brother Edward Fudge of Athens, Alabama (Vol. 25, Number 19, September 13, 1973).

My Personal Attitude

All readers of Truth Magazine know that I have been critical of Brother Fudge concerning his teaching and actions relative to matters connected with the baneful influence of Ketchersideism among conservative brethren, especially among some of our excellent young men aspiring to preach. Such has sprung from no personal ill will on my part toward Brother Fudge. In fact, I barely know him in a personal way:.My criticisms emanate from no love of strife on my part. I detest strife among brethren. My personal record in local work and meeting work over the past forty years will bear that out. I have never been asked to leave a church, nor have I ever left one in a state of turmoil. This is not to say that there have not been problems that had to be worked out nor that there have not been erroneous ideas and unrighteous attitudes and practices that have had to be rebuked and corrected. It in to say that my relationship with the churches with which I have labored has been as tranquil and irenic as that of any preacher whom I have ever met. I, therefore, keenly resent and unequivocally repudiate as gross misrepresentation any suggestion that I have at any time or . place filled the role of a “meddlesome troublemaker,” and I unhesitatingly challenge any man to name such a time and place. Such charges always characterize those whose teaching and practice are justifiably suspect.

The Dictator Complex

The Gospel Guardian and Brother Fudge seek to cast Truth Magazine and its writers in the role of aspiring dictators and invaders of the sacred precincts of “congregational autonomy and individual conscience.” I challenge the Gospel Guardian and Fudge to cease using innuendo and be specific. Let them name the time, place, and circumstances in which we have violated congregational autonomy or invaded the sacred realm of individual conscience. Brother’ Fudge by implication charges us with employing “pressure and force” rather than “the godly power of truth and moral persuasion.” I categorically deny the truth of this implication and ask Fudge to say when and where on the editorial page of the Gospel Guardian or stand indicted with gross and wilful misrepresentation. If an individual or a congregation teaches and / or practices pernicious error, I have both the right and duty to challenge and oppose such in as public a manner as the teaching and practice has been done. I invade neither the realm of conscience nor congregational autonomy in so doing. Neither John nor Paul was guilty of “lording it over the faith, autonomy, or conscience” of individuals and churches when they wrote them rebuking them for their false teaching and illicit practices. We do not equate ourselves with apostles of Christ, but when truth has been violated, we have the same right as did they to oppose and expose it.

The Arlington Meeting Again

Brother Fudge quotes scattered excerpts from a speech I made at the Arlington Meeting several years ago and avers that his attitude toward fellowship and mine as expressed in that speech are the same. I categorically deny this to be true. I wrote Brother Fudge several weeks ago that my attitude today is exactly the same as that which I expressed and manifested in the Arlington Meeting and always has been from the beginning of current problems, and that my practice has been uniformly consistent with it. Brother William Wallace, several years ago, affected to perceive an inconsistency in my opposition to certain liberal statements made by him relative to fellowship and my sentiments expressed at Arlington. I replied to that in the most public way and heard no more of it. Brother Bill should have warned Brother Fudge about such an approach, or did he encourage him?

The capable men at Arlington who constituted my opposition there understood me perfectly. They had charged that we instigated a breach of fellowship over these matters. My speech was a denial of this charge. I pointed out, that from the beginning of the discussion of the issues under consideration, I had not desired to discuss the question of “fellowship,” that I wanted fellowship to be the very last consideration. They, of course, charge everywhere that it was Brother Yater Tant who raised the fellowship issue. I have uniformly defended him against this charge insisting that he was misunderstood and his statements distorted. My desire was for a complete study of all issues from the standpoint of Bible teaching with the hope that a breach of fellowship would not occur, and wherever it is possible, I still desire this. However, the Gospel Advocate made such all but impossible when its editor called for a quarantine of all of us who believed and taught against the scripturalness of sponsoring churches, and church support of human institutions.

