THE CRISIS ON AUTHORITY

Open contempt for authority of all kinds and at all levels is alarmingly and distressingly obvious. The crime rate continues to mount new statistical highs year after year. "Civil disobedience" and "passive resistance" are popular expressions openly promotingdisrespect for and rejection of authority, and theyaptly describe the deliberate life style of a considerable number of malcontents. Vigorous demonstrations against established law are commonplace. breakdown of major proportions has taken place ithe homes of our land. Divorces for every cause abound. And in many homes where there has not been a divorce the wife and children reject the authority ofthe father (no "problem," for he does not want it!),the children rebel against both parents and seize akind of independence, and usually an uneasy truce emerges in an unsteady democratic family state. The marital laws themselves come under attack with "free love" and some bizarre arrangements for cohabitingand child-care being seriously offered as alternatives and improvements. Churches also are undergoing arevolution in the name of relevance, old standards are being stuck down, and a power struggle is under way in several denominations. Even in churches of Christ voices have been heard boasting that we dmany things for which we have no authority, anthat, we do not necessarily need authority. This is the same voice of anarchy, and a pious face and lip-service to God does not alter the fact. A wave of novel concepts and practices have resulted, i uing imuch confusion, division, alienation and aloofne .

Authority, in a single word, is under a multi-pronged

attack on virtually every front.

What is to be done about the problem? Shaking our heads in dismay, or wringing our hands, or talkingabout how it used to be and of what we are comingto, will not meet the needs of the hour. Nor will the crisis be met by our running around shouting "laand order" or pleading fervently for "respect forauthority." This is what is needed alright but will just saying it to someone who loathes established andlegitimate authority be likely to generate respect? Hardly. He who despises his nation's anthem andbows his head when it is played, or who hates the stars and stripes of his homeland and dishonors it bya degrading use, will not be won over by shouts of "love that song" or "love that flag." Reasons must be supplied. Before authority can be expected to be respected, it must be admitted; before it can be admitted, it must be recognized; before it can be recognized, it must be convincingly established. We cannotassume the very point at i ue (in this case, authority)and just keep parroting our contention (in this case,that it should be respected) with much reasonable expectation that it will persuade a dissenter.The premise of authority must be reestablished. "Prove all things." (I The . 5:21). Most people (even anarchists) acknowledge the wisdom and need of certain laws, but deny that anyone (including God) has the right to tell them what to do. As one put it, "I will not obey a law in the making of which I had nopart." Only if I had a part in its making, only if I see its wisdom, only when I agree to it will I obey a law! Arguing the virtues of an individual law is a waste of time with such a person for, even if you succeed,there is still no respect for law itself and the wholematter depending upon a purely personal option calater be as easily rejected. Further, it enthrones human wisdom as the judge of the law rather than rendering law the judge of the man. The whole i ue must therefore be settled at its foundation— what is the basis for authority? What is its source and nature? We can meet this crisis on authority by a umingnothing, and by resorting to God's word for the foundation facts and persuasive proofs that enable us to know the what, the where and the why of law anauthority. We can thereby go up boldly against allforms of anarchy, and more clearly hold to and plainly preach the lordship of Jesus.

Searching the Scriptures is now in the thirteenth

year of service to a large number of readers. During

this time H.E. Phillips has admirably edited the paper

and has seen it through many tight places, financially

speaking, and has not only kept it alive but has great

ly improved it. Contrary to the opinion of some, the

publishing of such a paper is not a financial gain.

number of friends from the start have helped to make

the paper po ible but the greatest financial drain has

been on H.E. Phillips himself. This he has done be

cause he believes the paper serves a great need. Evi

dence has accumulated through the years of the great

amount of good being done through this effort.

But there is a limit to a man's resources regardless of his devotion to a worthy project. Not only so, butthere is also a limit to how much strain one can take physically when financial worries mount. BrotherPhillips has always given more of himself in whatever task he put his hand than was good for him physically. He has suffered several heart attacks. I am one of many who believes that Searching the Scriptures deserves to continue and that H.E. Phillips deserves the assistance of grateful brethren who, for years nowhave befitted from the wealth of good material this paper has presented each month for over twelve years. In the 1960's I was a regular contributor to thecolumns of this paper and counted it a pleasure to send the paper to 36 people each month for several years. My own writing responsibilities with Truth Magazine will not permit time to write much for other papers, but I am still interested in seeing this good paper live and serve. I am also interested in seeing some of the strain lifted from my esteemed friend and brother.

Here are some ways you can help. When you renew your own subscription, why not subscribe for a friend or relative. It makes a fine gift throughout the year. Consider sending the paper to so many a month anhave the paper to bill you for the cost. Also, why not write brother Phillips a note of appreciation for his faithful work and sacrifice with the paper and enclose a donation of whatever amount you can afford.Brother Phillips did not ask me to say these things. They have been on my mind for sometime now.Many of us have befitted from his labors. Don'tyou believe that turnabout is fair play? ********

THE KETCHERSIDE-TURNER EXCHANGE

On Tuesday evening, January 25, 1972, at approx

imately 10 p.m., following the lectures at Florida

College, an overflow crowd assembled at the Univer

sity church meeting house in Tampa, Florida to hear

Carl Ketcherside and Robert Turner speak on the

general theme of "fellowship." For the lack of a

better word to express what took place I have used

the word "exchange" to describe it. It was an arrange

ment tailored more to the preference of Ketcherside

than to Turner. It was a "panel discussion" following

a thirty minute speech by Carl Ketcherside and a

thirty minute speech by Robert Turner. Other mem

bers of the panel were Ferrell Jenkins and Harry

Pickup, Jr. Bob F. Owen acted as chairman or mod

erator as questions were asked from the floor and

directed to some member of the panel. All questions

were directed to Ketcherside except one which was

directed to Ferrell Jenkins.

Perhaps others would approach this review in anentirely different manner, but I ask you to bear with me as I write candidly what my impressions of themeeting were as I saw it, and to say what I must say on the subject. I speak only for myself and am notparticularly interested in pleasing anyone but God inthis study. (Gal. 1:10)

Here and now I want to commend Carl Ketcherside

on his pleasant disposition and congenial personality

in presenting his views on fellowship. His kindness in

attempting to answer questions and his winning

smile overshadowed his dodges and evasions in direct

ly facing up to the questions that were asked. This

was certainly true in the minds of some who did not

understand his real doctrine and the consequences of

it. As a person, I have never met a more pleasant and

kind man, nor a more dignified gentleman than Carl

Ketcherside. But this does not mean that he is right

religiously and to be received as a brother in

Christ. His personality and appearance should not

allow us to be deceived by his corruptible teach

ing and the consequences of it. The Holy Spirit

said that Satan is transformed into an angel of light.

"Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be

transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose

end shall be according to their works" (2 Cor. 11:15).

I want it clear and explicit from beginning to end that I am not making an attack upon the person of Carl Ketcherside, but am directing my attention inthis study to the false doctrine he teaches and practices. Since no error exists apart from some person, itbecomes necessary to involve the person who espouses the error when exposing it. He must go down with the error or repent and be separated from it by the blood of Jesus Christ in obeying the truth.

Nearly all of the errors in the views held by Carl Ketcherside are based upon a misunderstanding, misrepresentation and misapplication of the figures used by the Holy Spirit in describing the relationship ofthe redeemed to God and the Saviour Jesus Christ. Any figure pressed too far or used in a sense that conflicts with other figures and plain statements in theword of God is not an understanding of the truth. Whether done ignorantly or deliberately, the consequences of such misuse of the scriptures has created all sorts of denominations and divisions among students of the Bible. Carl disavows any action or teaching that causes division among brethren, yet the very foundation of his false doctrine is the cause of all divisions: a misapplication of the word of God.

I believe brother Robert Turner hit at the very core of the error when he spoke of Carl's misuse of thefigure of family relationship. From the tape of the exchange Robert said: "The family relationship, and, of course, the birth process that goes with it, is afigure of speech. Those who come into an acceptable relationship with God are likened unto a kingdom,and when you are talking about these people in terms of a kingdom, they are citizens. And the languagethat would go with teaching anything along that lineis language that has to do with kingdom. Kingdomlanguage. You are talking about a ruler. In fact, you are emphasizing the rule of God in Christ, and he is king, and so on. But when you are talking about these same people from the standpoint of horticulture,then those people are no longer citizens, they are branches. You don't have a vine with citizens on it. You have a vine with branches on it, because youmaintain the use of the figure throughout. And Christ is the vine, just like Christ is the king in the other figure. When you are speaking in terms of an organism or a body, you are talking about the units asmembers of that body. You wouldn't talk about abody, referring to a head and then having branches, but having members. When you are talking about abuilding, Christ is the foundation or chief corner stone, and the units are lively stones. Now when you are talking about those same people from the standpoint of a family, the unit is a child. But from a pragmatic standpoint, getting right to the bottom of thething, there is no difference in being a child of God,and a lively stone in the building, and a member of his body, and a branch on the vine, and a citizen in his kingdom."

This is exactly my understanding of the word of God. For a number of years I have discussed with various brethren the abuse of the figure of the familyrelationship in showing our relationship to Godthrough Christ. Not all of the process of the "new birth can be compared to physical birth. The father-child relationship was never intended by the figure to exactly parallel the human relationship in all points. This is the reason I reject the idea of "once a child of God, always a child of God," just as I reject the idea of "once a branch on the vine, always a branch on the vine." These are all the same people in the same relationship to God, but described under different figures.

FIGURES OF THE CHURCH

The ekklesia of Christ (the "called out" by the gospel) are those people who have been saved, redeemed,

had their sins remitted, reconciled to God, justified, sanctified, purchased unto God, and various other expr essions which tell the same thing: T hat thr ough the merit of the blood of Christ and by obedience tothe faith once deliver ed to the saints, man is deliver ed from the guilt and eternal consequences of his sins to the freedom from sin and the hope of eternal life with God.

All this is expressed in several differ ent figur es to emphasize one or more aspects of this salvation andnew relationship to God. This ekklesia of Christ is called a body, a building, a bride, a kingdom, a household or family, Israel, branches on a vine, wheat in afield, a priesthood, a nation, a chosen race, a flock of sheep, and other figures. Any lesson drawn from oneof the figures that makes the others non-sense is not a proper use of the figures.

To illustrate allow me to take just one figure andshow the limitations of it in the simplest way. We ar e baptized into Christ (Gal. 3:27). Does this mean that the act of immersion and emersion literally places one into the person of Christ who is at the right hand ofGod? But we are baptized into one body (I Cor. 12:13). Does baptism literally put us into the physical or spiritual body of Christ at the right hand of God?Certainly not! Into Christ means to be put into therelationship with him that pr ovides all the spiritual blessings from God. Into the body means to be put into the relationship of the one "called out" community of people who are all in Christ in the same sense as just stated in the previous sentence.

Baptism is described as a birth. One must be born of water and of the Spirit (John 3:3,5). It is the washing of r egeneration (T itus 3:5). It is the washing of water by the word (Eph. 5:26). Obviously, these are figures of a deliverance from one world into another. In literal birth one is delivered from his mother's womb into the world in which we live. Without this physical birth, natural or otherwise, one would never be in this world from his mother's womb. Error is created when this figure is pressed beyond this point. For example, the charge by some denominationalists that if we depend upon baptism to save us, we havewater for our mother and claim God for our Father. T his is said because physical birth always requires amother who delivers the child, and if we claim thatbaptism is the new birth, we must be born of water,which makes water our mother.

CARL KETCHERSIDE'S "BROTHER IN PROSPECT"

At the end of questions from the floor, the panelhad ten minutes to discuss the subject of fellowship among themselves. Harry Pickup, Jr. asked Carl Ketcherside the following question: "Do you believethat every conscientious believer in the fact of Christ's divinity, and confessor of the Lordship of Jesus, who is unimmersed, is your brother in prospect?"

Carl answered: "No, I don't think necessarily thateveryone such is. I do believe this. I believe that when one is thoroughly convinced of those facts that constitute the good news and the glad tidings, and he repents of his sin upon the basis of this faith, I think he is God's child and my brother. But I think there is a gr eat deal mor e than just saying, you know, that youbelieve in Jesus as an intellectual fact."

Harr y r esponded with this question: "Do you notsay, and have you not written, that every conscientious believer in the fact of Christ's, divinity, and confessor of the Lordship of Jesus, though unimmersed, is your brother in prospect? Carl replied: "Yes, suchan individual is." Harry asked: "He is your brother in pr ospect?"

