Truth Magazine

By Dean Bullock

1946 was a year of relocation and adjustment for many young men. World War Il ended in the fall of 1945. Some young men were returning to jobs, others were looking for jobs, still “others of us” were going back to school. It was in 1946 (as a Navy veteran back in school), or soon thereafter, that I first heard of James W. Adams.

W.F. Showers and Foy E. Wallace, Sr. were urging me to preach the gospel of Christ. Also, brother Wallace was encouraging me to get acquainted with brother Adams. I remember him saying, “He’s a young man but very studious and very well informed, a good preacher. He can be of help to you.” It was a year or two later before I met him. Our paths have crossed many times since. I have heard him preach quite a bit, read scores of his articles, sat in some of his classes, and spent a lot of time with him – especially during the last twelve or fifteen years. When I think of him, his work and my association with him, several things come to mind:

He has strong intellectual powers, good study habits and studies the Word objectively. He recognizes that many people approach the Bible with a bias, including a lot of our own brethren. They are prejudiced and read to justify what they are doing rather than to find the truth. He is a “layer” above this. He studies in an effort to ascertain the will of God, and respects genuine scholarship.

He’s a person of dignity and bearing. He’s always neatly and appropriately dressed and good mannered. An untidy and unkempt preacher, shabbily clad, before a class or in the pulpit is very distasteful to him. He, like some of the rest of us, is from “the old school” and does not go before the people to preach dressed for golf, a picnic, a ball game or a tacky party.

He’s prepared. He had done his “homework” well and is at his best when speaking or writing on difficult and involved themes. His lessons and articles always evidence careful research and preparation. They are well-arranged and well-organized. Also, I have been present on more than one occasion when he was called on to defend the faith. He did so, and demonstrated a real grasp of the matters at issue. The cause of truth and right was upheld and well served.

He’s an outstanding writer and, one of balance. Some who have only read his material in papers making a fight against the social gospel, unscriptural church combines and the encroachment of institutionalism may question this statement. However, all who have read his writing through the years in bulletins, newspapers, magazines, tracts, etc. realize that he deals with a wide range of subject matter decisively. Even leading men who disagree with him on church organization, function and work, recognize his skills as a writer. It is with the pen that he excels. This is really his “strong suit.” Foy E. Wallace, Jr. told me that he considered James W. Adams one of the most able writers among conservative brethren. Others, qualified to judge, have expressed the same sentiment.

He seeks to avoid extremes. He’s cognizant of the fact that people with strong convictions must ever be on guard lest they go off on a tangent or diverge from “a sane and sound” course. He knows that well-meaning brethren sometimes lack perception and fail to distinguish between matters of faith and matters supported only by human emotion and tradition. He’s determined to stand for the truth, and just as determined not to take a radical, extreme or indefensible position on anything.

He has learned “the fine art of disagreeing without being disagreeable. ” One doesn’t have to draw the same conclusion he does on every mooted question in order to be his friend. He recognizes that many of the issues that divide brethren are of individual application and should not be pressed to the point of disrupting local churches. They should be examined candidly and honestly in the light of the Scriptures, but when good men differ on these matters the cause should not be affected adversely. Moreover, one can be Adams’ friend without having to always agree with him on matters of judgment, choice and preference.

Don’t get the idea that I think that James W. Adams is sinlessly perfect. He, in common with human-kind, has some “faults and foibles.” He would be the first to admit this and to acknowledge that he has made some mistakes along the way. However, he is a mature Christian and a gospel preacher in everything that the expression implies. He is well equipped and proclaims Christ first, last and foremost. He is not a philosopher, an entertainer or a politician. He is a preacher of truth and righteousness. His work speaks for itself. He is loved and respected in various cities across the country where he has lived and labored. My prayer is that “the good Lord will look in on him and his” and grant him more good years of service in the kingdom.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 23, p. 723
December 3, 1987

