THE NEW FREEDOM No. 2 David Edwin Harrell, Jr.

But now, let me briefly outline the major themes in radical thought in the 1960's. It is primarily concerned with freedom from old ideas, the ideas of theEnlightenment. What the hippie is saying is that hdoes not accept the philosophical, political or religious assumptions of modern man. If he is sober enough, and articulate enough, and bright enougto tell you, this is whyPhilosophical liberalism has been under attack for a century. Science itself has taught us the limitations of the intellect of man. We know that human knowledge is "relative" and that absolute truth is beyond the grasp of the human mind. Reason cantell us nothing about the eternal problems of man — origin, death, destiny. Pragmatic philosophy in th19th century and existentialism in the 20th century are the acceptance of defeat by the proudest of men. The man who boasts of his ability to "prove" anything scientifically is simply out of style; he proves his own ignorance. A lot of high school biologteachers would be eaten alive in a graduate philosophy cla . In short, we have come to live again in a world that faces realistically the limitations of the mind of man, a limitation which the Christian has never forgotten. It is the limitation which draws meclose to God. As the prophet said: "Oh Jehovah, I know that the way of man is not in himself; it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps" (Jer. 10:23)Political liberalism is also under attack from the left; more than one modern political critic has pronounced liberalism dead as a political philosophy. Political liberalism is, of course, one of the basic expressions of Enlightenment optimism. But if the world is notprogressing, and man is not rational and perfectable,then how can we expect a perfect society

Furthermore, the record of liberal reform is far from impressive. When will environmental reformaccomplish the perfect society ? Is man better in the twentieth century than in the 10th century? WaHitler better than Nero? There is much in human history which asserts that humanity remains the same. Evil is present in the world; sin is real; it is,and always has been, unr ealistic to believe thatsocial reform can eliminate wrong from the world.Man must bear the guilt of sin; he cannot transfer his responsibility to society

But the most vulnerable aspect of political liberalism has been its materialistic aims. The "great society" has been defined too simply in economic anmaterialistic terms. Is a society "great" when everycitizen is fed ? Is a nation "great" when every family owns an automobile?

Is the totality of greatness the possession ofthings? Can a society be great without spirit, andpride, and honor?

Of course, there are philosophical justifications for political liberalism. I do not intend to rehearse them; this is not a political speech. Religious liberalism and political liberalism do not necessarily stand or fall together. In religion man is guided by God; inpolitics man is, of necessity, guided by his own mind. But the modern radical does link all liberal ideologtogether.

In general these are the questions raised by thhip generation. They find rationalism sterile andmaterialism vulgar. They are critical of a government that buys poor people with welfare checks but offers no philosophy of hope or help. They are disgusted with parents whose God is the dollar, whose prop is a bottle, whose desire is his neighbor's wife,whose mind is empty and whose religion is a country-club farce. The frantic antics of the wildest hippicults are hardly more objectionable than the degrading and intoxicated materialism they are seeking toescape. They want to be free.

I believe that a Christian can understand the desire to be free from materialistic values and the futility of human reform. The radical is right whenhe says that there are more important things in life than physical comforts. Jesus said: "And if thyright hand causeth thee to stumble, cut it off, andcast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not thy wholebody go into hell" (Matt. 5:29). The radical is rightwhen he says that life must have a spiritual meaningto be worth while.

Finally, radical theology today has bitterly attacked established religious liberalism. The worthle ness of society-oriented Protestant churches hasbeen forcefully expressed by such scholars as Harvey Cox and Thomas J. Altizer, who have announcedthe death of God. But the death of God to them has been the death of useless social institutions which pretended to speak for God. Why consult God abouturban planning? I agree. What does the God of the Bible have to say about water pollution and air pollution? Nothing. The frantic contortions of liberal Protestantism to make their churches relevant to modern society has ended in making them totallirrelevant for anything. What could be more ridiculous than a hippie coffee house sponsored by thMethodist church; a jazz mass; a Christian love-in; or a "relevant Church of Christ" preacher. These are all contradictions in terms; they are efforts to serve two masters. The absurdity of all modern absurdities is the sloppy, sentimental, worldly, rationalistic nonsense that goes under the name of liberal Christianity. None should be surprised that men of goodsense, even though they might be irreligious, should ultimately call in question the shame and fraud of the system.

And so, at its best, modern radical thought has freed itself of much that was objectionable aboutthe past. It would be a mistake to ignore the weaknesses of our society because the critic has long hair. There is a large element of honesty in many of thdisillusioned young protesters in the nation; some have faced ugly truths which their elders have been too hypocritical to acknowledge.

Who can fault the youngster who revolts against the arid materialism of jet-set parents ? More power to the young man who catches a glimpse of the truth that life is more than meat and drink. But one has to be willing to take the consequences; if you argoing to renounce materialism, you ought to quitcashing the check from home. When one criticizes the crassness of the family busine , he needs to stop sending the bills home. But even if most young radicals are inconsistent, they have seen a truth that every man must see if he is to come to terms with life.

The radical attacks on liberal religion and its social and political preoccupation are full of real insight. I think liberal religion will never recover from theexposure of its religious irrelevance and its social impotence. To the radical, the saccharine, do-gooder,political priest is a caricature of a society which understands only material success and a religion whichhas sold its soul to serve mammon.

But if the hippie apostle of the new freedom hassome insights into the society of his elders, his freedom is not a total ble ing. If youth is free from the hypocrisy of the past generation, what is it free to do? Radical thought tends to be negative; it is easy to enumerate the sins of middle class society;but down what path does our new freedom lead us ? Are we free to take a trip, to cop out on drugs, tinduce temporary insanity by chemical manipulation? Is that what life is really all about? Or is sex the answer? Perhaps the meaning of life is promiscuity and physical satisfaction. Or are we simplfree to be cynics and critics of man with neither

Yes, I know — the date line on the April i ue of this paper was left off! This was the fault of theprinters, and I did not catch it until the paper was in the mail. I believe this is the first time this has happened in over ten years. I apologize for the error and will try to be more watchful henceforth and see that such does not occur again.

plan, nor hope, nor grasp of life.

For the keenness of his insight into the sins of others, the radical has shown little capacity to viewthe catastrophe of his own approach to life. It would be hard to choose between the country-club alcoholic and the hippie mar ijuana addict. T he hippie mighbe a better conversationalist but the middle class drunk would smell better. If these are the alternatives in life, I think I would have to play it straight;I prefer air conditioning and color TV to sleepingin the park and scuffling with the police. But materialism and radicalism are both sorry alternatives; man must hope for more.

