Truth Magazine

By Connie W. Adams

In Grecian mythology Pandora was a woman given a box by Zeus from which all manner of human ills escaped when she opened it. The view taken by some well-known brethren in recent times concerning Romans 14 has become a modern-day Pandora’s box.

A vital passage designed to help strong and weak Christians get along until the weak can be taught better and thus become strong has been pressed into service to justify far too much. Carl Ketcherside, Edward Fudge and fellow travelers found it elastic enough to include instrumental music, sponsoring churches, premillennialism and a host of other false doctrines. Of more recent vintage, our brother Ed Harrell has found in it grounds for fellowship on marriage, divorce and remarriage (for causes other than fornication). Other highly respected brethren have joined in.

Now comes a sermon preached by a brother in Texas in which he listed 100 issues and practices which he claims would be resolved by a proper understanding and application of Romans 14. With much of his list I have no problem. But here are some of the things he listed which are a problem to me:

Abortion  Dancing  Girly Magazines  Evolution

Brewery Work  Horse Racing  Dance Bands

Square Dancing  Bartending  Social Drinking

“Low” neckline  Proms

Let’s see now, Paul said, “Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind” (Rom. 14:5). If I understand this brother correctly, then if one thinks it is all right to have an abortion, then she is at liberty before God to do so. Or if he wants to play in a dance band, work as a bartender, dance, promote evolution, or practice social drinking, then “let him be fully persuaded in his own mind.” It is interesting that this same brother who puts evolution in his list of 100 things which are regulated by Romans 14, has been well known for his special series on evolution. Will he now conclude such speeches by saying that God will be pleased with you whether you believe this or not and “let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind”?

When I read the 17 article series on “fellowship” and the use made of Romans 14 in that series, I warned then that there would be no stopping place short of the “unity in diversity” movement of Ketcherside and Fudge infamy.

Have you noticed that things which gospel preachers used to be able to clearly condemn have suddenly become “gray”? Those who still draw sharp and clear lines on these matters are disparagingly referred to as “those black and white guys.” This undermines the authority of the Scriptures. God revealed his mind in intelligible propositions which can be understood and acted upon by those fashioned in the image of God.

Of course, there is a realm in which private conscience must decide a host of things based on understanding of truth. There is room for growth. All have not grown to the same degree and there must be patience with each other. But will any of us grow to the point that God approves abortion on demand, or serving liquor, or wearing indecent apparel, or the God-dishonoring general theory of evolution? Are “girly magazines” in the realm of private scruple to which God is indifferent?

I do not believe that many of the brethren who have espoused this loose construction of Romans 14 would accept everything on this brother’s list. In fact, I am confident most of them would oppose this careless lumping together of things indifferent and those which have grave consequences. But I keep thinking about that box of Pandora. The lid is off. Brethren took it off to justify fellowship with those who teach that the alien sinner is not subject to the law of Christ and may therefore continue to live with a marriage companion in violation of Matthew 19:9. Or those who teach that the put-away adulterer is free to marry may be retained in fellowship. My brethren, Romans 14 was never intended as an excuse for every form of doctrinal and practical error.

Our situation is rapidly becoming analagous to those men in the institutional movement who opened the gate just enough to let church support of schools and benevolent institutions into the church budget and argued that we did not need Bible authority for all we do, or else misappropriated Scripture in a vain attempt to defend their cause. But now they have a rampaging stampede which they are powerless to stop. From the social gospel (in full bloom) to the new hermeneutic, they are dismayed at what came in through that gate. Now the hinges are off and the fence is down.

Brethren, will we ever learn? Older men may open the gate just a little out of personal friendship for esteemed brethren, cite Romans 14 as precedent and mean to stop there. But a younger generation will not stop there. They will pick up the erroneous conclusion and take it to the limit of false teaching and practice. When they are done with it, you will not recognize what is left. Already there is a noticeable aversion to controversial preaching, to debating teachers of error. Will Romans 14 become the dividing line? Will we polarize according to what we want to include in that noble chapter? At our house, we have a room in the basement which we call affectionately “the goat’s belly.” There we throw things we don’t know what else to do with until it gets too full and we have to make some disposition of them. These are the things of which yard sales are made. Now brethren, is that what we will do with Romans 14? Don’t know what to do about abortion? Just toss it in Romans 14. What about social drinking? Romans 14! Can’t decide about girly magazines or the theory of evolution? Romans 14! Come on folks, we can do better than that. And for the future welfare of the cause for which our Lord died, we had better do better than that.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 24, p. 3-4
December 15, 1994

By Kevin Campbell

Elsewhere in this issue of Guardian of Truth is an article by David Edwin Harrell, Jr., entitled “Some Practical Observations on the Middle-of-the-Road.” It is an article reprinted from the September 5, 1968 issue of The Gospel Guardian. I would encourage the reader to read brother Harrell’s article before proceeding in this article.