By Ron Halbrook

In the process of reviewing the ecumenical errors of W. Carl Ketcherside and Leroy Garrett, James W. Adams exposed and challenged certain men who were creeping about peddling the same errors among sound brethren. Like the faithful watchman of Ezekiel 3, brother Adams warned brethren against those who were undermining the foundations of the walls of Zion in the very aftermath of the battles fougat over the apostasy of institutionalism. Several of these young princes thought themselves to be somewhat and thought their trite theories to be some new thing under the sun. Brother Adams showed keen insight in analyzing their principles, and courage in calling their names – names such as Edward Fudge, Randall Mark Trainer and Gordon Wilson. Persistent and firm in the face of controversy and even persecution, brother Adams proved himself to be “set for the defense of the gospel” just as he had always been before (Phil. 1:17).

Between 15 March 1973 and 22 August 1974, brother Adams reviewed and analyzed the Ketcherside-Garrett unity movement in a series of articles published in Truth Magazine. The first article was entitled “A Stone of Witness” and reflected his resolve to reaffirm the basic fundamentals necessary for the restoration of New Testament Christianity. When he finished, twenty-six articles had been published, twenty-one of them between March and September of 1973. The editor of Truth Magazine at the time, Cecil Willis, quickly realized the value of these articles on the true nature of biblical unity and fellowship, and he began to advertise that one thousand extra copies of each issue containing one of these articles were being printed for distribution.

Ecumenical Error Exposed As Extreme, Arbitrary

Adams observed that men like Ketcherside and Garrett once had occupied such radical extremes in one direction that they could fellowship almost nobody and now had swung to an opposite radical extreme where they could fellowship almost everybody. Even though their application of certain faulty concepts had changed, their character as radical extremists had proven to be constant.

Ketcherside claimed that “one fact and one act” were sufficient grounds for unity and fellowship. The “one fact” is the deity of Christ and the “one act” baptism. Brother Adams pointed out the necessity of faithfulness to God’s pattern of truth in all things. If the pattern of truth in regard to worship can be sacrificed so as to permit fellowship with baptized believers worshipping with instruments of music, why not sacrifice the Bible pattern on baptism in order to have fellowship with sprinkled believers? The arbitrary nature of Ketcherside’s eeumenical error was exposed.

Ketcherside had much to say about fellowship not meaning endorsement of error, but Adams noted that Ketcherside’s fellowship with people in error did constitute endorsement and compromise because he did not cry out against their apostate practices. “Unity in diversity” was a favorite slogan of Ketcherside in teaching that if people have been baptized they can believe or practice almost anything. To the contrary, brother Adams showed that the unity Christ prayqd for and Paul preached was based upon the platform and pattern of divine truth. Ketcherside contended that fellowship should be withdrawn only when people explicitly deny the deity of Christ, become openly immoral, or create factions over matters of opinion.Again exposing the arbitrary nature of Ketcherside’s ecumenical errors, Adams pointed out that a simple reading of New Testament passages on withdrawing fellowship reveals other grounds for withdrawal.

Ecumenical Capitulation to Error and Apostasy

In explaining the sources of this “Neo-Calvinistic Unity Cult,” brother Adams recalled the identical theories of various extremists who had left the faith all through the years. In addition, he noted that various brethren were becoming newly enamoured of denominational concepts concerning love, grace, unity, and fellowship. In other words, the so-called “new” unity movement was nothing but capitulation to the error and apostasy which brethren had always fought against in their efforts to defend the truth Qf the gospel of Christ. The methods of this “new” movement were shown to be devious and deceitful. “Ketchersidean Subversion” was promoted through advocating an underground operation and avoiding open debate. His followers and admirers were told to work from within by utilizing cell groups, young people (especially intellectual types), and Sunday night visits to various factions for fellowship.

One of the young, intellectual princes enamoured of Ketcherside was Edward Fudge. Fudge’s family controlled the Gospel Guardian at that time, which was being edited by William Wallace. One of the saddest and most painful phases of this controversy was occasioned by William Wallace’s trying to make accommodations on behalf of Edward Fudge. Edward Fudge’s close association with the Gospel Guardian drew that paper into an effort to defend Fudge and led to Wallace’s speaking harshly of Adams and Truth Magazine in several editorials. Wallace never really joined the Ketcherside unity movement, but he seemed to waver partly, if not largely, in personal deference to Ed Fudge and the Fudge family who controlled the Gospel Guardian. Later, through the good graces of Theron Bohannan, the Gospel Guardian passed out of the hands of the Fudges and was edited by Adams himself until it combined with Truth Magazine.