Carl answered: "Yes, he is God's child and my brother in prospect."

Harry then read from I John 5 the condition of theone begotten of God to show the predicament of Carl's position. After some statements denying theconclusions that followed from the passages read, Carl responded with the following: "I believe with Alexander Campbell that birth, either in the physical or spiritual kingdom, never produces life. You are not born in order to have life; you are born becauseyou do have life. And the purpose of birth is to bring you into a state or r elationship wher e you can enjoythe blessings for which life was intended, and fulfill the responsibilities that ar e devolving upon it. But Ibelieve that a person is begotten of God by the Spirit through the word, and then this individual develops the place wher e he is born into the family. But he is begotten of God bef or e. He is not begotten in thewater, that is when he is deliver ed. You are not begotten in the hospital. That is where you are delivered. And so for this reason I think that an individual is begotten of God, and because he is begotten of thesame Father who begot me, he is my brother inpr ospect and God's child in pr ospect. But still he is not in the family any mor e than Jerr y and Sue wer e until Nell delivered them. It's just that simple."

Now since Carl has carried this figure to the point of conception and deliver y exactly as in the physicalfamily, using his own wife and children to illustrate the point, I wonder if he would explain who themother is who is carrying this begotten unborn childof God? He said the birth did not produce life, butone was bor n who already had life. T his unbor n child of God has life by reason of conception, and Carl said: "He is not begotten in the water , that is whenhe is delivered." But how can there be a birth without a mother to deliver the unborn child? I wonder who or what the mother of God's childr en is. His problems stem from his abuse of the figure of family relationship.

ANOTHER FIGURE OF BAPTISM

Baptism is said to be a burial and resurrection (Rom. 6:3-5; Col. 2:12). In this figure we have a conflict with the figure of a birth if either is carried beyond its intended use. One must die befor e he can beburied and resurrected. But if one dies before he is born, he never has life in this world following the delivery. How do we reconcile this? The obvious truth is that the figure of a birth is only intended to describe the purpose of baptism as bringing into a newlife as a family and the corresponding figures wouldbe that of family r elationship. All figur es in this relationship must agree with the other figures that describe the same people in relationship to God.

The figure of a burial and resurrection is intended to contrast the state of sin and death from which one is deliver ed and the state of new life in r elationship to Christ after he arose from the dead to die no more. T his emphasizes life as opposed to death rather thanfamily relationship.

If a relationship can be established, it can be broken. I know of no exception. Marriage is broken by

death. All human physical ties are broken by death. If, as in the time of Christ and the apostles, one had the power to raise the dead, he would reestablish the physical ties that existed before death. But such is not done now, and in the general resurrection we are sown a natural (physical) body and raised a spiritual body. The relationship of physical ties is not restored

in the general resurrection at the last day.

I do not believe the Bible teaches the eternal brotherhood of men in Christ regardless of their doctrines and practice. The combination of figures as they are used in the word of God clearly teach that there are conditions upon which one must come into the right relationship to God, and there are conditions upon which that one remains in the right relationship to God. If the conditions of the gospel are essential to one getting into Christ, then the conditions of the New Testament are essential to one staying in Christ.

This is the first of three articles dealing with Carl

Ketcherside's abuse of the figures of relationship to

God used by the Holy Spir it. His misuse of these

figures has produced his despicable doctrine on

Fellowship.

H. E. Phillips

* * * * * * * *

Television in general is getting pretty rotten. It is difficult to view any musical or variety program without seeing half-naked women gyrating andjumping around as if they had just escaped from the jungle. But beyond doubt, one of the most vain, immoral and ungodly shows ever seen anywhere is"The Dean Martin Show." Just about every comment the man makes is suggestive and r isqué. And hecan't even sing without acting a fool — and sucking a cigarette.

I seldom see any part of his show any more, but a few months ago I saw a part of one. It opened with the naked girls, known as the "Ding-a-ling sisters." Then he hired a girl to stand in for his wife in a vulgar scene. After she did some singing, he said, "Her voice is so sexy the doctor has to look down her throat through a key hole." When time came for a station break, a girl came wriggling out on the stage with the message written on her stomach, and she didn't have on enough clothes to cover a decent jay bird! After she left, a very ugly girl came out andsaid to Dean, "Name one thing that she's got that I haven't." He said, "I can name two."

Then they played the musical game where the girls each sing a line from a song and then hematches it with one from another song, and eachtime it ends up being suggestive. And on and on it went, along with all of the jokes about him being adrunkard, which is probably no joke.

Decent citizens should write the NBC Network and all others which are contributing to the moralcorruption of our society by showing such filth.

I have known that cigarette smokers are without self-control, but I finally heard of one who will admit it. Leonid I. Brezhnev, of the Soviet Communist Party is trying to stop smoking, and it seems that he is having such a hard time that he has a timed cigarette case which will allow him only a specified number per day. Now I can understand that for aCommunist, but a Christian should control himself by such passages as I Cor. 6:19,20; 9:25 and II Pet.

1:6.

In an editorial entitled, "The Coming ACC Preacher's Workshop" (Firm Foundation, Jan. 4, 1972), brother Reuel Lemmons said, "We hold it a self-evident fact that most of the trouble in the brotherhood is preacher-generated. Groups of brethren donot divide from each other unless they are led inthat division by preachers. The anti-cooperation folly would never have wounded the body of Christ had it not been for preachers."

There is some truth in this statement, but he is guilty of the very thing that has caused and whichperpetuates much of the division, namely, misrepresentation ! He does not know of any "anti-cooperation" brethren. He has spoken out recently against church support of colleges. Would it be fair to accuse him of being "anti-college?" No, for he supports them and is on the board of one and maybtwo. He is anti-church-support of colleges. Likewise, we are not anti-cooperation; we are anti-centralization and usurpation! Let us tell the truth about one another, and then we will know what we believeand why.

In a recent letter to brother Yater Tant concerning some churches and instrumental music, LeroyGarrett said, "Since the New Testament scriptures say nothing about instrumental music either waythose brethren concluded that its use was a matter of opinion.... It is true that the New Testament says nothing about instrumental music, but all that proves is that the New T estament says nothingabout instrumental music. People can differ as to how they interpret silence, and silence does have to be interpreted, and still have mutual respect forthe authority of scripture."

