Truth Magazine

By Connie W. Adams

Cecil Willis moved to Akron, Ohio in 1958 to work with the Brown Street congregation which had begun in 1941 as a peaceful “swarm” from Thayer Street. Charles M. Campbell had preached there for several years. Cecil followed Jesse Wiseman. The church had grown to over 300 in attendance by the time Cecil came. During his years at Brown Street, attendance often ran to 350-360. Akron was then the rubber capitol of the world with a number of large plants producing tires.

During the early part of his work here, he preached a series on Masonry. After the first sermon, one of the men asked to meet with the elders and told them that there were a number of Masons in the congregation and that if they did not shut that preacher up about it, he would see to it that they withheld their contributions so they would not be able to pay his salary. He also told them that if any of them told what he said he would deny it. The elders met with Cecil and passed on the information. He told them they could decide whether he could occupy the pulpit or not, but they could not determine what he would preach and that if allowed to continue he would proceed with his series. They assured him they knew he would say that and stood behind him. Before Cecil left Brown Street there were no Masons in the congregation.

The Situation in the Ohio Valley

The division over church support of private institutions and sponsoring churches had become a reality in most parts of the nation by the late 50s, except for the Ohio Valley. Many congregations were oblivious to the issues which received so much attention elsewhere. There were well known and highly respected men who took a neutral position, and many congregations attempted to follow that lead. In the early 1960s the Ohio Valley College was founded in Parkersburg, West Virginia and it soon became evident that the school would be managed by men sympathetic with the institutional movement. Through the influence of the school, a number of men who were well known in the south and southwest for their convictions in favor of the innovations, were brought into the Valley to teach at the school (J.M. Powell, brother-in-law of B.C. Goodpasture, editor of the Gospel Advocate, served as president for several years, and Clifton Inman became head of the Bible Department), speak on annual lecture programs, or conduct meetings throughout the Valley.

A Counter Offensive

In September 1962, Cecil Willis began his work as editor of Truth Magazine. In time this paper, then based in Akron, became a powerful influence in awakening brethren throughout the Ohio Valley as to what was taking place and provided a forum through which the issues could be studied. A number of strong men in the 1960s added the weight of their influence to ground as many churches in the truth as possible. Franklin T. Puckett preached at Thayer Street, followed by Guy Roberson and then Truman Smith. O.C. Birdwell preached at Barberton, Weldon Warnock at Kenmore where he followed Paul Casebolt. Morris Norman worked at Southeast in Akron. George LeMasters had considerable influence. Largely through the influence of Cecil Willis, Luther Blackmon came to preach at Bedford, Ohio. A.E. Dicus was at Lorain Avenue in Cleveland and Paul Kelsey was at Berea. Austin Mobley came to work at Tallmadge. Earl Robertson published a bulletin and had a radio program at Moundsville with wide influences. William E. Wallace worked in the area. Strong men were brought into the area for gospel meetings.

In 1965 the elders at Brown Street decided to support two preachers and I was invited to join Cecil Willis in this work. The plan was to have one of us free to go anywhere a door opened for us to preach. For five years this work continued. We conducted 30-40 meetings a year. We also began a bulletin published monthly called The Enlightener which was sent free to any who requested it. We developed a mailing list of 9,000. We gave the institutional issues heavy attention. Some were irate. Preachers condemned it from the pulpit and urged members to “throw it in the trash.” But many read, at first out of curiosity, then developed interest and many learned the truth. Few were ambivalent toward such efforts.

We were warned in some places not to speak on “the issues.” That was the surest way to get us to do exactly that! Preaching the principles was fine. Some would readily agree until they realized what the application involved. Cecil used to say, “You have to draw a picture of a pig on the board, and then right down under in big letters you have to write P-I-G.”

When one of the Willis children developed a serious illness, Cecil moved his family to Indiana so he could be home more until that situation was stabilized. We arranged for Ferrell Jenkins to join us in the work and the same arrangements continued. Lest anyone think all we ever did was preach on “the issues” during those years, we averaged baptizing 120 people a year between the meetings and the work at Brown Street. We began a series of special winter classes out of which came a number of preachers and teachers. Many of our meetings were ten or eleven day meetings and most of the baptisms came the last two or three days of the meetings. We preached in nice buildings but also wherever the brethren had to meet. In one year I conducted meetings in a small house with partitions removed to provide seating space (in Michigan), in a court house, (Illinois), in an American Legion building (also in Illinois),and in a store front (Ohio). Cecil and I alternated in going to Salem, Ohio on Thursday nights to teach a mid-week Bible class. We drove many miles just to meet and study with interested brethren. Many came to Akron to study with us.

Three Significant Debates

In September 1966, Cecil Willis met Clifton Inman of Ohio Valley College in a four nights debate in Parkersburg, West Virginia. The debate was conducted in a school auditorium with a large, attentive and respectful crowd present each night. This debate was printed in 1968 with the introduction written by James P. Needham who moderated for Cecil Willis. A second debate between these two men took place the following spring in Dayton, Ohio.

