By Connie Adams

In the March 4, 1993 issue of Guardian of Truth I wrote an article entitled “Serious Charges” which dealt with a report sent out to part of the mailing list of Christianity Magazine. In that article I made the following statement:

Yet, all that is on the record in Christianity Magazine about brother Hailey and his position is a defense of his personal integrity (which nobody has ever disputed), severe criticisms of those who have publicly opposed what brother Hailey has publicly taught, and a door left open in the series on fellowship to accept and use brethren who give their encouragement to those in adulterous marriages. That is exactly where the record stands in that magazine and it is not irresponsible to state that fact.

It should be pointed out, in all fairness, that there was a special issue of Christianity Magazine edited by Paul Earnhart which dealt with the position of brother Hailey, though it made no reference to his name, and which also examined and refuted the position advocated by Jerry Bassett and others on the subject of marriage, divorce and remarriage, though their names were not mentioned either. Brother Earnhart himself wrote two of the articles in that special issue on this matter and other very good articles were carried as well. My objection to brother Ed Harrell’s article in defense of brother Hailey still stands. He did make unbrotherly charges which have not been corrected to this day. Also, the criticism of the series on fellowship, specifically what was said in application of Romans 14, still stands.

We do not mean to misrepresent anyone, much less brethren whom we love. It is a fact that this initial report was sent out whether or not it was intended to be sent. A number did read it. The report did contain serious charges and insinuations against unnamed brethren. If the report was sent by mistake and without the full approval of the editors, then that is all very well. If a different statement was drafted and approved by all the editors (which did appear in the January issue of Christianity Magazine), then that is good, even though the revised report still contained some strong references to unnamed brethren. But, mistake or not, the initial rough draft was sent out to a good many readers and it did make the statements to which we referred in our article. What would help would be for the editors to simply forward a statement of apology to the readers who received the first report. Had that been done, I would never have written my article. In fact, I delayed the writing of the article in hope that such action would be taken.

We certainly do not wish harm to the editors of Christianity Magazine and deeply regret the feelings of resentment and suspicion toward some of the brethren which I believe that initial report indicated.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 12, p. 3
June 17, 1993