Now that's the same fallacious thinking whicallowed a large Baptist Church in Texas to serve Coca-Cola on the Lord's table, and a Methodist Church in St. Louis to use hamburgers. The New Testament doesn't say one word about using Coca-Cola and hamburgers on the Lord's table. Does that make it right? According to Garrett it does.

The Old Testament never said one word about a man from the tribe of Juda serving as priest, but theinspired apostle used such silence to show that one could not serve with God's approval (Heb. 7:14).

"He doesn't believe in taking care of orphans." When a statement like that is made and believedtwo things are true: the one who makes it is lying,and the one who believes it is incredibly naive anought to be ashamed. You can't name a person — black or white, Christian or atheist — who opposes an orphan child having the nece ities of life! These "orphan-haters" are like Campbellites; I've heard much about them but I have never seen one.

In response to one of our radio programs, a ladfrom Iowa wrote: "Christ will reign on the earth for 1,000 years. That's what I've been taught all of mlife, and I believe it. If he does not, then he deserved to be crucified. He should reign on the earth and mdead mother ought to be alive again on the earth some day too. This is what I want to believe." And I imagine she will believe that until she dies. We sent her some material which proves that Christ will not reign on this earth, and she returned it. So, like themajority of the people, she is going to believe what she wants to believe regardless of the facts. Isaiah,Christ, and Paul encountered such people, and theyare described in Matthew 13:15. There isn't much you can do for them.

Abolish Sundays? Don't laugh; they may do itAn Associated Press article out of Chicago said: "With Sundays widely used for recreation rather than rest and worship, the Rev. Dr. Leroy C. Hodapp,a Bloomington, Ind., Methodist leader, suggests in the weekly Christian Advocate that the church abandon its weekly worship custom, and substitute ten 'Christ-Days' per year in large centers of worship.

After all, when people cease to worship God as the New Testament authorizes — and they have — what difference does it make whether or not they worship at all ? We wonder if the "Rev." has reach such passages as Acts 20:7? The first day of the week — each week — is the true "Christ-day" for true Christians.

SOME ACTS OF SATAN IN THE CHURCH

I have before me a booklet, "The Acts of The

Holy Spirit in The Church of Christ Today," which

is published by the Full Gospel Business Men's Fel

lowship International in Los Angeles, Calif. It con

tains 14 articles by the same number of men, all o

whom claim to be members of the Church of Christ.

They are: Ben Franklin, Dean Dennis, Pat Boone,

Forrest H. Wells, Donald R. Hurley, Dwyatt Gantt

William R. Epperson, W. L. Wilson, Jim Noblitt, T.

C. Wisenbaker, Paul Logue, Curtis Lydic, George

Welsh and Lester E. Nichols.

THEIR CLAIM

The claim of these individuals is expressed in the

title, they all believe that the Holy Spirit is working

now in a miraculous way. Claim is made for Holy

Spirit baptism, prophecy, tongues, gifts of healing,

faith, wisdom, discernment, etc. now among th

Lord's people.

COMMON DENOMINATOR

In reading this booklet through twice each of these men have some common ground. That common denominator is error. (1) Each of these men claim to be a member of the Lord's church. However, after reading the articles I would question if they were ever a member. Please note that I am not sayingthey were not, I am just questioning if they were. Their concept of the church is that it is a denomination. The expressions used in regard to the church

reveals their denominational concept. "Our church

doctrine" (p. 9), "other denominations" (p. 10)

"our denominational bodies" (p. 10), "I had been

Page 7

the minister of one of the denomination's largest churches in the west, the Northside Church ofChrist" (p. 11), "served as pastor to four such churches" (p. 25), "Church of Christ preacher" (p.26), "overcoming denominational hang-ups" (p. 46)"of our denomination" (p. 49), "we went to our denominational church, Vermont Avenue Church of Christ, near George Pepperdine College," (p. 51),"I remember saying to our pastor" (p. 62) are just some of the expressions used in relation to the Lord's church that show that these men look upon th

church as a denomination.

(2) Again and again they give their personal

"testimony" that what they claim is so. But others

could give the same kind of testimony that other

acts are of the Holy Spirit. (3) These individuals

want to establish the fact that they were "real true

church of Christ members" at one time. They give

all kinds of evidence, such as, being a "Bible school

superintendent, coordinator, youth worker, elder,

etc. in both large and small congregation" (p. 60) or

such a church "was started in our home" (p. 65) and

"I attended Pepperdine College and while there

planted all the shrubs around the Church of Christ

building on Vermont Avenue, every one of the trees

and the grass" (p. 65)

These men cast the Lord's church in the role of a denomination and evidence their displeasure of preachers who expose denominationalism and draw

the line on them where the Bible draws the line.

HOLY SPIRIT VS. HOLY SPIRIT

One of the interesting things about this booklet is all of these men claim a miraculous operation of

the Holy Spirit in their lives. Yet, they are divided

on some fundamental i ues about the Holy Spirit.

For example, on page 17, one prays for the baptism

of the Holy Spirit, but on pages 26-27 one receives

Holy Spir it baptism by the laying on of hands by

an Episcopal priest. Both claim to have Holy Spirit

baptism, yet both claim to have received such in a

different way. Another example, one claims, on page

8, "that which is perfect" in I Cor. 13:10 refers to

"Christian maturity" but on page 14 we are told it

refers to "the perfect state of all things ushered in

by the return of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ"

and then on page 66 we are told it refers to "Jesus

Christ." We have three different answers by three

different men, yet each claims Holy Spirit direction.

Thus, these men have the Holy Spirit divided if what

they say is so.

TONGUES

One of the things that is often affirmed of theHoly Spir it in this booklet is that he causes these men and others to speak in tongues. The claim is made he causes men to speak in: "strange words"

(p. 8), in "a prayer language" (p. 14), in a "new

language" (p. 17 and 27), "when blocked in the Eng

lish language, I have spoken in this new tongue"

(p. 28), "in a new and unknown tongue" (p. 34), "I

broke forth in a tongue of praise and prayer in words

I had never heard" (p. 35), "heavenly language

(p. 35), in a "complex Indian dialect" (p. 36), "in a

language I didn't know" (p. 37), "I spoke in a ne

language" (p. 48), "a voluble stream of a heavenl

language" (p. 53), "in a strange tongue" (p. 61), "a strange and utterly amazing tongue which I had never heard" (p. 67), "a new and strange language"(p. 69), and "ecstatic language" (p. 58). One says,"there came a flood of sounds, none of them at alintelligible, lasting for perhaps a minute or two and then stopping, as though by some will other than my own" (p. 58). This one claiming to speak in a"ecstatic language" says the "sounds" were not "intelligible" (p. 58). Does the Holy Spirit give an unintelligent language? The new Testament teaches

otherwise (Acts 2:6,8,11). Cf. I Cor. 14:9,19.

