Truth Magazine

By Ron Daly

In 1 Timothy 5:1-2 God’s word says, “Rebuke not an elder, but exhort him as a father; the younger men as brethren: the elder women as mothers; the younger as sisters, in all purity.” First, what does the word “elder” mean at this place? It translates the Greek presbutero, dative masculine singular of presbuteros. Presbuteros is used in a number of ways in the New Testament, e.g., members of the Sanhedrin (presbuterous ton Ioudaion, elders of the Jews); Luke 7:3, the 24 members of the heavenly court (hoi eikosi tessares presbuteroi); Revelation 5:8, men who were appointed to preside over and shepherd local assemblies of Christians (tous presbuterous tes ekklesias, the elders of the church), Acts 20:17; cf. 1 Timothy 5:17-19, and those who are advanced in life (hoi presbuteroi, old men), Acts 2:17. The meaning of “elder” in verse 1 is “old man.” We can be certain that this is correct because of the “contextual indicators.” There is an antithesis which exists between “an elder” who is to be exhorted “as a father,” and “younger men” who are to be exhorted “as brethren” (neoteras hos adelphous). So, “elder” (presbuteros) is used in contrast to “younger” (neos). Whatever “elder” means, “younger” is the opposite, and whatever “younger” means, “elder” is the opposite. Furthermore, Paul continues by contrasting “elder women as mothers” (presbuteras hos meteras), and exhorting “younger women as sisters” (neoteras hos adelphas). The “elder” of verse 1 denotes the same thing as “elder women” of verse 2, except for the distinction in gender. “Younger men” likewise denotes the same thing as “younger women” excepting the gender distinction. Also, there is a parallelism which exists between “elder” of 1 Timothy 5:1, and the language of the same apostle elsewhere. In Titus 2:2, Paul exhorts Titus that he, in speaking sound teaching, inform “aged men” (presbutas) of their duties, and “aged women” (presbutidas) of their duty to teach the “young women” (tas fleas, vv. 3,4). Here, again, Paul uses antithesis. We find the same use of “elder” by the apostle Peter. “Likewise, ye younger (neoteroi), be subject unto older ones (presbuterois)” (1 Pet. 5:5). Note again the antithesis between “younger” and “elder.”

Second, what is the significance of the injunction “rebuke not an elder” expressed by the negative imperative (me epiplexes)? May we not “rebuke” all who are in error, and who persist in sin or rebellion against God, whether young or old? According to other texts we may (Matt. 18:15-18; Lk. 17:3-4; 1 Tim. 5:20; 2 Tim. 4:2). So, why does the Holy Spirit through Paul, so emphatically say to Timothy particularly to “rebuke not an elder”? The key is in the word “rebuke.” It is not the same word used in 2 Timothy 4:2.

The word used in 2 Timothy is epitimao. Contextually, epitimao means “to censure and render a sharp rebuke” by the preaching of the word. “Rebuke” in 1 Timothy 5 is from the Greek epiplesso which means “to reprimand, to strike (verbally), to assault with abusive speech, to chastise with words, to reproach or denounce.” In the context, Paul in-formed Timothy of the proper conduct among believers, which he as an evangelist must practice. One of the charges given to Timothy was, “Let no man despise thy youth” (1 Tim. 4:12). That is, let no man look down on you because you are young; treat old men and women with respect. There is an Old Testament text which contains the same idea couched in similar language, “Thou shalt rise up before the hoary head, and honor the face of the old man, and thou shalt fear thy God; I am Yahweh” (Lev. 19:32). One of the ways that Timothy would show respect for the elderly, is by not lashing out with harsh words, but by having this tongue tempered by love and gentleness.

Instead of the phrase “Rebuke not an elder,” the recent versions say, “Don’t criticize an older man” (Simple English Bible), “Never be harsh with an elder” (New English Bible), “Never censure an older man harshly” (James Moffatt Translation), “Do not sharply rebuke an older man” (NASV), “Do not speak harshly to an older man” (NRSV), “Do not reprimand an older man” (McCord’s New Testament Translation), “Do not rebuke an older man harshly” NIV.

The expression “Rebuke not an elder” does not restrict or forbid the younger from correcting the older brothers in the Lord who err, but it does teach that there is a proper way to do it. And, that the way is not by ridicule and harshness, but “as fathers and mothers,” that is, with genuine concern and kindness, attempting to win them by snatching them out of the devil’s grasp!