My reference to brethren who think me “soft,” which Brother Fudge cites, was to certain extremists among “conservatives” who think every person who holds views which they consider “liberal” is the devil incarnate and lower than a snake that crawls on his belly in the dust of the earth. I deplore such an attitude. I do not subscribe to the idea that so-called “liberal” brethren are dishonest, mean, and wilfully determined to take the churches down the road to apostasy and ruin. I believe that many of these brethren, and they are my brethren, even preachers among them, are as sincere, as dedicated, and as interested in keeping the churches in harmony with the will of God as I like to think of myself as being. They are persons who have been born again; they are in covenant relationship with God through Christ.

Despite these facts, however, they are in serious error relative to their faith and practice. By reason of this fact, I cannot extend to them the “right hand of fellowship” as faithful brethren in the Lord. I must regard them as brethren who have been “overtaken in a fault” and need to be “restored” (Gal. 6:1). Yes, I am forced to regard them as “brothers who have erred from the truth” and need to be “converted” (Jas. 5:19, 2;). Such being their state in my thinking, I cannot with good conscience call upon them to participate actively in the services of “conservative” congregations, nor can I without considerable qualification announce their meetings and urge faithful brethren to attend them. As I have pointed out in the past when writing upon this subject, however, these decisions have to be made locally and on the basis of circumstances and attitudes. It would be arrogant and presumptuous for me to make some sort of rule to govern all churches and all persons in these matters and insist upon unvarying uniformity of its application everywhere and under all circumstances on the penalty of being unfaithful to the Lord if such is not done. I have no aspirations in the direction of creed making.

My record from the beginning of the controversy(over these matters will substantiate the accuracy of the facts just stated both in my teaching and my practice. My record will also show that no church with which I have labored has been lost to so-called “liberality” while I labored with it. No church, while I labored with it, has been compromised so as to render its stand for truth ineffective. For that matter, no church with which I have labored, after my leaving it, has been lost to cause of truth or compromised as a result of anything I taught or practiced or urged to be practiced while I labored with it. No. Brother Fudge, you do not have my attitude as expressed at the Arlington Meeting with regard to fellowship and unity. By the time this article appears in print, there will have appeared a number of articles by me and others which will abundantly demonstrate this to be a fact.

Conclusion

I have in the past and would again call on brethren for prayer under proper circumstances who would probably classify as “liberal” in certain aspects of their faith and practice. There are all kinds of so-called “liberals” and many and varying degrees of so-called “liberality.” Their degree of “liberality” and their attitude toward truth and toward those of us who differ with them on the issues under consideration would weigh heavily in a judgement decision as to whether they should or should not be called upon for prayer. Too, circumstances vary as widely as persons, hence the prevailing circumstances would weigh heavily also in a judgement decision as to whether such persons should or should not be called upon for prayer. I have the same problem with some so-called “conservative” brethren who are “sound” on these “issues” but suspect in the realm of morality or factionalism. I would never call on any person in either class for prayer in the public services of the church if respectable, faithful members of that church were opposed to its being done on the basis of conscience. To do so would demand that I either cause them to violate their conscience or to forego participation in the particular act of worship under consideration. Our criticisms of Fudge go much deeper than what has just been described. We are concerned with Ketchersideism and its baneful effects upon more than fifty conservative preachers and numbers of churches and the influence Fudge’s attitude and teaching have had in the matter as well as the Gospel Guardian’s stance relative thereto.

Every church I have served since the issues under consideration became issues has had in its membership people who did not accept my views on these matters in every particular. Some of these were even elders or deacons. Yet, as long as these men were content for the congregation to forego the support of the practices in question, did not seek to impose their contrary views upon the congregation, and were willing for the whole truth to be taught relative thereto, there was no breach of fellowship and no discrimination of any kind whatsoever against them. I loved, respected, and fellowshipped such persons as brethren, and I yet act in this manner wherever such a state of affairs obtains.