In December 1967, Ferrell Jenkins met Bill Heinselman in debate in Akron, with two nights in the Brown Street building and two at Westside in Akron. 500-600 attended each night of this discussion. Good order prevailed and much good was done. The December 1967 issue of The Enlightener carried the debate charts used by Ferrell Jenkins.

The combined impact of all these efforts was significant. I know of twenty-five congregations which got off the fence and took a stand for the truth during those years. While many factors came together to bring that about, there is no doubt that Cecil Willis and his influence played a dominant role in that.

One of the Brown Street elders paid Cecil a compliment when, after seven years of work there at that time, he said “Cecil’s preaching is as fresh now as it was when he first came here.” The reason for that was that Cecil Willis never stopped studying. While he was not opposed to using good material he had prepared and used at other places, in local work he made it a point to prepare at least one new sermon every week and always reworked material he had used before.

True Yokefellows

Our work together was most pleasant. We traded the pulpit back and forth, leaving each other notes as to what we had preached on and where we stopped in the Bible classes we each taught. Each of us trusted the other to cover the material assigned in the Bible classes, so that we would not be in a continual review and make no progress. Both of us ruffled a few feathers with some folks. When someone came to me and complained about Cecil, I immediately began to praise his work. When some came to him and complained about me, he did the same thing and the complainers got nowhere and soon stopped. When we had an honest disagreement on the application of a passage, we each presented what we believed about it and left it to the class or congregation to study the matter and reach their own conclusion. We never had one cross word between us. Our friendship began in college days at Florida Christian College. But our work together in Akron was one of the most productive periods of my life as a preacher and I shall ever be grateful to Cecil for the influence he had on my life. For eight years I worked with him on Truth Magazine and benefitted greatly from that association.

Repentance

Others have detailed the tragic circumstances of about ten years in his life when he entered an unscriptural marriage and was not faithful to the Lord. Those were painful years for his family and close friends. Along with other friends, I made several attempts at reasoning with him about his life. These were all rebuffed. But in 1986, his unscriptural marriage ended. I was in a meeting in East Texas in June 1986 and called to see if I could come to Woodlake and see him. I made it clear that I wanted to talk to him about his soul. He told me to come on, he would be glad to see me. For several hours we sat on the back of a farm wagon at the Willis homeplace and talked. He admitted to me that his second marriage was adulterous and that he had “rationalized” his situation partly out of loneliness and frustration. He stated that he knew he had caused a lot of heartache for a lot of people. We discussed steps to make it right with the Lord and with brethren. Not long after that, he went before the church at Groveton, Texas where he had obeyed the gospel, preached his first sermon, where his parents then attended, and made a statement of repentance for any and all sins and for the damage they had done to so many. A copy of that statement was sent to the church at Huntsville, Texas (which had withdrawn from him), to other congregations where he had worked and where much pain and anguish had been caused. He sought the forgiveness of family members. A statement was published in Searching the Scriptures and in Guardian of Truth to let a wider audience know.

He accepted a very low profile the rest of his life. The eagle with the broken wing never soared as high again. If there was any resentment because he was not as widely called upon as before, I never saw any trace of it. He blamed himself for the damage done to his reputation. For awhile he worked with the small church in Fairbanks, Alaska. Then he came back to Woodlake, Texas to take care of his aging parents and was asked to preach for the small church at Groveton, which he did for several years. During these years he battled with increasing health problems and lived on the verge of kidney dialysis with only one kidney functioning at about 15%. His work at Salem, Ohio was off to a good start when health problems worsened and death resulted.

I shall miss my good friend. He left giant footprints on the sands of time in spite of the those tragic ten years. Good men can do wrong and damage their once powerful influence. God commands all men everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30) and then he requires that we forgive even as the Lord has forgiven us when we repent (Col. 3:13). I hope good brethren will remember the great good done by my good friend and brother. “The judgments of God are according to truth” (Rom. 2:2).

Guardian of Truth XLI: 15 p. 3-5
August 7, 1997

By Dick Blackford

My wife didn’t think the first article on Observations was one of my better attempts at writing. I too, viewed it as mediocre so we were surprised that it sparked several responses. That was also the case with the articles written on this subject at ten and twenty year intervals. I am persuaded it must be the subject matter for I received nine letters, two phone calls, and several word of mouth comments  all from preachers. Two of them suggested I write a follow up. One asked that I write on changes I have seen in 30 years of preaching. Another on my theology of preaching. I am assuming I understand what that means. First, I want to consider some changes I have seen, both good and bad.

1. More Acceptance Of People From Different Races Or Social Classes. We still have a long way to go. Most congregations I am familiar with are made up of white middle class Americans. I hope we are not content with this for God is no respecter of persons (Rom. 2:11; Jas. 2:9). But this is a better mixture than what I remember 30 years ago. I have visited a congregation that literally had red, yellow, black, and white members. That did not cause any problems. I know some congregations that are predominantly white but have one or more black elders or deacons. I have also observed members who had professions which made them millionaires who regularly socialized with members that made less than $25,000 annually. This is as it should be (Jas. 2). The church at Antioch was a racially mixed church (Acts 11:19f). Yet they were the ones who grew and thrived and sent Paul and Barnabas out on their first journey. Race did not seem to be a problem. Is it any wonder the disciples were called “Christians” first at Antioch (Acts 11:26)?

