Am I Too Critical, or Are the "Liberals" Betrayed by Their Speech?
In the "Herald of Truth" publication, for February 1965, as edited bv W. F. Cawyer, of 5th and Highland, in Abilene, we copy one entire paragraph:
"And, as we all know, it was the English Puritans that fled to America to escape religious persecution and founded our democracy on a sound basis of Christianity. "
The terminology that I question has to do with the sectarian habit of lumping any philosophy that seemingly recognizes Christ, as "Christianity." That the world does this is common knowledge.... it's just rather shocking to read of a Fifth and Highland bishop referring to Puritanism as "Christianity" without at least putting the word in quotation marks.
The same day that the above crossed my desk, I also received the April, 1965, issue of Gospel Light, in which M. Norvel Young writes:
"Among those of us pleading for New Testament Christianity there have been few willing to prepare themselves to serve and witness for 'the faith once for all delivered to the saints.'"
Now the point that sets me back on my heels in this quotation is the use of the word "witness." It was used by the writer as a verb, and the unabridged dictionary lists: "1. To testify to. 2. To serve as evidence of. 3. To act as witness of, often by signing a statement to that effect. 4. To be present at; to see personally. 5. To be the scene or setting of; as the field has witnessed many battles. "And, finally, "to bear testimony; to give evidence."
I've known of the sectarians having "testimony meetings in which they allegedly "testify" or "witness" for God. Now, it seems that some of the liberals are using the same language. Some folks call themselves "Jehovah's Witnesses."
I just wonder how M. Norvel would define his use of the word in the above quotation?
Truth Magazine IX: 11, pp. 12-13