In fact, the second basic error of the radical ishis assumption that all other men are Enlightenmentliberals. But it is not so. The exception is the Christian — through the ages, a man above his time, freefrom blinding human pride, free from the lust of the world, free from fear, free from guilt, but a servant to his master. Would you be free? Through thecenturies God's children have bowed their necks to stand against hypocrisy and worldline . If what the young radical seeks is pleasure or vice or companionship or the appearance of sophistication, let himsearch for the high priest of the hippie cult. If what he seeks is freedom from evil, the Lord offers freedom.

Christ died to make men free. He came to givwhat troubled souls are struggling to find. There is nothing new about the freedom which is in Christ,because there is nothing new about the problems from which men wish to escape. No one could speak more directly to the sensitive soul seeking that whichis real than did Jesus: "And ye shall know the truth,and the truth shall make you free. They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free ? Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever commiteth sin is the servant of sin. And the servant abideth not in the house forever: but the Son abideth ever. If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed" (John 8:32-36). Jesus offers consolation for every problem which troubles modern man; truth for those whorecognize the limitations of human reason and philosophy, freedom from sin for those who recognizethe evil of man and his hopeless inability to helhimself, freedom from the fear of death to those disgusted with the nonsense of worldly religion andetermined to find an eternal meaning for their life. Jesus does make man free; free from the "law of sin and death;" free from the everlasting enemies of man.

In truth, I am free from all of the things whichbother the young radical. I feel no compulsion toconform to society; I am a servant to God's law. The Apostle Paul proclaimed the freedom of the Christian: "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:27-28). If the hip generation wants to find a free soul, look to the Christian. I am free. I am free from the hypocrisy of my society, free from the escapism of the cocktail party, free from the intellectual vacuum of materialism, free frothe pressure to conform. The Christian has, and will, stand against all odds against the pressures of his society, set for the defense of his faith, ready tfight or suffer or live or die. Who can tell me about being free? I think and live more nonconformity ina day than a hippie does in a week. Because, bChrist, I am free from the world to live with him in dignity and love and grace and peace.

But I do not flaunt my freedom. My clothes and hair and shave are fairly standard. But, I know thathow you dress, or how you look, do not really finallymake any difference. I simply try to offend as few people as po ible with my looks. I do not use myfreedom for show. As Paul said: "For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more" (I Cor. 9:19).Or as Peter wrote: "As free, and not using your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness, but as the servants of God" (I Pet. 2:16). A frustrated adolescent may flaunt his rebellion against society with gaudy and self-destructive venom; the Christian will do it with dignity, with respect and with hope

But finally, the exponent of the new freedom will answer that the Christian alternative is not a relevant one in the modern world. Modern man's religious problems are new and they demand new solutions ; the Bible is too old. But it is not so. The Bible deals with precisely the problems of modern manwith the questions of the young radical; it dealwith truth, spirituality, guilt and death. The great mistake of man is to assume that religion ever meant to encompass more. The religious predicament of Abraham and Noah was the same as mine; human reason is no closer to solving the problems of sin and death than ever before. This is relevant: "The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want. He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters. He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name'ssake. Yea, though I walk through the valley of thshadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me. Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mineenemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my curunneth over. Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the Lord for ever" (Psalm 23). And this is relevant: "For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality,then shall be brought to pass the saying that iswritten, Death is swallowed up in victory" (I Cor. 15:53-54). There is no escape in this world frompain, nor in this life from sin, nor in this mortal body from death — except in Christ who giveth usthe victory. If you would be free, there is power in the blood of the Lamb.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED IN PROOF OF EVOLUTION

MUTATIONS (No. 5)

The Rarity of Many and Beneficial Mutations. For evolution, with common descent, to have taken placethere had to be many mutations and beneficial mutations. Yet the Evolutionary BSCS "Yellow" Textbook admits "Mutation, as a source of raw material for evolution seem to make it improbable because of two things— (1) The extreme rareness of mutations, and (2) their harmful nature." (considered in last issue). — "a mutant form of any particulargene will be found about once in 100,000 germ cells, as an average figure." (pp. 611-612). In The New You and Heredity, p. 476, Scheinfeld says, "It is through the rare instances of favourable mutations,of innumerable kinds and in countless numbers, occurring successively over very extended periods,that the whole process of evolution may now be explained." Yet in Radiation, Genes and Man, p. 35,Wallace and Dobzhansky affirm, "Mutational changes in any one gene are rare events. This is a different way of saying that, ordinarily, the genes reproduce themselves accurately." Waddington, Science Today, p. 36, says, "It happens rarely, perhaps once in a million animals or once in a million lifetimes." The 1966 World Book Ency, says, "Mutations rarely occur. Most genes mutate only once in 100,000 generations or more — researchers estimate that a human gene may remain stable for 2,500,000 years." Douglas DeWar declares, "Let us assume that the improbability of a favourable mutation extending to all the individuals of a species is a million to one (a very low estimate, by the way). The probability of two such favourable mutations extendingthroughout the species is a billion to one. With ten separate mutations, the improbability becomes astronomical" (Dr. Julian Huxley's Glorious Paradox,p. 4). In 1935 the Zoologist Haldane wrote, that "until natural conditions are found exhibiting a considerably greater number of mutations than those so far known, mutations cannot be considered capable of alone causing large alterations of species" (Evolution: Hypotheses and Problems by Collins, p.73). Morris says, "Evolutionists are hard pressed in finding any actually observed mutations, as distinguished from mere recombinations of genetic factors, which are helpful in the struggle for existence" (Twilight of Evolution, p. 44). Prof. Ramsey also declares, "As to beneficial mutations which havebeen supposed to exist, there isvery scant or no real

evidence to support their evolutionary advantage"(BS Newsletter, 8-15-1966, p. 4)The "odds" against evolution taking place byMANY mutations and BENEFICIAL mutations.

