The past few years have brought forth quite anabundance of material on the significance of apostolic examples. Extreme views have been asserted by some who seem bent on finding some justification for the church to function in about every way except as the church functioned in apostolic days. Brethren anxious to preserve apostolic Christianity in thepresent age have risen up against these views. I am not sure we have always given the right answer tothem, however. Please consider this paper as a contribution to the effort to find the truth on the subject.

SIGNIFICANCE OF SCRIPTURAL PRECEDENT

It has been said that scriptural precedent, or apostolic example if you please, indicates liberty of action or freedom to act rather than requirement to act in agreement with the precedent; or: what we may do as distinct from what we must do. This writer sees no error in this position as such. I believe it states exactly the truth about the significance of scriptural precedent. A scriptural precedent establishes authority for action today; it indicates freedom or liberty to act as did those involved in the precedent.

Example. If someone should question my right toreceive support from various churches, as I do, Ican establish my right so to do by making an appeal to scriptural precedent. God has shown his approval of such action in II Cor. 11:8 and Phil. 4:15-17.

As I see it, our objection to the Liberal position should not be lodged against the view that scriptural precedent only indicates freedom of action. Rather, it is where the Liberals go from there that leads from the "old paths." See below: "The Liberals' Error."

JESUS' USE OF SCRIPTURAL PRECEDENT

Jesus used scriptural precedent to establish the right of his disciples to act in a certain way in Matt.

12: Iff. A consideration of such a passage will reveal the proper use of scriptural precedent.

The disciples were picking and eating grain on the sabbath day. The Pharisees charged that they were violating the sabbath. In order to show the divineapproval of the disciples' conduct Jesus appealed toscriptural precedent — an instance in the life of David involving the same basic principle as the present case. The thought is, if David was right, then the disciples were right. In this instance, justification of the conduct of the latter is found not in a direct divine order for men so to behave but in an approved scriptural precedent.

Scriptural precedent should be used in the same manner today. We may find no specific instruction in the scriptures directing us to do a certain thing. But if we can find where someone has done this thing with divine approval, we have a precedent showing that God is pleased with such action.

ANOTHER EXAMPLE

Consider Heb. 7:11-14. The writer shows that Jesus could not have been a priest under the law of Moses. A change of law was necessary to the priesthood of Jesus.

Why? Because the law presents no precedent for a priest from any tribe except Levi. Notice verse 13 in particular. The writer points out that no man from the tribe of Judah "hath given attendance at thealtar." Is he not saying that there is no precedent in the law for a priest from Judah ?

I submit that if such a precedent could have beenfound, then Jesus could have been a priest under the law (so far as the qualifications are concerned), even in the absence of direct instruction. The precedent would show the divine approval.

THE LIBERALS' ERROR

The Liberals are correct in some of their statements about scriptural precedents; it is not an error to explain the significance of the scriptural precedents as simply showing liberty of action — what we may do; what we are free to do. So far so good. But then they get off the track, and defend and engage in activities for which there is no scriptural precedent and therefore no liberty of action. They turn to the scriptures and see what we are given the freedom to do, and then do something else — something authorized by no precedent nor by any other indication of the divine will.

Example. Scriptural precedent establishes the right for churches to send wages to a preacher in the field. But where is a scriptural precedent showing authority (or liberty of action, if you will) forchurches to send funds to a sponsoring church ? None can be found. Therefore, this is done without divine authority and approval. It is not wrong because there is a scriptural precedent of churches sending to a

preacher. It is wrong because there is no precedent for churches sending to a sponsoring church. If there wer e such a pr ecedent, then both pr actices wouldhave expr ess divine appr oval. But as the case actually stands, the precedents for "direct support" of the preacher are the only precedents we have. Thus we have a case in which that which we may do becomes that which we must do; that which we ar e free to do becomes that which we are required to do. The Liberal attitude is the direct reverse of the scriptural view. The Liberals see that there is noprecedent for something and then do it anyway. Butin a similar case, the writer of Hebrews, in the absence of a precedent in the law for a priest fromJudah, concludes that therefore Jesus could not bea priest under the law of Moses; a change of law was necessary to the priesthood of Jesus.

DIVINE REVELATION

It seems to me that two questions will establish the truth on the subject. First, does scriptural precedent reveal the will of God ? Is is a part of the divine revelation of the divine will? According to Jesus' usage in Matt. 12: Iff., we can only say that it is.

Second, is revelation complete ? Do we, in the New

Testament, have a complete revelation of the will of

God? If so, then when we gather all the direct in

struction and all the precedents together into a whole

we have a complete r evelation of the ar eas in which

God wants us to act. Beyond this we must not go.

Outside this sphere we cannot stray without incur

ring the divine displeasure.

As the present writer views the matter, the cur

rent Liberal thinking must fit into one of two cate

gories; i.e. it is either akin to (1) the attitude of the

latter day or continued r evelation gr oups who think

not all of God's will is contained in the Bible; or, and

even less honorably, (2) the thinking of those who

believe all of God's will is contained in the Bible but

presumptuously and obstinately refuse to respect

that will by submission and obedience, in order to

walk in the ways of lawlessness accor ding to the

lusts of the human heart.

W. W. OTEY, CONTENDER FOR THE FAITH

A history of controversies in the church ofChrist from 1860-1960

by Cecil Willis

A biography of one of the greatest gospel preachers of this century — William Wesley Otey, A well documented book with some of the most pertinent and important information bearing on the present issue in the church today and its development through the years.

425 pages $4.00

Order From:

PHILLIPS PUBLICATIONS

P. O. Box 17244Tampa, Florida 33612

"GIVE BOOK, CHAPTER, AND VERSE"

I recently received a very fine letter, dated February 16, 1967, with a renewal for another year of Searching The Scriptures. The brother who wrote the letter asked me to answer some questions, which I am glad to do, regarding cooperation through institutions like Searching The Scriptures. This gentleman signed his letter but asked that his name not be used. I will gladly respect his request. I ignore unsigned letter s. If one is too cowar dly to sign his name, I have no r espect whatever f or anything bemay have to say. Into the trash can it goes!

I quote here the portion of the letter that pertains

to his questions: "Is it scriptural for Christians of different congregations to cooperate religiously through private financial institutions such as 'Searching The Scriptures?' Show by the Bible that theearly Christians practiced such cooperation or institutionalism. Give book, chapter and verse. "Isn't this type of cooperation or institutionalism a thr eat to the local autonomy of congr egations ? What is going to keep local congregations from looking to Tampa, Florida fordirection? Isn't this another step toward digression ?

"I am a so-called liberal. I believe the conservatives are guilty of some of the things they profess to be against."I enjoy reading your paper." There are six matters

to be considered in answer-ing this fine letter: (1) Is it scriptural for Christians of different congregations to cooperate? (2) Can theycooperate through private financial institutions such as Searching The Scriptures? (3) Show by the

Bible where early Christians practiced such cooperation or institutionalism. (4) Isn't this type of cooperation or institutionalism a threat to local autonomy of congregations? (5) What is going to keeplocal congregations from looking to Tampa, Florida for direction? (6) Conservatives are inconsistent — guilty of what they oppose.