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 2, p. 19
January 21, 1993

By Steven Baxley

As the Israelites camped at Pi-Hahiroth near the Red Sea, they were horrified to look and see the approaching Egyptian army, bent on re-enslaving them. Moses, attempted to reassure the faithless Hebrews by telling them, “Stand still, and see the salvation of the Lord, which He will accomplish for you today” (Exod. 14:13). God, however, was not pleased with Moses’ reply to the people, for he said to him: “Why do you cry to Me? Tell the children of Israel to go forward.” Moses lifted his rod, God parted the waters, and the Israelites went through “on dry ground” (v. 22).

Unfortunately, today many people still have the attitude of Moses of standing still and watching for the salvation of the Lord. They are unwilling to “go forward” as God commanded. This is true in many areas of religion today.

First, many people are unwilling to “go forward” when it comes to their own salvation. Numerous groups teach that “faith only” will save them from their sins. They “stand still” and wait to “see the salvation of the Lord.” The Bible is clear that a man will not be saved by “faith only,” by God’s action without any effort on the part of the man. While it is true that nothing we could possibly do could save us without God’s grace (Eph. 2:8-9), it is also true that God will not save us without obedience (Jas. 2:14-26). God’s plan for salvation is so simple that even a child can understand it. Faith (Heb. 11:6), repentance (Acts 2:38), confession (Rom. 10:9-10), baptism (Acts 22:16), and perseverance (1 Cor. 15:58) are what God requires of us. Yet, so many people in the world today reject one or more of these things on some basis or another. But, all that amounts to is making excuses for not obeying God. We must ask ourselves, what if the Israelites at the Red Sea had said, “No, God, we don’t think it’s necessary to ‘go forward’ across the Red Sea . . . instead, why don’t you just destroy the Egyptians where they are.” Or perhaps they might have said, “God didn’t really mean ‘go forward’ when he said ‘go forward’!” Can there be any doubt as to what would have happened had the Israelites refused to obey the word of God and go forward? Yet, in effect, this is what people say to God every day when they refuse to obey the plan he has so simply laid out in his word! We must not reject the gospel plan of salvation just because it might be inconvenient or troublesome for us to obey!

Second, many people in the church today are unwilling to “go forward” when it comes to the salvation of others through evangelism. I direct your attention to what Jesus said: “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you” (Matt. 28:19-20). All too often Christians want to sit back and let the “full-time” preachers do all the preaching and teaching. Brethren, such should not be the case! We need to be like the early disciples who, due to persecution, were forced to leave Jerusalem, and “went everywhere preaching the word” (Acts 8:4). Do we seriously think this refers only to “full-time” preachers? No, God expects all of us to teach others about the gospel of Jesus Christ. Perhaps part of the problem is that we have forgotten the reality of an eternal hell. Perhaps we have forgotten the fact that without obedience to Christ, men are destined to that hell (Jn. 14:6; Rev. 21:8). Perhaps we have forgotten that without teaching, men cannot know that they need to obey Christ. Perhaps the real problem is that we are unwilling to take the time, make the effort, and yes, sometimes bear the expense, to “go forward” and take the gospel where it needs to go: into all the world. If every Christian (men, women, everybody) would resolve to spend time every week studying his Bible (2 Tim. 2:15), and teaching others what he learns, we could fill our meeting houses and establish congregations in places which have never known a New Testament church! The church would grow and fill all the world, like God wants it to (Matt. 13:31-33). Unfortunately, all too many Christians, because of a lack of personal study, are like the Hebrews of old of whom God says, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge” (Hos. 4:6). A greater misfortune is that souls by the thousands (yes, even by the millions!) are marching daily to eternal destruction and many Christians are unwilling to “go forward” to try to stop them!

The lesson of the Red Sea crossing is clear. God was not content to let the people just “stand still.” Standing still produces stagnation in people . . . those who are not Christians are unwilling to do what is necessary to enter a relationship with God, those who are Christians are unwilling to do what God has commanded. Let us all resolve to “go forward” in regards to not only our own salvation, but also in regards to the salvation of our fellow man! Only when we do can we hope to be pleasing to him. Only then can we hope to inherit the promises he has promised.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 2, p. 18
January 21, 1993

By Weldon E. Warnock

Again, David gathered together all the chosen men of Israel, thirty thousand. And David arose, and went with all the people that were with him from Baale of Judah to bring up from hence the ark of God. . . . And they set the ark upon a new cart, and brought it out of the house of Abinadab that was in Gibeah: and Uzzah and Ahio, the sons of Abinadab, drove the new cart. . . . And when they came to Nachon’s threshing floor, Uzzah put forth his hand to the ark of God, and took hold of it; for the oxen shook it. And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Uzzah; and God smote him there for his error; and there he died by the ark of God (2 Sam. 6:1,2,3,6,7).