However, I cannot fellowship brethren who quarantine me, force me and others like me from their midst, and forbid me to teach my convictions relative to these matters. With such brethren, I cannot participate actively in areas of agreement in any manner that could be construed as a recognition on my part of their faithfulness to the Lord. I can endorse as right what they do in these areas. This is true of denominations and denominational people. Many things which they do are right and I endorse their practice in such matters, but at the same time, I cannot fellowship the people because of their error in other vital matters. I am absolutely convinced that Ketcherside, Fudge and others are seeking a middle-ground of some sort, a neutral territory, a no-man’s land in the realm of fellowship and unity which is a mirage born of over-heated imagination and misguided philanthropy.

In writing this article, I have made an unusual number of personal references to my practice and teaching. None of this is done in a spirit of self defense. My position in these matters has been too long and too well known to demand such. I write these things to demonstrate, if possible, to Brother Fudge that his position and my position on unity and fellowship are about as much alike as night and day!

(NOTE: This finds me in Kansas City, Mo. in a meeting, hence this article has been written away from my library and files. It has been written under physical difficulties. Upon my return home, I shall enter Nan Travis Hospital in Jacksonville, Texas for hernia surgery, October 17. If this article falls short of the usual quality of my writing, this is the reason. Also, this will mean that it will be several weeks after this article appears before I can resume the series. JWA)

Truth Magazine, XVIII:1, p. 8-9
November 1, 1973

By Ray Ferris

“The measure of a man’s real character is what he would do if he would never be found out,” said Thomas Babington Macaulay. There are many people in our world of today who are entirely willing to take a chance on man never discovering their crimes. Many of these people are caught, however, and are punished by man for their misdeeds. There are many more who are able to fool men all the days of their lives, and thus get by with their evil works so as to be able to live among men with a good name in society.

There are many other people in the world who refrain from doing many things only because they know that society does not approve of it, and they are afraid to take the chance of being discovered in their evil schemes by the public. As the standards that are acceptable to the majority vary, so will the standards of such people change. Think of what is practiced now in the way of immorality that causes hardly an eye-brow to be raised, but would have provoked the strongest kind of censure just a few years ago. The individual who permits society to establish the standard will never be anything but an advocate of the status quo.

Fear Of God Deters Some

There are still others who would be willing to take the chance of doing many of the things to which we have reference, even though they might be apprehended by society, if it were not for the fear of God. Everyone who has any knowledge at all of the principles contained in the Bible knows that God has taught us that all sin will be found out and judged. “For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.” (Eccl. 12:14). “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.” (2 Cor. 5: 10). “Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth: they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.” (John 5:28-29). Surely the principle expressed to Israel in the long ago is correct: “. . . be sure your sin will find you out.” (Num. 32:23b). In the language of Hebrews 4:13, ” . . . all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.”

We often commend the people who refrain from doing that which is wrong just because they know it would displease the Lord, and truly they are to be commended. In Job 28:28 we read, “Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding.” Again we read: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do his commandments … ” (Psa. 111: 10). The Wise Man said, “Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.” (Eccl. 12:13). The man who does good and refrains from evil because he fears God is beginning to “get smart!”

God Desires More Than Fear

However, surely the man who has trained himself to follow the Lord will do many of the things that are right just because they are right. The religion of Jesus does not encourage men to do all they think it is possible to “get by with” ii. questionable deeds. It rather teaches that men are to become good in their hearts. The Wise Man again stated the principle: “For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he . . . ” (Prov. 23: 7). He also said, “Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life.” (Prov. 4: 23). Jesus said, “. . . those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart-; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: these are the things which defile a man . . .” (Matt. 15:18-20). Here the Lord shows the heart to be the wellspring of actions: evil proceeds from the heart.

God has commanded us to become God-like in our manner of life. “Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.” (1 Pet. 1: 16). Peter uses this, a quotation from Leviticus, as reason for the admonition, “But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation.” The word conversation means manner of living, and is so translated in the ASV.