First of all, I would like to commend brother Harrell’s article. His assault on the “middle-of-the-road” approach to the institutional/liberal controversies of the ’50s and ’60s is commendable. As brother Harrell points out in his article, there were quite a few brethren back during that controversy who were attempting to ride the fence and stand in the “middle-of-the-road.” He plainly states that “the middle-of-the-roader is no friend to the Lord, or to those who insist on the absolute adherence to his Word.” Later in the same article, he said regarding the “middle-of-the-road” approach that “it is a position of error and it is a position that is here to stay.” That type of militancy against error is to be applauded for it is the only way to stifle the spread of the error.

Preachers of the gospel have a grave responsibility to “preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine” (2 Tim. 4:2). Often this involves controversy and the necessity of taking a stand which may or may not be popular. Warnings must be sounded against innovation and digression (Acts 20:31; Col. 1:28; Matt. 3:7). Often, however, when brethren faithfully warn against error, the cry will go up “Brotherhood watchdog!” The image is called to mind of a vicious, snarling and snapping beast, ready to rend and tear others to shreds. The truth of the matter is, preachers are to “watch (thou) in all things” (2 Tim. 4:5). Isaiah rebuked those of his day who refused to watch and called them “dumb dogs” that “cannot bark” (Isa. 56:10). One who derides the faithful evangelist who is doing his duty reveals a lack of understanding regarding the nature of the evangelist’s work.

Being a young preacher of 25 years of age, I have not personally witnessed many of the battles that brethren have fought against error. I am slowly becoming aware of the dangers posed by well-intentioned men who nevertheless open the door of digression. It is for this reason that I am thankful that brethren like Ed Harrell took the unpopular stand years ago against the institutional error. The firm, uncompromising line that he and others held helped rescue many from the snare of the devil. Some-times it is easy for young men like myself to disregard and disrespect the sacrifice that men of an older generation made for the truth. At the same time, those of us who are younger must realize that we may be called upon to make similar sacrifices and to take similar stands today to ensure sound and faithful churches for the next generation. I must also guard against the possibility that as I get older, I may lose my militancy and zeal for the truth and become concerned with defending brethren who teach error because of our past association. Paul said that we are “not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another” (1 Cor. 4:6). As evangelists, our aim should be to uphold that truth at all costs.

Sadly, I have watched over the past five years as a great controversy has been brewing regarding the subject of marriage, divorce and remarriage. I really do not think that the fact that there would be a controversy has surprised anyone. As divorce has rapidly increased in the world, brethren have realized that the matter would have to be dealt with more and more. This is because of two factors. First of all, divorce and remarriage have gained wider acceptance in the world. Secondly, a few brethren through the years have held erroneous views on the subject contrary to Matthew 5:32 and 19:9. These combined elements have increased the spread of false doctrine regarding marriage, divorce and remarriage. Therefore the issues have demanded greater attention and false views have received increased opposition. Thus we now find ourselves involved in controversy once again. What will be the outcome? Already churches are dividing over these issues, and brothers and sisters in Christ are being alienated from one another. The only solution to the problem is to “hold fast the form of sound words . . . in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 1:13).

Today we again find division occurring just as it did in the institutional controversy. Some brethren are openly advocating and promoting false doctrines on marriage, divorce and remarriage. Others are just as adamant in trying to stem the tide of digression by striking out at the error wherever it appears. Sadly, we find another group advocating a “unity-in-diversity” based on a false application of Romans 14. Ironically, this concept was fostered by Ed Harrell in the pages of Christianity Magazine beginning almost five years ago. Tragically, those that are teaching the error are receiving some unintentional encouragement from those who are advocating the “unity-in-diversity” concept based upon a perversion of Romans 14.