Two violations of the Old Testament law took place in the moving of the Ark of God. (1) The ark was carried by an ox cart. This was a violation of the Old Testament requirement that the Ark be carried by staves and placed upon the shoulders of the men of Levi, of the family of Kohath (Num. 3:30-31; 4:15; 7:9; Exod. 25:14-15). (2) Uzzah touched the Ark. This violated Numbers 4:15, the penalty for which was death.

More than twenty years had elapsed since the Philistines had captured the Ark of the Covenant in their defeat of Israel. They carried it to Ashdod where they suffered the destruction of God’s anger. Such punishment caused them to send the Ark to Gath, but they soon realized the displeasure of Jehovah and sent the Ark to Ekron who suffered the same consequences.

Out of desperation the Philistines decided to make a new cart (1 Sam. 6:7) and send the Ark to Beth-shemesh. The Beth-shemites also experienced the anger of the Lord and they asked the men of Kirjath-jearim to come and get the Ark (1 Sam. 6:19-21). The Ark of God remained in the house of Abinadab, the father of Uzzah and Ahio, for twenty years (1 Sam. 7:2).

David, after he became king, determined to move the Ark to Jerusalem. He totally ignored the instructions of God regarding how to move the Ark and copied the method of the Philistines, using a new ox cart. Things, seemingly, went well until the procession arrived at Nachon’s threshing floor and Uzzah, touching the Ark to stay it, was smitted dead. The Ark was left in the house of Obed-edom for three months before it was properly moved to Jerusalem.

There are several lessons that we can learn from David’s new cart and Uzzah’s presumptive act.

David’s Blunders

1. David adopted the ways of others. The Philistines moved the Ark on an ox cart and David patterned his mode of transportation after theirs. Today, we like the ways others are doing things, so we incorporate them in our service unto God. Many churches of Christ, mimicking the denominational churches round about them, have their Easter services, special singers, recreational facilities, family counselors, junior church, a positive approach to preaching, and many more things that could be mentioned. We are seeing these “new carts” all over the place.

Apparently, David thought the “how” made no difference as long as you get the job done. But the “how” is important when God states the “how.” God told Moses to speak to the rock and water would come forth, but Moses smote the rock instead (Num. 20:8,11). Water came forth, abundantly, but Moses violated God’s word. The “how” was most significant. Children can be brought into this world outside of marriage, but God designated the sanctity of marriage as the “how.” Noah was to build an ark out of gopher wood. He obeyed the “how.”

We are to offer up praise unto God. The “how” has been specified! He told us to sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). Some would have us to believe that any kind of music we offer to God is acceptable as long as we are sincere. In other words, a new cart is alright as long as you mean well.

Paul said, “I have laid the foundation and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how (emphasis mine) he buildeth thereupon” (1 Cor. 3:10).

David tried to improve on the ways of God. Instead of carrying the Ark the way God had instructed, he devised his own method. He should have known that God’s ways are higher than man’s ways, and his thoughts than man’s thoughts (Isa. 55:9).

Denominationalism is a result of men seeking to improve and enhance the ways of God. This is clearly reflected in their creed books, catechisms and disciplines. They have
sought intensely to “improve” the organization, worship, mission and doctrine of the first century church. Some of our brethren are in the same kind of crowd when they
espouse  no eldership, no corporate local church, no structured worship, no pattern, women preachers, women deaconnesses, no treasury, et al. These “new carts” have
been rolled out with their modern Uzzahs and they are no more sanctified than was David’s look-alike Philistine cart.

4. David lacked respect for God’s divine authority. There would have been no new cart to carry the Ark if David had respected the authority of God. After failing in his first effort to move the Ark, David was successful in his second endeavor because the children of the Levites bore the Ark of God upon their shoulders with the staves as Moses commanded (1 Chron. 15:15).

