Truth Magazine

Compiled by Mike Willis

The administration of the Gospel Advocate recently announced that they were making a change of editors. Brother Guy N. Woods is being replaced by Furman Kearley. Some of our liberal brethren have not received this announcement very well. Their assessment of what changes are occurring is interesting reading. Although I would not share their assessment of brother Woods, I find their reactions to his replacement newsworthy enough for inclusion here:

BEN VICK: The Informer, Indianapolis

After quoting Acts 20:28-31, brother Vick wrote:

. . . The words came to mind as I read of the changing of the guard at the Gospel Advocate (Gospel Advocate, June 6,1985). According to the report, Brother Guy N. Woods is being replaced as the editor of the Gospel Advocate. Though I did not concur with all that brother Woods has done since he has been the Associate Editor and Editor of the Gospel Advocate, he did staunchly and boldly oppose the Joplin Summit, Shelly’s false doctrine and took a firm stand on many other issues. Brother Woods truthfully stated, “In keeping with the purpose and origin of the Gospel Advocate, I have dealt firmly, yet kindly, with every major problem facing the Lord’s people today; yet, I have never lost sight of the fact that the paper is a family journal and must address itself to the spiritual needs of people.” This, I suspect, is the reason for his being ousted from the editor’s desk at the Gospel Advocate. . . .

My suspicion for the reason of the change In editors is based on whom the Advocate has announced to replace Woods . . .

I wrote on June 11, 1985, to Nell W. Anderson, President and Publisher of the Gospel Advocate, of my dissatisfaction. In part, I wrote:

“The appointment of Furman Kearley to the editorship of the Gospel Advocate is an indication of the future direction of the paper – a downward trend. His participation in the Joplin Summit in ’84 shows his spirit of compromise. This action is a slop in the face to all the faithful defenders of the faith who at one time held the editor’s pen for the Advocate but have gone on to their reward, What a sad day in Israel, the Philistine camp rejoices.

“This change in editorship has brought dark and ominous clouds upon the horizon. I, being neither prophet nor the son of a prophet, predict, due to this decision, that the Advocate’s influence and circulation will decrease and may even cause its demise” (the Informer [23 June 19851, published by the Shelbyville Road church in Indianapolis, IN).

We doubt the publisher of the Advocate will ever reveal the reason for removing brother Woods from the editor’s desk, but we are still of the opinion it was due to his opposition to the unity efforts being presently made with the Christian Church (Ibid. [4 August 19851, p. 3).

Response from DUB McCLISH:

quoted from The Edifier, Denton, Texas

Many of our families read The Gospel Advocate because our elders and I recommended it to you. A major reason we recommended it was because of our confidence in its editor, brother Guy N. Woods. Those who have read the June 6 issue realize that he has been replaced as editor, effective July 18. This startling move was made without consultation with or knowledge of brother Woods. No reason was given him for his demotion. It is obvious that an able-bodied and able-minded editor is not replaced unless a change in the direction of the paper is desired. I and many others (including our elders) have written a letter of concern to brother Neil Anderson, President of The Advocate, with a copy also sent to brother David McQuiddy, owner of The Advocate Company. I have encouraged dozens of others to do likewise. My letter, dated June 7, appears below:

Dear brother Anderson: I am writing to express my dismay, indeed, almost, my disbelief, in the news of brother Woods’ demotion, removal, firing, or whatever term best describes what took place to unseat him. In particular, I am concerned about the following factors:

1. This is a most crucial time relating to issues of far reaching consequences in the Lord’s church, particularly those of fellowship, unity, Biblical authority, etc. No one is better qualified to teach the truth on these matters than

brother Woods. Yet, at a time when his voice is sorely needed, you have silenced it, for all practical purposes.

2 Whether those brethren in the renewed “unity” efforts hod anything to do with the decision or not, it is most certain how they will interpret it and that they will use it in every possible way to their advantage. This will be interpreted by them and by others as complete disapproval of brother Woods’ altogether justifiable criticisms of the “Summit” meeting and its many evil fruits. I wonder, in fact, if this move was Intended to send such a message. I am not accusing, I am merely asking.