1. Is it scriptural for Christians of different congregations to cooperate?

"Cooperate" simply means to work together (IICor. 6:1). A "Chr istian" is one who belongs to Christ — a child of God; a member of the body ofChrist, which is the church (Eph. 1:22,23; Col. 1:18,25). Christians are such 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and fifty-two weeks a year. Two Christians from different congregations may work together, not as churches for the body of Christ (church) is not one member but many (I Cor. 12:20), but as individuals in the realm of individual responsibility.

There are different realms in which a Christian is to do his work in obedience to God. He has an obligation in the family realm but he is still a Christian (Eph. 1:1,2; I Tim. 5:8,16), in the civil realm (Rom. 13:1-7), in the business realm (Eph. 4:28; James 4:13), in the social realm (Rom. 12:17-21), and in the church assembled for worship and edifying (ICor. 11:17-34; 14:26-28).

I doubt that anyone would dispute the scriptural right of two Christians from different congregations to cooperate in the business world. But whatabout religious matters ?

This is a broad term and may include anythingthat is taught in the word of God. To others it mayinvolve only those things that have to do withworship to God. If the broad sense of the word is meant, then every phase of a Christian's life is involved. This includes his entire life in all relationships. If the idea of worship only is meant by "religious", any two Chr istians in the same assemblyare cooperating in one assembly. However, if teaching the word of God by two or more individualChristians is the specific thing in mind, we can show that two or more individuals worked together inteaching God's word. Whether they were members of the same congregation in a given city or not makes no difference because they acted as individuals and not as churches.

In Acts 8:4 the church in Jerusalem was scattered abroad and "went every where preaching the word." Philip went down to the city of Samaria and preached (Acts 8:5). This was not a church but an individual.Saul of Tarsus went to Damascus to bind Christians and return them to Jerusalem. The Lord appeared to him and after three days in Damascus a man sent by God told him what to do to be saved — become a Christian (Acts 9:6-18; 22:16).

Barnabas and John Mark went with Paul on the first preaching journey from Antioch. John left them in Perga in Pamphylia and returned to Jerusalem (Acts 13:13). After completing the journey Paul and Barnabas returned to Antioch (Acts 14:26,27). In Acts 15:22 the apostles and elders at Jerusalem sent Barsabas with Silas back to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. When they decided to again visit thebrethren and Barnabas wanted to take John Mark, Paul refused. The result was that Paul took Silas (Acts 15:36-41).

H6re is cooperation between two individuals (not churches) who went out to preach the gospel of Christ. Acts 16 contains some of the inspired history of their work.

Was Paul a member at Antioch? Silas was sent back to Antioch with Paul from Jerusalem. Was he a member at Jerusalem ? If so, we have two members from different congregations cooperating in a religious endeavor (preaching the word). I do not believe it can be proved where Paul was a member; he was an apostle and had "the care of all the churches" (II Cor. 11:28). I am not sure where Silas was amember when he was chosen by Paul to work with him, nor do I think it is necessary to know. We do know that two individual Christians can work together (cooperate) in preaching the gospel, whether from Jerusalem or Antioch.

2. Can they cooperate through a private financial institution such as Searching The Scriptures?

Searching The Scriptures is not much of a financial institution. The paper has operated at a loss every year of its existence. This, however, does not answer the question. Since Chr istians as individuals canwork together in teaching the word of God by anyavailable means of communication, the written pagemay be scripturally used.

An institution is something instituted or established. It may be of human origin (created by man) or of divine origin (created by God). A Chr istian may institute something and use it to do what Godtold him (not the church) to do. For example, two Christians may institute (set up or establish) a bicycle factory and use the product they build toobey the Lord and "go" preach the gospel (Mark 16:15).

There is a vast difference between a Christian and a congregation. Two Christians may own and operate a commercial publishing company and publish Bibles for financial gain, but a church can not scripturally do so, even though it may purchase the Bibles to be used in the course of its work.

Searching The Scriptures is nothing more than apublication on a monthly basis, sold on subscription basis to help pay for the printing and mailing cost, to teach lessons from God's word. There is no corporation, no organization in the legal sense, not listed as a non-profit organization (although it is non-profit), and does not solicit or accept contributions from churches. This paper consists of nothing more than two preachers using this means of communication, with the help of a number of other preachers andothers who write without charge, to try to spread the word of God and encourage people to "search the scriptures" daily to learn the truth of the gospel.

3. I am asked to show the Bible chapter and verse where early Christians practiced such cooperation or institution. I have given chapter and verse for Paul, Barnabas and Silas on two occasions traveling together and working together (cooperating) in preaching the gospel. First, however, I should like to explain that "cooperation" and "institutionalism" are by no means synonymous. Cooperation means to work together. Institutionalism is that which is related to instituting or establishing a thing. An insti

tution may or may not involve cooper ation. T hese two wor ds have no mor e in common with each other than the words "fire" and "water." When Paul and Barnabas cooperated in preaching the gospel in Acts 13 and 14 they did some sailing in a boat that was "instituted" — created (Acts 13:4). They used thisinstitution (boat) a part of the time they cooperated with each other in preaching the gospel. The same is true of Paul and Silas.

4. Is this type of cooperation a threat to localautonomy ?

How in the world could the local autonomy of any congregation be affected when we do not call uponany church to contribute to this effort, nor do weinterfere in the affairs of any church ?

Autonomy means "self-rule" or independently governed. No church has anything to do with Searching The Scriptures, and I can assure you that Searching The Scriptures does not interfere in any way withthe function of any local church. No, this type of cooper ation is no mor e a thr eat to local autonomythan the cooper ation of Paul and Silas in pr eaching the gospel.

5. What is going to keep local congregations from looking to Tampa, Florida for direction?

The simplest and most direct answer I can giveis, We Will, if you mean by "Tampa, Florida" Searching The Scriptures. We are going to teach the word of God as best we can, and if Christians or churches are shown to be in error, it is the word of God that directs, not "Tampa, Florida." We vigorously oppose anyone taking Searching The Scriptures or any other human publication or man as divine author ity. We encour age all to sear ch theword of God for divine truth.

6. The gentleman who wrote this letter concludes by saying, "I believe the conservatives are guiltyof some of the things they profess to be against."I have no doubt that this is true in many cases.Sometimes it is done in ignor ance and sometimesfor other reasons.

I can only speak for myself. I try to be consistent with what I believe and teach fr om the gospel of Christ. If I learn from the word of God that I am wrong on any subject, or acting inconsistently withwhat I preach, I will change immediately. Will youdo the same?

On the matter discussed in this article there is no contradiction between what I preach and practice. Let me say again that I appreciate the fine spirit of the brother who wrote and the good letter regarding the subject just discussed. I wish more had the mind to discuss questions of difference andsearch for the truth in God's revelation.

I have on hand a number of questions concer ning the "covering" of I Cor. 11:1-16. Knowing thatbrother Phillips was working on an arrangement for some exchange articles by representative men with opposing views, I have def erred dealing with thematter. However, since the delay has extended itself beyond what was anticipated, I feel that circumstances demand at least brief comments in this column and a clear statement of my position. I am sur e all look forward to a more extensive treatment of the matter when the articles mentioned above appear.

Let it be understood by all that I have some of the dearest of friends and closest of fellow workers who hold opposite views from mine on this matter. I would not suggest much less encourage anyone to violatehis conscience in the matter. I am persuaded thattolerance should be exercised among brethren whilewe all continue to study the issues objectively. It is a matter in which one stands or falls to his own master (Rom. 14:5), therefore, let us not judge one another (Rom. 14:13). It is an individual matter and oughtnot to be made a test of fellowship.

