Truth Magazine

By Olen Holderby

We begin with the question  What is Jesus Christ to your soul, right now? I do not ask what he was to your soul; nor did I ask what he going to be to your soul. I did ask  What is he to your soul now?

Some can happily answer, “He is all the world to me!” Others, to be honest, will be forced to say, “He is nothing to me.” There may be some who would say, “I do not really know.” Which is it with you? Whatever may be your answer, the Bible plainly reveals what he must be to the human soul. Let us notice some of that information.

Jesus can be the Savior to your soul (Matt. 1:21). This is said of no other person; there is salvation is no other name than his (Acts 4:11-12). He is not your Savior simply because he is willing to be; nor is he your Savior because he is able to be. He is your Savior when you answer his call (2 Thess. 2:14), when you respond to his invitation (Matt. 11:28ff), and when you obey his will (Heb. 5:8-9).

Jesus can be your deliverer, the giver of victory (1 Cor. 15:57). That deliverance is “according to the will of God” (Gal. 1:4); and, that deliverance is unto redemption (Eph. 1:7).

Jesus is to be the way for each of his followers (John 14:6). This is not merely a route which you take, but it is a way of life, a walk for each one. “He that saith he abideth in him ought himself to walk, even as he walked” (1 John 2:6). Jesus is this way by virtue of his example (Phil. 2:5); and, by virtue of his authority (Matt. 28:18; Jas. 4;12). “And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?” (Luke 6:46).

Jesus can be your permanent guest, “That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith…” (Eph. 3:17). That word “dwell” cannot be just a visit, but means, “To inhabit as one’s abode,” a home in the heart. This is accomplished through faith; and faith comes by hearing God’s word (Rom. 10:17). Paul said, “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly…” (Col. 3:16). So, as we fill our hearts with more and more of his precious word, his abode therein is more secure. Do we really need 2 Timothy 2:15 to tell us that?

Also, Jesus can be your peace. Any who do not desire peace is somewhat less than normal. As we worry about nothing and cast all our care upon him, “The peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus” (Phil. 4:6-7; 1 Pet. 5:7). He was/is peace between Jew and Gentile (Eph. 2:14); and he can be peace in the heart, if he is welcomed there.

Jesus can be all these and more to your soul. If he means anything less to your soul, you need to reexamine the road which you have taken. What is he to your soul right now? If he does not mean everything to you in this life, he will mean nothing to you in eternity. Work on it, for it is your soul (Matt. 6:21).

Jesus Christ And Human Needs

We must remember that it was God that created man (Gen. 1), and that he well knows the needs of man (Rom. 9:20). When Jesus came into this world, the needs of the world were not so much physical or material, but were spiritual and moral. “Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for the meat which endureth unto everlasting life …” (John 6:27). What were/are some of those needs of man; and, how does Jesus fulfill those needs?

The foremost need of man is that he know God. We are urged to seek him (Acts 17:16-31). When Jesus came into this world both Jew and Gentile were ignorant of God (Rom. 1:18-32; 10:1-3). This ignorance had pushed man into extremely sinful conditions; all men needed a revelation from God, a revelation which they could see and understand. Jesus claimed to be this revelation (John 14:7-11); and, all the attributes of God were summed up in him (Col. 2:9). Nothing was missing; the words he spoke and the works which he did were revealing God to man: his love, his compassion, his hatred of sin, and his desire to have man back in his company once more. All of these are recorded that we might believe he was who he claimed to be (John 20:30-31). Jesus fully meets this need of man to know God  if man would only get the message and follow the example!

Man also needed a way to come to the Father, and Jesus fully met this need (John 14:6). We discussed this point some in the previous section, but we add that his life was a perfect depiction of life with God, showing to man the life necessary for him to come to the Father. So, Jesus fully met this need of man.

Another need of man is a Savior from sin; our previous section has also noticed this. Jewish law could not provide this (Gal. 2:16); and, Gentile philosophy had left them destitute of God (Eph. 2:12). So, the “lamb of God” was to be sacrificed for sins of the whole world, not Jews only (John 1:29).

..if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins” (John 8:24). So, this salvation from sin is not unconditional; there are terms to be met (Acts 2:38; 8:22; 1 John 1:7). Jesus has, then, met this need of man.