As brother Harrell pointed out in his article “Some Practical Observations on the Middle-of-the-road” (Gospel Guardian, Sept. 5, 1968, pp. 273-278), the same thing occurred in the institutional division of the 1950s and ’60s. Liberal brethren were advocating that human institutions be employed to do the work of the church while others were attempting to stop the flood of digression at every opportunity. A third group however, that brother Harrell referred to as the “middle-of-the-road brethren,” contended for acceptance of the practices on the grounds of expediency and unity-in-diversity. Many of the middle-of-the-road brethren were never “committed to the principles underlying innovation” (Harrell, p. 273) but still advocated unity with those who were committed to the invocation. Today we see that history is repeating itself; this time with the issues involved in marriage, divorce, and remarriage. Men today who do not believe the error involved in the divorce and remarriage controversy are attempting to hold the middle ground and extend fellowship to those who are promoting the false teaching. This is precisely the same approach that brother Harrell has advocated in the current controversy although he condemned that very method in the institutional division.

When I first came across the article by brother Harrell from The Gospel Guardian, I was amazed at the apparent discrepancy in his approach to the two controversies. I believe brother Harrell would contend that the two matters are different in the underlying causes. In fact, he wrote in the August 2, 1990 issue of The Guardian of Truth that he was disturbed “that many who espoused this new idea on fellowship (regarding marriage, divorce and remarriage) equated all disagreement with the institutional division of the 1950s. Such simplistic notions, I believe, reveal a troubling misunderstanding of the institutional division.” Brother Harrell seems to imply by this statement, as well as other quotations from his tract Emergence of the “Church of Christ” Denomination, that the institutional division was not primarily over theological differences but more over sociological differences. One quotation from his article in The Gospel Guardian however hits the nail on the head regarding the reason for the division. About three-quarters of the way through the article he says, “The division is doctrinal; we practice being a Christian in different ways.” To borrow a Catholic expression, “Bingo!” Just as brethren back then were violating the doctrine of Christ by introducing organizational innovations unknown to the New Testament, brethren today are advancing concepts of marriage, divorce and remarriage that are equally unknown to the New Testament. The present controversy, to use brother Harrell’s own words, “is a doctrinal” controversy.

There is one major difference between the institutional division and the present conflict: time. At the time that brother Harrell wrote his article, the institutional division was almost complete. He was able to look with hindsight and recognize the trends that lead to the liberalism and the formation of the “middle-of-the-road” approach. Today however, we are still on the front end of the conflict over marriage, divorce, and remarriage. The digression has not yet reached the proportions that it did in the institutional flight. But with the seed of compromise being sown by those who are advocating the “unity-in-diversity” approach, we must ask the question “Where will it lead us in the years to come?” What kind of churches will be left for our children and grandchildren. It is not simply this one subject alone but there is a growing softness towards sinful practices in many places. The atmosphere is ripe for continued compromise and deviation from the truth on a whole host of matters.

Brother Harrell, in calling to mind the failures of brethren to stop the nineteenth century innovations, said that the middle-of-the-roaders “lacked the foresight, or candor, or courage to stop the liberalism at the only place it could be stopped  in the beginning.” Today, brethren with fore-sight and courage have been attempting to stop the present digression “in the beginning.” Learning from the mistakes of brethren in the past, these men have been attempting to thwart the effects of false teachers who would compromise the truth on marriage, divorce and remarriage. What has been brother Harrell’s response? The magazine of which he is a co-editor (Christianity Magazine) has, “in the beginning,” labelled these men who are openly fighting this battle as “extremists” who “have their own cause to promote” and who are “attempting to line up followers” and “create a party.” These very same charges were leveled at those who were opposing the liberalism of the 1950s and 1960s. Additionally, brother Harrell “in the beginning” said that these men were making “unheroic personal assaults on an eighty-five-year-old warrior.” In-stead of coming to the aid of those who have been directly affected by this teaching, brother Harrell has chosen to attack the motives of those who are attempting to, “in the beginning,” stem the tide of digression. In the article referred to, brother Harrell wrote, “My protesting, I pray, has never been a personal crusade against anyone. I have not taken my stand because of person – differences with anyone and, consequently, personal friendship cannot solve the problems” (The Gospel Guardian, Sept. 5, 1968, p. 275). Yet brother Harrell has done exactly that in this case, charging brethren who are opposing the error with “making an unheroic personal assault on an 85-year-old warrior” (Christianity Magazine, November, 1988, p. 6).