The primary issue involves whether or not what Paul bound on the saints at Corinth in these verses relative to cover ing the head was bound on saints everywhere and for all time. It does not meet the issue to appeal to I Cor. 1:2, for it is obvious that some things in the epistle have specific application.

For the sake of brevity and the unanimity thatalready prevails we may pass over some things, namely, the divine order of God over Christ over man over woman. This order of authority has been ordained of God and prevails for all men for all time and, therefore, must be respected by all.

The use made of the "covering" of our text signified respect or lack of respect for this divine order (verses 7-10). Now, pertinent to the issue is this question : Why did the covering of our text signify such?The real issue cannot be decided until this question is answered in the light of truth. Was it because of Roman decree? Was it because of a universal decree of the Almighty God? Or, was it because of localusage or custom ? Remember, the question is not Why did the Corinthian Christians use the coverings asthese verses direct ? God commanded it — we know that! But, Why did the covering of these verses signify what it did ? This is the question! I affirm that it was because of local usage or custom. Therefore, while the divine order, respect for it, and submission according to that order is binding universally, that by which such is signified is not so binding. If it signified such then, not because of a universal decree of God, but because of common usage or local custom, then it follows that such is signified now according to common usage or custom and not necessarily in the same way it was then. Hence, the importance of the pertinent question above. In proof of the position affirmed, I submit the three following reasons:

1. Because of the distinction made between the coverings of verses four and six. In verse four Paul said concer ning the man, "kata kefalein ekown" ("having his head covered"). Thayer defines "kata," "A pr eposition denoting motion or diffusion or dir ection from the higher to the lower; as in class. Grk.,joined with the gen. and the ace." "Kefalein" means the head. "Ekown" means "having" or "wearing." Hence, the literal meaning is, "having (something)down the head" (W. E. Vine). Berry's Interlinear ofThe Greek New Testament translates it, "[anything] on [his] head having." Young's Analytical Concordance says, "T o have on the head." Fr om this we see that while the veil is included it also admits other headgear, thus, making it generic. It forbids man wearing anything on his head while "praying or prophesying."

In verse six Paul said concerning the woman, "kata kalupto" ("let her be covered"). In Greek prepositions are used in composition with verbs to heighten or make more intensive the action in the verb. Hence, inthis instance the covering is made intensive, andtherefore, becomes specific so that the covering must fully cover. Accordingly, Young's Analytical Concordance so defines "kata kalupto": "To cover fully."

W. E. Vine says, "to cover up (kata, intensive)." T hayer says, "to cover up .. . to veil or cover one's self: I Cor. 11:6." Thus, in order for women to meetthe demands of this verse she must use a coveringthat goes down far enough to fully cover (not necessarily the face, but the head). If just anything wouldsuffice, then Paul should have used a generic expression as he did when speaking of the man in verse four. Paul wrote in recognition of the common usage or custom by which the order of authority demanded was signified in Corinth. The headdress of men varied,while women wore only the veil to signify submi ion. Thus, Paul's instructions conformed to local custom and its significance.

2. Because of the meaning of the word "nature" in verse fourteen. The point of Paul's argument in versefourteen is that of consistency. If long hair was a shame for man, so was the artificial covering under consideration. However, to prove that it was a shame,he appealed to common usage or custom — not to a universal decree of God or to a permanently fixed thing.

There are three possible meanings for the word "nature" in our text: (1) That which is inborn (Rom.2:27). If this be the meaning in our text, then womanis constituted physically by cr eation so as to havelong hair and man by comparison short hair. This, of course, is not always so. Many men would have longer hair than many women, if it were allowed to grow. Furthermore, this is not its meaning in verse fourteen. (2) That which is done from habit (Eph. 2:3).Some things by practice become a part of our nature

— we may call it second nature. This, however, is not its meaning in our text. (3) That which is according to native conviction (I Cor. 11:14). Robinson's Greek E nglish L exicon of the New T estament, in commenting on the meaning of "nature" in verse fourteen,says, "Spec, a natural feeling of decorum, a native sense of propriety, e.g. in respect to national customs in which one is bor n and br ought up." T hayer says,"the native sense of propriety." Both use the word "native" in the sense of environmental circumstances. Hence, to pr ove his point Paul appealed twhat seemed right to the Corinthians accor ding twhat they were used to or their environment — what seemed right accor ding to the pr actice wher e they were born or brought up — their nativity. Thus, iwas a "shame" for man to have long hair, not because of a universal law of God, but rather because of

custom.

3. Because of verse sixteen — What it teaches. Three things are significant in this verse: The word "seem," the phrase "no such custom," and the word "custom" itself.

Paul did not say, "if any man is contentious," but rather, "if any man seem to be contentious." There is a difference. Neither did Paul say, "if any man among you be contentious." It, therefore, admits the possibility of his being elsewhere. If Paul, for example, were not conforming to these demands in Judeaor somewhere else, yet demanded it of those in Corinth, he would appear contentious — as a crank or unr easonable man — in demanding of them what hehimself did not observe where he was. I believe this is what Paul meant. In justification of himself andothers elsewhere, he said, "We have no such custom,neither the churches of God." They did have the custom in Corinth and could not signify the divine order of authority demanded without observing it

Please notice that while most translations insert the word "other" before "custom," there is nothing ithe original Greek text to justify it. A literal translation is as the King James Ver sion r eads. Hencewhen Paul said "We have no such custom" he meant the one bound on them. The sign which existed bycustom in Corinth did not prevail everywhere else and conformity to it would not signify the same thing everywhere.

Furthermore, the meaning of the word "custom" confirms this. The word translated "custom" appears only one other time in the New Testament: "But yhave a custom, that I should r elease unto you one athe passover: . . ." (Jno. 18:39). Young's AnalyticaConcordance defines the word to mean "a common usage." W. E. Vine says, "a custom, a customary usage." It is not the word used to denote a custom or usage prescribed by law. If Paul meant to bind what he calls "custom" on all men everywhere for all time as that pr escr ibed by the law of God, he used the wr ong wor d. T his, of cour se, means that the HolSpirit was in error in this instance.

Thus, Paul concludes this discussion in defense of himself and others elsewhere who might appear contentious to the Corinthians in demanding of thesomething they wer e not themselves obser ving. Hand the apostles had not received such to be delivered to churches in general as a thing characteristic of and essentially a part of Christianity. Rather, it applied only where such custom signified the divineorder of authority that must always be respected.

THE FINGER-BONE OF SAINT ANNE

Devotion to the Catholic mythology of "Sainte Anne" goes back in Canada to the time of the founding of "New Frances." It was in the 1650's that thefirst settlers in what is now called the parish of Sainte Anne de Beaupr e, decided to build a house of worship. Accordingly, land was donated for the construction site of a Roman Catholic Chur ch building.On March 13, 1658, a missionary came to select theactual site of the building, and to "bless" the foundations of the proposed chapel. This chapel was bygeneral consent of the Catholic settlers of the community, to be dedicated to Sainte Anne . .. who accor ding to apocr yphal liter atur e was the mother of Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ. Thus, SainteAnne, to the devout Roman Catholic, was Chr ist's grandmother.