Adams’ Analysis Accurate

The accuracy of Adams’ analysis of the KetchersideGarrett-Fudge unity movement can be seen from the fact that he never really was answered by any of these men. Fudge nibbled at the edges by questioning a few incidental points – such as whether he had visited Ketcherside at a certain time – but no real attempt to grapple with the issues raised by Adams ever occurred. One attempt at satirical ridicule was published anonymously by Jerry Phillips in the form of a single issue printing of a parody of Truth Magazine under the name of Faith Magazine (for details see articles by Cecil Willis and myself in the 5 February 1976 Truth Magazine). Copies were mailed to several churches and individuals in January 1974. Its articles, aspersions, cartoons, and innuendos unmercifully lampooned brother Adams along with Cecil Willis. “So persecuted they the prophets which were before you” (Matt. 5:12). Brother Adams’ defense of the truth had been derided as yellow journalism by his opponents, but their own true color was finally exposed and evidenced.

Evaluating Adams’ Articles

Fifteen years have passed since brother Adams began his series. What can we say about the value of his articles as we look back upon them? First, they are perhaps the most thorough survey of the KetchersideGarrett-Fudge unity movement and its implications for New Testament Christianity which has been published. rhc anicles were not answered at the time they were written. They have not been answered since then. They will not be answered now at this late date. The power is not in brother Adams in a personal way, but it is in the truth he was defending and upholding (Jn. 17:17-21; 1 Cor. 1:18-23). That truth stands today as it always has. God ordained that men should preach and uphold the truth, and we should thank brother Adams for the excellent job he did in this battle.

Second, his instincts and insights have proven to be absolutely accurate. For instance, he said,

I am absolutely convinced that Ketcherside, Fudge and others are seeking a middle-ground of some sort, a neutral territory, a no-man’s land in the realm of fellowship and unity which is a mirage born of overheated imagination and misguided philanthropy (“Who is a Wise Man?” Truth Magazine, 1 November 1973, pp. 7-9).

He couldn’t have been more right! These men and their movement have gone further and further away from the truth in chasing their mirage.

Last, the articles should be judged in the light of brother Adams’ original intentions. Did he attain his purpose?

When I began this review a year ago, it was not because I entertained in my mind the idea that I could help or in any way change Brother W. Carl Ketcherside. In fact, I am reasonably certain it amuses him immensely that I should suppose he needs to change. My purpose was to rescue, if possible, a considerable number of gospel preachers (particulady young men just beginning) from active acceptance of and involvement in Brother Carl’s concepts and activities. From the beginning, I was not even very optimistic about accomplishing this with reference to some of these young men who were and are deeply steeped in Ketchersidean propaganda. My principal hope was to save young men and other Christians (not preachers) who were not yet involved in this error but who were or niight be attracted by the artful deception of such men as W. Carl Ketcherside and Leroy Garrett (“Afraid of A Good Man?” Truth Magazine, 30 May 1974, pp. 470-71).

Brother Adams’ principle hope was certainly realized because brethren were forewarned and awakened to the danger creeping in among them from place to place. In fact his articles encouraged me to publish in Truth Magazine the material I had been preparing for some months on the dangers of what Ed Fudge was teaching privily and publicly. My first article appeared in the 20 September 1973 issue just five pages after one by brother Adams entitled “How Successful is Ketchersidean Subversion (II)?”

May God bless brother Adams for the good he has done and raise up other men who will be like him “set for the defence of the gospel.” Thank you, brother Adam, for your stedfast labors and warm encouragement in the gospel of Christ!

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 23, pp. 718-719
December 3, 1987

By James Wallace Adams

(Editor’s Note: This article first appeared in the Firm Foundation in 1935 and represents some of brother Adams’ earliest writing.)