For the sake of truth and Bible unity, I plead with brother Harrell to examine the path he and others have recently chosen. I beg him to return to the same militant and uncompromising attitude that he displayed during the fight with the liberals in the 50s and 60s. Regarding those who stood firm against the doctrinal error of that era, he said:

Convictions run too deep and courage too unsubdued to close the mouths of those who have committed them-selves to the defense of the principles of consistent scriptural effort to restore the first century church. Surely we have long ago recognized that we can have peace with anyone if we will stop attacking the religious error which they teach. It is far too late now to try to squelch the conviction that the mission of the gospel preacher is not only to teach the truth but also to attack error no matter whence its source (The Gospel Guardian, Sept. 5, 1968, p. 275).

Brethren today have not attempted to make personal assaults on anyone but have rather had the same deep convictions and unsubdued courage in seeking to hold fast the New Testament pattern of teaching on the subject of divorce and remarriage. Truly, error must be attacked  “no matter whence its source.”

It is my desire that brother Harrell would repudiate the false “unity-in-diversity” concept that he has espoused based on his inaccurate application of Romans 14 to matters of the revealed faith. May he recognize the dangerous precedent he has set. Others will not be content with the limited application of “unity-in-diversity” for which brother Harrell has contended. The circle of “tolerable differences” (my term  KC) will only grow increasingly larger, embracing other false doctrines such as instrumental music, institutionalism, premillennialism, etc. The danger for brother Harrell is that he may have said so much already that it would be difficult for him to go back. Commenting on this very dilemma in the Gospel Guardian, he said, “If a moderate’s craw finally becomes so full that he cannot go on, he has said so much that he cannot go back.” I wonder if brother Harrell today is still willing to stand by his articles that advocate the “unity-in-diversity” approach towards these matters. Can he “go back” or has he “said so much that he cannot go back”? I pray that he will go back and realize the serious effects of the door that he has opened with his misapplication of Romans 14.

The call today is for faithful men who will stand firm against error. With the wide acceptance of divorce in today’s society, coupled with the emotional nature of the issue itself, the time is ripe for further digression from the biblical pattern. May we have the courage, candor, and conviction to speak boldly against his error and to oppose the compromise of the gospel  “no matter whence its source.”

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 9, p. 21-23
May 5, 1994

By Andy Alexander

The Prom is a familiar event to those who have attended high school. It is recognized as a formal dance in honor of the senior class of the school in which it is held. When writing about a subject such as the prom it is imperative that we understand the meaning of the word as it is used in our common language.

Webster’s Dictionary defines the prom as, “a formal dance given by a high school or college class.” This definition came from a 1972 dictionary, so in order to make sure the word had not changed in meaning over the past few years a 1989 World Book Dictionary was consulted and it gave the definition as, “a dance or ball given by a college or high school class.” In both resource books there was only one definition given. There were no secondary meanings listed.

The world’s concept of the event called the prom is a dance. A dance with fancier clothes, but a dance. A recent article in the Tennessean newspaper bears this out when it states, “West had been to dances and socials before, but tonight was special. Tonight was the prom” (“Prom Night,” The Tennessean, Nashville, TN, May 31, 1993, p. B-1).

The only people that attempt to alter this definition seem to be Christians. We might add “worldly-minded” Christians. These Christians try to make the prom sound like something that is not: some kind of big event with the dance as a minor sideshow. This attempt is made because dancing is sinful and these Christians know this to be true. It is a work of the flesh which will keep one out of the kingdom of heaven (Gal. 5:19-21).

Apparently some parents want their children to be a part of all the activities that take place in high school whether these activities are sinful or not. They do not want their children to be ostracized by their class mates. While it would be nice if all the activities sponsored by our local schools were upright and wholesome, such is assuredly not the case. Sweetheart dances, cheerleading, and sporting events where immodest clothing is worn are a few examples of similar activities that Christians should shun.

Children of God are not to conform to the world about them and should realize that following Christ means that they will be different from those in the world (Rom. 12:1; 1 Pet. 2:9). Christians should start well before their children’s teenage years teaching this vital principle.