2. More Willingness To Forgive Sins Of Immorality. I know cases where I thought it would be hard for an individual or a congregation to forgive a person of a particular sin and fully accept the one who committed it. But they did. We can-not afford to do otherwise. Jesus said one who can’t forgive should be delivered to the tormentors (Matt. 18:21-35).

Bad Changes

1. More Churches splitting. One brother made a joke upon his departure from a luncheon. He said, “Let’s make like a church and split.” A split church is no laughing matter, but it is becoming proverbial. Thirty years ago there were still churches dividing over institutionalism. Very few were dividing over anything else. The command is to “maintain unity” (Eph. 4:1-3). There is no command to physically divide a church. There is no example of such a thing happening. The only way one might arrive at the conclusion that he should leave a congregation is through a necessary inference. In a situation where one is being forced to practice error by his remaining in a congregation, he would be compelled to leave. Collective error, such as singing with an instrument or donating to institutional projects in which the individual becomes a partaker in sin (since he is commanded to sing and give), would fall in that category. More and more I am hearing of congregations dividing over personal problems and attitudes.

The church at Sardis was condemned by the Lord for being a dead church, having “found no works perfected before my God.” It needed to repent (Rev. 3:1-6). However, he said there were some in the congregation who had not de-filed their garments and they shall walk with me in white, for they are worthy” (3:4). The error in Sardis apparently was not of a collective nature and one could still be faithful and serve the Lord in that congregation regardless of some-one else’s behavior. Though there were numerous errors in the church at Corinth, not once did Paul even hint at the idea that they should physically divide. He told them to solve their problems.

2. Less Churches With Elders. There are fewer men who desire the eldership today. Here are some possible explanations why: (a) It seems like a thankless task, a no-win situation in which you cannot please everyone. This may be because we are looking for our reward here and now. We are not here to receive glory from men, nor to please everyone. We should be seeking God’s approval. Christians who want to see the Lord’s will carried out should remember to encourage and assist godly elders. The Bible says they are worthy of double honor (1 Tim. 5:17-19); (b) Some don’t want to be tied down. They forget Jesus was nailed down. True Christianity involves a willingness to deny yourself. Are we totally or only partially committed to the Lord  when Christianity doesn’t interfere with our lifestyle)? (c) Christian men are not as spiritually mature as they were 30 years ago. This is a generalization. I know several exceptions, for whom I am grateful to God. But there are less men willing to try to qualify and make the sacrifices necessary. (d) Though more educated, young people have more worldly knowledge and less Bible knowledge than 30 years ago. The influence of music and TV has been far greater than we ever imagined. Given another 30 years, how much more difficult will it be to find men qualified? (e) Some brethren don’t want an eldership. The brother who can’t or won’t qualify himself won’t have as much say-so with an eldership as he did when decisions were made in business meetings. So he may find every objection to having an eldership.

The church has been greatly hurt by this problem. A church is not all God wants it to be until it is scripturally organized. It is “wanting” and not “in order” (Tit.1:5).

3. Less Young People. In recent years I have held meeting at places were audiences had more gray hair and fewer young people. The young are often involved in sports, social functions, and school activities. They are not being raised with the same philosophy as many of their parents  that the kingdom of heaven comes first, even before homework (Matt. 6:33). My mother always said she would rather see me make an “F’ and be faithful to the Lord than to make an “A” and put him in second place.

While day care centers meet a need in today’s society, more children are growing up without the spiritual training needed to help them be faithful. There will soon be a whole generation who were raised by someone who spent more time with them than their parents. There could be a connection between this and the fact that there is also more child abuse and parent abuse today. A mutual affection has not been allowed to develop in many cases. I do not imply that day care centers are responsible for training our children. They are not. This is primarily the parents’ responsibility (Eph. 6:4; Col. 3:21; Prov. 22:6). Too many parents are involved in making a living while neglecting to make a life for their offspring. Nor is it the responsibility of the church. However, individual Christians who are worth their salt will take an interest in those going through this crucial time in life and help them over the road. Parents need all the help they can get.

Suggestion For Young Preachers

I prefer “suggestions,” rather than “advice,” but call it what you will.

1. The purpose of preaching is to impart knowledge and edify in view of saving souls. At times reproof and rebuke are needed. But some brethren don’t think you are preaching unless you are giving someone a good skinning every time you enter the pulpit. A preacher can “skin” an audience without imparting any knowledge or edification. Try not to get out of balance and be sure to study verses which deal with proper attitudes, such as 2 Timothy 2:24, 25.