Now, accor ding to the Catholic E ncyclopedia, that very day of the "blessing" of the foundations of this chapel, Sainte Anne showed how f avor ably she viewed the undertaking by healing Louis Guimont, an inhabitant of Beaupre, who suffered terribly from rheumatism of the loins. The Encyclopedia states:"Full of confidence in St. Anne, he came forward and placed thr ee stones in the foundations of the newbuilding, whereupon he found himself suddenly andcompletely cur ed of his ailment."T he Catholic E ncyclopedia continues: "For two centuries and a half the great wonder-worker has ceaselessly and lavishly shown her kindness to allthe sufferers who from all parts of North America flock every year to Beaupre to implore her help." * * * *

".. . On either side of the main doorway (of the church building. L.W.M.) are huge pyramids of crutches, walking-sticks, bandages, and other appliances left behind by the cripples, lame, and sick, who, having prayed to St. Anne at her shrine, havegone home healed.

"The canons of Carcassonne, at the request of Monseigneur de Laval, first Bishop of Quebec, sent to Beaupre a large relic of the finger-bone of Sainte Anne, which was first exposed for veneration of 12,Mar ch, 1670, and has ever since been an object of great devotion. Three other relics (pieces of bone. L.W.M.) of the saint have been added in later times to the treasures of this shrine. In 1892 Cardinal Taschereau presented the Great Relic to the basilica, the wrist-bone of St. Anne. It measures four inches in length, and was br ought fr om Rome by Msgr . Marquis, P.A." (Pages 539-540, Vol. I.)

The Bible itself does not give the name of Christ's grandmother, either maternal or foster -paternal. When people fell down before the Apostle Peter, he reprimanded them with the words: "Stand up; I myself also am a man" (Acts 10:26). Yet Roman Catholicism not only venerates (anonym for "worship." L.W.M.) the grandmother of Jesus, but also venerate or worship the bones of her wrist and little finger. How r evolting!

Such a practice comes as near imitating the ancestor worship of the Orient as anything this scribe has obser ved.

BENEVOLENCE: No. 3

PHILANTHROPIA

Thayer defines philanthropia as "love of mankind," "benevolence." Moulton obser ves that theword is best understood in the sense of "kindness," "humanity," rather than "philanthropy," or "the love of mankind" in general. In the classical Greek lexicons the noun does not occur. The word occurs only twice in the Greek Testament: Acts 28:2, Tit. 3:4; however, the adverb philanthropos, "humanely,""kindly" occur s in Acts 27:3. Her e it is said thatJulius treated Paul "philanthropically."

I see no reason for departing from the obviousderivation of philanthropia to render the term "humanity" rather than "love of mankind." True, Moulton cites the papyri where certain passages are translated "kindness" (philanthropia), but the gooddeed could have arisen from a "man-love."

AGATHOS

T he adjective agathos denotes moral goodness. However, the term is used in the neuter to denote goods, or riches. In this sense it occurs as to agathon,"the good thing." This neuter use is not unknown inthe papyri, for Moulton cites its occurrence where itmeans "blessings and possessions."

The occurrences of to agathon in the Greek Testament ar e ver y numer ous. T he expr essions "good work" (ergon agathon), "the good thing" and "the good things" (to agathon and ta agatha), occur in various ways in ninety-six different passages in the Gr eek T estament.

Just one outstanding example of the use of toagathon is Gal. 6:10 where Christians are admonished to do good (literally, "work the good thing") to all men; especially to those of the body. Evidently, in this passage, to agathon signifies an outward or physical support, an aim, or blessing.

CONCLUSION EPARCHEO

Thus, from the pages of Catholicism's official andApparently eparcheo is derived from the verb authentic E ncyclopedia, the idolatr y, mythology andarcheo, which denotes having sufficient strength or superstition of that religion can be demonstrated. unfailing strength. The strengthened verb eparcheo

(from archeo plus epi) denotes "to ward off or driveaway." A secondary sense involves the idea of aiding or giving a istance.

The term occurs only three times in the Greek Testament: I Tim. 5:10, 16, and in all of these instances the term has to do with the support of widows and widows "indeed." It is to be noted particularly that Paul makes a distinction between theeparcheo of the individual and the eparcheo of the local church. He says that the church is not to be "charged" with widows who have other means of support.

Several years ago Mr. Bogard published a little booklet which he called, "Campbellism Exposed." Mr. Bogard and others down through the years have insisted in calling us Campbellites, even though thehave been corrected dozens of times. The Church of our Lord was planted on American soil before Alexander Campbell ever set foot on this side of the ocean. Baptist preachers know this but continue to insist that Alexander Campbell started the Church of theLord. I believe it was the late W. Curtis Porter who said, "Any person who calls us 'Campbellite' is either ignorant or low down mean."

On page twelve Mr. Bogard talks about what hecalls a CONTEMPTIBLE GRIN, which he says all Campbellites have. This grin seems to bother most Baptist preachers. He says, "Campbellites everywhere have a contemptible grin that nobody else in the world has. That which is characteristic of them everywhere can't be a happen so. Just dispute thCampbellite doctrine at any point or preach heartfelt salvation in their presence, and at once they begin to grin. Nobody on earth has that grin except Campbellites. I began to notice it many years ago in Kentucky. I wondered if it was not just a local matter produced by ill-breeding. But I went to Tennessee and found the same grin. Then I went to Mi ouri andthere they also had the grin. Then I moved to Arkansas, and still they grinned. I then went to Texas and Oklahoma and the grin abides. There is something inthe Campbellite doctrine that produces it. You candispute with Methodist, Presbyterians, Catholics,Mormons and Infidels and you will never see that grin. But even the boys and girls among Campbellites have it. The grin shows a mingled feeling of contempt, insolence ill-breeding, ignorance and wickedness, a combination to be found in nobody else but Campbellites."

Thus, Mr. Bogard, let the little grin get under his

skin. I doubt that I would have admitted, to th

public that such a small thing would have merited a

chapter in my book. I have often wondered what Mr.

Bogard and other Baptist preachers want us to do

when false doctrine is being preached. It seems the

would prefer to be slapped than to see us grin. I al

ways thought it was nice to see a person grin a little.

Mr. Bogard says that even the boys and girls grin.

Yes, that is right. They have been taught the Bible

and know when a man begins to teach false doctrine.

If Mr. Bogard wonders why we grin I will give him

a sample out of his Way-book. On page seventy-five

he has an article on the ordination of preachers, which

would cause any man, with Bible knowledge to grin a

little. As a matter of fact it might cause him to burst

into a full grown laugh! He says, "The method of

ordaining preachers is to invite a council of preachers — a presbytery — and the church through the council examines the candidate for ordination concerning his call and qualifications for the gospel ministry. After a careful and prayerful examination, whichwould fittingly be accompanied by fasting, if thepresbytery deems its candidate worthy of ordination, the church is notified. Then the church by vote, receives or rejects the report of the presbytery, as it may choose, the entire responsibility for the ordination being in the church. If the church accepts the report of the presbytery, the ordination follows, which consists in prayer and the laying on of the hands of the presbytery"

It is surprising to see how much false doctrine aBaptist preacher can put in a short article. Then hewonders why we grin. Mr. Bogard and other Baptist preachers do not know what "Presbytery" means. He said it was a group of preachers! This would cause any Bible student to grin. The word in First Timothy

4:14 is "Presbuteriou" and refers to elders in the church. The word, I believe, is only used three times

i n the New Testament. In Acts Twenty, the same men were called elders, "Presbuterous" overseers, "Episkopous" and were told to feed, "Poimainein" the flock (Acts 20:17-28) W. E. Vine in his word studies says on page twenty-one, "In the Christian churches, those who, being raised up and qualified by the" work of the Holy Spirit, were appointed to have the spiritual care of, and to exercise oversight over, the churches. Tothese the terms bishops, episkopoi, or overseers, is applied (see Acts 20, ver. 17 with ver. 28, and Tit. 1:5 and 7) the latter term indicating the nature of their work, presbuteroi their maturity of spiritual experience."

