Truth Magazine

By Lawson Winton

During the past few months, several articles have focused on the length of days in Genesis 1, and if error has been or is being taught at Florida College. Up until my retirement a few years ago, I was a member of the science faculty. Since I was named in one article and was alluded to in another, I am taking the opportunity to tell my story. My purpose is not to enter into the lengthy controversy, but rather explain the problems I encountered as a developing scientist and how I finally reconciled the Bible account of creation with the scientific evidence of the age of the earth and the length of days in creation.

When I first entered college in 1947, the best scientific evidence favored an old earth millions of years old. Most Christians were faced with two alternatives of either accepting the old age and trying to reconcile the Bible account to an old earth, or else rejecting all of the prevailing evidence and accept the literal days of creation as stated in Genesis 1. Like many other Christians of that time, I chose to believe that the days of creation were not literal, but that God somehow worked at creation over vast geological ages. Today, this or variations of it, are referred to as theistic evolution. My definition of a theistic evolutionist is one who denies the literal, consecutive, 24-hour days of creation and believes that God worked over vast geological ages of the earth. My story is given ­in the belief that there may be many Christians who are torn between what evolutionists teach in school, on TV, and in the print media of an old earth, and what the Bible teaches.

When I returned from Korea in 1952, I re-entered college, obeyed the gospel, and Janette and I were married in 1954. We moved to the University of California at Berkeley, where I earned a BS degree after five years. But, I was told that I would never be able to earn a doctorate degree in the Department of Genetics because I was a Creationist. Actually, I was a theistic evolutionist, but I believed in God and this was close enough to be blackballed. We moved to Minnesota, where I earned a MS and a Ph.D. degree since my advisor did not care what I believed. In 1964, we moved to Appleton, Wisconsin, where, with the help of God, I was the first to clone a tree from callus tissue. Today, similar methods are used to clone 15-20 different commercial trees, to rid them of viral infections. I was unable to reproduce Douglas-fir from suspension cultures of single cells, so I was fired and we moved to Tampa in 1980. At Florida College, I taught zoology, botany, embryology, and anatomy on a regular basis and for a few years taught chemistry and Bible/Evolution. Janette and I were also sponsors of the Science Club CREST, where students gave reports on how Christians should act on questions such as abortion, etc.

My concept of the universe and the age of the earth began to change about the time we went to Wisconsin, with the writing of The Genesis Flood, by Whitcomb and Morris in 1961. Scientific Creationism appeared in 1974, by Morris, and in 1976, R.L. Wysong came out with his Creation-The Evolution Controversy. These three books were the first to show that scientific evidences could be used to support a young earth, and hence, the literal interpretation of the days of creation. Today, there are dozens of books, written by many scientists throughout the world in what has become Scientific Creationism.

Our whole family attended a creation meeting in Atlanta, and Janette and I went to three International Conferences on Creationism in Pittsburg. Most books on the subject are available at the FC Bookstore, and numerous bound volumes can be found in the FC Library on creation research reported from many countries.

By the time we arrived in Florida in 1980, there was no longer any question in my mind that scientific evidence supported recent creation, and therefore, the literal 24-hour days of creation were true. Whenever possible, I taught this in my classes and in special lectures to many congregations and at the Florida Lectures.

However, every time I speak of the scientific evidences, I also caution that the evidence should never replace our belief in the Genesis account in the Bible, but that any evidence only reinforces our faith.

4415 Tuna Dr., Tampa, Florida 33617

By Irvin Himmel

Jesus told about a man who had two sons. The younger son requested his portion of the goods. He apparently was tired of the restraints of living at home, desired to strike out on his own, and wanted his share of the inheritance now.

The father divided unto his sons his living. The details of the property settlement are not spelled out. The estate must have remained intact with the father in control. Possibly the younger son took his share in money, or quickly converted any property coming to him into cash.

Not many days after receiving his share, the younger son gathered his belongings together and journeyed into a far country. Free at last, free at last! No more parental supervision. No more hard work on his father’s farm. How refreshing this new freedom. How exhilarating to go wherever one chooses and to do whatever one pleases!

Carefree and disposed to live it up, he soon squandered his money in riotous, wild living. He may have met a lot of false friends who encouraged him to spend extravagantly. He cast off the principles that he had been taught at home. In time, he went broke.

An awful famine arose in that land. The young man found himself in poverty. Penniless and friendless, he looked for a job. Work was scarce. A citizen of that country took him on as a feeder of hogs. The pay was not enough to buy adequate food. He was so hungry that he desired the husks which the swine ate.

In his wretched condition, “no man gave to him.” Not one person showed pity, no one offered assistance. He had hit the bottom. He had fouled up his life. He was miserable. The future looked dismal, dreary, and depressing.

The wasteful young man who had thrown away so much looked within himself. Jesus said, “He came to himself.” He realized that the problem was not with others; he saw that the problem was one of his own making. Suicide solves nothing. Blaming others does not set one on the road to recovery. Repentance is the answer.

The youthful prodigal did some sober thinking down among the swine. He reasoned that in his father’s house, even the hired servants had an abundance of food. Perishing with hunger made no sense. He resolved to go back home, confess openly to his father, “I have sinned against heaven, and before thee.” He would admit his unworthiness to be called a son. He would plead that he be permitted to become a hired servant.

Some people in a position similar to this young man while among the swine, cast blame on God. They blasphemously charge their Maker with lack of love and care, or else they would not be in such a mess. Some curse God; others renounce him. Why should any sin-laden soul blame God for what the sinner has brought upon himself?