Man had need of spiritual and moral light. Could Jesus meet this need of man? “Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path,” and “The entrance of your words gives light. It gives understanding to the simple” (Ps. 119:105, 130). Jesus claimed to be the water of life (John 4:10-14), the bread of life (John 6:31-35), and the true vine (John 15:lff). Jesus would be light and understanding to all that looked to him; and, his word would be the instrument and understanding through which that light and understanding could be had.

Man also has the need for a leader and protector (Jer. 10:23). Jesus was king, though of a different realm (John 18:37); He is called “King of kings” (1 Tim. 6:15). He is head of the church (Eph. 5:23); and with all authority (Matt. 28:18).

This takes care of the leadership; but Jesus would, also, be the Protector of man. He is said to be the “Good Shepherd” (John 10:11-14, 27-30), and this fact suggests the protection man needed. So, Jesus fully meets this need of man.

Man also needed to have assurance that he could and would live after this life. This appears to be the universal desire of man. Jesus made some promises to man on this matter (John 6:39, 40). Could he do this? When he went down into the grave, then came forth there from, he proved his capability to do so (Luke 24:5-8). Apart from him there is only death and despair; the real Christian’s hope is some-thing better (1 Cor. 15:19, 20, 22, 23). Man now has the proof that he will live again; Christ has once more met the needs of man, fully and finally.

Has Jesus met all your needs? Why not? How sad the man who rejects the instructions of the Son of God; or, who will continue to postpone his acceptance until it is too late. Our relationship to him involves all these things. As one has said, “Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.”

Guardian of Truth XLI: 16 p. 3-4
August 21, 1997

By Frank Jamerson

When brethren are confused about whether Christ came to fulfill the law and prophets or to perpetuate them, it is time to get back to basics! Some are teaching that “Continuity of law is evident in Matthew 5:17,” and Jesus did not “dismantle the law and give a new one,” He only “took away the ceremonial aspects of the law.” My affirmation is that Jesus fulfilled the promises, the prophecies and the law, and all of it passed away. We can please God only by following the New Covenant revealed through Christ and ratified by his blood.

The Law and The Prophets

“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one title will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5:17-19).

Most of the material in this article is taken from a book written by James D. Bales in 1973, entitled: “Christ: The Fulfillment of The Law And The Prophets.” (It is out of print now. All quotations will be from this source.) When Jesus said he came “to fulfill the Law,” was he talking about the “moral law,” the “ceremonial law,” or all the Law? Those who contend that he came just to fulfill the “ceremonial law” have a problem with the context, for the next verses talk about murder, anger, lust, adultery, divorce, telling the truth, resisting evil, and loving your enemies (Matt. 5:21-48). Jesus also said that he came to “fulfill the Prophets.” Was he referring to some of the prophets, or all of them?

John said, “For the law was given through Moses” (John 1:17), and Paul said that the law given “four hundred and thirty years” after the promise was intended to last “till the seed should come” (Gal. 3:17, 19). Did God mean to say that “the ceremonial law was given till the seed should come”? Whatever Jesus affirmed about the Law, he also affirmed about the prophets in Matthew 5. If he meant that he would perpetuate the Law, it must also mean that he would perpetuate the prophets. Whatever “fulfillment” did for one it did for the other! (Jesus used the expression “law and prophets” to include the whole Old Testament system (Matt. 7:12; 22:40). The Hebrew writer said God “spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets” but “has in these last days spoken to us by His Son” (Deb. 1:1, 2). We are not to “hear” Moses or the prophets, but the Son of God!

Fulfill, Not Destroy

What is the difference between destroying and fulfilling? God told Moses he would “raise up for them a Prophet like you” (Deut. 18:18). When Jesus came, did he destroy that prophecy or fulfill it (Acts 3:22, 23)? Zechariah said that Jesus would rule both as a priest and a king on his throne (Zech. 6:13). When Jesus came, did he fulfill that prophecy, or destroy it? When the prophecies were fulfilled, what happened to them? “When one says that we are no longer under the law and the prophets, he is not saying that Jesus destroyed them by perpetuating them, but rather that he brought them to an end by fulfilling them” (20). “Christ did not come to annul the purpose of the law and the prophets. He did not bring them to naught by failing to fulfill them. He did not abolish them in the sense that one abolishes a promise by refusing to fulfill it. But he did bring the law and the prophets to an end by fulfilling them…. If Christ perpetuated one part of the law, he perpetuated all of the law, since none was to pass until all was fulfilled” (23, 24).

