Since When Has Misrepresentation Been A Right?

By Gene Frost

            By now most of the readers probably know that the Guardian of Truth Foundation has published a book, written by Daniel King and Mike Willis, entitled, “We Have A Right.” I first learned about it from brethren who called it to my attention. They reported that it supposedly is in response to my articles on brotherhood societies, but would add “it doesn’t touch your arguments at all!” It was described as a slanderous and vicious attack upon my person. One dear brother called, “Gene, take courage; this shows how effective you have been!”

            Thereupon I ordered a copy, and found that it is indeed “dedicated” to me … my name appears 350 times in the text written by Daniel King and Mike Willis, an average of 2.5 times per page, and this does not include the pronouns!

            Friends, out of concern, have asked if I am upset. My reply is, No. While it is not pleasant to be vilified, it is not as though some strange thing has happened. When one stands for the truth, he can expect to be slandered, especially by those who are unable to contend with Bible in hand. Without Scriptural authority for one’s faith and practice, there only remain carnal weapons at his disposal. My Lord has taught me to expect evil treatment in response to the truth. (Matt. 5:11, 10:24-25, Luke 6:22.) Besides, as others have already observed, the King-Willis book doesn’t touch the arguments I have made against human societies which supplant the Lord’s church. Nor do the vile descriptions address my character, as known to my Lord or by people who know me. I don’t feel that any of the mudslinging sticks to me … but pity him whose hands are dirty. It tells us more about him than it does about me. Not only that, the sophistry is easily answered. In fact, practically everything in the book is a repeat of arguments I have already answered in my previous articles, which are compiled in Brotherhood Societies. Those who have read both sides are not perturbed by the mudslinging. So we will leave the carnal weapons with others; the sword of God is mighty enough against the best efforts of puny men.

            When I first opened the book to the text written by brethren King and Willis, I wasn’t surprised. I had predicted that it would be more personal attacks, evasion of the issue by substituting a non-issue, with arguments formulated upon fallacious reasoning. It is all of this, only more vicious. I had hoped against hope that Mike Willis would finally attempt to meet the issue fairly and without rancor, for which I often pleaded, but this was not to be. It is a continuation of Mike Willis’ reaction from the beginning, now joined by Daniel King. What surprises me, and a major flaw in their effort, is that it lacks the scholarship and presentation that characterizes ethical journalism. There are numerous references with no documentation, such as footnotes, which would permit the reader to examine the facts, whether they are true or not. Why do they do this? They know better. Yet what they present are mere assertions, which in fact are not so, and false statements, some knowingly made. The reader is expected to “just take our word for it.” Why is this? Whenever desperate men are determined to win an argument or justify a position, they will resort to whatever strategies they think will accomplish it. When unable to answer the opponent’s arguments with truth, they “go after the man,” hoping that the reader will be carried along with the emotions of their presentation and not notice that they have presented no proof of their charges. As the Indian chief responded to such carnal attacks, “Much thunder, no rain”!

            What is their goal? Obviously, to be able to retain their unscriptural arrangement and operations, but, in addition, to demonize the opposition, first to negate his influence so that he will have no hearing, and then to send a warning to any others who would dare challenge the power, prestige, and influence of the Foundation. (Do you want a book published with your name plastered all over it, in the most hostile presentation possible? Then beware!)

            I find the writing of this book a waste of time; the effort in reading it a waste of time; and to respond a waste of time … except for the fact that a failure to respond would be misinterpreted as an inability to meet the “arguments.” There is only one redeeming feature for the book: I can recommend it only as a workbook to be used in a class studying logic, to challenge the students to recognize, identify, and show the fallacy of the illogical arguments. If it is not used as a workbook in a serious study of logic, I suggest the book be catalogued under FICTION.

            This article is not the response to “We Have A Right.” A fuller examination and response is presently being written; in which all, to which we have referred, will be further explored and documented. I am submitting this present material so the readers may know that a response to the book is forthcoming, and also to silence another “rumor,” viz. that “Gene Frost says that he not going to write a reply.” Even now it is being written. We will announce when it is ready.