When we hear the words of that beautiful old song, “Home Sweet Home,” tears dim our eyes, and our minds revert to our childhood. How sweet and sacred are the memories of that father and mother and those brothers and sisters who helped make our youth a happy and joyous period of our lives. A happy home is a beautiful thing indeed, but, on the other hand, what a sad and wretched picture a divided and discordant home presents. How sad it is that some have to be reared in just such a setting and atmosphere. Every parent, if he would but realize his responsibility, is shaping character and many times determining the destiny of his child by the influence under which the child is reared. I have in mind at this time three homes that it may be man’s privilege to enjoy: First, the earthly home which we have been discussing; second, the home that God has provided for the saved upon the earth, the church; third, the beautiful home of the soul, the “City which hath foundations whose builder and maker is God” (Heb. 11:10).

Why do we speak of the church as the home of the saved on earth? We do this because in God’s holy word we find that God is spoken of as Father, Christ as the elder brother,’ obedient men and women as brothers and sisters, and that the apostle Paul in Ephesians 2:19 speaking as the Spirit gave him utterance, says, “Now ye are therefore no more strangers and foreigners but fellow citizens with the saints and of the household of God.” From these thoughts we see that the Lord has brought us a picture of the church by comparing it to our earthly home. As we proceed with this discourse, we are going to strive to present to your minds several thoughts that are in keeping with this comparison.

The first thing to consider is this: How may we become children of God, members of God’s family? “Come let us reason together saith the Lord” (Isa. 1:18) – a wise admonition and an invitation to profound thinkers to reason thus: In being born into our earthly families there must be a conception; second, there must be a change in physical characteristics; last, there must be a birth, a delivery. Just so it is with the family of God. Faith is begotten in our hearts by hearing the word of God (Rom 10:17). There must be a change of life or a turning from darkness unto light which constitutes godly repentance (Luke 13:3; Acts 17:30). Last, there must be a birth; we must be born again (John 3:7). We must be born again of the water and of the Spirit (John 3:5), of incorruptible seed (1 Pet. 1:23). This is accomplished by the ordinance of baptism which perfectly shows forth our delivery or our birth into the family of God. We make this statement because we find that Christ is the head of the body, the church (Col. 1:18), and that we are baptized into Christ (Gal. 3:27), therefore we are baptized into the church for the remission of past sins (Acts 2:38). We are delivered from the waters of baptism to walk in a newness of life (Rom. 6:4), and as newborn babes in Christ desire the sincere milk of the word that we may grow thereby (1 Pet. 2:2).

We are now children of God, newborn babes in Christ, so the question comes to our minds: What is my name, or what shall I be called as a child of God? My Father’s name is Adams, and I too go by the same name. “How strange,” say all ironically! The point I wish to make is this: No one thought it out of place nor criticized me for wearing said name; in fact, the law of the land demands that I wear it. Yet when godly men became convinced by consecrated study and prayerful consideration of the word of God that obedient men, inasmuch as they are children of God should wear the name Christian and no other, and that God’s family, the church, should wear his name and no other, they were condemned, persecuted, and derisively labeled Campellites. All of this my just and reasonable friends, because they followed a natural and, may we say, logical procedure, in the earthly sense upheld and demanded by the highest courts of this United States.

It is the duty of every child to love his earthly father and, in loving him, to respect his laws and regulations concerning his home and to obey him. We owe our fathers love and obedience because they have cared for us through our helpless period of life, and have reared us to full grown manhood and womanhood. We are indebted to them for our very existence. To our heavenly Father there is an even greater obligation for “in him we live, move and have our being” (Acts 17:28), and through him we have eternal life by the death of his dear Son on the cross. The Lord said, “If ye love me ye will keep my commandments” (John 14:15). What are you doing, my brother, in regard to the Lord’s commands?