2. Where to deal with problems. Some problems can only be dealt with from the pulpit due to their widespread nature and when false doctrine has been publicly pro-claimed. It may seem expedient to handle all problems this way rather than talk heart to heart with those involved. Generally, it is a good rule of thumb to remember that problems are better settled out of the pulpit if possible, for a couple of reasons. Those who need correcting often appreciate it more if you show them you are not trying to publicly embarrass them or win a point at all costs and are more receptive. Also, the better a problem is contained among fewer people the less potential for greater and worse con-sequences. If it can be settled over a cup of coffee, things will be better for all concerned.

3. Frequent teaching on Matthew 18:15-17, 21-35 is helpful. It is better to do this before problems develop (preventive medicine) rather than afterward. There is great reluctance to do things God’s way, though his wisdom can-not be improved upon. When charges are made, ask for the witnesses, especially if they are made against an elder (1 Tim. 5:19). Notice that the accusation is “at the mouth” of two or three witnesses, “not at the ears.” The witnesses are to corroborate the testimony, not merely listen to charges they know nothing about.

4. “Trying out.” When “trying out” at a congregation, the brethren usually have a list of questions for the preacher. It is also good for him to have a list of questions for them. It will be easier to get an agreement at this point than it will be later. Are the brethren committed to doing their part? Get it in writing, preferably in the business meeting notes. This will be best for all concerned (1 Cor. 14:40).

5. Become a part of the congregation. Try to be personally acquainted with each member. Don’t be aloof or develop an attitude of paranoia “us” versus “them.” And be yourself.

6. Don’t do one-to-one counseling with the opposite sex. Even if innocent, you can be falsely accused.

7. Avoid crude language.

8. Try not to contribute to stereotypes among brethren  unless you want all preachers to be stereotyped.

9. Read Proverbs 27:2.

Suggestions For Churches

1. Preachers who receive outside support do not usually have any kind of agreement for cost of living increases. Try to be mindful of them.

2. Most preachers who receive outside support often live from paycheck to paycheck and most of their bills come due around the first of the month. Try to get the support to them on time. Also, please be more patient with men being supported in places that rely mainly on conversions to be-come self-supporting. It takes a while to make enough conversions and lead them to a point of maturity where they have learned to financially support the work. And keep in mind the nature of those wage earners. Some congregations are made up predominantly of “blue collar” workers and the congregation may not reach the point of self-maintenance as quickly as one made up of “white collar” workers.

3. Try to be patient with the preacher and from time to time mentally put yourself in his place. It is good for congregations and preachers to have a clear understanding of what is expected of each from the very beginning.

4. When new congregations are beginning or when a struggling one is trying to get back on its feet or has been hurt by problems, try not to kick it when it is down. There is a scarcity of pioneers who want to be involved with a congregation that is trying to become self-sustaining and fly on its own. For various reasons when Christians move to another city they usually unite with the larger, more established congregations. They often become a “number” whose talent is frequently buried. Sometimes it is good to “ask not what a congregation can do for me, but what can I do for a congregation that needs me.” Those in these circumstances need your help. It can be rewarding, both in this life and the next.

Conclusion

If some of these appear to be random (and often unconnected) thoughts, they are. They were written as they came to mind. There are some generalizations to which there are exceptions. I hope you kept that in mind and were charitable as you read. Thank you for considering these things.

Guardian of Truth XLI: 14 p. 8-10
July 17, 1997

By Carl McMurray

The writer of Ecclesiastes is believed by many (including myself) to have been written by Solomon in his later years, after he learned the mistakes of following after one’s own desires. The picture he paints in chapter 12, of that time of life after youth is gone, is certainly not a pleasant one. He speaks of “evil days” with no delight. He speaks of the time when eye grows dim, shoulders stoop, and hands that were once strong, now tremble. He writes of the time when the sweet sounds of this life will go unheard and rest will fly away at any noise. As the head turns white, things which would have been unworthy of consideration in younger years now become fearful, that which seemed most captivating earlier, now is uninteresting. One is drawing near to his eternal home. Is the picture accurate? Certainly! But the Bible teaches that there is more to old age than losing one’s youth.

Proverbs 20:28 is written by the same author. Here Solomon says, “The glory of young men is their strength, and the honor of old men is their gray hair.” Again in 16:31, “a gray head is a crown of glory; it is found in the way of righteousness.”

The Scriptures point out that age (a gray head) should be a time of great honor and glory. Age should be a crown, that when observed by others signifies that the wearer is worthy of respect and honor. Notice that I said, however, age should be a crown. The harsh words, fault finding, and bitterness we often find in this age group give ample credence to Solomon’s words, “I have no delight in them.” There is no crown to being elderly for many. Rather than a “crown,” why is age such a “burden” to be borne by many?

I believe the answer is found partially in the aforementioned Scriptures. The gray head becomes a crown when it is found in the way of righteousness!