I have no objection to a man fasting, but to make it part of an ordination service is false doctrine. Mr. Bogard tells us that a church by "Vote" has the right to accept or reject the ordination of a preacher. I deny that a church has a right to say whether or not a man can preach. It is true that a local congregation cankeep his off their property but that is a far cry from saying that he couldn't preach elsewhere. This puts authority in the church instead of the Bible. The Catholics have made this blunder for years. Let us come back to the Bible in all things.

Since, as bro. Lovell stated, "there is no local church that can alone fulfill all of the commandments for the universal church . . ." then it must be, as he also stated that only the "universal church" can carry out the "universal cause." The "cause" exists only by reason of "commandments for the universal church." Hence the "action" by the "universal church." But we ask, how does bro. Lovell propose to do this and yet stay in harmony with the will ofGod, or "Speak where the Bible speaks" as he claims "here at David Lipscomb college and in every pulpit today of every church of Christ in Nashville" it is being done or declared at least "for more than a half century?"

When he spoke of "Action by a Universal Church for a Universal Cause" there were some things he should have considered very carefully. Action is motivated by a cause; the cause necessitates action. But the cause is determined by commandments; it exists only because the commands are given to stimulate the cause into action. Since the UNIVERSAL CAUSE motivates the UNIVERSAL ACTION, it iscarried out by the UNIVERSAL CHURCH and thus must be under the oversight of UNIVERSAL ELDERS. How can the cause be universal, the action be universal, the commandments be universal, the church be universal and the elders in connection with

all of this be LOCAL??? Bro. Lovell is setting up aUNIVERSAL BISHOP by his theories. If this is not the same cry for "cooperation" made by Campbellbecause "the church in the aggregate has the responsibility. . ." then pray tell, what is it?

Again notice: ACTI ON demands planning, wor k, the r eceiving and distributing of funds. All of this ACTION demands oversight. And since elders of the church have OVERSIGHT over any ACTION necessitated by COMMANDMENTS with regard to a given CAUSE, then to what degree or extent is the CAUSE, then to the same degree the ACTION iscarried out. Therefore to the same degree or extent the OVERSIGHT BY ELDERS is involved.

Since ACTION demands all this, and since we allknow that elders are to "feed the flock," they are "over you in the Lord" (I Thess. 5:12), they have "the rule over you" (Heb. 13:7 — though some of my so-called conservative or "sound" brethren try to deny this), then they are to oversee the ACTION undertaken by the church "which is among you."But now, if it is as br o. L ovell put it, "action by auniversal church . . ." his argument, to be consistent with all that is involved in ACTION would DEMAND UNIVERSAL BISHOPS HAVING OVERSIGHT OF THE UNIVERSAL CAUSE OF THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH BECAUSE OF UNIVERSAL COMMANDMENTS. It must of necessity demand universal oversight. You simply cannot activate the universal church, to carry out "commandments for the universal church" without universal oversight over the "action." Either the "cause," the "action" and the "commandments" are carried out on the local level with its elders restricted in their oversight to the "flock" which is "among you" or the '"cause," etc., carried out by the universal church must be under univer sal elder s.

T hus, such an application of principle would makethe words of Paul to "take heed ... to the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church .. ." to have an entirely different meaning than what elders and preachers have beenpreaching and teaching for generations. What wouldbr o. L ovell think all this meant?

First, "the flock" would not be the local church but the universal. "Over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers" would not limit their oversight to, or within the local church, but as bro. Lovell put it, "Action by a Universal church." Had God intended that the univer sal chur ch be activated or carry on any function, he would have made it after the order of the CATHOLIC CHURCH!

NEEDED: A UNIVERSAL CHURCH TREASURY

Not only is Jimmie L ovell's dr eam of an activateduniversal church dangerous and unscriptural, buthis method of promoting or "activating" this work is equally unscriptural. But as brethren are willing to give to support so many unscriptural "causes" of various sponsoring churches, so also bro. Lovell isconfident brethren all over will come to the assistance of his "universal cause," for he said: "I know from years of experience of raising money for church work that our people will give." So because of his "experience" he proposes a plan so "scriptural" that "NO MAN LIVING CAN PUNCH AN UNSCRIPTURAL HOLE IN IT." But we shall learn that his "scriptural plan" is shot through andthrough with "unscriptural holes" and nothing scriptural is left about it. But of course, if brethren are no longer concerned with what is right or wrong,why be concerned about operating such schemes inthe first place? When one ignores or rejects scriptural authority in one given area it is no difficult task to get around anything and everything theywant to oppose to put their "cause" in "action."

Notice his method of meeting this "whole world obligation and r esponsibility." He said, in the same paper, "I know that the dollar per member plan(Miss a Meal — LR) will work — we are already seeing it work. Right now in Korea we need close to$260,000 and in June we hope to bring another issue of ACTION asking that every member give his dollar— no more. In this way not a church treasury will be touched or budget disturbed" (Emph. mine — LR). Now let us see wher e some "unscriptural holes" can be "punched."

We can be a bit curious to know just how all this will work — carrying on a world-wide "obligationand responsibility" as "their program of work"(Otter Creek church) without "touching" or "disturbing" the CHURCH T RE ASURY OR BUDGET ? If not a CHURCH T REASURY will be touched, thenWHOSE treasury will be "touched" or WHOSE BUDGET will be "disturbed?" WHO IS FINANCING this work? Brethren, we have something with a "new twist." For years one human organization after another has been begging, soliciting funds from churches here and yon for this "good work" andthat, and now a HUMAN ORGANIZATION IS FINANCING A CHURCH WORK! Although the Otter Creek church is SPONSORING the Korean work as THEIR PROGRAM, they need Lovell's paper, ACTION, to campaign for money.

Thus it is not EVERY CHURCH "co-operating" to meet "the whole world obligation," but now we havethe church — and ACTION! The work is supervised by the Otter Creek elders, the financial drive, or campaign, is made and directed by bro. Lovell's ACTION so as not to "touch the church treasury," andWOMEN are employed to solicit and collect thesefunds. Bro. Lovell said: "I believe we could find five or more ladies in every church who would solicit thedollars from each member for these world-wide, allchurch needs." So now Lovell is soliciting for ladies to solicit funds for "church needs." He urged: "Become an 'AA' — Action Assistant — and join handswith us (ACTION), some of the leading elderships of the nation .. . as we wage war on the Devil." (Some fight!.. If this is a CHURCH NEED, then itrequires CHURCH ACTION. But bro. Lovell believes in doing big things in big ways ... a church need, acampaign by ACTION, and money collected by ACTION Assistants — WOMEN — all of which involves the organizational function of the church!