NEW TESTAMENT TEACHING

Having seen the denominational attitude these

men have toward the Bible and the church of the

Lord, I want to note some New Testament passages

which they fail to understand.

(1) I Cor. 15:8 — Paul said of Chr ist that "last

of all he was seen of me also." If this were under

stood, one would not read in this booklet of one say

ing of his claimed exper ience "I believe it was a

vision of the glor y of Chr ist Himself, and I was

here given a glimpse of Him, the full image of Deity"(P-37).

(2) Acts 1:4-8 — This passage is used in the book

let to teach that Holy Spir it baptism is for men

today. While it is true that someone in this passage

is promised Holy Spir it baptism, it is not men now.

Note the context: (1) commandment was given t

the apostles, v. 2; (2) to the apostles Christ showed

himself, v. 3; (3) Chr ist was assembled with the

apostles and commanded them (the apostles) that

they should not depart but wait for the promise of

the Father, v. 4; (4) the "ye" of verse 5 that were

promised Holy Spirit baptism were the apostles of

verse 2. The antecedent of the personal pronouns in

verse 3-8 is the noun, apostles, in verse 2. When one

understands this, he will not be expecting to be bap

tized with the Holy Spirit since he is not an apostle.

Men are not now the ones to whom the Lord made

the promise of Acts 1:5,8, so men now have no right

to expect the fulfillment of the promise.

(3) John 14:16-17 — Use is made of this passageto show that "gifts of the Holy Spirit are promised in the Bible" for men today. The context of the chapter will show otherwise. In John 13:5, it is learned that Jesus was with his disciples; he told them "thatone of you shall betray me" (13:21); chapter 15:16 shows Jesus still is speaking to the disciples when he said, "I have chosen you." In these chapters in which this passage is found, the names of some of the apostles are given in conversation with Christ. The "you" of this passage the context .shows is the apostles; not men today. In these passages all these men miss a fundamental rule of understanding, thatis, when some are specifically addressed, no one else is included in that address. For example, "I will spuethee out of my mouth" (Rev. 3:16) addressed to Laodiceans does not include saints at Philadelphi(Rev. 3:7)

(4) I Cor. 13:8-10 — It is admitted (p. 7) that

this passage is one "which even hinted that anything

of the miraculous would cease at some time." It is

observed in the article that the reason the miracu

lous continues is because v. 8 "states that 'prophe

cies,' not 'prophecy' would cease." That is real wis

dom. If 'prophecies' ceased it would be because

'prophecy' ceased. If 'prophecy' continued there would be 'prophecies' continued. T his is just a play

on words, but is not a real argument.

I Cor. 12:8-10 names the miraculous gifts of theSpirit. I Cor. 12:14-31 shows they were for edifying the body. I Cor. 13:1-7 shows the need for love even with miraculous gifts. I Cor. 13:8-13 shows that miraculous gifts would cease. "Prophecies shall fail" "tongues shall cease and knowledge shall vanish away." How could language be plainer? But such plain language means nothing to one who wants, intends to have, and thinks he has spir itual gifts. He is right and the New Testament is in error. Paul says "now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; butthe greatest of these is charity" (I Cor. 13:13).These men whose articles are in the booklet would say, "now abideth tongues, prophecy, and Holy Spirit baptism."

Much more could be said about this neat printed

booklet filled with error. I trust that this will help

someone into whose hands this book of false doc

trine falls.

PROBLEM PERIODS IN OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY

THE PERIOD OF THE PATRIARCHS (2)

The consensus of scholarship has come around to a more conservative attitude toward the Genesis account of the patriarchal period. William F. Albright affirms that "aside from a few die-hards among older scholars, there is scarcely a single biblical historian who has not been impressed by the rapid accumulation of data supporting the substantial historicity of patriarchal tradition" (The BiblicalPeriod, p. 3). Nelson Glueck goes so far as to say, "Either the Age of Abraham coincides with the Middle Bronze I period between the twenty-first and nineteenth centuries B.C. or the entire saga dealingwith the Patriarch must be dismissed, so far as its historical value is concerned, from scientific consideration" (Rivers in the Desert, p. 68). The period between the twentieth and sixteenth centuries B.C., the age of the Patriarchs, continues Albright, "was unusually well adapted for such movements as those described in the Book of Genesis" (op. cit., p. 4).

MIDDLE BRONZE AGE

Archaeologists call this period the Middle Bronze Age (2000 -1500 B.C.). In Babylonia it was the time of Hammurabi, king of the Amorites, a nation ofpeople frequently mentioned in the Book of Genesis (Gen. 10:16; 14:7; 15:16,21; 48:22). It was also the time of the Hyksos invasion of Egypt (late eighteenth century) ; while at Nuzi the Hurrians (Biblical Horites, Gen. 14:6; 36:20,21,29) were in power.During the Middle Bronze Age Palestine was divided into little city states according to the Hyksos sources and the Amarna letters.

These Canaanite city states dotted the Mediterranean coast and the rich valleys of Palestine, a fact that helps to explain why Abraham traveled through the hill country and settled in the South. Albright makes quite a point of this: "In this period, moreover, towns were scattered thinly through the hillcountry and sedentary occupation was largely restricted to the coastal plains and the broad alluvialvalleys of Jezreel and the Jordan. The wanderings of the Patriarchs are thus correctly limited by tradition to the hill country and the desert Negeb; not asingle city of the coastal plains or the broad valleys of the interior is mentioned (except in the extreme south)" (Ibid., p. 5).

Furthermore, as George Ernest Wright observes:

Page 9

Abraham is associated with Mamre (Gen. 13:18),Isaac with Beersheba (Gen. 26:23; 28:10), and Jacob with Bethel, Shechem and Dothan (Gen. 33:1835:1; 37:17). Wright then states that "archaeological evidence confirms that these towns were the main settlements in the area between 2000 and 17000 B.C." (Biblical Archaeology, abridged ed., p. 29). Sothe Patriarchs avoided the heavily fortified areas of the hill country and Negeb. Notice the subtle accuracy of the Genesis account in this whole matter.