We must respect the authority of Christ (Matt. 28:18). May everything we do in word or in deed be done in the name of Christ (Col. 3:17). Let us speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where the Bible is silent.

Uzzah’s Sin

It seems that Uzzah should have known better than to have touched the Ark. For twenty years the Ark had been in Abinadab’s house, the father of Uzzah. Had they lost their respect for the sacredness of it? One translation states that God smote Uzzah because of “his irreverent act” (2 Sam. 6:7, NIV). In Uzzah’s unlawful behavior we learn:

I. A little thing (in men’s eyes) may be a great thing in the eyes of Jehovah. All that Uzzah did was reach forth his hand to stay the Ark. Many would call it nothing more than a trifle. Yet, God smote him dead on the spot! Uzzah’s act was an overt violation of God’s restrictions. He acted without divine warrant.

How many times have we heard that instrumental music in worship to God is such a trivial matter or that observing the Lord’s Supper on Thursday or Saturday is of no consequence. Consider those who sprinkle for baptism and ask, “What is the difference of having a little water on the top of your head and getting wet all over?” We had better remember Uzzah!

An action may seem necessary and yet be wrong. It appeared to Uzzah that unless he reached forth his hand to stay the Ark, it would topple off onto the ground. However, if Uzzah had adhered to the law of God, the Lord would have taken care of the safety of the Ark. We dare not impose our human solutions upon the wisdom of Jehovah God.

We sometimes think unless we devise some human scheme to preach the gospel, like a missionary society, that we can-not get the job done with just the church. Too, we envision that gimmicks and carnal measures are necessary to “convert” the lost to Christ, having lost our faith in the power of the gospel. But these worldly methods are wrong. They are like the irreverent act of reaching forth the hand to stay the Ark.

Good intentions do not excuse disobedience. Who could question Uzzah’s intentions of trying to protect the Ark? But though trying to do what he thought was good, Uzzah disobeyed God. In the past several years brethren have had good intentions (I think) of making elders of a local congregation into brotherhood elders to oversee a cooperative effort of hundreds, even thousands, of congregations. Yet, such an arrangement violates the plain teaching of 1 Peter 5:2 and Acts 20:28. Elders have no authority to oversee anything beyond the work of the local congregation where they are elders.

Cain perhaps had good intentions, but he was wrong (Gen. 4:1-7). King Saul may have meant well, but he disobeyed God (1 Sam. 15). Saul of Tarsus was sincere in persecuting Christians, but he was disobedient (Acts 23:1; 26:9-11). Any work or function that does not conform to the will of God is sinful, regardless of one’s intentions.

We must not expect to help God’s work by measures which God forbids. It is most presumptive on man’s part when he thinks that he can improve upon God’s scheme of things by self-devised inventions. This is how the Roman hierarchy was developed and how all manner of innovations got into the church. God’s way was considered insufficient, so changes were made to satisfy human ambitions and carnal appetites.

Uzzah’s act serves as a warning against situation ethics. We are not left to our own discretion as to how the law of God should be administered. The Lord speaks and we are to hear. He commands and we must obey.

Conclusion

In conclusion, let us note “how swiftly an irreverent habit of treating holy things grows. The first error was in breaking the commanded order for removal of the ark by the Levites. Once in the cart, the rest follows. The smallest breach in the feeling of awe and reverence will soon lead to more complete profanation.” One does not have to be very discerning to see the rapid decline in respect for divine authority among members of the church of our Lord. In-deed, a disregard for a “thus saith the Lord” is leading to “complete profanation.”

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 3, p. 9
February 4, 1993

By Harry R. Osborne

The life of Joash, king of Judah, is an interesting study of a character who started in the right path, but ended in shameful disgrace (see 2 Chron. 22:10-24:27). His forty year reign saw him go from a zealous advocate of serving God to a murderer of one who spoke the will of God. His reign started amidst joyful exclamation, “Long live the king!” It ended when his own servants killed him in bed after he was severely wounded in battle. His coronation took place in the house of God as he stood in the traditional place of the kings (2 Kgs. 11:14). By the time of his death, his disgrace was so complete that he was not buried in the tombs of the kings.

What lessons can we learn from such a life? How can we avoid the pitfalls which overcame king Joash? How can we spot the danger signs?