A Threat to Unity

            Here is my assessment of the book, We Have A Right, with particular indictments. The book is based upon false premises and seeks to answer questions that were never raised. Our opposition to the Guardian of Truth Foundation is falsely stated; it has never been to its role of publishing and merchandising their products. The objection is to its dual role. We find no authority to create and maintain a human society (board, foundation, company) to operate in the same capacity, with the same operation, assigned to the churches of Christ in propagating the gospel and in conducting worship. It is this role to which we object. I charge the authors of We Have A Right with shifting the issue. To state that our opposition is to brethren creating a publishing company is a gross and inexcusable misrepresentation, which we have corrected over and over, to the point that a repetition by them now constitutes flagrant dishonesty. I do not believe that anyone with an open mind could read what I have written and come up with the same conclusions as brethren King and Willis.

            In fact, practically everything they have put down in their book I have already answered. Every argument and quibble, whatever the origin, which has come to my attention or I have anticipated, I have addressed. They admittedly have totally ignored the argumentation we have made over the years. While my responses are based upon Scripture, they, with a wave of the hand—“I do not consider your writing on the subject to have particular merit,”—dismiss them without notice. Therefore, I would strongly suggest that the reader first read my articles in Brotherhood Societies. Determine for yourself the nature of my writings and the validity of the argumentation. Then compare what I have actually said against what King and Willis presume to be my thoughts, motives, and intent. Follow closely the course of argumentation: does it address the issue, or does it address the man? Does it appeal to Scripture or does it draw from character assassination? Determine the issue between us and observe who stays with the subject and who obscures it, or redefines it, or shifts to another topic. I seek for a full and careful investigation. (1) Read for yourself what I have written; and then (2) read the treatises of King and Willis. With this background, read my response which is to come. (I wonder if they will announce my writings, as I have theirs, and encourage brethren to read both sides?)

            We are addressing a serious and important issue. Brethren are now, before the issue has been fully and carefully deliberated, being called upon to make a judgment. Dan King has resurrected the “yellow tag of quarantine,” made famous by our liberal brethren in the institutional fight fifty years ago, which pressured brethren to “take sides” before and without proper investigation. It crystallized division. The Gospel Advocate, with all of its influence, threw its full support behind the advocates of centralization (“sponsoring churches”) and institutionalism (benevolent societies). The powers that be in Nashville set upon a bold and divisive plan with which to destroy the opposition. It appeared almost as an innocuous note, but it set afoot a massive movement that devastated the churches of Christ in the United States, with world-wide effects.

          “I trust you will not consider me presumptuous if I suggest perhaps the writers for the Gospel Advocate might wisely spearhead a movement to quarantine those preachers who today are sowing seeds of discord among the brotherhood and to thus prevent further division.” (Gospel Advocate, December 8, 1954.)

            Now in our day, as brethren are stirring, and there appears to be an increased awareness and interest in a study of human religious organizations, the proponents of these societies are anxious to close down all discussion and to cut off opposition to their ambitions. Their excuse mirrors the Gospel Advocate suggestion. Throughout the book, Dan King accuses me and others of imposing our will upon the consciences of others (e.g. page 78). Before he even tries to make his case, he presents his agenda:

          “Should any man attempt to do so, his efforts ought to be rejected outright and he should be ostracized. In no case should quarreling or fighting about such questions be allowed to disrupt the unity of the churches of Christ.” (p. 11)

            Compare these statements. What the liberals did to us fifty years ago is now proposed by the GOT party. What the liberals called quarantine, today is called ostracize! The effect is the same! Everyone who opposes the creating and maintaining of human foundations in their role of evangelizing and conducting worship (singing, praying, teaching)—all that mirrors the role of the church—they hope brethren generally will “banish, bar, exclude,” etc.

            The comparison doesn’t stop here. The liberals accused us of being trouble-makers and dividing brethren. Now in lockstep we are accused by the GOT party of promoting internal dissension, of “hammering (our) views as wedges to divide brethren.”

            Rather than discussion and an exchange of argumentation, appealing to Scripture, the liberals cut off debating and resorted to name-calling. They called us “Sommerites.” Today, name-calling is a principal weapon of the GOT party. Sommer’s name is used 216 times in the book.

            Brethren today are facing the same old arguments and the same old tactics that some of us faced fifty years ago. I was there. There is an obvious parallel of then with now:

            1. Institutionalists fifty years ago accused us, in our opposition, of causing trouble. It is echoed today.

            2. Then they invoked the name of Daniel Sommer, whose name had been trashed a generation before, as a pretense to mark us as heretics. Now King and Willis engage in the same name-calling and appeal to prejudice.

            3. Then they called upon brethren generally to quarantine us, so that we will be ignored and have no input into a discussion. Today, they call it “ostracize.”