A Noble Goal

Our aim ought not to be staying away from evil only because we are afraid of punishment, but rather to be holy even as God is holy. The supreme goodness of God is seen in James 1: 13: “for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man . . ..” Note that verse 14 shows that temptation comes because of lust toward that which entices. God is so completely good that evil is not an enticement to Him; He is not even tempted! Now since temptation comes because one is drawn by his own desires toward that which entices (verse 14), then the impossibility for God to be tempted must he because He has no desire for anything that is evil.

Can you think of something, which you once practiced that was sinful, but that you have now discarded? Can you think of something of this nature that does not even appeal to you at all now? This is an illustration of our point. How great to be able to reach a state where one had no desire to sin in any way. But that is not a condition to be reached in the flesh. It would seem I however, to be a fitting goal for us to work toward regarding any particular sin that besets us. What a tremendous goal for us with regard to every sin – to try to conquer the lust for that which entices!

Self-evaluation

Just how far have we gone toward real goodness? In the language of Mr. Macaulay at the beginning of our article, “The measure of a man’s real character is what he would do if he knew he would never be found out.” What do you do when you think none of your fellowmen is looking? What would you do if you believed you could hide it from the Lord? Surely honest answers to these questions will help us to evaluate ourselves properly as we walk before our Holy Father. Such answers ought to enable us to see the progress we have made; to realize more fully that our own goodness is very meager, to say the least, and that great challenges are before us; and to appreciate with deep humility our own unworthiness and God’s abundant love and grace. The secret to good character is a converted heart. “And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God.” (Rom. 12:2).

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 50, pp. 6-7
October 25, 1973

By Ron Halbrook

(EDITOR’S NOTE: For the Preface to this series of articles, please see the Introductory article in the Sept. 20th issue of Truth Magazine.)

POINT 7. Last, we consider our brother’s concept of grace. He is teaching that the work of Christ, in addition to the blood sacrifice, was to obey perfectly for us. Christ is “a representative law-keeper, who justifies others by his obedience.” “Because of His obedience, those who are in Him can be saved although they never do achieve perfect obedience themselves.” Once we are in Christ, the obedience of Christ is imputed to us rather than sin being imputed to us. “There is a sphere where sin is not imputed to the sinners and that sphere is ‘in Christ.’ ” This is “the righteousness which is by faith” referred to “in Romans 4:6-8” (quotes from G.G., Vol. 21, No. 44). (He wants us to emphasize that he believes imputed obedience is conditioned on true faith.)

REVIEW: Attitudes, principles, and concepts have consequences. Does our brother not see what follows from his premise of imputed obedience? The result is: even if we do violate the silence of God, practice unlawful opinions, and add to God’s Word, even if these are actual sins, God will not impute these to us especially in cases of misguided or false piety (as distinguished from flagrant pride). He will rather impute the obedience of Christ to us who are in him. In this fashion, God’s grace accepts brethren who use instruments, socialize the church’s mission, and centralize. Since God accepts them, so should we.

The foundation is faulty; thus, the conclusion, which results, is unfounded. The Old Law does not cast any shadows concerning our need of one to keep the Law perfectly for us–which obedience would be imputed to us. The Law is replete with shadows concerning our need of a perfect sacrifice a blood sacrifice for removal of sin, upon faith. “The law is not of faith: but, the man that doeth them shall live in them.” The Old Law could not save because man did not perfectly obey. (Man’s paramount problem was not that he might break the law without knowing it and thus be lost, though the law recognizes a man might break the law and learn of it later. The supreme problem was that once a man broke the law when tempted to choose the wrong. the law couldn’t grant final and complete forgiveness. Heb. 10:4.)

What solution did God intend: one to obey for us or one to die for us? “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree: That the blessing . . . might come . . . through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith” (Gal. 3:11-14). Which is foreshadowed: one to obey for us or one to die for us? See Heb. 10:1-14.