Morris in reference cited above states, "The mutation concept of evolution seems about as logical as to say that, if a man travels south 99 miles and then north 1 mile, again south 99 miles and back north 1 mile, and so on, he will read the north pole before he reaches the south." In the Wister Symposium at Philadelphia several computer mathematicians challenged many noted biologists present from bothAmerica and England when Dr. Murray Elden of

M.I.T. said, "Every attempt to provide for 'computer' learning by random mutations and by selection has been spectacularly unsuccessful, even though the number of variants a computer can trycan easily run into the billions." They said, "neo-Darwinism is not possible from computer mathematics" (B.S. Newsletter, 11-15-1968 by Dr. Geo. Howe, p. 2). Some evolutionists say it took nature100 million years to produce the leg of a horse from a pentadactyl limb, so one cannot expect to see much happening in 50 years. But some biologists are notsatisfied with such an explanation ( ?) for they feel the argument gets uncomfortably close to a poinwhere an adequate number of monkeys, tapping"typewriters" for an adequate length of time, wilinevitably produce an encyclopedia. Which reminds this writer of a poem he once read: "There was once a brainy baboon, Who always blew down a ba oon. For he said, 'It appears, that in billions of years, Ishall certainly hit on a tune.'" Waddington also strikes at the accepted theory, writing in Science Today, "We only have to wait long enough, therefore and any sort of gene mutation is bound to turn up; for instance all the genes which modify thbones of the forelimb to produce the knobs of the ant eater, or the long thin bones of the monkey. This is the theory that if you start with any 14 lines of coherent English and change it one letter at a time,keeping only those things that still make sense, yowill eventually finish up with one of the sonnets of Shakespeare. Now perhaps that is true, but is it really true enough ? — it strikes me as a lunatic sort of logic and I think we should be able to do better."

In Evolution in Action, Julian Huxley says, pp41-42, "A proposition of favourable Mutations of 1 in a 1,000 does not sound much but is probably generous since so many mutations are lethal. — And a total of a million mutation steps sounds a great deal but is probably an understatement — after all that means only one step every 2,000 years during biological time. But, with this proposition, without any selection, we would clearly have to breed a millionstrains (a thousand squared) to get one containintwo favorable mutations; and so on, up to a thousand to the millionth power to get one containing amillion. Of course this could not really happen, butit is a useful way of visualizing the fantastic odds AGAINST getting a number of favorable mutations in the strain through pure chance alone. A thou-sand to the millionth power, when written out, be-comes the figure 1 with 3,000,000 noughts(or zeros) after it;and that would take three large volumes of about 500 pages each, just to print. This is the measure of the odds against it happening at all. Noone would bet on anything so improbable happening;and yet it HAS happened, thanks to the working ofnatural selection and the properties of living substance which makes Natural Selection inevitable." Geo. G. Simpson says about the same (about the fact that evolution has happened — P.F.), "Anyoneputting the most benign and condescending quantities into the picture and still insisting on evolutiowould have to infer that somehow the impossible must have occurred on earth, because we are here" ;(C.R.S. Quarterly, 2-21-1964, quoted from Science).Dobzhansky says the same, as Prof. Ramsey says"There is no certainty that beneficial mutations have ever occurred, notwithstanding Huxley's count andDobzhansky's curious system of logic — 'that our being here proves they have occurred'" (BS Newsletter 8-15-1966) (of course these men cannot see nor imagine that there could be another way wecould have gotten here — P.F.). R. B. Goldschmidt says, "Nobody thus far has produced a new species or genus, etc., by Macro-Mutation. It is equally true that nobody has produced even a species by the selection of Micro-Mutations. If we were able to combine a thousand or more of such mutants in a singleindividual, this still would have no resemblance whatsoever to any type known as a species in nature" (Evolution As Viewed by One Scientist, American Scientist, XL, 1952, p. 94). So Random Mutations and Natural Selections are inadequate. Theycould NOT cause Evolution! (See also Jan. and Feb. i ues of this paper.

(Next month we shall study the realm of Homology — comparative anatomy or similarities. P.F.)

REPENTANCE — A PREREQUISITE TO SALVATION

We have studied about the seed of the kingdomand what it is and does. It, of course, is the Word of God which is able to save our souls when it is received and obeyed (Luke 8:11; James 1:21). When the gospel is heard and believed, it will cause one who is honest to repent.

WHAT IS "REPENTANCE"?

Repentance is a change of will, of attitude. Thayer says, "To change one's mind for the better, heartilyto amend with abhorrence of one's past sins" (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon, page 405). The wor"abhor" means, "To regard with horror or loathing;to shrink from; to shudder" (American HeritageDictionary, page 3). Hence, to repent means to turn from one's past sins and regard them with contempt, to shudder at the thought of that which "separated between you and God" (Isaiah 59:2).

WHO MUST REPENT?

In Acts 17:30 Paul said, "And the times of this ignorance God winked at, but now commandeth allmen everywhere to repent." Not a part, not some,but ALL are to repent. Of course the word "men" here is from the Greek word "anthropos" which includes both males and females. In other words, almankind must repent

But again, Peter said in II Peter 3:9, "The Lord is not slack concerning his promises as some mencount slackne , but is long suffering to usward,not willing that any should per ish, but that alshould come to repentance."

WHY MUST WE REPENT?

Acts 17:31 tells us we must repent "Because he hath appointed a day in which he will judge theworld in righteousness ..." Thus, Paul gives these people a motive for repentance. Judgment "in righteousness" precludes that there are going to be some who are unrighteous. The unrighteous will be those who will not repent and obey God. In the preceding par agr aph, we noted that Peter said those who would not repent would PERISH.

ONLY ONE ITEM

Repentance is only one item in God's plan of salvation; just as belief in the gospel is only one itemin God's plan to save man. However, obedience toALL of God's commands is imperative. For Jesus is

the "Author of eternal salvation to all them that

obey him" (Heb. 5:9).

---------------o -------------

"I WAS ONCE A MEMBER"

Several years ago I was in a rather heated discussion with Burt F. Marrs, a Sabbatarian from Stanberry, Mi ouri. In trying to win friends andinfluence people he made the following affirmation,"I was once a member of the Church of Christ, so I know your doctrine, Hogland! My father, motherand other relatives were all in the Church of Christ. I left the so-called Church of Christ and joined thChurch of God, seventh day because of the truth."

Mr. Marrs became rather cocky after telling ohis tenure in the church of Christ. He evidently feltthat psychologically he had won a great point. After all, he had been with us but learned better and left. I could not resist bringing up two passages. Onewas II Timothy 4:10 where Paul said, "Demas hath forsaken me, having loved the present world." Andthe other was I John 2:19, "T hey went out fromus, but they were not of us; for if they had beeof us, they would no doubt have continued with us." I pressed the fact that Demas left and probablybragged about it like my friend Marrs. I said, "As a matter of fact, I believe I will call you 'Mr. Demas' during the rest of this debate." This evidently worked because the matter was dropped during therest of the discu ion.