In my father’s house, each child had his particular duties to perform. My father chose which duties each should perform according to our preference and fitness for the task. Now each child of God has certain natural talents, and God expects him to use those talents in his service. From the parable of the talents (Matt. 25:14-30), we learn that God expects only that which one has the ability to perform, and that it is not enough to simply not transgress God’s law, but that each must serve God according to his ability. We are called to work in the vineyard of the Lord.

Another thing that is well to mention at this time is the support of the family, financially speaking. We as children are duty bound to aid our earthly father in the support of the family. How truly ungrateful we would be to spend money foolishly when our father’s family is in need. Christian friend, you who are supporting the fraternal organizations of this world with your time, energy, and money, the Lord’s work is direfully in need of the same, and you must give an account of your stewardship to God. The question might be asked you: What have you done with Jesus?

In the grand and illustrious old families of long ago, the son was duty-bound to marry and have childrefi to perpetuate the family name. In the family of God, every Christian is duty-bound to do all in his power to plant the seed of the kingdom in the hearts of a lost and dying world. Never pass an opportunity to teach and preach the word in its purity and simplicity, for it is “the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth” (Rom. 16:16). In doing this you will save souls from death and be a means of perpetuating Christ’s church upon the earth.

It is the privilege of every child, as we all know, to eat at his father’s table unless there has been a separation of child and father because of the child’s disobedience. We can eat at our heavenly Father’s table by study of the word at home, in the church school, and in the preaching service. We make this statement because we are told to “desire the sincere milk of the word that ye may grow thereby” (1 Pet. 2:2) and “man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” (Matt. 4:4). We may also literally gather around the table of the Lord and commemorate his death and sufferings on Calvary. In my home, when the family would gather at the table, father would always notice should one be absent and make inquiry as to his absence. If no satisfactory reason could be given, the child himself would have to give an account for his absence. Your heavenly Father notices your absence from his table, and you will be called to account for the same in the judgment. A disobedient Christian does not have God’s approval at his table until he has confessed his wrongs and prayed to God for pardon (Acts 8:22).

Another privilege of the child is that of an heir. God’s children have an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled, reserved in heaven for them. Our earnest plea is that men and women will not, by disobedience, alienate themselves from God, thus losing their part of the inheritance which is eternal life in the city of God.

Think of the home over there, of its beauty and its joy, and prepare today to place yourself in the position of an heir and a joint-heir with Christ and of heaven our home. If you have strayed from the Father’s house, our prayers are for your early return; and, if you are not a child of God, can you not hear the voice of the Savior say, “Come unto me all ye that labour and are heavy laden and I will give you rest?”

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 23, pp. 720-721
December 3, 1987

By Harry Pickup, Jr.

The “Arlington Meeting,” held in 1%8, could not have come about without the work of James W. Adams. This meeting included 26 preachers who met to discuss various facets of the “institutional question,” upon which they were seriously disagreed and which had disturbed and divided brethren for a number of years. Two “teams” of brethren, 13 on a “team,” addressed issues between them in a brotherly and respectful manner.

At the time of the meeting brother Adams was in the prime of his life and had the respect of both “teams.” His thinking was clear and he was well able to express his mind logically. His manner was conciliatory and controlled. He was an ideal choice to bring brethren together in order to discuss opposing views in an atmosphere that offered the greatest opportunity for sound thinking. He had spent his life in studying truth, disciplining himself to use it and training himself to preach and defend it. His early training produced in him a spirit of independence and deep convictions about the truth.

“Issues” among brethren have always been matters of personal concern to him. He never manufactured them in order to promote himself prominently before brethren. He never viewed matters of individual interest or private concern as issues about which the brotherhood should be troubled. His personal philosophy regarding defending the faith has always been to argue “faith” and not “opinion.” When he did speak out it was not his nature to speak timidly or ambiguously.

My first impression of brother Adams was formed when we were classmates at Freed Hardeman College in 1941. He was then a mature preacher, husband and father. He was there to learn. I was a boy; I was just there! Even then he was dignified, reserved and precise. His dignity was modified with tasteful humor. Though reserved he was not aloof. Split infinitives and dangling participles even then were inconsistent with his love of precision. He never played the buffoon nor preached with bombast. These characteristics, though refined are still evident.