3. Brother Woods’ successor (brother Furman Keorley) has placed a cloud over his own judgment and stability in recent months by his statements at the Joplin “Summit” meeting. Also, he has lent his name, generally linked with doctrinal soundness through the years, to the many unsound and weak voices on the campus of Abilene Christian University (one of my alma mters). He has no real “track record” of much writing. . . . I cannot understand why a man of such proved scholarship, soundness and stability (as brother Woods) would be unceremoniously replaced with one who has much to prove to many of the Advocate’s readers.

I fear that you have made a crucial blunder that may prove to be fraught with the most far-reaching sad consequences to the cause that many of us would give our lives for. I shall be fervently praying that brother Kearley is equal to the task (The Edifier [27 June 1985], published by the church meeting at 312 Pearl St., in Denton, TX).

IRA Y. RICE: reprinted from Contending For the Faith

Many strange and not-so-wonderful things are transpiring behind the scenes among “us” these days — not the least of which comes the sudden announcement that Guy N. Woods is being replaced as editor of the Gospel Advocate by one Furman Kearley . . . .

And just who is Furman Kearley? Few of the brotherhood indeed ever heard of him until it was announced that he would be one of the featured speakers at the ill-famed, so-called “Restoration Summit” almost a year ago at Joplin, Missouri.

How Reliable Will “Old Reliable” Be Now?

For a great many years it has pleased the GospelAdvocate to refer to itself (and to be referred to) as the “Old Reliable.” If this still is their wish and intention, then why should Neil Anderson choose to replace one of brother Woods’ reliability with one whose chief claim to fame is that compromising dialogue between himself and Wayne Kilpatrick that was video-taped by Joe McDonald at Joplin.

That there can be no mistaking the compromising situation that now is being forced upon the Gospel Advocate, let us read the dialogue how Kearley and Kilpatrick would advocate fellowship with the Christian Church one more time. . . .

Was Woods Undermined By Alan Cloyd?

As near as we can judge, this replacement of brother I Woods as editor of the Advocate goes back to a conversation that Alan Cloyd, chief instigator of the Joplin Compromise, alleges he had with Anderson after Woods’ marvelous editorial “The Joplin Unity Meeting” appeared in the Advocate under the date of October 4, 1984.

To hear Cloyd tell it, he thinks that he did quite a number on Woods with Anderson. If so, would this explain Woods being replaced with one favorable to fellowshipping the Christian Church? (Contending For The Faith July 1985], p. 2).

Response from TOMMY J. HICKS: printed in The Handley Herald, Ft. Worth, TX

WHY? That question has been an ever present vexation to me since reading the statements published, by you and brother Woods, in the June 6 issue of the Gospel Advocate. Neither you nor brother Woods provided our readers with an explanation as to why a change in editors was being made. As President/Publisher of the Gospel Advocate and as a brother in Christ, you owe your readers that courtesy.

There were numerous implications in the two statements. None of those implications is calming. The most glaring and unsettling implication, one contained in both statements, was that the decision to change editors was made by someone other than brother Woods. Brethren closely associated with the Gospel Advocate have since confirmed this. Again, why was brother Woods removed from his position?

I can think of only three reasons why such a drastic action was taken. One reason could be that he was not capable of handling the job (because of old age, lack of literary talents, poor health, etc.). Everyone, who knows brother Woods (sound in mind and body) and the success of the Gospel Advocate with him at her helm, knows he is not only capable, but that he is beyond all doubt one of the most able editors in Christian journalism. A second reason might be that brother Woods has committed some grave offense. If so, without necessarily specifying the offense, your readers need to know if this was the case. However, unless brother Woods has done something seriously wrong, it would seem that a miscreant act has been perpetuated against him. A third possible reason for removing brother Woods from the editor’s chair is that you did not want to follow the course he was steering. I would remind you that brother Woods has only, but expertly, followed the some course as his noble predecessors.

It is because of editors such as brother Woods that the Gospel Advocate has become affectionately known as the “Old Reliable.” If the Gospel Advocate begins “advocating” both sides of every issue (viz. Firm Foundation under Reuel Lemmons), if the “Joplin Summit” philosophy, the Crossroads philosophy, or any other erroneous views find in the Gospel Advocate a platform from which to spread their heresy-then “Gospel” should be removed from her name. Furthermore, she will not be “Reliable” anymore.