This little episode taught me a le on. We cannot use, as evidence of truth, the fact that people leavdenominations and come into the church of Christ. Several years ago some brethren published a bookcalled "Why I Left." In this book sermons were delivered by men telling why they had left certain denominations and came into the church of Christ. The le ons are good and bring out some provocative thoughts. However, if the truth was known,many people have left the church of Christ andjoined denominations! If we have a point of truth in their coming to us; the denominations have apoint in their leaving us. Some of the departures have included preachers of the gospel

Please, bear in mind I am not talking about thescriptural reasons for leaving or coming. Certainly,anyone who comes into the body of Christ is obeying the truth. I am talking about the psychologicalarguments involved. When people say, "I have left" or "I have come into" does this really prove anything? I don't believe it does. I am certainly elatedto see people leave the Baptist, Methodist, etc. and come into the body of Christ. This makes me feel good because I feel they have obeyed the truth. If I am not careful I will also find myself gloating and bragging a little about getting them to come over. This is incorrect because while we might get some in the front door there are about as many leavinthrough the back door! If my memory serves meright, there was a preacher's wife in South Texas who wrote a book on why she left the church of Christ. Some might argue that most women wholive with a preacher any length of time could do the same thing

At one time my Lord had people following himby the thousands. The press of the people was great! Did this prove him to be the Son of God? Certainlynot. Later many went back and walked with Him no more. He finally had to tread the wine press alone. Did this make him a false teacher? Certainlynot! Sometimes our standard of r ight and wronggets all jumbled up. We base it on pride and popularity. This is not so. Did you ever hear, "Well the anti brethren are dying on the vine?" Is this anappeal to truth? Certainly not. It is a psychological argument calculated to incur prejudice

Some say, "I like them because they are so big!" Another says, "I don't want to attend down there because they are so small in number." Does this have anything to do with truth? You know the answer. Psychologically, it may sound good to say,"We have one thousand in our worship service onSunday morning;" or "I converted fifteen Baptists last year." But in the eyes of God the man who is forced to say, "I ran thirty off last year" might bmuch closer to the truth!

Brethren, Jesus said, "Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free." This is the onlything which really counts. It matters little abouthow many leave the truth or espouse it. TRUTH IS TRUTH regardless as to where it might be found.It matters very little whether the number is great or small, the TRUTH is still the TRUTH. It may notappeal to our pride to meet with a small group in arented hall; but beloved, that fine building and large attendance is not going to take you to heaven! Onlythe T RUT H will do this.

Some may say, "I was once a member of the Church of Christ," and others may say, "I have just come in," but does this change the old Jerusalem gospel? Gentle friend, you know the answer.

WORSHIP "IN TRUTH"

INTRODUCTION

As much as man benefits from the worship of God, it is not sufficient to worship. Man's worship must be "in truth" (John 4:24). The Father seeks such to worship him (John 4:23), that is, those who will worship "in truth." Our worship unto God is to be "in spirit" and to this most agree, but it must also be "in truth."

TRUTH IS THE. WORD OF GOD

Jesus proclaimed, "ye shall know the truth, andthe truth shall make you free" (John 8:32). Our worship is designed to direct us away from the world and center our lives upon God. Since truth is a characteristic of God (John 14:6), how can man center his life upon God when he does not worship according to truth? Christ defined for us what truth is when he said, "thy word is truth" (John 17:17).Our worship must be directed by the truth, the word of God. If we do not worship God as he has directed in his word, God will not have our worship no matter how honest or sincere one is.

Any act, therefore, that is not revealed in theword of God can not be engaged in "in truth." T his is the reason why many acts offered to God are notacceptable to him. God has not required countingbeads in worship since it is not a part of "truth"; playing upon mechanical instruments have not beenfound "in truth," therefore, one cannot offer such unto God with the expectation that He will acceptsuch. Observing such special days in worship likeMother's Day, "Christmas,"' "Easter" or some other such day is not a part of "truth," therefore, God will not have our devotion if offered in observance of these special days.

In order for worship to be pleasing to God it must be "in truth."

WORSHIP NOT "IN TRUTH"

Since there is a worship of God that the Bibledescribes as being "in truth," there is worship that is NOT "in truth." The Bible speaks of such worship.

(1) "Will worship." In Col. 2:23, Paul says some things "have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship." T he context shows that this is not the will of God, but rather the will of man. Man willed .something that was not according to the will of God. Ofordinances which came from the doctrines of men,Paul said, "touch not; taste not; handle not." This will worship had the wrong will; man's rather than God's will.

(2) "Ignorant worship." In Acts 17:23, Paul told the people of Athens of the God "whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you." They had an altar inscribed "to the unknown God." Their worship was ignorant for they worshipped the wrong object — "the unknown God." True worship can say, "we know what we worship" (John 4:22). (3) "Vain worship." In Matt. 15:8-9, Jesus said, "in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." Christ in verse 9 shows that teaching commands of men would render worship vain. Just think of all the religious bodies which have vain worship — every one of them that do not teach the truth. This should be a warning to brethren; their worship is vain to God when they teach the commands of men.

There is an attitude in some sections that teaching the word of God is not worship. I had a manquestion me concerning the preaching of God's word being worship. I showed him that Matt. 15:8-9 taught that teaching the commandments of menmade worship vain, therefore, teaching the commandments of God will make worship true. Teaching the word of God is not all of true worship to be sure, but it is worship. When I called this to his attention, I heard no more from him.

CONCLUSION

Our worship can only be "in truth" when it iswhat God has authorized in "the truth." Whatever acts are offered to God without his authorization are "vain worship."

"For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel" (I Cor. 1:17a).

Sometimes a formal argument is constructed onthe basis of this statement. The argument runs: (1) Paul was not sent to baptize. (2) He was sent topreach the gospel. (3) Therefore, baptism is not apart of the gospel.

ANSWER

The Greek noun for gospel (euanggelion) does not appear in the statement. All of the words to preachthe gospel are the translation of one word. That word is euanggelizo, a verb which means to preach thegospel or to proclaim glad tidings. It could be rendered to evangelize. It is the act of preaching thegospel that is stressed in the word. The contrast is not between baptism and the gospel. The contrast is between the act of baptizing and the act of preaching the gospel. All that Paul really implies is that baptizing is no part of the act of preaching the gospel. He implies nothing as to whether baptism is a part of the gospel. And Mark 16:15-16 indicates that it is.

BE A MODERN DAY DAVID

Larry Ray Hafley

When David was sent by his father to bring provisions to the armies of Israel and to see how his brethren fared, he heard the taunting of the gargantuan Goliath. All the soldiers of God "were dismayed and greatly afraid" (I Sam. 17:11). They did nothing except tremble and quiver at this mammoth man's fearful challenges. David saw that someone needed to reply with deeds. He asked, "who is thisuncircumcised Philistine, that he should defy the armies of the living God?" (I Sam. 17:26).