The young man in the parable of Luke 15 did according to his resolution. He went home. He swallowed his pride. He cast himself on the mercy of a father whom he knew to be a man of compassion. He made no excuses. He freely confessed that he had sinned against heaven and in the sight of his father. He openly stated that he was no longer worthy to be called his son.

Repentance rewards. The father forgave his wayward son. He fell on his neck and kissed him. There was restoration and rejoicing. A robe and a ring. Feasting. Merriment. What a contrast to the scene down among the swine!

The story of the prodigal son aptly illustrates Christ’s concern for the lost and the heavenly Father’s willingness to forgive. Genuine repentance is essential to rebuilding a shattered life. Accepting responsibility for one’s own misdeeds, resolving to return to God, being courageous and humble enough to confess sins, and trusting the mercy of God — these are steps toward recovery.

2820 Hunterwood Dr., S.E., Decatur, Alabama 35603-5638

By Connie W. Adams

Word has gone out far and wide that the long and eventful life of the beloved Homer Hailey came to an end on Wednesday, November 7, 2000. He was 97 years of age with his life spanning most of the twentieth century. A product of the southwest, he remained in heart and spirit a cowboy. His character was honed by early poverty, religious conflict, love of teaching and preaching and by the multitude of friends (and some enemies) he encountered over the years of his life.

For many years he was a well known and popular preacher of the gospel. After he began teaching at Abilene Christian College and later at Florida College, his summers were always spent in gospel meetings throughout the nation. Many young men sat at his feet in Bible classes and found use for what they learned all over the world. It was my personal privilege to know brother Hailey well and to have studied under him at Florida College in the early fifties. I found him to be not only a stimulating teacher but a warm and understanding counselor. He gave me good advice before we went to Norway to preach. While still his student, he gave me much help at a time of personal dilemma as to how far to proceed in the entertainment business and what effect that might have on preaching the gospel or even remaining faithful to the Lord under all the pressures and temptations which attend that kind of life. I shall ever be grateful.

His greatest work perhaps was done and shall remain in the numerous books he wrote, some of which remain classics in their field. His work on the Minor Prophets, Isaiah, Job, the Gospel of John, and the Book of Revelation are truly classics. They deserve a place in the libraries of those who seriously study the Bible.

During much of his life he entertained a view on marriage, divorce and remarriage with which many brethren, including this writer, disagreed. For many years he held this as a private conviction and stated to me in the early 50s, when I asked him about this subject, that he was not preaching on this over the country and that he knew many brethren did not agree with him. He did state that if someone should ask him his views on the matter, he would be frank to tell them. Somewhere in the mid-to-late 1980s he became more outspoken on the subject and even published a book on The Divorced and Remarried Who Would Come To God. This resulted in published opposition to his view that the alien sinner is not subject to God’s marriage law until he becomes a Christian. This writer was among those who reviewed his position. A firestorm grew out of the effort of some to explain and defend their continued fellowship with him after this evident shift in his practice from private conviction to public advocacy. From that has sprung the  controversy over Romans 14 and its use in regard to the issue of marriage, divorce and remarriage and the limits of fellowship. Along with that has come a controversy over what constitutes a false teacher. It has been hard for some to separate their love and admiration for a beloved teacher from the issues of scriptural teaching involved.

I do not believe that Homer Hailey ever intended for there to be contention over him and what he believed. Further, it is this writer’s view, for whatever it is worth, that Homer Hailey never needed anyone, however well-intentioned, to fight his battles for him. That runs counter to everything about the very makeup of this rugged individual of the old west. What these well-meaning brethren did was to make brother Hailey an issue instead of the position he took on the disputed subject. It grieves me to think that some who did not have the privilege of knowing and studying with this warm and wonderful man, will judge his whole life and teaching only in terms of this contro­versy.

The editor of this magazine has been severely criticized for running ads for some of brother Hailey’s books on the ground that it is inconsistent to publish material which opposes the position our brother took on that one subject while advertising his books on the other hand. As was pointed out earlier in this notice, his work on these other subjects was outstanding, and Bible students for years to come should have access to his work. I cannot recommend his book on divorce and remarriage. But I surely can recommend his many books which have nothing to do with that subject. Putting one’s book in your personal library for study purposes is not equal to inviting one to occupy the pulpit in a local church. It does not constitute endorsement of error on any subject.

It personally saddens me that he became the subject of so much controversy late in his life. He continued to study and write until near the end. He maintained a kind and generous spirit. My own correspondence with him was always pleasant, even when it dealt with the disputed subject. He was what he was. He said what he believed. He spent his life challenging all who knew him to study the Bible, believe it and obey it. He would have been among the first to agree that none of us should “think of men above that which is written.” For my part, I will treasure the opportunity to know and study with this good man while remaining in opposition to what he taught on divorce and remarriage with all of the fallout that has produced. Some men cast longer shadows upon the pages of religious history than others. Such was the case with Homer Hailey. We leave, as we must, the record of his long life in the hands of a righteous Father who always judges according to truth (Rom. 2:2).

P.O.Box 91346, Fern Creek, Kentucky 40291

By Larry Ray Hafley

Once, when “a certain lawyer” attempted to ensnare Jesus with a question, the Lord replied, “What is written in the law? How readest thou” (Luke 10:26)?

Regarding the current controversy concerning “the days of Genesis 1,” let us ask, “How readest thou?” Are the days referred to literal days, or are they long ages of time as evolutionists theorize? Let us cite a portion of the text, and ask, “How readest thou?”

And God said, Let there be light; and there was light . . . and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day (1:3-5).  

And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years . . . And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day (1:14-19). 

Without argument, just by reading the text, what is your sense or understanding of the language? Are the days figurative, referring to long periods of time? Does each day represent millions of years? “How readest thou?”