Young and immature preachers, who manifested even slight evidence of eventually “growing up” could count on his sympathetic encouragement. These qualities have brought him respect, trust and appreciation from brethren across the nation.

His familiarity and involvement with “issues” have included two major doctrinal divisions among brethren: Premillennialism and Institutionalism. He has spoken and written clearly, precisely and powerfully on both of these issues. His love for brethren never prevented him from defending the faith. His loyalty to truth never kept him from being understanding of human weaknesses and extending a helping hand to those less strong in the faith. His contributions toward enlightening the brethren and the fact of his always being willing to help heal divisions are facts well documented.

When the issue of institutionalism had crystalized the church into opposing groups, some brethren began to think about reconciliation. It was not surprising that brother Adams was a man to whom brethren turned to explore the biblical grounds of unity, knowing that he would not compromise conviction and believing that he was both willing and able to act in a conciliatory manner. Norman Starling sought him out to explore his mind and attitude toward a calm confrontation between “institutional and non-institutional brethren.”

As might be expected, brother Adams was receptive to any discussion which could possibly lead to reconciliation in a manner consistent with revealed truth. Brother Starling and he agreed that subjects should be discussed which were fundamental to the fact of division. Also that men invited to discuss these volatile subjects should be per sons of self-control. Additionally, that the men invited should be under no opinion that they were representing anyone other than themselves and that these brethren were not called together to hammer out a human plan for unity.

In working out this plan it was obvious that a place should be chosen which would lend itself to contemplation and informal controversy. No formal agenda was decided upon; each brother would be invited to speak conversationally and extemporaneously. This first meeting, a precursor to the “Arlington Meeting,” was held at Buchanan Dam, outside of Burnet, Texas. Eight brethren attended and were together, memory tells me, for most of two days.

The “change was carried on in a plain, pointed and cordial manner. Memory again tells me that brother Reuel Lemmons made the suggestion that another similar meeting should be held with more Christians present, with a more formal agenda. All present agreed to this suggestion. The result was the “Arlington Meeting.”

Brother Starling deserves credit, if this be the proper word, for conceiving this idea and enlisting the help of brother Adams to bring it to reality. Without someone of Adam’s nature and character, I doubt that “teams,” from the two sides could have been brought together to subjects of such divergent difference.

For such a meeting to occur, someone was needed of general reputation who could couple fairness and conviction, reasonableness and refutation. Brother Adams was such a man. Each “team” selected 13 speakers. Five “major” subjects were chosen and 2 speakers from each team were selected to make a “major” presentation. Two other speakers from each team were then offered the opportunity to make “minor” speeches. The “major” speakers spoke from manuscripts. The “minor” speakers spoke without manuscripts extemporaneously.

Brother Adams helped set the tone to what, in my judgment, was a remarkable occasion. Men of deep-seated convictions with highly charged personalities spoke; and yet the discussions could be accurately characterized as being orderly and reasonable. Basic concepts were pleasantly presented. Arguments were made at close quarters. Language was plain, expressed vigorously, but, for the most part in a non-accusatory manner.

It was agreed that these lessons should be transcribed and published. The book entitled, The Arlington Meeting, was born. From my personal point of view, again based expressly from memory, I believe the meetings – including the book – produced good results. First of all, it is good whenever truth is presented and given wide-spread dissemination. Secondly, it became obvious that the differences were neither small nor petty; they were basic. Again, from my point of view, it seemed clear that the basic difference was the different approach to the authority of God’s will. Again, – this comment may not be entirely objective – some who have read the book have been persuaded that institutionalism is without divine authority and that institutionalism is unquestionably practiced by some brethren.

The philosophy of relativeness is characteristic of our age. Even brethren have not escaped the effects of this virulent error. The spirit of compromise hovers like an atomic cloud over the church. James W. Adams has made. a significant contribution to the Lord’s people by warning them of this threat. His writings will continue to “put in remembrance” coming generations, that God’s word is truth and Satan’s philosophy is lie.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 23, pp. 716-717
December 3, 1987