Today the sinister forces of atheism and sectarian denominationalism are defying the armies of God and denying the doctrine of Christ. They are deluging the news media, especially the printed pagewith their attempts to delude and deceive. Who are these uncircumcised Philistines that they should defy and deny the churches of the living God ? Shall we respond or retreat? The answer lies in the depth of the faith of ever y saint.

One good way to confront error and advocate and propagate truth is through the various magazinespublished by brethren. There are several good ones which I could and often do recommend, but among the best is SEARCHING THE SCRIPTURES. Why not give a neighbor, a relative, or a friend a subscription? You may thereby provide the spiritual stones that will flatten the bold giants of Satan. Is it not worth a try? Certainly, at $3 per year it is worth the price. Act now!

— 602 W. Lee St. Piano, Ill. 60545

HOW JESUS USED THE SCRIPTURES

Donald G. Givens

The scriptures were the final authority to whichJesus appealed in His arguments with His opponents. He justified His claims and vindicated HisMessiahship by appealing to the scriptures. He said that the scr ipture cannot be broken (John 10:35). In this article, we shall note how Jesus used thescriptures:

1. He wielded the Word of God in defeating the tempter (Matt. 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-13). Note how wonderfully and powerfully each wicked proposal of the devil is answer ed by the passage of scr iptur e which Jesus quotes. "It is written" Jesus replies, and the fiery dart of Satan is thwarted. Jesus believed in the power of the written word and He utilized that power.
2. He used words of scripture to rebuke wrongdoing (Matt. 21:12,13). In casting out all them that sold and bought in the temple; and in overthrowing the tables of the money-changers; Jesus quotedIsaiah 56:7, "My house shall be called a house of prayer: but ye make it a den of robbers."
3. He attributed error to ignorance of the scriptures (Matt. 22:29). The Sadducees were ignorant of the teaching of the scriptures and neither did they know the power of God. Is not this still so true

in our day? Of how many professors of religion could we say that "they do err, not knowing thescriptures, nor the power of God?"

1. He quoted the scriptures to silence objectors (Matt. 22:41-45). Jesus asked the Pharisees, "What think ye of Christ? whose son is he?" They answered that he was the son of David. Then Jesus asked them how David could call him "Lord?" Jesus quoted Psalm 110:1 and none of His objectors "durst. . . ask him any more questions."
2. He explained the scr iptures to the "slow of Heart" (Luke 24:25-32). Jesus — the infallible interpreter ! "And beginning from Moses and from all the prophets, he (Jesus interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself" (Luke 24:27). What a sermon that must have been! Later, the "two on the way to Emmaus" exclaimed to one another, "Was not our heart burning within us, while he spake to us in the way, while he opened to us the scriptures?" Friend, stop... think. God speaks to YOU today through His Son (Heb. 1:2) ... does your heart burn within you?
3. Jesus referred to many old Testament characacters, thus affirming their historical reality, and the truthfulness of the Old T estament scr iptures. Notice some of the men and women of the scriptures to which Jesus referred: ABEL — Matt. 23:35. Jesus spoke of the shed blood

of Abel. ABRAHAM, ISAAC, JACOB — Luke

13:28. Jesus referred to them as historical persons blessed ofthe Lord God. LOT'S WIFE — Luke 17:32. Jesus

spoke of her asan example and a clear warning. MOSES — John

3:14. Jesus recognized the "liftingup of the serpent in the wilderness" by Moses astrue history. DAVID — Matt. 12:3. Jesus related

what David did

on one occasion when he was hungry (I Sam.

21:6). SOLOMON — Matt. 6:29. Jesus said Solomon was arrayed in glory thus agreeing with the Old Testament record. ELIJAH — Luke 4:25,26. Jesus said Elijah was sent

to the widow of Zarephath thus agreeing with the

scriptural account in I Kings 17:9. ISAIAH —Matt. 15:7. Jesus said Isaiah prophesied. JONAH —Matt. 12:39-41. Jesus claimed that Jonah

was three days and three nights in the belly of

the whale.

These and many other references prove beyond ahint of a glimpse of a shadow of a doubt that Jesus BELIEVED the scriptures. Deny the veracity of the scriptures and you deny the honesty and integrity of Jesus the Christ!

If Jesus, God's only begotten Son, quoted, trusted, and believed the scriptures so confidently, are they not of God?

4349 Vassar, Port Arthur, Tex. 77640

Let us think first of His looks. What about the length of His hair ? How did He dress ? It is remarkable how little is said of Jesus' physical appearance,of His hair, and of His dress. This in itself indicates that He was not putting forth any effort to be sodifferent. In the great fifty-third chapter of Isaiah the prophet suggests that beauty of form was not the attraction (Isa. 53:2). His appearance wouldcertainly have been mentioned if His life had been a revolt against "the establishment" to such an extent that unkempt hair, unwashed body, and conflict with every custom of orderly dress were Histrademark.

Many pictures are to be found that are sold as pictures of Christ, but not one is actually a picture of Jesus of Nazar eth. E ach is the product of anartist's imagination. No artist ever had a word picture to guide his imagination. Many of the great artists that painted the pictures we see were of Western Europe in the dawn of our modern period. They included in their masterpieces the customs and prejudices of their day. There is absolutely nothingto indicate that our Savior wore long hair (I Cor. 11:14). The custom at the time of the paintings came through at this point. Every Jewish feature is left out of the drawings. Prejudice against Jews at the time of the painting explains this, no doubt, for ourSavior was of the seed of David who was of the tribe of Judah. Is there reason to suppose that He did not appear to be of the seed of Abraham to whom thegreat promise was given?

The painters did not paint a drop-out from society. It is also true, and far more significant, thatthe four inspired accounts of the life of Christ did not draw word pictures of one of the wrecking crew. He went to their marriage feasts, to their synagogues, to their homes, and other such places. Hetaught men to render to Caesar the things that belonged to Caesar. His followers taught men to besubject to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake (Rom. 13:1-7; I Pet. 2:13-17). Respect for law was a very outstanding trait of His followers. Theywould, of course, put God first if there were a conflict, but they sought to overcome evil with goo(Acts 5:29; Rom. 12:14-21)

Two hippies, a man and a woman, were sitting onthe floor at an evangelical conference of Protestant churches last September, and they were taken from the auditorium by ushers. The speaker on the stage at the time protested and said that the man whowas taken out looked more like Jesus Christ than any other present. The two were brought back, anthe audience cheered. Too often remarks are made of late that our Savior was like these unkempt rebels. Is this not blasphemy? What explanation is there for this ignorance?