MARI

Mari, located on the bend of the Euphrates northwest of Babylon, has yielded 20,000 to 30,000 clatablets dating back to the eighteenth century B.C. Names like Nahor, Haran, Serug, Terah, Abraham,Isaac, Jacob, Benjamin, and Hamor are not unknown in these texts. One is even tempted to a ociate the term "Habiru" in the Mari letters with the designation "Hebrew" ascribed to Abraham in Genesis 14:13, although such an a ociation presents some difficulties, for the term "Habiru" is certainly notrestricted in its application to Abraham's immediatefamily.

THE REAL ISSUE

There is no reason to doubt the accuracy of thGenesis record in respect to historical matters. The critic's real problem has to do with his unwillingness to believe in miracles, but the i ue often is shifted to other questions.

INSTITUTIONALISM— WHY I CHANGED

One of the most difficult decisions I ever made in my life was my decision to take a stand against institutionalism. I believed, as perhaps many of yowho read this article believe, that the support of human institutions (such as orphan's homes, colleges,hospitals, etc.) should come from the chur ch's treasury because of the good they were doing. I based this solely on the emotional appeal that was beingmade for those who were orphans, the sick, etc., andon human reasoning rather than Scriptural facts. Yet,my desire to be right forced me to take a stand against church support of human institutions. Jesus said, "If ye continue in my word, then are ye m

disciples indeed." (John 8:31). I knew all along I

must abide in the doctrine of Christ, in order to be

His disciple. "He that abideth in the doctrine of

Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

(2 John 9).

I want each one who reads this article to know that

I understand your problems and the pressures that are

being placed on you by institutional brethren, for

faced the same sort of problem.

I was living in Chattanooga, Tennessee at the time I made the change. I had been troubled about my stand for several months. Yet, I was not about to allow myself to be labeled an "anti" unless I was absolutely sure I was right. I had several questions that were asked by several of my preaching brethren who were opposed to human institutions, that I was unable toanswer. I began to ask many of my preacher friends,elders, and others (who believed as I did) to help mefind the answers to these problems that I hadencountered. Some refused to discuss the matter, andothers made attempts to answer, and yet the answers were not Scriptural answers. For Example

1. Where in the Bible, did one church ever send money to another church to preach the gospel? No answer was given!

2. Where is Scriptural authority for a church making

a donation to any kind of a human institution? No

answer was given!

3. Where is Bible authority for elders overseeing any

work except that "which is among them" (I Pet.

5:2)? No answer was given!

4. Where is the authority for the church engaging in

and providing for suppers, parties, or entertainment

for anyone? No answer was given!!

If any effort was ever made to answer these, it was usually James 1:27 or Gal. 6:10. Actually, the more I heard these passages used by my brethren to support these practices of taking money from theChurch's treasury to support human institutions, the more convinced I was that I was wrong. It is really aninsult to any person's intelligence to quote the above passage to try to prove church action, when the passages themselves are giving instructions to theindividual Christian and his living the Christian life.Read them and see for yourselves.

But, as I said, I know of your problems. When I took a stand against these "church splitting innovations," one of my dearest friends, who was a gospel preacher said, "I hope and pray J.T. quits preaching." Not only this, but I was told by the congregation where I was preaching one Sunday morning, that thatwould be my last day. I was left without any means of supporting my family; I was then faced with beingin opposition to many of my dearest friends andmany in my own family. I immediately became an"orphan hater" to hear my friends (?) tell it. Yet, I was confronted by the fact that regardless of whatpeople call you, God is right!! "In hope of eternalife, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began" (Titus 1:2). I also knew that God said,"Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you" (matt. 6:33). That is why I changed — Jesus said I must!! "And a man's foes shall be those of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me is not worthy of me" (Matt. 10:36-38). In the light of this, I could not

allow friends or family to stand in the way of my be

ing right. Yes, I lost much but I gained much more. I

gained a position that I can support by the Bible. I

can give Scriptural authority (command, example

necessary inference) for my teaching and practice. I

am not now afraid to try to defend what I believe.

All institutional preachers are!! I know why they

won't defend it. They can't. I know, because I tried!

I wanted to be able to defend it as much as anyone

ever did. It grieved me much to have my friends turn

their backson me.

All of you who read this publication, or who have read my writings in the past, know that I am still trying to obtain the answers to the questions that I stated earlier in this article. It would be a happy day inmy life if I could call those who are so bitterly opposed to me, and join hands and hearts with them again.Yes, with all the pleas I have made for Bible authorityfor these things, few have even tried to give meScriptural authority for these things— and those who did, gave Scriptures that have nothing to do with the questions that were asked. Therefore, I will have tocontinue to speak out against institutionalism andthose who espouse it as much as I dislike being inopposition to my brethren. Paul said, "And have nofellowship with the unfruitful works of darkne , but rather reprove them" (Eph. 5:11). Thus, I must do this to be pleasing to God. If I preach anything that was not received from God, His curses will rest upon me (Gal. 1:8-9). And, if I do not abide in the doctrine of Christ, I cannot have God (2 John 9)

So, as you can well see, I can sympathize with your situation, and feel sorry for you. I know it will be

hard, but you too must take your stand against in

stitutionalism and against anything for which yo

cannot find Bible authority. I beg of you— please

stand up against these innovations; or else give m

Scriptural authority for your practices so that I may

stand with you!

(This article has been in tract form for a number of years. At this writing, over 50,000 copies have been

printed and distributed. They may still be obtained at

one cent per copy simply by writing to J.T. Smith

1320 Gardiner Lane, Louisville, Kentucky, 40213.

"THE CHURCH TREASURY"

Within the last few years the "church treasury"has come in for more than its share of criticism. Perhaps some of this criticism is justified and some of it is entirely without Bible backing. It is a well known fact that the name "church treasury" is not founin the New Testament writings. However, it cannot be denied that a collection of money was gathered by Christians on the first day of the week (I Cor. 16:1-2). I suppose one could call this collection bya number of names and still be within the confines of biblical description. It is not my purpose in this article to argue for the name "church treasury" or any other specific terminology but to establish Bible authority for such a collection and its scriptural use.