Brother Anderson, I pray that you have not made a colossal mistake. Please limit the Advocate to the Gospel and its defense. Keep the “Old Reliable” reliable. If you do not, you will have given the cause of Christ the greatest blow of the century (The Handley Herald [3 July 1985], published by the church which meets at 3029 Handley Dr. in Ft. Worth, TX).

GARLAND ELKINS: The Getwell Reminder

It is a sad day in Zion that brother Woods is no longer editor of the Gospel Advocate (The Getwell Reminder (13 June 1985], p.2).

Rubel Shelley: The Ashwood Leaves

Rubel Shelly’s remarks indicate his feelings about the changes occurring among our liberal brethren.

There are some important and promising things happening in the journalistic field within our brotherhood. Image has begun under the editorship of Reuel Lemmons and is receiving rove reviews. It is a quality publication with the positive perspective on the future we all need to share.

Among older publications among us, there have been facelifts and staff changes . . . . The Gospel Advocate has just announced a change in editors, with Furman Kearley assuming this important post…. (The Ashwood Leaves [14 July 1985], published by the Ashwood church in Nashville, TN).

Our liberal brethren are moving further and further into the mainstream of Protestant denominationalism. Men like the late W.L. Totty and Guy N. Woods who once stood on the vanguard of liberalism and defended their liberal brethren in debate, find themselves in their later years working to slow down the liberalism which they help to create. Brother Woods and many other “conservative” liberals are writing like “anti’s” trying to close the flood gates which they helped to open. They are protesting congregations’ recreational involvement, the liberalism in their colleges, the Crossroads movement, fellowshipping the Christian Church, and other liberal movements. They can only succeed in one of two ways: (1) dividing the liberals into two camps; (2) slowing down the inevitable move further into the mainstream of Protestant denominationalism. Their future, as brother Vick put it, is “dark and ominous.”

We find no occasion to rejoice in these events. We use this occasion to remind each of us of the dangers of apostasy. There is no such thing as a “little liberalism.” It grows into a monster which destroys the New Testament church. Let the wise be warned.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 18, pp. 560-562
September 19, 1985

By Marc W. Gibson

The title is ironic since I, being a young man of twenty-one years, really do not have that many reflections on life as compared to one who has lived seventy years or so. Nonetheless, I feel a need to express my thoughts as a young preacher. Perhaps these thoughts will be shared by others my age. I do not know how much longer I will be considered a young preacher. I have a feeling the time is quickly approaching that that distinction will pass.

I have much for which to be thankful. A great deal of thanks goes to older preachers and other members of the Lord’s body who have encouraged me more than words can tell. Much praise and encouragement have gone from older preachers to younger men; it is now time to turn the tables. Perhaps some men my age do not appreciate the wisdom found in age. They seem to scoff at advice given from the good hearts of those who are older. I am ashamed of these ones and hope they change their attitudes for their own sakes.

Memories That Encourage

Nothing can erase my memories of sitting in awe at the powerful preaching of men such as Franklin T. Puckett and Roy E. Cogdill. The Scriptures were opened to me by men like Sewell Hall, Homer Hailey, L.A. Mott, Ferrell Jenkins, and Dee Bowman. The encouragement to preach was kindled within me as I watched and listened to Ed Harrell, James R. Cope, Connie Adams, James P. Needham, and others too numerous to mention. Dear brethren, keep on preaching the Word. We are listening and appreciative. You are truly fulfilling the command of 2 Timothy 2:2 which states: “And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.”

Much knowledge was obtained through study sessions with men such as Ron Halbrook, J.T. Smith, and Fred Shewmaker. I do want to mention in particular H.E. Phillips. I consider him a father in the faith, as Timothy did Paul. I know I share that sentiment with many other men. His conviction and love for the Lord will ever be in my mind. Just to sit and listen to brother Phillips was an experience in itself. He would ask us boys to bring up a subject and then he would expound upon it for what seemed a short time, but had in reality been 1-3 hours. We soaked up all our heads could hold. The wisdom was vast. He worried that he might not be saying things to help us. Brother Phillips expounded God’s principles to us and impressed them in our minds. It has really helped greatly. I thank and love him for it. Those who read this may be able to recall similar experiences. Oh, how we treasure them!