Since br o. L ovell stated that ". . . not a chur ch treasury will be touched or budget disturbed," these ladies, "ACTION Assistants," who will collect these"Miss A Meal dollars" will "turn their gifts over tothe treasury (ACTIONS) to be forwarded to theelders of the church sponsoring this project." WE RE ALL Y HAVE A CONFUSED "EXPEDIENCY." The church is sponsoring the project, ACTION operates this collection drive, and "ACTION Assistants"

". . . THEY REHEARSED ALL THAT GOD HAD DONE WITH THEM . . ."— Acts 14:27

are collecting the money for ACTION, which in turn will be "forwarded to the elders of the church sponsoring the project." QUESTION: Why not simply let the women of each congregation collect and forward these funds directly to the sponsoring church

— if they are so concerned with "expediencies ?"Since they no longer are concerned with a scriptural collection (I Cor. 16) one would think they would atleast find a less confusing way to practice an expediency! Truly, their "expediency" is very "inexpedient." We just wonder how long it will take for women in various congregations to constitute aBOARD OF DEACONESSES??? We also wonder, ifthis money will finally reach the elders sponsoring "THEIR PROGRAM OF WORK," where will this money be placed so as not to "touch" or "disturb" their church treasury? They must, of necessity, haveanother treasury, not the church's, so the church treasury will not be "touched." W. C. Hinton, Jr. 715 Sunny Dell Dr., Clermont, Fla. — T he time for us to return to our labor in Japan is upon us and we find that our support is, at this writing, $280.00 a month short of what weknow will be our needs in that countr y since wehave spent four years teaching the Word there. Are there not interested brethren and congregations thatwill rise up in response and say that we will helpto reduce this amount by $25, $50, or a $100 a month ? ? We have tried in every way to economize, in order not to be a burden on the brethren, butther e is a point beyond which we cannot go. Nancyshops in wholesale areas, freezes foods, and provides mostly Japanese type diets. We have lived ina condemned house f or two year s. We take our things to the West Coast via a U-Haul trailer to meet the ship. Thus, we fail to see why brethren should not see 'that our needs are met and assist us in this work. It should be noted that as far as I know, we will be the only fully conservative pr eacher among 100 million people or say one half of the population of America. We are to leave August 3rd from San Francisco to be in Japan for three years. Those interested in seeing our needs met please contact me at the address below. We earnestly solicit your prayers.

Del Rio Meeting House

Robin Willis, Tampa, Florida — The Del Rio church of Christ moved into its new building onthe corner of 50th Street and Sligh Avenue on thefirst Sunday of February, 1967. Everett C. Mann isthe evangelist her e and is doing a ver y splendid job.We cor dially invite br ethr en to visit with us as youhave opportunity.

Truman Smith, Akron, Ohio — The Thayer Street chur ch of Chr ist in Akron, Ohio will be engaged in a gospel meeting June 12 thr ough 18 with Br other

W. L. Wharton, Jr. of San Antonio, Texas doing thepr eaching. Ser vices nightly at 7:45.

PREACHER WANTED

T he 9th Avenue chur ch of Chr ist in St. Petersburg, Florida desires to contact a preacher of the gospel who may be interested in moving to labor with this church. Fred Liggin, Jr. is now with the 9th Avenue chur ch but plans to go back to Africa January 1, 1968. This congregation plans to help him in this wor k. We can provide adequate support for the right man.Please contact Lano Mosley, phone: 894-0360 St. Petersburg, or Bob Keannerer, phone: 347980 St. Petersburg, Florida. The church building is located at 1315 9th Avenue north, St.Petersburg, Florida.

T om Bunting, Miami, Fla. — Last night I r eceived a telephone call from Claremont, New Hampshire telling us of the passing of Wilmer Libby. Brother Libby passed away suddenly March 9, 1967. He was a gospel preacher, a native of the state of Maine, and to my knowledge the only preacher in the state of Maine tr ying to hold the line against digr ession

and seeking the "old paths."

Brother Libby loved the Lord and was willing tobe a "tent maker" if necessity required in order topreach the gospel of Christ.

My first and only acquaintance with brother Libbywas during a gospel meeting I had at Milbridge,Maine in May 1966. He drove the 200 miles from Houlton to Milbridge and it was a great encouragement to us in the meeting. Since then I have keptup with him through mutual friends. I believe truly a soldier of Christ has fallen. The faithful brethren in Maine shall miss him.

A REVIEW OF GUNSELMAN

Ronnie P. Sadorra, Manila, Philippines

Douglass Gunselmen, a school director of Philippine Bible College, Quezon City, published an article entitled "When To Train Preachers — Why?" which appeared in the Firm Foundation of June 29, 1965and was published in our Manila Messenger on August 7, 1966. It contained many indictments against the Filipino people in general and the Filipino Christians in particular. Many brethren believe that Gunselman has judged the Filipino maliciously and in so doing he has made himself guilty of conduct unbecoming a foreigner in this country who claims to be a preacher of God's word. In the interest of truth we offer a review of the article.

Gunselman said: ". . . We do not understand that we have so many good things in the States. We don't think of ourselves as rich, or as having reached Utopia. But things in the States are so much better,that once a Filipino has 'tasted' the good things, heis seldom completely happy in his native land again.His resentment of his comparative position takes many forms. At least nine out of ten are useless to the church when they return from having been overseas to school. .."

We can count by the fingers the few Filipino members of the church who have gone to the States to study, We know most of them. Among those who have returned, we do not know of anyone who is not happy in his native land. Will Gunselman name one ? Moreover, he claims that nine out of ten are useless to the church. After six months in the Philippines has he met those who have returned and has he become familiar with their work to enable him to pronounce such harsh judgment? In fairness to those who are now laboring in the Lord's church in this country, will Gunselman name those who are useless ? Some have said that Gunselman must be sufferingfrom some kind of complex or is laboring from some kind of illusion to make such irresponsible statements.

Gunselman says further: "Culturally, it is a mistake to send students to the States. Nearly everyFilipino tries to build himself an empire. He wants others around him that he can command. His culture teaches him to 'use' people, if he can get by with it."

This is a libellous utterance, wildly hurled at the Filipino people. Where did Gunselman study Filipinoculture? Who are the Filipinos he has associated with and observed? After six months in the Philippines, Gunselman thinks he is in a position to judge us. Who is he? A superman with super intelligence?Or an American in a foreign land disguised as apreacher and pretending to be a Christian?

He says: "Some go to the States to make contacts to raise money for their empire. Christianity is just the method used. Many fine Christian people havbeen 'taken in' this way.

This is a serious accusation against Filipino members of the church. It depicts the Filipino Christians referred to as being so materialistic that they are pictured as swindlers preying upon their Americanbrethren. One must have a solid foundation of facts before making such statements. Will Gunselman substantiate his claim by naming the Filipinos he hasknown as such and the fine Chr istian people whhave been "taken in" this way?

To our knowledge no American was ever asked byany Filipino to come to our country to preach. Yetevery American who has come has been extended the traditional Filipino hospitality. To every American mi ionary the Filipino Christians have extended the right hand of fellowship. To every American effort to spread the gospel, Filipino cooperation has been offered. In many instances, the American brethren who have been among us have erred. Sometimes their conduct has been wanting in spirituality. But the Filipino brethren have always been understanding. We have not failed to manifest our gratitude for the American effort, money and means broughtto this country in the furtherance of truth. But for us to be accused of being ambitious, materialistic and swindlers, we might just as well not be brothers in faith at all.