If the work of Christ was not as “a representative law-keeper who justifies others by His obedience,” what is the meaning of his perfect obedience? Our brother says, “Because Of His obedience, those who are in Him can be saved although they never do achieve perfect obedience.” If that is not it, what is the meaning of Christ’s obedience? In the first place, his death could not be accepted on our behalf if be owed life for his own sins.

Also, notice Heb. 2, “Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that bad the power of death, that is, the devil. . . . Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.” Christ “was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin” (4:14-16). The perfect life was lived to make him perfect in sympathy and understanding of our struggle with sin.

And, again, we emphasize the perfect life provided a perfect sacrifice. The perfect priest, “without sin,” did not offer a life-long obedience to be counted in place of our disobedience; he culminated a life of obedience in a perfect sacrifice for our sins, and thus saves us. “Through death” he saves us. See Heb. 5:8-9; 9:28; 10: 12. Yes, his obedience is full of meaning for us.

The idea that God imputes the obedience of Christ to us leads our brother to say, “But there is a sphere where sin is not imputed to the sinners and that sphere is ‘in Christ.’ ” So, as long as we’re in Christ, God keeps imputing his obedience to us and so does not impute sin to us. (Again, Ed says this is conditioned on true, continuing faith.) This is a misconstrued allusion to Rom. 4, especially vv. 4-8. God does not impute past sins to those justified by faith. Such is the meaning of Ps. 32, from which Paul quotes, “Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.” “The Lord imputeth not iniquity,” not in the sense that sin is not imputed in the first place, but in the sense that imputed sin was “forgiven” to one who “acknowledged” and confessed his sin unto God (Ps. 32:1-5). Sin, once forgiven, is not imputed or remembered any longer. So it is in Heb. 8:12, “Their sins . . . will I remember no more.

In the Old system of sacrifice, “there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.” In the New, God doesn’t remember the post sins for which we have sought forgiveness (compare Heb. 8:12 and 10: 3). If we sin again, we may go on in hardness; “there remaineth no more sacrifice” (Heb. 10 – 26). Or, “we may confess our sins , ” “he is faithful and just to forgive” (1 Jn. 1). We could not confess that which is not imputed to us in the first place. “If we walk in the light” and “if we confess our sins,” the blood of Christ cleanses us. Nowhere is it taught that our sins are not imputed because his obedience is imputed to us.

We emphasize again, the Law did not foreshadow (1) one to perfectly obey for us, so (2) his obedience could be imputed to us, and (3) so our present sins would not be imputed to us. The people were never taught to look on the thousands of lambs as perfectly obedient ones, foreshadowing One who would perfectly obey for us-nor are the other two points just mentioned foreshadowed. The lamb without blemish did emphasize that Christ would be a sinless sacrifice. Every man broke the Law and then stood under the sentence of death (Gal. 3:11-12; Heb. 2:15). They saw in the rivers of blood that sin requires death, and yet that animal blood is insufficient (Heb. 9-10). But the shadows, the sacrifices they offered, served to bring them unto “the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world” through one perfect sacrifice (Jn. 1, Gal. 3, Heb. 10).

Dear brother, we appeal in love: clarify please.

Appeal In Love

CONCLUSION: Our brother Edward Fudge is loved of many, including his brother Ron Halbrook, who is extending this appeal to him. Love, patience, and a desire to help each other on the way to heaven must characterize us all.

We have tried to present this study in proper balance and perspective. For instance, I recognize temperament may differ according to individual make-up; our concern here is not with temperament, which may vary, but with teaching, which must conform to the divine standard. My own precautions and delays in presenting this material bear witness to my love of Ed. My conviction that Ed needs a specific occasion to clarify some specific matters has finally moved me to write. I cannot desire to hurt him, if I were to do so. Neither do I “throw the baby out with the bathwater; ” I rejoice in every talent Ed has, in his every effort for truth, and in every success of worthy endeavor that is his.