Facing The Reality Of Human Weakness

These men I have mentioned have faults and they would be the first to admit it. I mention these brethren not to exalt them above all others, but to simply recognize their efforts and their immense help to me and others. May their tribe increase.

There is a darker side. My faith has been shaken several times when I have learned of a highly respected man who was a great example of faith but who plunged to the depths of sin. I am distressed to see one-time giants in the faith broken by Satan’s grip. This should warn us to be ever more watchful. None of us is immune to sin. Satan is on the prowl, brethren.

Need For Experience

At the end of August 1985, I will have completed three summers of working alongside older preachers. I would recommend this arrangement highly. Bob Buchanon, Harry Lewis, and Ron Halbrook have taught and shown me the “ropes” so that I might be more effective in the Lord’s work. We young preachers need to find time to associate with older men in the faith. One does not have to work in the same congregation to do this, but it is a good idea for those just starting in the work of preaching.

The Encouragement Of All Brethren

Let me not forget to mention the brethren in general. Many an older brother or sister has given me sound advice from their experiences in life. This has helped greatly, even when I did not learn the importance of the advice until it was too late! Their patience with me in my inexperience is deeply appreciated. Their homes were ever open to me as they have shared food, lodging, and encouragement. John referred to this good work when he said, “Beloved, you do faithfully whatever you do for the brethren and for strangers, who have born witness of your love before the church. If you send them forward on their journey in a manner worthy of God, you will do well…. We therefore ought to receive such, that we may become fellow workers for the truth” (3 Jn. 5-8). May more follow these godly examples.

Do You Remember?

I could go on and on about more memories that stir my heart. I hope these few words have stirred your memory and that you will have thanksgiving in your heart for those who encouraged and helped you along. Let us be thankful for the pioneers who went before but have left their writings with us. Dig into them and find great fundamental truths. Most of all, brethren, let us know God’s Word. Study it and teach others. We are in the kingdom of God, fellowlaborers in His vineyard, and members of Christ’s body. We stand on God’s Word. While we are being thankful, may we be girdine un our loins for the work we must do.

The church has fought many battles in the past and there are more on the horizon. As we who are young advance in years, we must be prepared to step forward into the battle against evil. Those whose armor is scarred and worn from many years of battle have been tremendous examples of strength and courage. Their strength is Christ (Phil. 4:13) and may we who are young learn from them. Battle on ye soldiers of Christ! We are with you. When death takes you from the ranks, be assured that the memory of your great stand for truth will be in our hearts. Those who have passed on can still be heard. Let us press on to that heavenly home where some great Day we will rejoice in victory forevermore. There we will sing that wondrous new song to the Savior: “You are worthy to take the scroll, and to open its seals; for You were slain and have redeemed us to God by Your blood out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation, and have made us kings and priests to our God; and we shall reign on the earth.” “Worthy is the Lamb who was slain to receive power and riches and wisdom, and strength and honor and glory and blessing!” “Blessing and honor and glory and power be to Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, forever and ever! ” (Rev. 5:9-10,12,13) Amen!

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 18, pp. 564-565
September 19, 1985

By Hoyt H. Houchen

Question: Would Jude 12 provide authority for fellowship meals in fellowship halls, since these love-feasts were approved activities for Christian fellowship?

Reply: Jude 12, the verse referred to in the question reads as follows: “These are they who are hidden rocks in your love-feasts when they feast with you. . . . ” This, the first part of the verse, is our concern, love-feasts.

What we know of love-feasts is provided by historians. The Scriptures only mention them, but they do not explain them. From men who have written about the love-feasts (agapais), we are told that they consisted of the sharing of good by the wealthier with the poorer as a means of charity.