Again he says: "Never send money directly to anyFilipino, or any other Oriental. It is a bad mistake. It is not a matter of dishonesty. It is a matter ofapproach, which we find difficult to understand. What we call lying, stealing and misappropriation of funds is looked upon very differently by them."

We believe that no American is obligated to send any money to any Filipino. No Filipino has any rightto ask any American for any money. The extendingof financial aid must be voluntary on the part of the American as the giver. It must be accepted with due gratitude and responsibility by the Filipino. We believe that any Filipino who is not responsible enoughto be sent money directly from an American is notresponsible enough to preach. We do not subscribe to the idea of an American missionary receivingmoney for Filipinos in the same way as we do notsubscribe to the practice of having mission boards and institutionalism. A Filipino who can not betrusted to receive money directly should not betrusted to preach directly

It is adding insult to injury for Gunselman to impute upon the Filipino Christian a low standard ofmorality to say that we cannot see alike what is stealing, lying or misappropriation of funds. Certainly, an elementary knowledge of the Bible or even common sense will let us know that what stealingis to an American is also stealing to Filipino. Lyingto a white American is also lying to a brown Filipino.Misappropriation ? ?

FIVE SUBSCRIPTIONS FOR $10.00

DEBATE IN BIG "D"

J. R. Snell, Grenada, Miss.

The Kaufman Highway church building in Dallas,Texas was the scene of a debate February 6, 7, 9, 10.The disputants were A. C. Grider, preacher for theGreggton congregation in Longview and H. C. Mc-Caghren, who preaches for the Kaufman Highwaycongregation. This was the second debate betweenthese brethren in recent months, the first being heldin Longview.

The propositions for this discu ion respected the object of congregational benevolence. The wording was, "It is in harmony with the scriptures for the church to take money from its treasury to buy foofor hungry destitute children." Brother McCaghren was in the affirmative the first two nights. Brother Grider affirmed the last two as the proposition changed in wording to express, "It is contrary tothe scriptures — ."

The first two nights McCaghren presented thirtyodd passages of scripture in affirming his proposition that the church could support children. These respected, in the main, what he referred to as the principle he was defending. They were: Matt. 5:1644-47, 48; 10:42; 25:35; Mark 16: 15-16; Acts 8:1-4;20:7; Rom. 1:7; 7:4; 12:4-5, 20; 15:18; Gal. 6:6, 10;Eph. 2:15, 16, 19; 4:15-16; 5:19; Col. 3:17; II Tim.2:2; Heb. 3:6; Jas. 1:18, 19-22, 25, 27; I Pet. 2:21.

He affirmed that we must example Jesus, thus love "our enemies." When questioned, he noted there were some enemies the church could not help. Those so cla ified were denominational orphan homes because they teach error, lazy saints and false teachers. Thus, by McCaghren's own admission all who teacherror are excluded from church benevolence. Onlsaints are free of error thus saints are the onlobject of church benevolence. This Grider repeatedlyand adequately showed

Brother Grider in his negative speeches showed that of the thirty odd verses used by the affirmative only two dealt with the subject of church benevolence, Acts 11:29 and I Cor. 16:2. The object of onebeing BRETHREN and the other SAINTS.

Grider paralleled McCaghren's proof for the church support of children with the Methodist preacher's proof for sprinkling babies. He said, Mc-Caghren reads thirty verses that fail to mentionchurch benevolence and two which note the objecof church benevolence as saints and brethren. He concluded the church can help children. The Methodist reads thirty verses which fail to mention baptism and two which note that men and women were baptized. He concludes infants must be baptized

The last two nights brother Grider in the affirmative cited every passage in the New Testament dealing with church benevolence. They were: Acts 2:4445; 4:34-35; 6:1-16; 11:27-30; Rom. 15:25-31; I. Cor. 8:4; 9:1-15; I Tim. 5:16. He noted that in these passages the collection was: (1) Raised for saints; (2)Sent to saints; (3) Accepted by saints; (4) Supplied the want of saints. T he conclusion was that the church must help everyone it is commanded to a ist and leave off those for which there is no authority

Brother McCaghren, during the discussion, admitted there is no authority for elders overseeing a home. By this he is placed in opposition to a great part of his own brethren west of the MississippiRiver. He thus sanctions those homes under a board of directors, like Boles, and condemns as being without authority those, like Sunny Glen, which are under elders. These brethren who advocate benevolent institutions need to get together. A debate between them would help to find what they do believe.Grider showed that since McCaghren said the church could not support error and since homes under elders were wrong then according to him the church couldnot support a home under elders.

Attendance for the debate was estimated from 300 to 500 each night with the first night the largest. There were more than 50 conservative preachers in attendance one or more nights with perhaps as many as 30 every night. The liberal brethren were noticeably in absence with perhaps no more than a dozenattending in all.

The courtesy of the Kaufman Highway brethren was all that could be desired. The discu ion was orderly and enlightening bringing all we trust tofuller understanding. Brother H. C. McCaghren, oneof few men willing to defend his position in these matters, is to be commended for this. He is an abledebater and did as well as any I have heard in defense of his position.

Brethren who are agreed in their opposition tochurch support of benevolent societies have in themain feared the "saints only" proposition. Suchshould not be the case. This is what the Bible teaches so we ought to stand on it. I humbly suggest that when an opportunity to teach is afforded we ought to grasp it and not be too concerned about prejudicialand ambiguous wording of the proposition. Truth has nothing to fear. Let us contend for it. If we must discuss "saints only," the object of church benevolence, to teach our brethren let us be at it. Such is in reality a "back door approach" to the support obenevolent institutions and both areas of discu ion revolve about scriptural authority

The opportunity to serve as moderator in this debate for brother Grider was an honor. He upheld thetruth in a splendid way and good was done. Nothingelse can result when the Word is preached.

(Tapes of this debate may be obtained from Phillips Publications, P.O. Box 17244, Tampa, Florida 33612. The price for the four nights — four reels — is$12.00.)

Major Wallace H. Little, Clark Air Base, PhilippineIslands — I have been threatened with "disfellowship" — their word, not mine, by the church at Clark Air Base, Philippine Islands. (By the time you read this, it will probably be an accomplished fact.) This church is liberal in its understanding and applicationof the scriptures to its beliefs and practices. Most of the members here believe that it is acceptable toGod for the local church to support secular organizations out of its treasury as a means of accomplishingits work. This attitude is manifested by this church's use of the Philippine Bible College which is located at Bacuio City to train native preachers, when this school is "sponsored" by the church at Englewood,California church, and financed by other churches in the United States. In this, the church here is bidding godspeed to evil (II John 9-11). Additionally, this church provides monetary assistance to the church at Tachikawa, Japan, for its annual "Far-east Fellowship." Further, the Clark Air Base church buildings and grounds are owned by the Englewood, California elders, and that church "sponsors" the work here. Functionally, the Clark AB church does not have elders, but does operate under the "committee" system. In theory each committee is set up to investigate and advise the church collectively, butfactually, each committee "has the oversight" of its area of responsibility. This last statement was made to me twice by the head of one of these committees, the last time in the presence of four other members, and none disagreed with him.