But, what about the prohibition against “breaking one of the least commandments” (Matt. 5:19)? First, would one of “the least” be moral or ceremonial? Jesus had just said that “one jot or one title will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled” (v. 18). Second, was Jesus saying that even the least commandments would continue after the law was fulfilled? No, he was saying that those who have the disposition, under either law, to ignore “the least commandments” do not have the right attitude toward God’s word. Paul said, “But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets” (Rom. 3:21). Just as surely as righteousness is through faith in Christ, the law and the prophets accomplished theft purpose, and though they have historical value, they “passed away.”

Moral and Ceremonial Law?

It is certainly true that some of God’s laws deal with moral conduct and others with ceremonial actions, but does the Bible teach that the ceremonial law passed away but the moral law remained? Look at a few verses in Romans and ask, “Which law is under discussion?” “For the Gen-tiles, who do not have the law …. (2:14). Is this moral or ceremonial law? The Jews “rested in the law” and had the advantage over Gentiles “because to them were committed the oracles of God” (2:17; 3:1, 2). Was it only the ceremonial law that gave the Jews advantage? Those who had received the law became “dead to the law through the body of Christ” (7:4). Now, “we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by …” (v. 6). Again, was this just the ceremonial law which had held them and to which they died? If so, why did Paul say, “I would have not known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, You shall not covet” (v. 7). His illustration of law is one of the Ten Commandments (Exod. 20:17)!

Let’s take a brief look at the book of Galatians. “Man is not justified by the works of the law . . . for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified” (2:16). Which law does Paul mean? Was flesh justified by the moral law but not by the ceremonial? “Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?” (3:2). Did they receive the Spirit by the moral law, but not the ceremonial? “For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse . . . But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for the just shall live by faith” (vv. 10, 11). Again, did the Galatians live by the moral law given through Moses? “For if the inheritance is of the law, it is no longer of promise” (v.18). Was the inheritance by the moral, but not the ceremonial law? “What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator” (v. 19). Was it just the ceremonial law that was given through angels by the hand of a mediator? “Before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law” (v. 23). Again, which law? (Romans 7:6, 7 identifies the law under which they had been “held” as the one that forbad coveting!) “There-fore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ . . . but after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor” (vv. 23-25). Unless the law is “the faith which would afterward be revealed,” we are not under it!

Notice one passage in Hebrews. “Anyone who rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses” (Heb. 10:28). Does Moses’ law include the moral law? (See Num. 35:30; Deut. 17:1-6.) The writer, in this context, contrasts Moses’ law with trampling “the Son of God underfoot,” and counting “the blood of the covenant” by which we are sanctified a common thing (Heb. 10:29). No, we are not under the law of Moses, either the moral or ceremonial part, but under the covenant that was dedicated by the blood of Jesus Christ (Heb. 9:16-18). (Take your concordance and read every use of “law” in Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews and ask the question  Is it moral or ceremonial? This will show the folly of the “one covenant” theorists who claim that them are “two laws” [moral and ceremonial]).

James Bales concluded: “Where is the moral law found revealed in its fullness? It is found in Christ, in the New Covenant. We do not have the authority to go to the Old Testament, select something which we would like to be an eternal principle (which he calls moral law), and bind it on God’s people today. We cannot know that it is an eternal principle unless it is also found in the New Testament” (69). This harmonizes with the Hebrew writer’s contrast between the things “spoken through angels” (cp. Gal. 3:19) and the things that “fast began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard him” (Heb. 2:2, 3).

Those who deny that the whole law passed away have the impossible task of determining which of the Old Testament laws to bring over. Is the prohibition against eating blood (Lev. 17:10, 11), moral or ceremonial? (Some who believe the moral laws of Moses are binding are teaching that prohibition against eating blood was removed, so it must be “ceremonial”!) Is giving your wife a certificate of divorce and sending her away (Deut. 24:1-4), moral or ceremonial? (Some advocates of an unchanging moral law contend that this is still God’s law; others say it is not so!) God gave David his “master’s wives” (2 Sam. 12:8). Is polygamy moral or ceremonial? (One advocate of this theory says he does not know.) What about concubines (2 Sam. 5:13)? What about a brother taking his deceased brother’s wife (Deut. 25:5)? Is this part of the moral or the ceremonial law? Was it moral for Ezra to tell God’s people to put away their wives that they did not have a right to marry (Ezra 10:3, 4), or is this part of the ceremonial law that has been taken away? Must we examine every law in the Old Testament and agree on whether it is moral or ceremonial before we know what we should do under the law of Christ? Such is unscriptural and impossible!