When one spends his life gratifying self, then loses the love for those gratifications in later years, that one is left with nothing. No container is so empty as one’s own soul. Again, when one spends his days in fault-finding and criticism, he should not be surprised to come to the end of life without friend or comforter. To have friends, one must be friendly. Sadly, many show little concern and consideration for others for the major portion of their lives, then cannot understand why no one comes running during their time of need. Then there is the older brother or sister that always seems to have an opinion on every matter, but no one ever seems to listen to them. Is it possible that they cannot see that their opinions are usually critical and other people quickly tire of being put on the defensive?

It doesn’t have to be this way, however. As the Scriptures point out, age can be a crown of glory to be worn with respect. The key, however, is that the one must walk in the way of righteousness. The one who lives for himself will grow old by himself while the one who lives for God is part of a great family.

If one walks in the way of righteousness he will spend his life in growth (1 Pet. 3:18). When he speaks, his words will carry the experience and the wisdom of years. He will be listened to because he will have tasted the power of God in his life and can testify to the effectual working of that power in the lives of Christians. This is quite different from the attitude of one who has spent his years pointing out the weaknesses and dwelling on the mistakes of others. When these people speak, others will listen because they will be expecting to hear something which is insightful, helpful, or encouraging. Even correction from an “honorable” gray head is easier to accept and act upon.

One who walks in righteousness will have given of him-self sacrificially down through the years, and while expecting nothing in return, will often find a multitude of children in the faith who would desire to repay them in some way by assisting them in their later years. There will be love given back to those who give love … “pressed down, shaken together, running over, it will pour into your lap” (Luke 6:38). “By your standard of measure it will be measured to you in return.”

One who walks in righteousness will be putting sin to death, as much as is possible, in their own lives. As they go through their lives, attitudes and weaknesses of younger years are defeated and put aside one by one as they draw closer to being conformed to the image of God’s Son. These gray heads will be looked to as examples and role models by younger Christians. They will be asked for their advice in dealing with various problems and temptations of this world. And once again, they will be listened to because of what others are able to see in their lives.

Proverbs 22:28 tells us, “Do not move the ancient boundary which your fathers have set.” The point once again is one of respect, for what has been done in the past by wise and respected heads. Lines drawn in the past have often been drawn for good reason and should be respected. This does not make them infallible, but great care should be given before one still “wet behind the ears” is allowed to tear down tried and proven boundaries. The actions and efforts then, as well as the men themselves, are worthy of glory, honor, and respect. But once more, this is simply because they followed proper standards and did the things which were right and proper and good.

Simply getting old carries no inherent honor. That happens to fool and sinner alike. But growing older under the direction of God’s spirit, through his revealed word, can lead one to a place in life where his age is truly a crown of glory. And that crown of glory is just a taste of the crown of life which is to come to all who walk in righteousness.

Guardian of Truth XLI: 14 p. 23-24
July 17, 1997

By Ron Halbrook

Cecil Willis (March 4, 1932-May 17, 1997) used to say he did not expect to live much beyond forty years, but by God’s grace and providence we were blessed to have him sixty-five years. In the prime years of his work, he was the most devoted, dedicated, and determined preacher of the gospel I have ever known. Like Paul, he truly could say, “For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified,” and, “I am set for the defense of the gospel” (1 Cor. 2:2; Phil. 1:17). His every thought seemed to be focused on spreading and defending the gospel of Christ in its original purity and simplicity. Many, many souls will be in heaven because of his dedicated efforts (including mine, if I am faithful to the end).

Tragically, Cecil’s voice and pen were silenced for a decade among brethren generally. A lack of rest broke his health and family stress broke his spirit in 1976-77, which was compounded by an unscriptural divorce and remarriage. Utterly humiliated, he publicly confessed his sins in July of 1986 and ended the second marriage which began in December of 1980. Literally hundreds of letters and other expressions of encouragement helped him continue on the road to spiritual recovery. Little by little his efforts to preach Christ through both the spoken and the written word were renewed. Death has stilled his voice and pen again, but the influence of the truth he taught will continue for generations to come.

Early Life and Convictions

Cecil grew up understanding that sacrifices must be made in order to stand for the truth. His home community was Groveton in Trinity County in the piney woods of east Texas. The church there divided over the introduction of instrumental music into the worship in 1920. The new church met in a borrowed building, then in the Courthouse, and finally in a church building on Highway 94 purchased from the Baptists in 1924. Cecil was born in 1932 and born againwhen baptized in a farm pond by Ned Fairbairn in August of 1945. He worked the whole summer of 1948 helping demolish that old building and erecting a new one in its place.

Cecil was early influenced by men of ability and deep conviction such as Roy E. Cogdill (1907-85), Luther Blackmon (1907-77), and William Thompson. Cogdill often held meetings in Groveton, Blackmon drove out from Houston to preach there for a time, and Thompson moved to Groveton to preach in 1946.