It is true that the Son of God was not bound bythe traditions that conflicted with the law of God. He did point out the hypocrisy, traditionalism, anungodline . His disciples were not slaves to custom, but were taught to be transformed by the renewingof the mind (Rom. 12:2). To conform with any custom just to please the crowd was not His teachingbut to revolt just for the sake of revolting was not in His teaching, either.

Our Savior went about doing good. This was Histrademark. He did no sin. No guile was found in His mouth. T hose who knew Him descr ibed Him thus. He was the meek and lowly One who taught men tkeep the golden rule. Love is the greatest commandment of His law, and He did not mean a "love-in" where unmarried men and women live together like animals. He taught men to love God and keep His commandments — the whole law without offence in one point. This is as opposite to the spirit of theatheistic revolutionists that are threatening the veryexistence of our nation today as daylight and dark.

Our Master Teacher did not arm His followers with weapons and encourage them to kill policemen as representatives of "the establishment." He taughtthem to be as harmless as doves and to be as sheepin the midst of wolves. People were taught to abidein their calling and to be their very best in their situation (I Cor. 7:1-40). Slaves were to win by goodbehavior; not by revolt. Citizens were to be subjectto law. They were not led in revolt against the pagan emperor, even though many Jews wanted this revolt. He was not the revolting kind. He was not a revolutionist. He was not a part of a wrecking crew. Hisfollowers were not encouraged to set fire to buildings, destroy universities, or endanger the lives of all men in government. Property and people were perfectly safe in the presence of Christ and Hisdisciples.

Jesus of Nazareth was God's Son who came to seek and to save the lost. He came to teach — not fightwith carnal weapons. He came to preach repentance and to practice righteousness — the righteousness that would exalt a nation and make any communitybetter.

Those who have been influenced by the Christ are builders, producers, and unselfish servants of mankind. He sent men out to teach and persuade — not to destroy, burn, and loot. They fought with spiritual weapons, using the sword of the Spirit and the spiritual armor. His followers did not march down streets shouting obscenities and throwing rocks, nor did they sit down in the halls of industry, government, or education.

The disciples of Christ were bold to point out common errors of conduct in people, but they offered instruction in the good life — the abundant life. Theydid not seek to overthrow government or to harm any one. They were out to help, even their enemies. The disciples taught (how could this be over-emphasized?) and practiced the clean, unselfish life. Physical force was not their tool. They accepted the legitimate, and worked to help each learn to be honest,willing to work, and to be moderate in all things. Christ was not at all like the militant anarchists of our day.

HAVE YOU RENEWED YOUR SUBSCRIPTION? DO IT TODAY!

"SPRING MEETING ... 1970" IS HISTORY Gary D. White

During the week of April 13-17, the church ofChrist at Preston Highway enjoyed her finest meeting in over seven years (in the opinion of the editorand others). Twenty-two hours were spent duringthe five days in study and worship to God. It was one of the finest lectureships you would want to attend ANYWHE RE . T he ability of ever y speaker was seen through the excellent manner in whicheach expounded his assigned topic by means of theGospel. The Gospel was proclaimed; songs were sung; prayers were offered (and answered); botmen and women grew in the knowledge of truthGod was reverend and glorified; and by Saturday, the 18th, four souls had been baptized and sevenrestored.

At the two evening services bro. Harry Pickup,Jr., and bro. James P. Miller delivered very needful, soul-searching le ons; le ons the like I have never heard before. Bro. Pickup directed his lessons to the youth, but the life of ever y adult pr esent wasgreatly enriched by the time he finished. Bro. Miller's part of the series not only appealed to the sinner to believe and obey, but in each of his five lessons he used a different method of preaching(Preaching From The Parables, Preaching From The Old Testament, Preaching From Biography, Expository Preaching, and Topical Preaching). Ricfor the preachers that attended as well as all.

Some 36 to 40 preachers attended from five states. A record in attendance was set Thursday eveninonly to be broken Friday evening by an attendanceof 250; 55% of which was visitors. Brethren andfriends from the surrounding areas attended well . .. some coming from as far as Akron and Dayton,Ohio, and Nashville, Tenn.

The members at Preston Highway are to be commended for the manner in which they supported this lectureship. Untold and lasting good will comfrom this meeting, thus we hope to see more like it in other areas. We thank everyone who helped us.

The first of April I began my second year with the Preston Highway chur ch. During that yeamuch was done to the building up of the church. 16 persons were baptized; 16 were restored; 10 placemembership; seven moved away; 13 were disfellowshipped; engaged in two successful gospel meetings; ordained one elder and deacon; conducted avery succe ful men's cla ; and helped in the support of a number of evangelists.

THIS CHURCH IS WILLING TO SEND

George T. Eldridge, P. O. Box 96, Hilliard, Ohi43026 (seven miles N.W. of Columbus). Phon

(614) 876-4089 — 1 am working with a faithful andzealous church meeting at 5000 Cemetery Road in Hilliard. The average attendance at Sunday a.m.assembly is 91. The average Sunday contribution is $335.75. The Cemetery Road Church presently supports me full-time and a ists Jack Gibbert in the amount of $25.00 per month. This congregation began meeting in Hilliard in September of 1963 in theAmerican Legion Hall. She started meeting in anew meeting house in February, 1968 and becameself-supporting in September, 1969

Realizing that people need to hear the gospel anthat Bible preaching saves them that believe (I Cor. 2:21), these godly brethren are willing to let mhave twelve Sundays per year for meetings and/or Sunday appointment preaching. No pay is expected, save travel expenses!! This is to start immediately.I await your call. May God richly bless this church for their attitude.

Rodney Miller, 2220 Wendell Avenue, Louisville,Ky. — A vigorous and continuing leadership is the foundation for growth in the church. It is believed that the eldership of a congregation should be arranged to function so that there is a core of trained men and there is no noticeable transition from one group of men to another as age takes its .toll.

Thus the following men were appointed as Pastors at Wendell Ave.: Roy Allen, Lee Griffin, John Quinn.Also appointed as deacons were: Doug Allen and Bill Bush. These men will serve with the existingElders: Malcolm Burgin, Jim Bersot, Alton Scott,and C. B. Sparrow.

Our Gospel meetings this year will be: June 21-28 with Bob Owen of Tampa, Fla., and August 16-23 with different speakers each evening: Ron Mosby,James Miller, Bobby Witherington, John Clark, and Connie Adams.