Conclusion

The blood of Christ did not ratify the promise to Abraham. It was in effect for two thousand years before it was fulfilled. The blood of Christ did not ratify the First Covenant. It was ratified by the blood of animals (Exod. 24:7, 8; Heb. 9:19), was fulfilled and passed away. Every time we observe the Lord’s supper, we are reminded, “this cup is the new covenant in My blood” (1 Cor. 11:25). “The fact that there are similar principles in both Covenants, does not mean that we obey these because they are in the law of Moses … Moses was inspired of God to reveal the Old Covenant to Israel, but God speaks to us today through his Son (Heb. 1:1, 2). We obey these principles not because they are in the law of Moses, but because God has placed them in the NEW Covenant” (74). Amen!

Guardian of Truth XLI: 16 p. 6-8
August 21, 1997

By Donald F. Willis

4902 Corian Well Way, San Antonio, Texas 78247-5903

Willis children were blessed to have been born into this very special family. O. J. Willis (Dad) spent his entire working life in the forest of East Texas. Wilhelmina Willis (Mom) was a child bride (15 years old), and spent her life with we children, nurturing us in the ways of God! Dad is 89 this month (June 20, 1997); and Mom is 81 (February 25, 1997). Eight children were born to this union: Homer Cecil, Donald Fred, Lewis Berton, Ouida Jean (Stover), Karen Sue (Morris), Steven Michael, and Barbara Madge (Coleman).

Cecil Willis was born March 4, 1932; I was born February 9, 1934. Most of our life was spent almost as twins, for we were about the same size throughout our schooling. I received the hand-me-downs. So many are the wonderful adventures that children experience. Cecil was daring, ambitious, challenging. We fought a lot (that is the way boys grow). When Mom would make us quit fighting, we would be punished. I always enjoyed it when she made us kiss, for nothing hurt Cecil worse than to have to kiss a brother!

Cecil enjoyed winning! He was an outstanding student in Groveton High School, cheerleader for two years, and then went on to play football, distinguishing himself as All District End. Coach Uthoff used Cecil as a challenge to incoming football boys for several years. In 1989, Cecil was recognized as an Outstanding Alumni in Groveton. Florida College years ago gave Cecil a plaque of appreciation in his assistance of students. Cecil said, “I want to show this to you one time, then I am going to put it away out of sight.” He accomplished, but was very humble about human recognition.

In the summer of 1944, Ned Fairbarin labored with the church in Trinity, Texas. Groveton did not have a preacher. Brother Fairbarin came every Thursday to teach ladies class. Mom attended . . . but, so did her children: Cecil (12), Don (10), Lewis (5). Brother Fairbarin had Cecil and I start making little talks on the plan of salvation, the church, the worship, etc. August 17, 1944 we were baptized by brother Fairbarin in the Beaver Pond in Woodlake.

When in the tenth grade, Basil Doran (outstanding singer in the Houston area) conducted a meeting in Groveton and encouraged Cecil to go to Abilene for the summer training as a song leader. Bill Thompson later moved to Groveton to preach, and encouraged him to attend Florida Christian College in 1949. Thompson was impressed that James Cope and Clinton Hamilton were moving to labor with the school. Brother King of Tyler assisted Cecil to attend Florida Christian College. Cecil was an outstanding student, preacher, debater, athlete. Cecil graduated with his Bachelor’s degree in 1953; I graduated that same year with the Associate of Arts degree. We were together, and had a close bond. Cecil had married Ioma Crim, and they had one son prior to graduation: Steve Willis. It was sort of unique to graduate from college alongside your older brother.