Some worldly-minded Christians claim they are trying to clean up the event known as the prom so that future generations can have some wholesome activity to en-gage in. What is wrong with this effort? First, dirt is dirt and no amount of soap and water will change its inherent character. The way to deal with error is to strike it down at the root! Destroy it altogether! God gave his formula for dealing with evil in Jeremiah 1:10 when he said, “See I have this day set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down, to build, and to plant.” The prom needs to be destroyed, not supported and defended by people who are supposed to be setting a godly example for the world about them (Matt. 5:13-16).

Paul commanded the Ephesians to “have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them” (Eph. 5:11). The word “reprove” means to “expose”; thus, Christians are not to participate or share in the evil about them, but expose it for what it really is  evil. In this way the world can recognize the evil and not be encouraged by Christians to continue in their ungodliness.

There are other passages that come to mind when thinking about our relationship in the world.” Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good” (Rom. 12:9). “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Abstain from all appearance of evil” (1 Thess. 5:21-22). Not only is the prom one appearance or form of evil, but also Christians are to abhor and abstain from such sinful activities.

Paul told the Romans, “Let us behave properly as in the day, not in carousing and drunkenness, not in sexual promiscuity and sensuality, not in strife and jealously. But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh in regard to its lusts” (Rom. 13:13-14, emphasis mine, AA). Can attending a school function where the primary activity is sinful, in that it creates lusts, temptations, and evil thoughts, be justified in any realistic way? “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; and put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” (Isa. 5:20)

There are occasions, sadly more than there used to be, when members of a local church attend the prom. They give lame excuses if questioned, but in a majority of the cases, nothing is ever said. No word of rebuke given; just silence. The silence of a congregation, its elders, and its preacher does not change the sinful behavior of some of its members into righteousness.

The influence of those who attend the prom is damaged (Jas. 1:27). Reproach is brought upon Christ and his church, and souls will be lost for eternity, because of the careless behavior of some professed children of God. “Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!” (Matt. 18:7)

The prom is not good, wholesome activity and it cannot be changed into such because of its inherent nature. It is a dance and our children need to be taught the dangers of attending dances at any age. Adults who defend their right to attend need to be taught God’s truth more plainly. When they openly defend a dance, then surely teaching and preaching has not been plain enough to expose the unfruitful works of darkness.

Congregations who condone this lascivious behavior by silence need to wake up and take an honest look at their spiritual condition. Thyatira tolerated Jezebel who taught and led Christians into immorality (Rev. 2:20). She and her followers were admonished to repent and the congregation was rebuked for tolerating her sinful actions (Rev. 2:22). Someone needs to speak out against the worldliness that is invading the church today. “And I sought for a man among them, that should make up the hedge and stand in the gap before me for the land, that I should not destroy it: but If found none” (Ezek. 22:30). Can any be found today who will make up the hedge and stand in the gap?

There are plenty of wholesome activities that our children can enjoy. Parents should make it their goal to suggest these activities and provide them if necessary. Fancy clothes can even be worn and pictures taken if desired, but reveling and carousing does not have to be, nor should it be, a part of the festivities.

Worldliness is an ever-present danger is the Lord’s church. We must determine to stand firm and hold fast the sound doctrine of Jesus Christ (2 Tim. 1:13). Let us all make this firm resolve.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 9, p. 24-25
May 5, 1994

By James P. Needham

The last two months have been the most difficult in the history of my immediate family. I had my first heart attack in 1980. Six weeks later I had four by-passes. While I was never free of chest pain under physical stress, I was able to live with it until the last year. My chest pain became more severe and unstable. I reached the point that I had to take a “nitro” tablet to get out of bed.

I saw a cardiologist on January 12, 1994, and he suggested that I have a heart catheterization (my sixth) to see what was going on. The “cath” showed that all my four by-pass grafts from 1980 were 100% blocked, and only one artery was supplying blood to my heart. A second by-pass surgery was recommended with some reluctance since the second one is more dangerous than the first. However, there seemed to be no other alternative. Accordingly, I had three by-passes on January 14 at University Community Hospital in Tampa. Everything seemed to go normally. I was taken off the respirator at a normal time, and moved to progressive care where after three days I had not had one good day. It was obvious that something was wrong. Breathing became extremely painful and more shallow by the breath until finally I lost consciousness. Thirteen specialists were conferring to try to decide what was wrong and what to do to save my life. They suspected that I had picked up a staphylococcal infection during the surgery. Cultures showed this to have been the case. “Staph” infection showed up on the mainline tube and my chest tube, and it attacked the pericardium and the pleural wall resulting in the collection of a massive amount of fluid around my left lung necessitating the inserting of a second chest tube to drain off the fluid.