Earl E. Harris, 412 West King Avenue, Orlando,Florida — On May 1 brother Robert Lyell begins his first full time work with the Central church of Christ at New Smyrna Beach, Florida. A church composed of dedicated Christians who are spreadingthe borders of God's kingdom in that community.During the past fifteen months brother Neil Mohan and I have conducted Lord's Day services for this congregation. God has truly provided the increase,four baptisms and two restorations. Visit these brethren when in the central Florida area.

Larry R. DeVore, 1802 Caroline St., South Bend,Ind. 46613 — I held a gospel meeting at the East-side church in Mansfield, Ohio, March 23-29. Goodattendance, no additions. April 1st I preached at Funston St. in New Carlisle, Ohio. Brother Charles

G. Maples, Sr. of Red Bay, Alabama, preached atCarolina St. in a series of meetings April 13-22. The meeting was well-attended, and the le ons well-received. We feel much good was done and we had a number of visitors from the community.

Harold V. Comer, 4 Boldrewood Pde., Reservoir,Victoria, Australia — In the latter part of April Iwill be returning to the West Coast and then theMid-West from Melbourne, Australia. Then in thelatter part of May, Jim Everett will be returning tTexas from Sydney, Australia. We are both anxious to inform any interested congregation about thework here. We are also anxious to talk to any preachers or members who are interested in assisting ithe work in Australia. Also, I will be pleased to givean account of the work in the Philippines or show slides and answer questions about it too. Both Jim and 1 would be glad to receive invitations from anyone who is interested so that we might arrange for the least and most economical travel. My address is: Harold V. Comer, 4 Boldrewood Pde. Reservoir, Victoria, Australia 3073. Jim's address is: Jim Everett,37 Judd St., Cronulla, New South Wales, Australia 2230.

Robert M. Peiser, 1717 N.E. 15th Terrace, Gainesville, Fla. 32601 — The North East church in Gainesville would like to contact some preacher of thegospel who would be interested in moving to this city. We would like to locate someone by June 1st. If interested contact me at the above address.

Floyd Smith, Star Route, Shepherdsville, Ky.—We are fortunate to have Gene Ward of New Albany,Indiana doing the preaching here. The church ismaking fine progress. We have about 100 used sonbooks (Christian Hymns #2) we would give some small congregation who may need them. Write to the above address.

Earl Morris, Rt. 1, Box 1206, Haines City, Fla.33844 — After 4 years and 3 months with the church in St. Cloud, Florida I will begin a new work April 19 with the church in Polk City, Florida. While wewere in St. Cloud 18 were baptized. My decision tmake the change was not easy to make. My address will remain the same.

Port Clinton, Ohio — The church of Christ in Port Clinton, Ohio is desiring to obtain someone towork with the church full time. Anyone interested should contact Ken Lohrbach, 4336 E. Lodge, PortClinton, Ohio 43452.

I TIM. 6:10 — RESULTS OF LOVE FOR MONEY

Harry E. Ozment

The America of today is a rich nation. In 1941,

only one American family in 20 had an income of

$5,000 a year or more; today, more than 12 out of 20

have that much. While this is good in some respects,

it nevertheless has caused a great love for riches on

the part of many across the country. Unfortunately,

this love for money has found its way into the hearts

of many Christians and has thus seeped slowly into

the church. Furthermore, this problem is not con

fined only to the "rich." A "poor" man can love $50

just as much as a "rich" man can love $50,000. Just

as it is a problem now, evidently the love for money

was also a problem in the early church. Paul wrote,

"For the love of money is the root of all evil: which

while some coveted after, they have erred from the

faith, and pierced themselves through with many

sorrows." In this one verse, God has revealed unto

us three results of loving money.

(1) Root of all evil. No truer words could have been spoken. Many men love money so much that

they will go to any end to get it. Look at all the

graft and corruption that has resulted from a love

for money. Why do movie producers persist in put

ting out lewd and lustful movies and at the same

time realizing the harm that they have caused ? Love

for money! Why do the liquor manufacturers con

tinue to put out their product in spite of the deaths,

illnesses, sorrows, heartaches, and broken homes it

has caused ? Love for money! Why did the adminis

tration of New York State recently allow lotteries to

be held to provide a source of income for the state ?

Love for money! Think of all the murders that have

been committed, all the lies that have been told, and

all the thefts that have been produced — all because

of a love for money. It is no wonder that the wise

man said, "I n the house of the r ighteous is much

treasure; but in the revenues of the wicked is much

trouble" (Prov. 15:6). This is why Paul said, "But

they that will be rich fall into temptation and a

snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which

drown men in destruction and perdition" (I T im. 6:9).

(2) Causes an erring from the faith. God realized

this when he told the childr en of I sr ael: "And it

shall be, when the Lord thy God shall have brought

thee into the land which he sware unto thy fathers,

to Abr aham, to I saac, and to Jacob, to give thee

great and goodly cities, which thou buildest not,

and houses full of all good things, which thou fillest

not, and wells which thou plantedest not; when thou

shalt have eaten and be full; then beware lest thou

forget the Lord, which brought thee forth out of

the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage"

(Deut. 6:10-12). How a person can forsake God for

money is beyond me. In Christ, one receives from

God the assurance that he is His child, the deliver

ance from fear of sin and death, the remission of

sins, the peace that passes understanding, and the

hope of a home in heaven afterwhile. And to think

that a man would give all of this up for money! Well,

it's po ible and it's done every day. Jesus said, "And

the car es of this world, and the deceitfulness of

riches, and the lusts of Other things entering inchoke the word, and it becometh unfruitful" (Mark 4:19). This proves that if a man love money, he cannot love God. "No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; oelse he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon" (Matt. 6:24). Sommen love their businesses. They are willing to forsake the services of the church, lie, cheat, steal — anything to further that business. They might as

well forget about God — if they haven't already!

(3) Possession of many sorrows. One who loves riches can never be happy. The reason for this is that such a person has a warped sense of values. He loves something which cannot last but which can onlyperish. He loves something which cannot satisfy his inner being, his soul. Koheleth, the author ofEcclesiastes, said, "He that loveth silver shall not be satisfied with silver; nor he that loveth abundancewith increase: this is also vanity. When goods increase, they are increased that eat them: and what good is there to the owners thereof, saving the beholding of them with their eyes? The sleep of a laboring man is sweet, whether he eat little or much: but the abundance of the rich will not suffer him to sleep. There is a sore evil which I have seen under the sun, namely, riches kept for the owners thereof to their hurt. But those riches perish by evil travail: and he begetteth a son, and there is nothing in hihand. As he came forth of his mother's womb, naked shall be return to go as he came, and shall takenothing of his labor, which he may carry away ihis hand. And this also is a sore evil, that in alpoints as he came, so shall he go: and what profit hath he that hath labored for the wind?" (Eccl. 5:11-16). Jesus said the same in Luke 12:15, "Beware of covetousness: for a man's life consisteth not in the abundance of things which he possesseth." Look at the men who have given their all to obtain the riches of this world — are they satisfied andhappy? Why did Queen E lizabeth say on her death bed, "All my riches for just another minute oflife!"? Why did Marilyn Monroe kill herself? Whydoes John Paul Getty (the richest man in the world)have scores of watchdogs guarding himself and his estate ? They never have been and still are not happy.They served the wrong master and "pierced themselves through with many sorrows." Such is the result of loving r iches.