Cecil’s first sermon was preached at the Possum Walk Church of Christ on March 28, 1948. He led singing for many gospel meetings at the Antioch church conducted by Silas Moody from Lufkin. When Cecil himself conducted a meeting there in 1950, the attendance reached 180. With Roy Cogdill’s encouragement and help, Cecil attended Florida Christian College and went into full time preaching, never looking back. He was an excellent pulpit preacher, presenting lessons suited to “the common people,” yet challenging even those with higher education (Mark 12:37; 1 Cor. 1:23-24). His lessons were simple, to the point, and practical. He did not meander up in the clouds trying to impress people without convicting the sinner of his sins. The last time I heard him preach in January of 1997, his lesson on “Speaking as We Ought to Speak” urged preachers to make plain, pointed, specific applications contrasting truth and righteousness with error and sin. Above all, Cecil will be remembered for preaching Christ through the writ-ten word.

Preaching Christ through Truth Magazine

Truth Magazine resulted from the efforts of Leslie Diestelkamp (1911-95) and Bryan Vinson, Jr. in 1956. They designed the paper to be balanced, militant, and evangelistic. From the beginning it had an open door policy toward the discussion of both sides of controversial issues as it focused on the rise of modernism and institutionalism. It also provided a forum for news regarding foreign evangelism. The paper was a monthly under Vinson as editor.

The September 1958 issue was a special edition entitled “Return Ye Unto God,” to encourage the recovery of erring saints. It included Cecil’s first article, “Be Thou Faithful,” which concluded: “His we are; His we ever shall be if we profitably serve Him ‘unto death.’ The next month he defended the inspiration and authority of Scripture in an article entitled, “Holy Men Spoke From God,” followed by three similar articles on Isaiah (May-July 1959). The all-sufficiency of God’s redemptive plan was discussed in a twelve-part series covering the Savior, the Bible, and the church (Dec. 1959-May 1961). In recognition of the quality of his material, Cecil was added to the Staff Writers at the ripe age of 28 in October of 1960.

Just two years later in August, the editorship of Truth Magazine was turned over to Cecil with William E. Wallace as the new Associate Editor, replacing the old staff. Cecil began a series on “Problems in the Church” the following month including sensualism, materialism, and centralization. Under his able leadership, by April of 1964 the circulation of the paper had nearly quadrupled; it topped 4,200 in 1970 and peaked at 5,900 the next year.

Cecil’s deep convictions and leadership ability caused him to seek out sound, strong men to join him in proclaiming the gospel of Christ through the pages of Truth Magazine. Some of the men whose voices were heard include James P. Needham, Connie W. Adams, O.C. Birdwell, Luther Blackmon, Karl Diestelkamp, Earl Robertson, James W. Adams, Roy E. Cogdill, Ferrell Jenkins, Larry Halley, and Irvin Himmel. The journal’s influence for good further increased when it became a weekly publication (Nov. 6, 1969). Reaching out to a new generation, Cecil added younger writers to the staff: Bruce Edwards, Jr., Ron Halbrook, Jeffery Kingry, John McCort, Harry Ozmont, and Steve Wolfgang (Nov. 7, 1974). When I submitted my first article for such a journal in 1964, en-tided “Immorality Won’t Work,” he said, “I have 500 pages of manuscript now on hand,” but published it the next spring (Willis to Halbrook, Nov. 11, 1964). While some of these men disappointed Cecil later, he was gratified to see several others become editors of other journals (May 31, 1973). William Wallace and James W. Adams edited the Gospel Guardian at separate periods; James P. Needham edited Torch Magazine; Connie W. Adams edited Searching the Scriptures.

1960s: The Institutional Battle

Only eternity will reveal how many precious souls were saved from the dangers of institutional liberalism through Cecil’s work in Truth Magazine. The innovations which swept the country after World War II involved centralization and social gospel concepts (churches donating money to such human institutions as colleges, child-care agencies, and retirement centers; elderships of larger churches transforming themselves into boards which sponsored evangelistic projects with money from other churches, such as the Herald of Truth Radio Program; churches providing social meals, “fellowship halls,” gyms, and all sorts of social and recreational services; churches donating money to needy people who are not Christians). Cecil was a major participant in this battle as it continued to rage in the 1960s.

His two oral debates with Clifton Inman were reported and his two written debates with William L. Carrell were published in the paper (Jan. 1967; July-Sept. 1967 and Dec. 1968-Feb. 1969). Cecil contrasted truth and error in the plainest terms, yet these debates were conducted on the highest plane: “His preparation for these discussions was very evident. His part … was also carried on in a very fine spirit of brotherliness, and high esteem for his opponent” (James P. Needham, Jan. 1967, 77). Scores of articles on the institutional issues were published by many able writers under Cecil’s editorship.

1970s: The New Unity Movement

In the decade of the 1970s, conservative-minded brethren were shaken by the rise of a generation affected by the cultural winds of the time. A social and moral upheaval occurred in America beginning in the mid-1960s. It was driven by a spirit of anarchy, hatred for all symbols of authority, and rebellion against traditional standards in morality and religion. This new generation blurred the line between right and wrong, tried to erase all rigid standards on moral issues, and advocated peace at any price on religious differences. This was the age of situation ethics and the ecumenical movement.