            4. Then they misrepresented what we taught, substituted false propositions for the actual issue. It is the same today.

            Same old tactics, same old arguments. Beyond this, I am prepared to show that the arguments advanced to support the GOT Foundation will allow church-support of human institutions, just as the liberals contended. That we have a new “liberalism” today, we will demonstrate and document in the book I am writing. If our erring brethren today had the truth, they would not have to resort to these old fallacious tactics of the past, which will serve them no better than it did the liberals fifty years ago!

            This is a serious issue, and portends division within the body of Christ. It will be a terrible mistake for brethren to sit idly by. If there is not enough interest in the Lord’s wisdom and prescription to investigate and counter this evil proposal, then the cause of Christ will suffer by default.

A Non-Issue

            In the opening remarks of his treatise, in the second paragraph, Daniel King states what he hopes to prove:

          “In the following lines I would like to address our rights as individuals to conduct a business enterprise offering legitimate services to brethren and non-brethren, separate and apart from any local church, not involving or entangling congregations in any way.”

            Who denies it? This is a non-issue. This has never been the issue. We have repeatedly corrected it.. Read the following carefully as I demonstrate this statement. In 1977 I wrote:

          “Our conclusion is, when a publishing company functions strictly as an economic enterprise, produces a product which it sells, it has a legitimate existence. However, when the same personnel receive contributions by which to purchase and disseminate the product, it is not an economic enterprise in this role. As a society propagating the gospel of Christ, its mission is spiritual and depreciates the church, which is God’s society commissioned to propagate the gospel. (1 Tim. 3:15). The human society is illegitimate. The issue involved is, simply: may Christians substitute a human society for the church, (not to replace the church, but as a body to exist alongside the church)? Is it optional whether we collectively teach through the church or through the society? May we worship God and edify the saints in the society as well as in the church?” (Brotherhood Societies, hereafter referred to as BroSoc, page 13)

            On February 22, 1979, in a private letter available only to those who asked for it, not published in the Gospel Anchor, Mike Willis misstated it again, and I corrected him:

          “To imply that our opposition is simply to a paper being published by an economic collectivity is a gross misrepresentation.” (BroSoc 28)

            On October 1, 1979, in another private letter, I corrected him again:

“Mike has assumed throughout that the issue is whether a company may be formed with religious interests. This is not the issue. We have no objection to the Cogdill Foundation in its role of publisher. It is not the existence of the organization per se to which we object. It is not that it publishes religious publications. It is not that it is incorporated. Our objection is to its accepting contributions by which to propagate the gospel. In this role it is not a publishing company (like the Gospel Anchor), but becomes a religious collectivity (optional with the church). This we have clearly set forth. Why Mike ignores it and refuses to address himself to the issue, I leave with the reader.” (BroSoc 51)

          “I can and have found authority for … a business enterprise, ‘to sell and deliver’ the religious material it publishes, but I cannot find authority for the Cogdill Foundation when it leaves its role of ‘business enterprise’ to function in the role of ‘teaching society,’ soliciting contributions from Christians. Rest assured that if Mike could find Scriptural authority for the dual role of the Cogdill Foundation, he would have presented it. He wouldn’t have made the appeal that every sectarian makes: ‘my practice is as Scriptural as yours!’ BroSoc 52)

            As Mike Willis persisted in misstating the issue, I wrote yet another correction on February 9, 1980, in another private letter:

          “A second observation is that you mislead the reader as to our difference, You write for four columns on the basis that Cogdill Foundation is a business enterprise, as though that was the issue, that I denied it. You know that this is not so – or you should, since I have corrected you on this again and again. It is not its business role to which I object:” (and here I quote from the October 1, 1979 letter). …

          “You can cite Scriptures authorizing the ‘business enterprise’ – some of the very Scriptures I presented in the ‘Religious Collectivities’ series – but you still lack a single Scripture to authorize ‘another collectivity’ than the church, an individually supported missionary society. You may try to shift the issue to make it appear that we are a part of a conspiracy against the Cogdill Foundation or that we are opposed to a ‘business enterprise,’ but you will not succeed. Brethren are not going to be so easily deceived, and they are waiting for you to present book, chapter, and verse for the society concept you appear to champion.” (BroSoc 72, 73)

Enter Dan King

            Sometime in 2004, the GOT Foundation published a commentary on The Three Epistles of John, in which Daniel King commented on the issue … and states the non-issue:

          “These good but misguided people believe that all gospel work must be accomplished through the medium of the local congregation. It is their position that barely any at all may be done through individual effort or especially by means of consolidated efforts of individual Christians outside the local framework of the assembly of the saints. They are therefore opposed on the ground of principle to any consolidation of human efforts which would not fall within that specific sphere. Schools operated by brethren, lectureships, foundations, printing and publishing companies, trust or any other sort of conglomeration of individuals in areas outside of the local church are everyone to be outside of the divine pattern and therefore sinful. …

          “Many of those who have been most critical of companies and foundations have themselves established ‘companies’ even though they have refused to call them what they are. They have edited journals and asked others to help them with the writing and publishing.”

          “In my humble opinion, it is patently absurd to contend that brethren may only work together in unison in the local congregation.” (Appendix 5, page 299-300.)

            I understand that the preceding was not written solely about me, since he addressed “misguided people” (plural), but I am included. And so while I cannot answer for others, I can speak for myself, and I can say that none of this represents what I believe and teach, nor of anyone else that I know. I know of no one who denies “the right of individuals to work together in legitimate business organizations.” Dan King was not misled by reports from others in reaching his false assumption. He informed me: “I have read all your material…” Therefore he bears full responsibility for what he wrote. He knew that I had corrected Mike Willis time and again for misrepresenting the issue. Still, knowing better, he himself misrepresents the issue.

            The statement, all gospel work must be accomplished through the medium of the local congregation, is not stated in quotation marks, nor is it referenced, because we made no such statement. We continued our response:

          “Brother King follows in the steps of the editor of Truth magazine, who in 1981 made basically the same argument. He falsely accused us of believing that the individual cannot do what the church cannot do. He accused us of believing that Christians can only do what the church does. Since the church cannot establish schools, cannot create political parties, cannot build and operate a business, then neither can individuals collectively. Everything has to be done in the local framework of the assembly of saints. He didn’t present any evidence in what he charged. He just asserted and built his straw man. We had already answered his charges, having taught the very opposite three years before he made them. (Cf. Brotherhood Societies, pages 88-93.)”

            To claim that this is the issue of difference between us, Daniel King presents a “distraction,” in logic called falsification. Falsification defined is any effort to change a fact which results in a distorted representation of information. Speakers or writers are expected to present facts that are true, accurately presented and provable. When they misrepresent and distort the truth, the reader is deceived. This is the tactic of one whose only desire is to win an argument in the eyes of the reader.

            The Guardian of Truth party refuses to correctly state what we believe and teach, even after being corrected over and over. Now to continue to misrepresent is deliberate, and to deliberately misrepresent is malicious. What the reader needs to understand is that this is the premise to their entire book, We Have A Right. This is why we say to have written this book was a waste of time; to read it is a waste of time; and to respond to it is a waste of time. It would be bad enough for them to say they misunderstood what we were saying. It is blatantly dishonest to write a book on a premise that is a gross misrepresentation of the issue. They have erected what logicians call a straw man. The “straw man” is a fallacy in “reasoning,” when a person ignores the proposition of another, and substitutes in its stead a proposition of his own making, one obviously flawed and easily assailed. By attacking the substitute proposition, he can then claim to have proved the original proposition of his opponent to be in error! Actually he only exposed the fallacy of his substitute proposition. The original proposition is unscathed. This tactic gives an appearance of having successfully answered the original argument, which of course it doesn’t. When the reader is led to believe it does, he is thereby deceived.

            There you have it! Misrepresentation from the beginning … and a refusal to correct it. Why? I can only guess that by repeating it over and over, with others of the party joining in, the reader might be deceived into thinking, “Well, this must be what Gene Frost and others teach.” I charge them with malicious falsification. This is not to be ugly, but is a statement of fact that I have proved. Why they will not state the facts honestly is now to their shame. This is why I and many others have no respect for the Guardian of Truth party.

            If the reader has bought We Have A Right, thinking that it would contribute to a fair and honest study of collectivities, he will now find that he has been deceived. The issue is real, and has yet to be addressed by the GOT party. The Church glorifies God; the Foundation honors the men who designed it, created it, and maintain it. (Eph. 3:21) The one exists by the wisdom and authority of God; the Foundation reflects the wisdom of men. Jesus shed His blood to purchase the church; men claim a right to create a Foundation that has a “right” that mirrors the church in teaching and worship.