Since my arrived here on 19 July, 1966, I have been trying to teach brethren the truth on institutionalism. As I have not been allowed to teach as part of the regular teaching program of the church here, I have used the only other method which was available to me — teaching from house to house. But even so, this thing was not done secretly or in a corner. I have had a number of lengthy discussions with Charles Davis, the local preacher, and my position is clearly understood by most, if not all of the brethren. The reactions to my teaching have been few: a fewbrethren, including brother Davis, have been violently opposed to me teaching on institutionalism under any circumstances. Most of the remainder of the brethren are indifferent to it, and refuse to discuss it (II Thess. 2:10-12). Some know the truth, and won't stand for it (John 12:42, 43).

On Thursday evening, 10 November, 1966, I was asked to meet with the Education Committee. I was, by this group, offered the opportunity to teach a class as part of the regular program of the church if Iwould cease teaching anything at all on institutionalism. I refused. For the next four hours, the meeting resembled an Ecclesiastical Heresy Trial more than anything else. During this, brother Davis several times informed me that if I didn't cease "sowing discord among the brethren," I would be "disfellowshipped." I asked him which charge he would bring

— moral misbehavior or causing offenses contrary to doctrine. He elected the latter, and "justified" his selection by his charge that by my teaching, I am "sowing discord among the brethren," and trying to "split the body of Christ." Evidently he has forgotten that one local church is not the body of Christ (Matt. 16:18, Eph. 4:4-7), and that the division ofthe local church at Corinth which Paul condemned in I Cor. 1:10-13 was over human opinion.

Brother Davis further threatened that if I tried to separate myself from this local group here, Iwould also be "disfellowshipped" for "dividing thebody of Christ." This was a remarkable display ofcarnal power (pressure tactics) from a Christian, and he needs to study and meditate upon the meaning of II Corinthians 10:4-5. The other members of the same committee did not dispute his conclusions nor disagree with his pronouncements.

I continued to try and teach brethren the truth on this business, but with little success. So, on 15 February, 1967, a few of us separated ourselves from this idolatry and those who practice it (II Cor. 6:17) because we could no longer worship with the Clark AB church of Christ in spirit and truth (John 4:24) and work with a group which refused to restrict itself to faith in its work.

I have since written to each adult member here whose address I was able to get, offering to study with them on these things.

I strongly urge any Christian coming over here to avoid the apostate Clark Air Base church of Christ. A small group of faithful brethren are meeting in aprivate home, and I recommend that any of you who are coming over and love the Lord to come and meet with us. I can be contacted at any time during working hours at extensions 46251 or 49187 on Clark Air Base, and after duty hours at telephone number Balibago 1492-R2 (local address. 359 Sierra Madre, Clarkview). If anyone who reads this has relatives or friends already stationed here at Clark who are members of God's church. I urge you to try to persuade them to leave the digressive group before they lose their souls. Pray for the spread of God's truth, and that we here might be faithful in our part ofspreading and standing for that truth.

"And so I saw the wicked buried, who had come and gone from the place of the holy" (Eccl. :10).

The Grim Reaper, death, is indeed a busy worker, and funerals are by no means an uncommon sight.Yet, some funerals are different than others. I know of no gospel preacher who relishes the thought ofpreaching any funeral, but there is no doubt thatsome funerals are not as difficult as others.

The best situation is that in which the person who has passed away has been a firm and faithful child of God. This provides both hope for the deceased and comfort to those who love him. Next in difficulty would probably be the funeral of a person who has never become a Christian. What can you say? There are no words of hope, no true words of comfort to be offered.

But, without doubt, the most difficult, discouraging, saddening, and futile circumstance of all is to try to preach the funeral of one who is an erring child of God, who has made shipwreck of the faith. Yes, some funerals are infinitely more sorrowful than others because of the character of the life that has been lived. "Blessed are the dead that die in the Lord" — and yea, cursed are they who die apart from Him.

In the verse above there is a burial contemplated. There is always something mournful about a burial, whether the body is that of a prince or a pauper. But the writer says, "I saw the wicked buried." It seems that there are some these days that never see the wicked buried — they always seem to be turned into saints, either immediately before or after death (Ihaven't figured out yet!). This reminds me of thelittle girl who was walking through the cemetery with her mother, and after seeing the epitaphs, said, "Mother, where are all the bad people buried?" From man's common attempt to eulogize every person who dies, one might get the idea that there are no badpeople that die. But one has merely to turn to this passage, or to the sixteenth chapter of Luke to find the funeral of such a one.

T he wise man issues a solemn warning to us in this verse, for he says about this wicked one who was buried that he "had come and gone from the place ofthe holy." That is, he had seen him going and coming from the temple, the house of prayer, just like the just and righteous and holy did.

They came and they went, and they went as they came — and they were buried as wicked persons. I saw the wicked buried who had come and gone from the communion table, from singing songs of praise to God, from praying long prayers — yea, this is no uncommon sight! Many in the Lord's church "comeand go,"' and go as they come, from the house of God

— never worshipping — thinking that their comingand going is all that is needed or required!

And it may well be that many churches are largely responsible for many that are buried as wicked — because the wicked have come and gone and failed to hear the true gospel preached in its power, purity, and simplicity. Some come and go through the force of habit, having been trained to do so from childhood. Others do so because it helps their respectability inthe eyes of men; others to make a display of themselves. But a few do it because they both love andfear Jehovah God.

Brethren, unless our coming brings us to Jesus Christ, and our going takes us out of this life into His eternal service, what shall it profit ?

NOTICE !

Have you renewed your subscription?If not, do it today! $3.00 per year.

BOOKS BY W. CURTIS PORTER

Quibbles That Backfired— Contains three sermons at Florida College several years ago. These are outstanding denominational arguments that Porter turned on his opponent. He had a large number of debates with all sorts of false teachers.

Price — $1.00

Sermon Outlines, Volumes I & II — Sermon outlines W. Curtis Porter used through the years of his preaching. Price — $2.00 Set of 2 vols. — $3.75

of the

LECTURE PROGRAM OF FLORIDA COLLEGE

January 24-27, 1966

SPECIAL ON ONE TAPE

Of special interest and importance — three lectures on Evolution, very ably delivered by Paul Foutz. Everyone should hear these lectures on this vital subject.

Only $3.00

An outstanding lecture on "Perversion of Justice" by Roy Cogdill. Due to the length and wealth of this lecture both sides of the tape were required to record it. A vital subject well delivered.

Only $3.00

ANY TWO LECTURES ON ONE TAPE

Make Your Choice

The World in Revolt— An Overview Claude Worley The Revolt Against the Bible .................. Yater Tant Proper Use of Science ..................... Art Dowell "They Made Lies Their Refuge" ..................... Jimmy TutenThe New Morality ...................................... Barney Keith License, Responsibility and Intelligence

Freedom ...................... C. D. Hamilton Revolt Against Doctrine as Basis of

Fellowship ............................................. Bryan Vinson Revolt Against Morality— Love Without Law .. Frank Puckett The Christian in the Midst of Revolt ........ Lloyd Moyer Standing on the Other Side . . . Choice Bryant Individual Conscience and Group Action . . Sewell Hall Spiritual Health and Recreation __ . .. Cecil Willis Revolt Against Governmental Authority . . . Ferrell Jenkins II Tim. 2:2 "Commit Thou" H. S. Owen "Rather Reprove" . .... . Charles Holt Making God in Man's Image James P. Miller

Recorded on new strong 1 1/2 mil. Mylar tape of good quality. This is new weather resistant tape,recorded on both sides at 3 3/4 speed and can be played on any recorder using a 7" reel.

Each tape (two speeches) — $3.00 Entire Program (10 tapes) — $27.00