A Faithful Beginning

As a baby, Joash was saved from his ruthless grand-mother, Athaliah, who tried to kill him and take the throne for herself. Joash was taken to the temple and raised for six years under the care of Jehoiada, the faithful priest of God. At the age of seven, Joash became king. At that time, Joash was given the testimonies (the Law), which he had obviously studied at the feet of Jehoiada, to guide him as king.

Following the coronation, the record says, “And Jehoiada made a covenant between himself, and all the people, and the king, that they should be Jehovah’s people” (2 Chron. 23:16). The next verse shows their willingness to put God’s law into practice as they destroyed the temple of Baal and put to death the idolatrous priest. The good influence of a faithful teacher is seen in Joash’s early life by the statement, “And Joash did that which was right in the eyes of Jehovah all the days of Jehoiada the priest” (2 Chron. 24:2).

On one occasion, Joash’s zeal to do good even exceeded that of those who had helped teach him the principles of God’s law. Joash wanted to restore the temple and he commanded that it be done speedily. Those in charge procrastinated and Joash rightly reproved them. At his insistence, the money was gathered more quickly, the work was undertaken, and the task was completed. In this in-stance, Joash showed that not only was he influenced to do good, but he also influenced others to do good. It was a noble beginning.

The Process of Apostasy

After the death of Jehoiada, the life of Joash took a downward turn. The record shows how evil companions appealed to his pride. In 2 Chronicles 24:17-18, we read:

Now after the death of Jehoiada came the princes of Judah, and made obeisance to the king. Then the king hearkened unto them. And they forsook the house of Jehovah, the God of their fathers, and served the Asherim and the idols: and wrath came upon Judah and Jerusalem for this their guiltiness.

The faithful servant of God who formerly bowed in humility to God now was flattered by the evil men who made obeisance to him. As a result, Joash ceased listening to the counsel of righteous men and began listening to the counsel of the ungodly (cf. Psa. 1:1).

Following that advice, Joash forsook God, forgetting the law he had been taught in his youth. He began to practice evil and progressed in that evil until he had influenced all of Judah to follow his wicked ways. The good king who had influenced the people to serve God was now the evil king who led his subjects into condemnation. A tragedy!

The Hardening of the Heart

God did not give up on Joash and the people at their first rebellion. The Bible records the Lord’s appeals for their return and the growing resistance to his pleas:

Yet he sent prophets to them, to bring them again unto Jehovah; and they testified against them: but they would not give ear. And the Spirit of God came upon Zechariah the son of Jehoiada the priest; and he stood above the people, and said unto them, Thus saith God, Why transgress ye the commandments of Jehovah, so that ye cannot prosper? because ye have forsaken Jehovah, he hath also forsaken you. And they conspired against him, and stoned him with stones at the commandment of the king in the court of the house of Jehovah. Thus Joash the king remembered not the kindness which Jehoiada his father had done to him, but slew his son. And when he died, he said, Jehovah look upon it, and require it (2 Chron. 24:19-22).

Jehovah called them to repent through prophets (plural), but they would not listen. When Zechariah rebuked them with the truth, they killed him instead of changing their ways. Of course, killing the prophet did not change the truth he spoke. It merely cut them off from the source which could turn them back to righteousness.

The culpability of Joash is clearly stated. He had turned from his beginnings in a shocking and disgraceful manner. All of the good he had done in his early days would not be remembered because he had renounced it to become the standard-bearer of error and evil. Surely, God could not remember the good, but viewed him as a traitor to evil (Ezek. 33:13).

However, the paradox is that his own contemporaries, whose favor he sought, also forsook him in his death by burying him away from the kings (2 Chron. 24:25). They used him to get what they wanted, but discarded him in the end. The cause of sin cost him everything, but gave him nothing in return. Such is the bargain of sin!

Learning the Lesson Today

The life of Joash is the classic example of apostasy. Those who leave the Lord and cause others to stray are often those who had the noblest of beginnings. They are raised by godly parents or benefit from the influence of faithful saints, elders and preachers. Those influences last for some time and bring about a zealous burst of action for the cause of Christ. But when the trying times come, the way of truth is left for the paths of sin and error.

The downfall frequently occurs at the entry of pride (Prov. 16:18; 29:23). When a man starts to listen to the vain flattery of those who seek to use his influence, disaster is going to be the result. The Bible is replete with examples affirming this fact. A brief look at Restoration history in more recent times shows the same thing. How many times have popular preachers strayed from the “straight and narrow” as they listened to the adulation of adoring brethren? How many times have those of modest beginnings started to compromise the truth as their brethren offered them the presidency of a college, an editorship, or other places of influence? The perks offered by those who love the way of evil many times blind the eyes of the godly soul who is then seduced by pride.