Some hold to the view that it was a love-feast which preceded the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 1:17-22) and that it had divine approval. There is no evidence, however, that the feast in the Corinthian passage is identified as the love-feast mentioned in Jude 12. It is in order to note that Paul asked the Corinthian brethren, “What, have ye not houses to eat and drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and put them to shame that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you?” (1 Cor. 11:22) This question is significant to our study. It is obvious that this meal (whatever it was) was to be eaten in their houses, not where the Lord’s Supper was to be observed. It was customary in heathen festivals for each one to bring his own food. Some of these Corinthians had been pagans and it is possible that they were engaged in some kind of heathen feast. Some contend that the Corinthians had made a common meal out of the Lord’s Supper and thus had corrupted it. In either case, a common meal was not to be a part of the Lord’s Supper, nor was it in any way to be connected with it. We do know that whether they ate a meal before the Lord’s Supper, or whether they had made a common meal out of the Lord’s Supper, it made it impossible for them to eat the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:20). In contrast to the meal they had eaten (in which one was hungry and another was drunk), the Lord’s Supper is to be shared jointly by all Christians.

That Christians shared in common meals at home, we do not deny (Acts 2:46), but there is no scriptural proof that they were church sponsored. The only meal which is to be provided by the church for Christians is the Lord’s Supper. It is joint participation, fellowship (Gr. koinonia), as Christians assemble together to commemorate their Lord’s death and proclaim His future coming (1 Cor. 11:23-26).

From what we learn about love-feasts in secular history, they were provided by individuals and were for charitable reasons. The rich provided for the poor. These feasts, as mentioned in Jude 12, do not in any way justify church-sponsored socials or fellowship halls for feasting. Such practices are contrary to the primary work of the church, which is to preach the gospel (1 Tim. 3:14,15). We must always be careful to distinguish what the Scriptures authorize the church to do from what they authorize individuals to do.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 18, p. 549
September 19, 1985

By Larry Ray Hafley

The article below appeared in the “Commercial Appeal,” Memphis, TN, August 5, 1985.

A sheriff was bitten by a poisonous snake yesterday as he tried to break up a religious service in which a preacher’s son held up 10 snakes as a display of his faith, authorities said.

Sheriff Jack Arrington was admitted to Haywood County Hospital, where he was in stable condition with a snake bite to the thumb, said hospital spokesman Joan Mackey.

Charles Prince was charged with two counts of handling reptiles of a poisonous nature and one count of resisting and delaying officers, the police said. U.G. Prince later said he was sorry Arrington was bitten, but called the accident a “sign of the Lord.”

Since when was an accidental snakebite a “sign of the Lord”? The apostle Paul was evidently accidentally bitten, but the bite was not a miracle. The fact that he, unlike the sheriff, suffered no harm was a “sign of the Lord,” a miracle (Acts 28:3-6).

Now, of course, the Pentecostals may claim that they were not bitten, but the sheriff was. Well, that is not a miracle, either. That is just a simple case of a snake doing what snakes do.

Incidentally and ironically, the passage snake handlers rely on, Mark 16:17, 18, is the same Scripture which says, “They shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.” Why did not Mr. Prince perform that “sign of the Lord”? If he insisted on “handling reptiles” “as a display of his faith,” why not “lay hands on the sick” sheriff “as a display of his faith,” and as a “sign of the Lord”? The Pentecostals did not, yea could not heal him. Some sign.

Mr. Prince contradicts himself — “he was sorry Arrington was bitten,” but called the accident a “sign of the Lord.” Why, pray tell, be sorry for an alleged “sign of the Lord”? If the sheriff was wrong, if he was opposing the Bible, if he was denying and depriving the Pentecostals of their right to obey God (as I am sure they would all say he was), why be sorry? If a man did all that, he should have been bitten’ Or, if that is too harsh, the snake should have at least looked at the sheriff real mean and stuck out his tongue at him. Instead, he chose to gnash on him with his teeth.

But if Sheriff Arrington did all that, he was obviously “demon possessed.” (Would Pentecostals deny that he was?) And if he was, why did they not further obey Mark 16:17 by casting out Mr. Arrington’s demons? After all, the text says, “In my name shall they cast out devils.”