423 Donelson Pike Nashville, Tenn. 37214

THE SIN OF INDIFFERENCE

Don Martin, Pineland, Texas

The Bible knows nothing about kinds of sin as: "big or little" . . . mortal or venial. However, thBible does teach that the scope of some sins is more encompa ing and that the consequences are greater. There are, however, many types of sin enumerated in God's Book, such as: adultery, idolatry,uncleanness and indifference. This article's design ito concern itself with the last of the foregoing types of sin — the sin of indifference.

The sin of indifference is defined in the followinway: "Lack of concern or interest" (Webster's National Dictionary), "Lukewarmne , apathy, lethargy" (Roget's Thesaurus). Some antonyms are asfollows: "Eagerness, enthusiasm, sensitiveness" (Ibid. p. 215).

This widespread evil has reached alarming proportions. Because of its paralyzing effects, church progress has been impeded; souls deprived of salvation and consequently, many lost within and without. The sin of indifference is not exactly a new problem. In fact, the Bible is literally replete with example after example of this sin. In the days of the prophet Isaiah,this sin was a great hindrance to the people of God.Isaiah wrote in Isaiah 32:9-11, reference probablybeing to the impending desolation of Judea by thChaldeans, "Rise up ye women that are AT EASE;hear my voice ye CARELESS daughters .. ." Also in the days of Amos, this evil was not uncommon. Amos admonished the Israelites thus: "Woe to them that are AT EASE in Zion . . . that LIE upon beds of ivory" (Amos 6:1, 4). Israel was being denouncebecause of their self-satisfaction, lukewarmne , andlack of interest. Coming now to the New Testament,this sin was not absent. T he apostle Paul wrote to the Romans admonishing them to awake out of their sleep — "And that knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of SLEEP" (cf. I Cor. 15:34). This sin was present when John penned his letter to the seven churches of Asia. To the church of the Laodiceans he wrote, "I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot... so then because thou art LUKEWARM (indifferent) ... I will spue theeout of my mouth" (Rev. 3:15, 16).

Evidences of Indifference Today

1. Irregular attendance. There is no church, to myknowledge, that is not plagued to some degree with this problem. Indifferent members rationalize andargue that it is not necessary to be present at every assembly of the church. They would have us to believe Heb. 10:25 does not teach that it is a sin to be absent from an assembly when one in all fairness could attend. Some say (indifferent members) that Heb. 10:25 is teaching the Christian not to FORSAKE (abandon) the assembly, and has therefore noallusion to NEGLECTING (mi ing one or two services a week) the assembly. Of course, in some respects this is" true (see these words, forsake and neglect, discussed at length in Doctr inal Discour ses

p. 364). However, before there can be abandonmentthere must of nece ity be negligence. Those who would embrace the foregoing, I believe, would haveto admit that attending the assemblies is good. James said, "To him that knoweth to do good and doeth it not, to him it is sin" (James 4:17). This attitude is but evidence of indifference!

1. Bored when do come. Some evidence their boredom by such statements as the following: "The singing was terrible"; "I didn't get anything out of theBible study"; "T he lesson was boring". T he above statements in some instances may be true, but in most cases they are indicative of lukewarmness.
2. Seen in the way some give or don't give. Achurch can't properly function if her members are giving miserly and haphazardly. In the apostolic era,the rapidity of the gospel was largely due to the members giving sacrificially, first of themselves and then of their means (II Cor. 8:5, Rom. 12:1, 2, Acts 4, 6, 11, Phil. 4:15, 16). Yet indifferent membersreason thus: "I have so many bills to pay that after I pay them there is nothing left for the Lord."

Causes of Indifference

1. Not fully converted or sold on cause. When one is truly "sold" on something, he is enthusiastic about it. This istrue in the secular realm, moreover, itis true in the spiritual realm (cf. Acts 4:19, 20, 8:4)
2. Minds are preoccupied or engrossed in other things. In this complex and affluent age in which welive, it is relatively easy to become preoccupied inthe "things" (Matt. 6:32) of this world (I John 2:15, cf. Col. 3:1, 2)
3. 3. Worldline . Worldly amusements (Rom. 12:2), worldly friendship (James 4:4), and worldly interest (Matt. 6:24)
4. Luxuries. Materialism in most instances is diametrically opposed to spirituality. One of Israel's pitfalls was that of materialism (Amos 6:4-6). Materialism was the paramount cause of the church at Laodicea being denounced (Rev. 3:17). Much indifference today is caused by materialism (Luke 8:14,I Tim. 6:9, II Tim. 4:10).

Fruits of Indifference

1. Ignorance of God's word. The Jews were frequently reprimanded for their ignorance of God's revealed will (cf. Hosea 4:6-9). The Jews on one occasion had become so indifferent that they had lost the Book of the Law! It was not until the reign ofJosiah, that Hilkiah, the high priest, restored the Book of the Law (II Kings22:8-10, cf. Rom. 10 :l-3). We have observed that the Laodiceans were indifferent as a consequence ". . . and knowest not" (Rev. 3:17)
2. Lack of concern of God's people. When Christians apostatize or "quit the chur ch" and ther e is little or no effort exercised to restore them — this is but a fruit of indifference (cf. Rom. 15:1-3, Gal. 6:1,I Cor. 5:1-13)
3. Church is destroyed. To impede, hinder, or destroy the church (local church) is indeed a grievous offence (I Cor. 3:17). Yet this is done as an effect of apathy. It has well been said that to kill the church you don't have to shoot the preacher, hang the elders,burn the building. If enough, long enough remain indifferent — she will die a natural death.

Solution or Remedy

We need to realize that only the ACTIVE, ENERGETIC, ENTHUSIASTIC disciples will be saved —all others lost (Rev. 3:16, Rom. 12:11).

Conclusion

"Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thymight; for is not work, nor device, nor knowledge,nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest" (Ecc. 9:10).