Cecil moved to Indianapolis, Indiana following Earle West at the Irvington church. The institutional church fight was beginning. Cecil took a strong stand, and had quite a lot of influence in the area. I moved to Palatka, Florida and later to Houston. My greatest encouragement came from Cecil, as he delighted to encourage and assist young preachers. He sent books, exchanged sermon topics, and was always encouraging me. Later, Cecil moved to Vivion Road (Kansas City), then Brown Street (Akron), and Marion, Indiana. Cecil gave his life to the Lord! Cecil traveled the country preaching the gospel. He assumed the debt of Truth Magazine, and published it for years. But, he was also married, and now had four children. Family differences arose, and ultimately a separation. As his health deteriorated, Cecil moved to Conroe, Texas where I then preached. He twice had pancreas surgery. His health was terrible. We “nursed” him for about four years. He preached in Huntsville, Texas. With a second marriage, Cecil began work for the prison system.

Cecil finally realized that his marriage was unscriptural and divorced. He moved to Fairbanks, Alaska to preach and get himself back together spiritually. Two years later he moved back to Groveton, where he preached and began care of Mom and Dad for eight difficult years. I was still in Conroe, and we spent a lot of time together.

Cecil always was studious and had a tremendous remembrance of issues and statements. One could call him on almost any subject, and he would tell you a book that dealt with that issue and about the page you could find that information discussed. He was always ready to assist one on most any issue.

Cecil was benevolent. He enjoyed carrying a lot of money around with him, and he was very generous to those who had any need. Several could bear better testimony than could I.

Cecil was evangelistic. He conducted many meetings. He made two trips to the Philippines. He financed the purchase of Vacation Bible School materials in the Philippines, often securing older song books and mailing them. He sup-ported preachers, he published a paper in the Philippines. There was work he was doing while others wondered what to do!

Cecil honored his father and mother. He gave many years of his life to enable Dad and Mom to remain at the old home place. He stocked a pond near the house so Dad and Mom (and many of the family) could fish. The needs for his parents were ascertained, and all the children attempted to satisfy those needs; but, Cecil cared for them lovingly … until he almost wore out. Now, my sister Ouida and her husband (Billy Stover) have assumed the arduous responsibility.

One funny. Dad never took vacations! However, once he took all of us to Oklahoma City to visit kin. Cecil and I were young, very young. Dad purchased us lariat ropes and a chalk pig. I recall the pictures. We had a lot of fun with the ropes, playing cowboys and Indians, tying one an-other up (I have the scar). We lived in Carmona, Texas. There was a vacant lot between our company house and our neighbor (later he was our principal). We came home and found some wild hogs in the vacant lot. Cecil decided we ought to rope a pig. We chased and chased; but could not get the rope on any. Cecil told me (little brother) to go to the other side of the lot and drive the hogs back around our lot. Cecil got on top our picket fence at the corner, made a large loop and put it on the ground. To be sure that he would catch the pig, he tied the rope around his waist. When I drove the pigs through, Cecil pulled his rope and got the mama sow, or better, she got him. Immediately she pulled him off the fence and down the road. Every now and then, she would slow up, and he could get up and run. Neither of us recall how he ever got loose. Cecil loved to tell those stories.

Oh, how he will be missed!

Guardian of Truth XLI: 15 p. 13-14
August 7, 1997

By O. C. Birdwell

Before Cecil Willis was thirty years of age, he became editor of a widely distributed and highly respected religious journal called Truth Magazine. He knew what it meant to him to have the support of men like Luther Blackmon, Roy Cogdill, and a host of other older preachers. The encouragement and help they gave him, he tried to pass on to others, and especially to young preachers.

If my information is correct, in 1966, Cecil was given “The Friend of Youth” award by Florida College. His interest in and work with young people, especially young preachers, was not unnoticed. His primary interest in FC was the opportunity the school gave young men to study Bible and related subjects and to develop their skills as proclaimers of the gospel.

As editor of Truth Magazine, Cecil constantly encouraged young preachers to submit articles for publication in the paper. In the November 7, 1974, issue he announced a host of young staff writers. He gave them opportunity to teach multitudes and to be known by brethren throughout the world. Jerry McDaniel, Cecil’s good friend of Kansas City, reported that he and Cecil counted over one hundred men Cecil had influenced to begin preaching. I could take pages to discuss the many recommendations to churches on behalf of gospel preachers, hours of phone calls, thousands of letters, and much travel to assist preachers with doctrinal controversies or with local church problems. He loved the truth and loved preachers who taught the truth. He was instrumental in teaching many preachers the truth on institutionalism and encouraging them to stand. He was, indeed, a friend to preachers.