However, it is truly said that the pleasures of sin are only for a season. When one leaves his place as the servant of righteousness to become the master of those heading to apostasy, his glory will be short lived. Those who have used his influence to aid their evil ends will dump him quickly. They want to go even further into apostasy and he is only a tool to start the process. In the end, one so used will be negatively viewed by both sides. Christ and those who continue to stand for his truth will view him as a traitor. Satan and those who proceed in error will forget him because he is merely a transitional figure to them.

Parallel Apostasy of Liberal Brethren

The so called “conservatives” among our erring, liberal brethren are now in that place. Preachers like Wayne Jackson, Tom Warren, Garland Elkins, Wendell Winkler, Gary Workman, Buster Dobbs and Roy Deaver are now being cast aside by the majority of their fellow apostates as the progression of evil continues. These men helped the “progressive” crowd try to justify their unauthorized institutions and sponsoring churches, but now cry out over the “evils” of the equally unauthorized gymnasiums, instrumental music and women preachers called for in many churches among them. They have sown the wind, and they are reaping the whirlwind.

Instead of admitting the obvious and correcting their error, some of our liberal brethren are seeking to deny the connection between their past actions and the present trends among them. In correspondence with this author, Wayne Jackson demanded that I give documentation from his paper when a previous article identified his Christian Courier as “a paper published by our liberal brethren.” Those references were furnished by showing his defense of the unauthorized, sponsoring church arrangement and by refer-ring to a letter (published in Christian Courier) by the elders where he preaches verifying their action as a sponsoring church. Along with this documentation, propositions from Larry Hafley were sent to brother Jackson asking him to affirm his practice regarding the sponsoring church. Possibly seeing his dilemma, brother Jackson has remained suspiciously silent since that time. I do not blame him.

In the latest issue of the Spiritual Sword, Alan Highers has also objected to the connection between his justification of error and the progress of error among his brethren. His denial is given as follows:

The problems of theological liberalism in our midst have not arisen because we support orphan homes or engage in church cooperation. The very suggestion that this is the case (as found occasionally in the periodicals of our anti-cooperation brethren) manifests a myopic analysis and a failure to recognize that some of the most liberal thinkers among us came from the most conservative backgrounds, including some from their midst.’ (The footnote cited the following proof: Edward Fudge, who denies eternal punishment in hell, came from the anti-cooperation movement. Leroy Garrett and Carl Ketcherside emanated from the anti-college, anti-located preacher faction [Spiritual Sword, October 1992, pp. 1,51).

For those of you unfamiliar with the “liberal lingo,” their term “cooperation” refers to their unauthorized practice of the sponsoring church which fosters centralization, not cooperation. With the aid of his prejudicial terms, Highers blindly accuses faithful brethren of “myopic analysis” when they correctly show the effects of his error on apostasy in his presence.

Highers commits the ultimate Freudian slip while speaking of Edward Fudge, Leroy Garrett and Carl Ketcherside (despite his recent death) by describing them as “some of the most liberal thinkers among us.” I know of no faithful brother who would describe Fudge and Garrett as being “among us,” but Highers says they are “among” his folks. Hence, Fudge and Garrett presently reside with Alan Highers and his Spiritual Sword comrades — though the household is not a happy one.

It is also worth noting that Edward Fudge is an example of the apostasy discussed in this article. After the death of his good father, Bennie Lee Fudge, Edward left the fellowship of faithful brethren as he continued to promote error. And where did Edward go? That’s right, over to Alan Highers and his Spiritual Sword comrades who received him with open arms. They congratulated him for joining in their unauthorized sponsoring churches and limited social gospel efforts. Now, they give an expression of concern when Fudge adds to his support of one unauthorized practice like the sponsoring church by defending another unauthorized practice like women preachers. In like manner, Highers and his associates protest that they cannot see the connection between those “among” them who have moved from kitchen defenders in their unauthorized “fellowship halls” to athletic supporters in their equally unauthorized “family life center” gymnasiums. While Highers and his Spiritual Sword comrades claim the problem is our myopia, their blindness is as apparent as that of Joash! May God help them open their eyes that they might see.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 2, p. 20
January 21, 1993