I was rushed back to intensive care where they had to resuscitate me twice and doubted that I would survive. I was put back on the respirator on which I stayed for the next four miserable days! I was given the strongest antibiotic drugs known to man by I.V. for six weeks, and stayed in the hospital for 30 days. At this writing I remain on the antibiotic drugs by mouth, which will continue until my blood sediment rate is normal. This to make sure that the “staph” infection is gone, otherwise it will begin to multiply and become extremely difficult to handle.

About two weeks after I came home from the hospital, and still quite ill, my wife went to Karla’s (our 36-year old daughter who lived with us) bedroom to see if she had left for school (she taught music in the public school). As she tried to open her door, something was against it, and she could open it just enough to see that Karla was on the floor against the door (she evidently had realized that something was happening and tried to make it to the bathroom). My wife screamed for me to come, which I did at once. After some minutes I was able to get the door open wide enough to get inside, only to find Karla lying on her back against the door, and having hemorrhaged from the mouth. Medics said she had been dead several hours. Following an autopsy the medical examiner says the cause of death in “inconclusive.” The case is being examined by more sophisticated laboratories and they tell us it may be a month or more before we get a final answer.

Our precious Karla obeyed the gospel at age ten when I preached for the Expressway church in Louisville. It was during a gospel meeting held by Dudley Ross Spears. Karla grew into a very mature Christian. She was endowed by her Maker with exceptional artistic and musical talent. She attended college on a voice scholarship, majoring in voice, and minoring in piano. She was a graduate of the University of Central Florida, Orlando and had done extensive work at the University of South Florida, Tampa. She was certified in music and elementary education. Our greatest pride however came from the fact that she was an able Bible student and teacher. Her greatest joy was teaching the Bible and music to children. She extended herself beyond her physical limits in these areas, putting in many long hours in preparation of lesson material. A few weeks before her death her chorus was one of 15 chosen from Hillsborough County schools to appear on television to showcase “Music in Our Schools.” Since her death, the tape has been re-edited and dedicated to the memory of Karla. And will be shown twice on Tampa television.

Karla was dedicated to her family. She was a caring, loving and thoughtful daughter and brought us much joy and happiness. She was a survivor and a fighter she never gave up! She left us with a thirteen-year-old granddaughter, Heidi-Marie, whose father was killed in a car wreck before she was born. We now have full responsibility for her up-bringing, which was Karla’s expressed wish. While we do not shrink from this responsibility for one moment, my wife and I are in our late 60’s, and both of us have had open-heart surgery, and I have now had it twice. But we believe that with the help of God and the prayers of the saints we shall be able to meet the challenge. Heidi has been our pride and joy all her young life, but even more so now that our Karla is gone, and she is our only connection to our precious baby daughter. We will do our very best by her.

We take comfort in the words of little Heidi when she realized her mother was dead. She said to her grandmother, “Mother has gone to a better world. Hadn’t you rather be with Jesus than to be here? We will see her again some day.” She speaks often of seeing her mother again in heaven. Knowing the kind of person our Karla was, our hope is strong and stedfast that these dear words are true. The funeral was conducted by three dear and long-time friends, Melvin Curry, Cecil Willis, and George Eldridge. We derived much comfort from their precious words and will treasure them forever.

Word of my critical illness and of Karla’s death spread across this nation like a firestorm and special prayers were offered in many congregations, and phone calls, cards, gifts, floral offerings, and letters came from everywhere. Every mail brings another handful of cards, and every day brings phone calls from across the nation, some from people we don’t even know. Not being able to answer all these personally, we would like to use this medium to inadequately express our heart-felt appreciation to each and every one who has taken the time to share our burden. We pray God’s blessings upon each one of you, and ask that you keep us in your thoughts and prayers as we face the future. “We’ll understand it better by and by.”

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 9, p. 16
May 5, 1994