Normally, unspecific reactionary writing is very poor. One of the reasons it fails to accomplish anything is because it is often ambiguous. One just does not have anything substantial to relate it to. In the November 22, 1973 issue of Truth Magazine, Brother Weldon Warnock got a "few licks" in for Florida College. Now I know nothing about Brother Warnock, other than that he has been around a few years, and has written some good teaching material as "far" back as the early sixties. He appears to be quite able in his writing ability, so I call on him to be more specific in his exposing of those who "bad-mouth" the college. I am sure those who are getting the verbal "licks" from Brother Warnock would appreciate being notified of it. (It reminds me of the comment the prize-fighter J. L. Sullivan made once to a 'mere fly of a man who had hit Mr. Sullivan as hard as his little body could. Sullivan turned about to the man, and looking down on him said, "If you ever hit me again, and I find out about it, I am going to be very unhappy with you.")

Who are these "young preachers who went to F.C., reaped all the benefits the school had to offer, and (are) now . . . `kicking it in the teeth' after having gotten out?" Brother Warnock obviously had something in mind that had been written in one of the journals for he said, ". . . the anti-Bible College brethren do not hesitate to use the religious journals to vent their feelings against the school." Now, there are only a few of these journals about. If we discard the church bulletins, the digressively controlled papers, and the non-subscription papers, we are limited to about five or six journals. I get the same papers that Brother Weldon gets, as do the rest of the brethren. Which journal is it that is "running articles by the anti-Bible College brethren," that offends Weldon so much?

If a brother writes teaching that the individual has no scriptural right to organize and run a human institution like a Bible College, a religious journal, a publishing company, or whatever, I would disagree and defend the scriptures from that misuse. I would do this as any defender of the Gospel would, not out of any loyalty to the institutions of men, but from a loyalty to the Word of God.

What is Brother Warnock defending? And against what? The college is opposed in some parts of the country on the grounds that it has no inherent right to exist scripturally. Let us defend the truth of the Bible from such trivial opinionation. But, let us not take something made with men's hands and make it a point of division, enmity, and controversy merely to defend the institution itself. We may save the corruptible, and lose the incorruptible in the process (Rom. 14:1-23).

Nothing and nobody is above valid criticism or scriptural debate. The crucible of godly controversy will destroy the false and purify the true. Only the idols of men are shielded from close observation or review, lest they be destroyed in their inherent fragility. If F.C. is as fine as Brother Warnock testifies, then it will be able to survive the disapproval of a few-yea, even welcome valid and constructive commentary. "For everyone that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God" (Jno. 3:20, 21).

Truth Magazine, XVIII:12, p. 13
January 24, 1974