Believing basic principles are crying for attention, I cannot withhold these lines any longer. This appeal is written in love. Ed’s response, reaffirmation, rebuttal, or explanation will be received in love. Even should he deem it best to ignore this appeal, I shall love him still. I believe Ed and Ron are united in believing we must and can strive for the balance of attitude and truth required in 1 Cor. 16:13-14. “Be on the alert, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong. Let all that you do be done in love.” May God help us both to do exactly that.

(Series Concluded)

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 50, pp. 3-5
October 25, 1973

By Cecil Willis

With this issue, seventeen years of publishing Truth Magazine have been completed. Well over eleven of these years, it has been my privilege to serve as Editor. This issue also completes four years of publication on a weekly basis.

The editorial chair, I have found, to be a hot seat. An editor is criticized if he does, and criticized if he does not; it seems to make little difference what the issue is. I have ducked many of the rocks thrown in my direction, and gotten plastered by some of the others. Many of the very critical letters have been very helpful to me. Though some would never believe it, I have profited by the criticisms made. Some of them validly have been made. Experience has taught me where some of the editorial pitfalls are, and I shall hereafter try to avoid falling into them. I have no delusions about my editorial infallibility from this point onward. Surely other editorial mistakes will be made, but I shall try to make fewer of them, and not to repeat ones previously made.

Next week a new phase in the history of Truth Magazine will begin. Some changes are going to be made in the size and make-up of the paper. Some will approve the changes, and others will think we made a backward step. We have sought to publish a paper for brethren that has some “punch” in it. It has been our deliberate intention to make Truth Magazine a literary forum where issues that need discussion among brethren may be discussed. Truth Magazine has never been a paper designed for non-christians, or for babes in Christ, though we have sought to maintain a moderate balance in the content of the paper.

While Truth Magazine is undergoing some changes, its Editor also will be undergoing some. I have resigned my work as regular preacher for the Westside church in Marion, Indiana. My experience with these brethren has been entirely pleasant, from my point of view. It will be my intention to continue to work and worship with the Westside church. My friend, Brother Norman Midgette, is moving from the South Marion church to Westside to serve as local evangelist, effective January 1, 1974. It is our hope that some definite improvements can be made in the work of the Westside church in Marion, and certainly I intend to lend every effort that I can toward the accomplishment of this objective.

It will be my intention to devote about half of my time in 1974 to writing, both for Truth Magazine and hopefully in some other media also. We hope to be able to expand our publishing effort in order to make it possible for competent brethren to leave for succeeding generations a legacy of worthwhile religious articles, books, and booklets. Considerable of my time will therefore be devoted to trying to help to prepare for publication articles and books written by others. It has been the hope of those of us connected with the Cogdill Foundation that we can perpetuate the capability to publish needed religious books, tracts, journals, class materials, etc.

The remainder of my time will be spent in preaching wherever the opportunity presents itself. Though I have enjoyed my work with Truth Magazine, I (and a couple of other brethren) primarily look upon myself as a gospel preacher. During two years of my preaching life, I was not engaged in full-time work with a congregation. During those two years I preached more sermons than during any other two years of my life. I certainly do not intend to be less involved in the work of preaching and teaching. During recent years I have tried to do too many different things, with the result that I did not do anything as well as I would like to try to do it. With this altered arrangement, it will be my hope that Truth Magazine can be made into a better and more profitable journal. For several years, I have held about twenty meetings a year. The Lord Willing, I shall continue to hold about that many yearly.

As we close this volume, it is essential that a considerable portion of this final issue be devoted to the publication of an author and title index. Though an index is worthless to those who do not preserve their weekly issues of the paper, it is invaluable to those who keep permanent files, and hundreds of our readers do so. Beginning next week, a larger Truth Magazine will begin coming to your home. We hope to pack it full of good things, which will build you up in the most holy Faith.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 50, p. 2
October 25, 1973