Among conservative churches, this new generation denigrated rather than appreciated the battles fought by their fathers. Their fathers were caricatured as too rigid, too traditional, too authoritarian, and even mean-spirited, which caused the institutional division. The new generation imagined themselves as forging new trails to peace, unity, love, and rapprochement with alienated brethren. The fact is that this new ecumenical spirit was another disguise for compromise, but it affected many brethren  not all of them young. My wife and I once listed forty preachers known to us who were seriously affected by this error, most of whom eventually joined liberalism, denominational bodies, or cults. Many others affected were unknown to us.

Cecil Willis immediately saw this “new unity” or “grace-unity” movement for what it was, another form of apostasy. Carl Ketcherside (1908-89) and Leroy Garrett, once noted for their divisive extremism, embraced an ever-widening spirit of ecumenical compromise in the 1950s. They separated “gospel” from “doctrine” in the New Testament, applied Romans 14 to contradictory beliefs and practices on moral and doctrinal issues, and popularized the concept of doctrinal “unity in diversity.” They said the New Testament is a “love letter,” not an exact pattern of truth. As they broadened the borders of unity and fellowship, they also broadened the realm of grace and salvation to include all “wings of the restoration movement”  The Disciples of Christ, independent Christian churches, and all professed churches of Christ (one-cup, no-class, premillennial, institutional, etc.). Next, they widened the circle to include the Protestant denominations and sects, various branches of Catholicism (Roman, Greek Orthodox, etc.), and even people in pagan idolatry.

Ketcherside and Garrett influenced Edward Fudge and a few other young men among us in the late 60s and early 70s, which became a dangerous leaven, but the strongest factor in the spread of this movement was the anti-authority, anti-tradition atmosphere of the social climate. Peace at any price was simply an idea whose time had come and many among us were caught up in the spirit of the time (Rom. 12:2). As early as July of 1962, Leslie Diestelkamp warned against “The Ketcherside Unity Plea”: “Toleration is his theme . . . not only with regard to men but with regard to principles. The actual crux of his appeal is not only that we be patient with men in error, but that we be tolerant with the error they advocate and practice” (194). Roy Cogdill pointed out that Ketcherside and Garrett had swung from being “nothingarian” to “anythingarian” (Nov. 13, 1969, 20).

In recognition of the seriousness of this spreading error, James W. Adams began a lengthy series with “The Birth of a Movement” in the March 22, 1973 issue. Cecil’s “Editorial Note” added that 1,000 extra copies of each article in the series was being printed for wider distribution. Beginning later that year, under Fudge’s influence as Associate Editor, the Gospel Guardian professed that no new unity movement existed, the discussion was politically motivated, lies were being told, and second generation preachers were turned off by the whole thing. Knowing that many younger men were upholding the truth, Cecil’s editorial on June 14, 1973 responded, “Turning Off `Which’ Second Generation Preachers.” After an introductory article, I wrote a five-part series as “An Appeal in Love to Edward Fudge: Clarify Please,” quoting extensively from his own pen (Sept. 20-Oct. 25, 1973). As a result, my character was attacked as being dishonest and dishonorable, but Cecil felt these articles provided documentation of “the erroneous positions of Edward Fudge, but which documentation we did not have readily accessible” (Nov. 7, 1974, 8).

These were dark and difficult days for Cecil, myself, and others directly involved in this controversy as our motives and character were constantly impugned. Cecil was a stabilizing force because of his calm, consistent, persistent appeal to the text of Scripture and his refusal to be sidetracked from the Bible issues confronting us (1 Pet. 4:11; 1 John 4:6). Though he was painted as political, arrogant, and mean-spirited, I saw up close through constant contact the heart of a man whose only desire was to up-hold the truth of the gospel of Christ. While some said his motive was to increase the circulation of the paper, some of these battles actually cost us subscriptions, but he was willing to press the battle for truth if it meant the death of the paper. He commented,

I deeply resent the fact that some naive brethren think we are pressing this issue to gain some kind of financial ad-vantage…. I am resolved that brethren who misunderstand what we are trying to do, or who see no need for what we are doing, will not stop the effort being made. . . . I am not afraid of this fight tarnishing our reputation; that is a part of the price of spiritual warfare (Willis to Halbrook, Nov. 14, 1973).

Maintaining an Open, Balanced, Evangelistic Posture

Cecil also maintained the open door philosophy of the paper instituted in its beginning, not as a matter of mere policy but because openness to study, discussion, and de-bate is essential to biblical faith in Christ (Acts 15:1-7; 17:11; Gal. 2:11-14; 1 Thess. 5:23; 1 Pet. 3:15; 1 John 4:1-6). If the paper ever lost its commitment to militant evangelism with open debate of current Bible issues, Cecil believed it deserved to die. While meeting the issues of institutionalism and the new unity movement, he also worked hard to maintain a balance with a wide range of subject matter, as a review of the annual indices abundantly demonstrates.