The Pentecostals miserably failed in every respect. The poor Sheriff had a sorry time, too. But the snake won the day-even if he did bite the wrong person!

Addendum To “Sign Of The Lord”

After the article above was prepared for publication, the following notice appeared in the Peoria Journal Star, August 20, 1985. Read it and weep.

Snake Bite Kills Man

A snake handler who defied the law in neighboring North Carolina by conducting religious services with poisonous reptiles died Monday from a rattlesnake bite to the thumb, authorities said.

Charles Prince, 45, was bitten at a religious service here Saturday night at the Apostolic Church of God and refused medical treatment, said Greene County Sheriff Gail Colyer.

Prince, of Canton, N.C., died at the home of Carl Reed of Limestone, Colyer said.

Prince was arrested Aug. 4 in Haywood County N.C., and charged with handling poisonous reptiles after Haywood County Sheriff Jack Arrington was bitten on the hand by a rattler.

It gives me no pleasure to report such things. Any man’s death diminishes me. “I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked” (Ezek. 33:11). However, it gives me even less pleasure to see men like Mr. Prince deceive the hearts of the simple.

Mr. Prince was consistent. He claimed the miracles of Mark 16:17,18 applied to him. In this, he was unlike Oral Roberts, Ernest Angley, and lesser known Pentecostals like Robert-Bayer, Raymond E. Parnell, G.T. Sharp and Hulon Myre. They claim “tongues and healing,” but wisely sidestep drinking “any deadly thing” and the taking “up” of “serpents.” They are inconsistent but alive. Mr. Prince was consistent. He is dead.

How Can We Distinguish?

Sharp, Myre, Bayer and Parnell make the same arguments for their position as did the late Mr. Prince. They give the same “testimony” and “witness.” They are just smart enough to know where to draw the line. They are alive. Mr. Prince went to the end of the line. He is dead.

How can we distinguish between the claims of Prince and Parnell? What is the difference between their “signs” and those of a pagan witch doctor? Catholics, Mormons, Pagan Witch Doctors and Pentecostals like Prince, Sharp, Parnell, Bayer and Myre all have claimed miracles by the power of the Spirit. What shows that the Pentecostal miracles are genuine but that those of the Mormons are false? Obviously, there is one difference between Prince and Parnell. Parnell, Bayer, Myre and Sharp refuse to “demonstrate” their faith in the power of the Holy Spirit. Mr. Prince demonstrated his faith. They are alive. He is dead. “He being dead yet speaketh. “

Note the following chart:

What Is The Difference Between “Miracles” Of Mormons, Catholics, Pagans and Pentecostals?

Each One:

1. Claims to have worked miracles.

2. Cites cases of miracles.

3. Says, “Accept my testimony.”

4. Refuses to demonstrate power.

5. Uses excuses for failure.

Difference Between True and False Miracles Obvious In The Bible

1. Moses vs. Magicians – Ex. 7

2. Elijah vs. Baal – 1 Kings 18

3. Philip vs. Simon – Acts 8:9-11

4. Apostles vs. Jews – Acts 4:16; 19:13-17

5. Pentecostals vs. Mormons – ??

What Now?

Brethren, what shall we do? Shall we wink and smile at error and its proponents? Shall we ignore their specious arguments and pious superstition and keep ourselves “above such tripe”? Shall we allow them to continue to swallow up the souls of men with their spiritual quackery and not raise one verse of Scripture in protest?

Elijah “mocked” the prophets of Baal (I Kgs. 18). He chided and derided their fraudulent claims with caustic contempt and scorching, searing sarcasm. The weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but neither are they ineffectual (2 Cor. 10:3-5). We must not strive, but be gentle unto all men (2 Tim. 2:24). Some, however, must be met “with all boldness.” It is not pleasant. It is not fun. But seeing souls deluded and damned forever is neither pleasant nor funny. Our course, therefore, must be set, fixed, determined. We must use tact and judgment — “be wise as serpents, harmless as doves.” Only by a constant warfare of speaking the truth in love can we prevent more losses like that of the lamented Mr. Prince. If you have a better solution, we would like to hear it.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 18, pp. 554-555
September 19, 1985