From 1959 I had a close personal friendship with Cecil that did more for my work as a gospel preacher than any other one thing. He contacted me and said the elders at Brown Street in Akron wanted me to speak on “The Mission of the Church” during their ten day meeting with different speakers. I was preaching on a lecture program with Frank Puckett, George Lemasters, and several other outstanding gospel preachers of that time. If I were out of place with such preachers, and I probably was, Cecil did not let me know it, but instead he commended my sermon and expressed sincere and warm appreciation for my efforts in discussing my subject. I later worked with churches in Kansas City, Missouri and Barberton, Ohio prima-rily because of his recommendation. Cecil was a friend to this preacher.

A Personal Letter From Cecil

The following letter is a very personal one, and I would never make it public except to let people see a side of Cecil that many did not know. Even Ann, one of Cecil’s daughters, ex-pressed to me a desire to have a copy of the letter because she felt there was a part of her father that she did not know. The letter was written when our son Gary, at nineteen years of age, was killed in a work accident.

June 5, 1972

Dear O. C. and Frances and Family,

Every since I received word early yesterday morning about the death of Gary, you have been constantly upon my mind and many times mentioned in my prayers. Sympathy, as I understand it, is entering into the feeling of another. I certainly have, so far as I am able, shared the bur-den of your grief in these recent hours. I think the fact that I have two boys so near the age of Gary has made me feel like I could better understand the burden of your grief.

I am sorry that I could not say more to you yesterday by way of expression of my feelings, but my feelings and emotions were such that I could hardly say anything at all. Perhaps had I borne your sorrow with you since Thursday night I would then have been better able to express myself.

Like George Lemasters said, I felt honored that you thought you would like for me to have some part in Gary’s service. O.C., I knew that I could not say what I really felt in my heart on that occasion, so I thought it best that I read Scripture and lead a prayer. My heart ached until I could not have said more, at the time. Through the years of our work together, particularly through our nearly daily contact in Akron, I came to love you two and your family. The thing that hurts me most about funerals is to witness the grief of people whom I love. I think I know enough about what the Bible teaches that I can stifle pretty well my grief at the passing of nearly anyone, but I have never learned to control the emotion I feel when I see people whom I love so crushed.

Both of you, as well as your entire family, certainly earned by highest esteem by the noble way that you bore your heavy sorrow. I sat and marveled at your composure. I know that I could not have done one-tenth as well. Perhaps by then, you had exhausted the means to express your grief further. I admire both of you so, as you sat there and were able to enter into the singing of those touching and meaningful songs. I was amazed as you so resolutely could sing, “Be not dismayed what ere betide, God will take care of you,” even as we proceeded out of the church building with Gary’s body being borne immediately in front of you. I am certain that your composed and faithful demeanor are bound to have had a salutary effect upon everyone present. During such a time, one’s faith is being severely tested, and you really showed you could apply, in a most difficult time, the Faith which you have preached.

I called home immediately after services last night to report the tragedy to Ioma and my children. Steve was not at home, but I know he will be terribly distraught when he learns of the accident. Ioma certainly joins with me in sending her sincerest consolations. I am sorry that I could not continue with you to the cemetery. I so much wanted to do so, and would like to have been able to spend some time with you afterward. However, I imagine by that time you were about worn out with people, and needed to be alone. We only got back eight minutes before time for services.

An incident like this is one that you really never get over. There is no point in kidding ourselves about that. There will be a certain blight over your life for the remainder of your days. Probably the experience will so affect your heart that you will be able to reach out to people in a way that you never quite could do so before. I believe that a lot of brethren have severely misapplied Romans 8:28 and try to make what-ever occurs as “good” whereas Paul specifically was talking about suffering for Christ being for our good. Such an accident is one of the misfortunes of life. I know you had such high hopes for Gary and the usage he would make of his life. No doubt in my mind, he would have followed in your steps and preached the gospel, which intention itself is a noble tribute to both of you. So many preachers have murmured and complained about their suffering as preachers until preaching is the last thing their sons would want to do.

My primary impression of Gary was that he was such a happy and cheerful boy. Whenever I saw him at Florida College, he always was smiling so, and appeared to have such a wholesome outlook on life. The large attendance of people, and particularly preachers, at the funeral service to me speaks volumes as to what brethren think of you and your life of service to God. This morning when I woke up, the first thing I thought is that I wish it were just a bad dream, and I know that such a thought must be what hits your mind every morning.