To encourage evangelism in the U.S. and abroad, Cecil published a constant flow of reports from “Japan, South America, South Africa, Ireland, Nigeria, Rhodesia, Philip-pine Islands, Mexico, Norway, Canada, England, Vietnam, India, Australia, Italy, the Bahamas and perhaps other lands that do not readily come to mind” (July 8, 1971, 531). So great was his interest that he made two trips to the Philip-pines, first in 1970. It is some measure of the good effect of that trip that the liberals bombarded him for years after-ward in the Philippine Christian, and he answered at times through another Philippine paper, the Gospel Preacher edited by Romulo B. Agduma.

Cecil’s doctor warned him not to go to the Philippines and Australia in 1975 just before he left because of “involuntary shaking” caused by “dangerously high blood pressure,” but he went any way “and was ill at nearly every place I went.” After cutting short this trip because he was so ill, he tried to hold a couple of meetings and finally checked into a hospital in St. Louis, Missouri, where he learned he had suffered two strokes. The doctor required him to cancel all his work “for the remainder of this year” and he was told he needed a year’s bed rest. Cecil explained all this because an American liberal named Bob Buchanon at the Philippine Bible College was saying Cecil was so afraid to debate him he was visibly shaking (Willis letter to Luis Calipayan in the Philippines, Nov. 21, 1975). Actually, Cecil’s repeated efforts to get Bob to debate had been rebuffed for years. Over the years, Cecil spent and sent thousands of dollars out of his own pocket, and raised much more from others, to provide literature and support to Filipino brethren for the spread of the gospel. Such efforts continued until his death. Only God knows how many Filipino children have been named for him because of his love and generosity for the cause of Christ. He will be sorely missed there as here.

Beset by failing health and family problems, Cecil formally resigned the editorship of Truth Magazine on April 1, 1977 at the age of 45, having served for fifteen years. His son Steve and his brother Mike had already been helping with editorial duties behind the scenes. As its next editor, Mike kept it on a steady course as a well-balanced, militant, open, and evangelistic paper. After returning to the Lord, Cecil wrote only occasionally, including “Can Sin Be Inherited?”, an expression of “Gratitude to Brethren,” “A Report on James P. Needham’s Health,” and a few other news items about his work (Jan. 1, 1987, 17-18, 21; Mar. 19, 1987, 179; Apr. 7, 1994, 211).

The Written Word in Tracts, Workbooks, and Books

Time and space fail me to give an adequate survey of the work accomplished by Cecil Willis in proclaiming the gospel of Christ through the pages of Truth Magazine. In addition, his proclamation of the gospel was extended over land and sea by reprinting many of his articles as tracts  thousands upon thousands of them through the years on such subjects as Can We Understand the Bible Alike?, What is Conversion?, What Must One Do to be Saved?, Reviewing a Baptist Tract, The Law of Moses and The Gospel of Christ, But What About the Thief on the Cross?, What Is Wrong with Denominational Baptism?, Scriptural Worship, Church Discipline, Is the Herald of Truth Expedient?, The Tipton Home Story, The Tap-root of Digression: “No Pattern-ism,” Dancing, and The “New Morality” Reviewed.

Another far-reaching effort was “The New Series of Bible Class Literature,” a project announced November 27, 1969 and presented as complete on July 12, 1973. Not only was the old “Journeys Through the Bible” revised as “Walking With God,” but also a great number of brethren  many connected with Truth Magazine  worked to produce the all new “Truth in Life” series. Ferrell Jenkins and Cecil worked as Associate Editors of “Truth in Life,” and Cecil wrote an excellent Senior High book suitable for adults as well, entitled “How to Study the Bible.”

Three books by Cecil were published. His 425 page biography of W. W. Otey: Contender for the Faith, subtitled A History of Controversies in the Church of Christ From 1860-1960, appeared in 1964. It contains the most extensive account of the institutional division to date. In 1968, the first of two oral debates with Clifton Inman over institutionalism in 1966 was published as The Willis-Inman Debate: A Discussion on Congregational Cooperation and Benevolent Organizations. I have always regarded it as the clearest and simplest of the debate books on these issues. His 1974 debate with Jesse G. Jenkins appeared in 1976 as The Willis-Jenkins Debate, in which Cecil de-fended the right of individuals to conduct “liberal arts educational enterprises, in which the Bible is taught as a regular part of the curriculum (as is practiced by Florida College).” Each man submitted his personal conscience and conviction to this test without dividing churches over it, and so the matter rests to this day, which is a credit to them both. Cecil also wrote a chapter on “The Churches of Christ in Trinity County” in Trinity County Beginnings (1986), which includes some family history along with church history.

Reflecting on Cecil Willis’ work renews precious and powerful memories which strengthen my faith and which I will take to the grave. Our gratitude to Cecil extends to his family who shared his sacrifices, triumphs, and tragedies. His use of the written word to spread and defend the gospel of Christ will continue to bear fruit for time and eternity.

Guardian of Truth XLI: 15 p. 6-9
August 7, 1997