When Paul told the Corinthian brethren to make this collection he used a militar y term "As I havegiven order." He said, "As I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him instore, as God hath prospered him, that there be nogatherings when I come." It must be observed in this text that this order was not for Corinth only. Hhad given a uniform order for all the churches in regard to this collection. It must also be observed that it was to be done on the first day of the week.I insist that this verse authorizes Christians to give as they have been prospered, upon the first day othe week and that this collection belongs to a localcongregation and that said money is to be used forwhatever God has authorized a local congregation to do. I maintain, from other texts, we can find that alocal congregation used such funds for preaching the gospel (II Cor. 11:8) and for helping poor saints (I Cor. 16:1-2).

I would now like to notice some objections to the church treasury as it is used by many brethren. First, we have some who scoff at the idea of a treasury at all. They insist that I Cor. 16 was a specialcontribution and that there is no authority for church treasury today. However, these critics involve themselves in difficulties from which they cannot escape. They all agree that churches supported Paul in preaching the gospel but they cannot consistently tell where these churches received themoney. They all agree that the CHURCHES supported the widows indeed (I Tim. 5) but they can't tell us where the CHURCHES got the money! If theyadmit that some sort of collection was made thehave surrendered their argument because a treasury comes into existence. It must be observed that in

Page 11

both of the above cases the text says CHURCHES or a church supported both Paul and the widow indeed. Some might try to argue that what the individual does the church is doing but on this he is ingreat difficulty. In I Tim. 5:16, Paul says, "If any man or woman (individuals) that believeth havewidows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged." It is true that the church is made up of individuals, but neighbor, there has to be a difference in the individual and the church or Paul made an inspirational blunder. Paul tells us in this text that when an individual is taking care of a widow this is NOT the CHURCH doing it!

There are others who insist that this collection of I Cor. 16 was for poor saints and that under no circumstance should this money be used for preaching the gospel. It cannot be denied that Paul makes specific reference to this collection being for poor saints. The text bears this out. However, we must remember the Bible says CHURCHES supported Paul and our problem is WHERE DID THEY GET THEMONEY? Some have implied that the churches might have had TWO treasuries, one for evangelism and the other for benevolence. This is not only absurd but without Bible authority. Since I Cor. 16 is the only Bible example on how churches RAISED money, it must be established as an exclusive pattern for any congregation raising money. The SPENDING of that money is found in other texts. If one argues that preaching the gospel is not mentioned in I Cor. 16, I would remind him that "The cup" is not mentioned with the "bread" in Acts 2:42 where the Lord's supper is mentioned. I would also remind the cr itic that the entire plan of salvation (faith, repentance, confession and baptism) are notmentioned in any ONE verse in the Bible! One does not have to establish Bible authority for something by finding all the essentials crouched in ONE verse.

Sabbatarians criticize the church treasury in adifferent way. Burt F. Marrs, whom I met in debate several years ago, argued that the first day of theweek was not the Lord's day but the first day of the week. He insisted that the laying by in store wasfruit such as grapes, figs and apples. He said thepeople at Corinth went out into the fields on the first day of the week and gathered this fruit so it could be sent to the poor saints at Jerusalem. I asked him why they could do this only on Sunday and he never did reply. I also pointed out that II Cor. 9:2 tells us that the church at Corinth had been "ready a year ago." T his means that all "fruit" had been laid up for a year. It would be rather absurd to think theycould gather fruit the year around, in all seasons, and that it could be preserved for an entire year!

Yes, we have critics of the church treasury butthe fact remains that the Bible teaches that a collection was made by churches; that churches supported preachers and poor saints; and that the collections were made on every first day of the week.These facts cannot be denied.

Page 12

The only "out" that you have now is to retract your implication or state the man's name with documented proof concerning every work he engagedin (for you said all were failures) so that the brethren may know who it is, cease their support, and pray for God's forgivene . Are you willing to just "say at" or state clearly? We will wait.

5966 Park Place

Hammond, Indiana

46320

Donald G. Collins, 2005 Wisconsin Ave., Joplin,Mo., 64801 — I helped a small group of Christians start a congregation in Elm Springs, Arkansas about ten years ago, and have helped as I could through the years. It was the first conservative congregation tostart in northwest Arkansas after the division over institutionalism. They are now of a mind to obtain a preacher to work with them full time. They can provide fifty dollars ($50.00) per week of his support,and the rest will have to come from other sources.

Elm Springs is a small town in the northwest cor

ner of the state, about five miles west of Springdale,

which is growing in that direction. Northwest Ark

ansas is, I believe, making more progress than an

other part of the state.

The congregation is made up of about fifteen members who stand for the truth. I believe now is an opportune time for them to make good progress in the cause of the Master, if they can get some helpThey, as all small groups in starting, has had their share of troubles, in trying to stand for the truth.

If any preacher is interested in this work, or a con

gregation that would like to help support a preacher

in this area, get in touch with John Hayes, Box 191,

Elm Springs, Ark., 72728, or phone (501) 235-2885.

******** PREACHER WANTED

Preacher needed at the church in Charlotte, N.C.

Self supporting, new preachers home is being built.

Contact: Alton R. Watts, 3308 Denson PI., Charlotte,

N.C. 28215. Phone 535-0393 or David Haga, 713

Star Valley Drive, Charlotte, N.C. Phone 523-6938

if interested.

PREACHER WANTED

R.L. Craig, 410 Lightsey Rd., Austin, Texas — I

have just finished a meeting with the church in

Rockdale, Texas. They have just gotten into a house

of their own and seem to be ready to do a good work.

They have a small but zealous membership and would

like to get a man to work with them regularly. They

can pay part of his support and can arrange for most

of the rest of it. For further information contact

Carroll D. Holt, Box 107, Rockdale, Texas 76567.