I wish so badly there were some how some way I could lift a part of your burden and bear it for you, but as we both know, there is no real way that such can be done. I can only weep with you as you weep. Beyond this we seem to be unable to go. There are apt to be days when the burden may tempt you to become bitter and cynical, but resist that temptation as much as possible.

The admirable way that you conducted yourself during the funeral service makes me even hesitate to mention that admonition. Perhaps I am only thinking as I might think, in similar circumstances.

Frankly, I nearly am glad that you were unable to get me to ask me to preach the funeral service, if that were your intention. Even that fact that you even once entertained such a thought makes me humble to know that you hold me in that esteem. George did such a beautiful job that I think it would have been unfortunate if you had gotten me and asked me to preach the funeral. I just could not have had the composure to deal with the personal matters that George so masterfully covered in his lovely speech. I would have had to have steeled myself to the occasion and merely preached a gospel sermon. My feelings would have been so wrapped up in yours that I could not have spoken as intimately as did George.

While the whole incident was crushing to me, both of you stood ten feet tall in my sight as you so nobly bore your grief. I am sure that in years to come, when I get where I can talk about the occasion, I will have occasion to use you as an ex-ample of what faith can do for persons. I shall continue to mention all of you very frequently in my prayers. I wish there were somehow some means wherebyI could vicariously bear some of your burden, but his I cannot do. However, be assured that I shall be mourning with you even as you mourn. Neither will I soon forget.

For months to come, I will so frequently pray for you, even as I know that hundreds of your brethren will be doing. Gary probably was too young to have begun to think of life as those of us who have reached maturity think of it. People often advise me to slow down, and tell me that my life could end so suddenly. The prospect of a shortened life does not dismay me or deter me in the least. I have no desire to live to be an old man. I would like to “check out” going full blast. To me, to do so would be no tragedy at all, but would be the answer of my specific prayers. I regret that what Gary could have accomplished with his life, some-one else will have to do. However, I doubt not that his passing will affect you and Johnny in such a way that you might yourselves redouble your efforts so as to accomplish what Gary might have accomplished had he lived.

Certainly this mutual loss will draw you and Frances, as well as your entire family, closer together. You now have something more in common. The passing of one so young is bound to have a beneficial effect upon everyone who seriously contemplates the incident. I grieve also for your other little ones who are so deeply hurt. I wish there were some way I could lift the weight of sorrow from young hearts. But all of you have inspired those of us who have witnessed the admirable way in which you stood up through an unbelievably trying experience. Even this occurrence has done us all good. I shall seek to imitate this honorable aspect of your faith. You have set a high goal before us who observed you struggling under a heavy load, and I shall not soon forget this wonderful example of faith.

Please pardon this reference to mundane matters, but I know that the accident and funeral services have subjected you to unexpected sizable expenses. Perhaps you had some kind of insurance that will enable you to meet the expense. But if for any reason, you are short of cash right now and need some money to meet these unexpected bills, I would count it an honor to be able to help you financially at this time. I think you know that most of us preachers do not have any backlog of cash, and neither do I. However, I would be most honored to secure for you a few hundred dollars which could be repaid whenever you wish to do so, if you need money at this time. I carry all my insurance on myself, so such an event in my family would severely press me. I would most gladly help you, to whatever degree is needed, in order to meet your bills and to pay them in full promptly. Please do not be bashful or embarrassed to take me up on this proposal. If I did not sincerely mean it, I would not propose it. Whatever you need, to the limit of my capability is at your immediate command.

If in the immediate days to come, there is any way that I can serve you, even if it is only by a brief visit with you to talk, please let me know, and I would be wonderfully happy to come on a moment’s notice, no matter if you do not think the get-together to be that important. Any thing that I can do to lighten your load right now to me is tremendously important, and I would be honored to serve you in any way!

Meanwhile, my tears shall mingle with yours until this short life shall end. I send my most fervent brotherly love and sympathetic concern to both of you and to your other dear ones. Perhaps I can only weep with you, but weep with you, I shall! I send to you my tenderest emotions and highest admiration. Please use me in any way that I can render any service to you and yours.

Brotherly, Cecil

This letter is one of the many reasons that I have said, “Cecil was a friend to preachers.” It is also one of the many reasons I had a deep and abiding love for him. I thank God that I knew him.

Guardian of Truth XLI: 15 p. 10-12
August 7, 1997