Lindy McDaniel and Our "Doctrinal" Differences
There have been a good many rumors, and a considerable stir, about the fact that I added the word "doctrinal" into an article written by Lindy McDaniel in the last issue of Pitching For the Master to be published by the Cogdill Foundation. It is true that I added the word "doctrinal" to Brother McDaniel's discussion of the differences that occasioned us mutually to decide that Pitching For the Master should be separated from the Cogdill Foundation.
Lindy is quite up-set because our "doctrinal" differences are paraded before a goodly number of non-Christian people who receive the paper. However, Lindy should not have sought to give any explanation at all as to why the paper would thenceforth be published elsewhere and by others. The mere fact that he had been traded to the Kansas City Royals would have been enough explanation, if any at all was to be given to these non-Christians.
I seriously doubt the wisdom of making any statement at all about our "differences," but if Lindy was going to tell the non-Christian public (as well as the Christians who receive his paper, who probably would constitute 50% of his subscription list) about, these "differences," I insisted that something more definite than "differences" be told them. In an accompanying letter, Brother McDaniel offered me the opportunity to make a statement also as to why the Cogdill Foundation no longer would be publishing Pitching For the Master, However, Lindy left me exactly three lines in which to make my statement. So rather than try to state anything about the problem in just three lines, I thought the explanation that our, "differences" were doctrinal rather than personal would be an improvement in the statement.
As long as we have published Lindy's paper, I have had the entire responsibility of correcting his manuscript before sending it for typesetting, then of proofing it, and pasting it up for photographing. On occasions, I have had to delete several paragraphs in order to make an article fit the space available. On other occasions, I have had to write or "borrow" an article to fill the available space. I have had completely free reins to attend to these matters, at Lindy's specific authorization.
Lindy has a good "fast ball," and an excellent "fork pitch," but I think even he would admit that spelling and grammar are not his forte. I suspect he would have been more than a little irritated if, after every correction I made, I had insisted (CW), indicating that I had made the change. Can you imagine the howl that would have gone up if I had deleted two or three paragraphs of Lindy's article, in order to insert the one he authorized me also to write in that final issue? Had I written such an article, I will guarantee you that it would have spelled out specifically the points upon which we differ, and they pertain to "grace" and 'fellowship." Lindy himself admits that we do have "doctrinal" differences, but he says that it is our attitude about, these differences that necessitated the separation of Pitching, For,, the Master from the Cogdill Foundation. But whether we fellowship "instrumentalists" and "institutionalists," to me goes a good bit deeper than just attitude. And that is what our "differences" were all about.
An article is in my hand from Brother McDaniel regarding my insertion of the word "doctrinal" into his article. Perhaps I should have initialed "doctrinal@ (CW), but I doubt that, he would have been any happier. And I refused to let the paper go out under the auspices of the Cogdill Foundation, and with my name listed as "Associate Editor" without some further explanation. The issue already was a month late when I received his article. I had never contacted him before for corrections I made in his articles, nor has he ever before objected to any correction, addition, or deletion that it has been necessary for me to make. Without the least trepidation, I fully and completely accept the responsibility for adding the word "doctrinal" to his statement about our differences, for he knows that we did have Voctrinal" differences, which we discussed for twelve or-fourteen hours ip February at Conroe, Texas in the home of Brother Roy E. Cogdill. I have no apology to make for doing so, and would do it again, if he proceeded to tell the Christian and non-Christian public about our "differences," without revealing the nature of those differences.
I am writing Brother McDaniel to see if he really wants the article he sent to me published, for if I publish it, I must write a reply to it, and in my reply it will be necessary that I document his vacillation on the subject of "grace@ and Afellowship@ for at least two years. Lindy has wobbled around more on these subjects in the last two years than has the best "fork pitch" he ever served up to a batter! If he continues to insist that his article be published about my insertion of the word "doctrinal" into his statement about our "differences," in which article he demands that I apologize for the insertion, and for misrepresenting his position, and insists that we have never discussed these matters until very recently, then I see no alternative but to publish his article (out of fairness), but also to reply to it (in order to present the whole truth on the matter).
Until I hear from Lindy, this article will suffice to tell you that I did insert the word "doctrinal," and why I did so, and if you want greater explanation, let Brother McDaniel ask for it, and it will be forthcoming, in ample supply. I am sorry to see Lindy line up again with an element that seems determined to turn the Lord's church into a sort of ecumenical conglomeration, and I have sought diligently for about two years to prevent this from happening, as a considerable host of brethren already know, including Brother Lindy McDaniel. To borrow Robert Jackson's favorite expression again: "We shall see what we shall see!"
Truth Magazine, XVIII:39, p. 3