********

MILLER-WOODS DEBATE

Guy N. Woods and James P. Miller will engage in a

three night debate in Montgomery, Ala. February 28,

29 and March 1. The discu ion will be conducted in

the Cleveland Avenue meeting house at 4214 Cleve

land Avenue just one block off the southern by pass

at Collinswood. PROPOSITIONS: February 28 — It is in harmony with the scriptures

for churches of Christ to build and maintain benevol

ent organizations for the care of the needy, such as

Boles Home, Tipton Home, Tennessee Orphan Home,

Childhaven, and other orphan homes and homes for

the aged that are among us. Guy N. Woods— Affirms

James P. Miller -DeniesFebruary 29 — It is not in harmony with the scrip-

tures for churches of Christ to build and maintain

benevolent organizations for the care of the needy,

such as Boles Home, Tipton Home, Tennessee Orphan

Home, Childhaven, and other orphan homes and

homes for the aged that are among us. James P. Miller -Affirms Guy N. Woods -Denies March 1 — Such an arrangement and cooperative

effort on the part of churches of Christ for the

gospel asthe Herald of Truth ispreaching of the gospel as the Herald of Truth is with

out scriptural authority. James P. Miller -Affirms Guy N. Woods-Denies Time for the discu ion is 7:30 each night

Brother Miller will be endorsed by the Gay Mea

dows congregation and all questions, letters, calls and

etc. should be addressed to Carroll Puckett, 252

Montreat Drive, Montgomery, Ala. 36111 * * * * * * * *

EVANGELIST NEEDED We are a small congregation in the Gulf Coast area

that needs a preacher immediately. The church needs

a man who has had experience working with small

congregations and who can not only preach effect

ively from the pulpit but can guide and participate in

strong personal evangelism efforts. The congregation

is able to provide only part of his support. Interested

individuals may contact church of Christ, P.O. Box

1821, Gulfport, Mi ., 39501, % Leroy Henry.

* * * * * * * *

J. Edward Nowlin — I am now laboring with thePerry church of Christ in Perry, Florida. Please note my new address: 109 Cedar Road, Perry, Fla. 32347********

Page 13

BENJAMIN LEE FUDGE IS DEAD DEBATE WITH BAPTIST IN LOUISVILLE

I received the shocking news Saturday night, Feb.

5, near midnight that my long time friend and broth

er Benjamin Lee Fudge had suddenly passed from

this life as the result of a cardiac arrest at about 6:45

p.m. in the hospital in Athens, Alabama. His goo

wife, Sybil, was with him when he died.

He arrived home from Florida College Lectures

with a severe case of the flu to which was added

pneumonia. We will have more to say about this in

the next i ue of the paper. — Editor ********

HIGHERS-GRIDER DEBATE

A debate between Alan E. Highers and A.C. Grider will be conducted at the high school auditorium inCentral City, Kentucky. Se ions will begin eacevening at 7:30. The date is March 6-10, 1972.

PROPOSITIONS FOR DEBATE:

1. It is in harmony with the scriptures for churches

of Christ to contribute from their treasuries to the

support of destitute children who are not saints

(Christians). Alan E. Highers -Affirms

A.C. Grider-Denies

2. In benevolent work churches of Christ are

limited by the scriptures to extending help only t

needy saints(Christians).

A.C. Grider -Affirms

Alan E. Highers-Denies

3. It is in harmony with the scriptures for churches

of Christ to contribute from their treasuries to bene

volent institutions such as Potter, Southern Christian

Home, and othersof like nature. Alan E. Highers -Affirms

A.C. Grider — Denies

4. Such cooperative efforts in evangelism as practiced in World Radio, Herald of Truth, and the Houston Music Hall Meeting are without scriptural authority.

A.C. Grider — Affirms

Alan E. Highers-Denies

5. Such cooperative efforts in evangelism as practic

ed in World Radio, Herald of Truth, and the Houston

Music Hall Meeting are in harmony with the scrip

tures. Alan E. Highers -Affirms

A.C. Grider — Denies

AGREEMENT FOR DEBATE:

1. One evening session shall be given to the discu

ion of each proposition in Central City, Kentucky, at

a mutually agreed time and place

2.Each speaker shall have three alternating twenty-

minute speeches each evening, beginning with the

affirmative.

3. Each speaker shall select a moderator whose duty

it shall be to keep time and to maintain order.

4.The affirmative speaker shall define the terms of

the proposition and bear the burden of proof; no new

material shall be introduced into the last negative

speech on any proposition.

********

Connie W. Adams 4724 E. Manslick Rd. Louisville, Ky. 40219

Weldon E. Warnock of Paden City, West Virginia

will meet H.C. Vanderpool of Louisville, Kentucky in

a debate in Louisville March 13, 14, 16 and 17. The

discu ion will be held in the Iroquois High Schoo

auditorium at 4615 Taylor Blvd. just south of Watterson Expressway.

The first two nights Mr. Vanderpool will affirm salvation through faith before water baptism. T he last

two nights brother Warnock will affirm that waterbaptism is essential to salvation.

These men met in debate in Bowling Green, Kentucky about two years ago at which time agreement

was made for a debate to be held in Louisville. The

Manslick Road church in Louisville will endorse and

support brother Warnock in the discussion. Mr. Van

derpool preaches for the L yons Chapel Baptist

Church in Louisville and they will support him. Both

men are experienced in religious debate. W.T. Russell

will moderate for Mr. Vanderpool and the writer will

serve as moderator for brother Warnock.

A limited number of places to stay may be provided

for out of town visitors. Wr ite me at the above

address. The debate will begin at 7:30 each night.

********

J.M. Kennedy, Rt. 3, Box 1-B1, Rogersville, Ala.35652 — I have resigned my work at the West Rogersville, Ala. church of Christ, and desire to locate withsome other conservative congregation. I am 43 years old, married, and have four children. I have been preaching for 25 years and doing located work for 20 years. I can move anytime and will be glad tocorrespond with any interested congregation. If youcare to call, my number is 205— 247-0378.

********

E.C. Poland, 516 N. Freedom, Alliance, Ohio44601 — A new congregation of the church of Christ is now meeting in a building recently purchased and is known as the Homeworth Road church of Christ,Alliance, Ohio.

********

Doug Black, P.O. Box 317, Tr ilby, Fla. 33593 I am available for part-time preaching work in thecentral Florida area on a fill-in or regular basis.

********

Ward Hogland, Box 166, Greenville, Tex., 75401 — Thirty were baptized into Christ here at WalnutStreet in 1971. Meetings for 72 include work withBobby K. Thompson, Miami, Fla.; Ted Beaver, Okla. City; Rufus R. Clifford, Franklin, Tenn.; Charles Bland, Houston, Mi .; Rayford Petty, Haynesville,La.; Franklin Williams, Lawrenceburg, Tenn.; Kenneth Keller, Weiner, Ark.; Weldon Warnock, PadeCity, West Va. We look forward to our meeting witRobert Jackson of Nashville, Tenn. ********