About twenty-four months ago I moved to Asheville, N. C, a medium-sized community nestledin the Great Smoky Mountains. The area is unquestionably beautiful and draws thousands of vacationers, and its moderate climate encouragessome folks to go no farther south in their search forretirement living.

There are several joys working with the churchhere. Among them is meeting many people from various parts of the country who come to visit. We are the only church in the city which opposes institutionalism and the social gospel, and our attendance swells during the summer.

But there are some things that are a disappointment to the church here, and I believe that a self-examination by those on vacation will cause them tobe more careful.

1. The majority of our visitors only come to one hour of worship. These no doubt are people who at home are regular in attendance to all the services. There may be several reasons for not attending all the services while on vacation, but the main one seems to be that they "headquarter" at a place that is "just too far" to conveniently come to all the services. In the first place the truly faithful serve the Lord whether it is convenient or not; and, secondly, those who are spiritually thoughtful will see to it that they are "close-in" when times for worship arrive.
2. Often the visitor comes to the morning service with the intention of leaving thereafter for home(which may be several hours or days away)without attending an evening service along the way. "We must be back in time for work on Monday morning." Can the Lord be truly pleased with such neglect of "weightier mat ters"?
3. Here is another problem I hope never arises again. A business convention, composed primarily of Christians, came to town for the

week-end. One family came early and visited our Wednesday night services. We were apprised that this large group of Christians would be coming in and there was concern as to whether we could handle all of them for worship. I assured them provisions would be made, even to the providing of transportation. We baked extra bread, bought more juice, paper cups to serve them, etc. All things were ready! We looked forward with greatanticipation to the filling of our building and the good singing. Imagine our dismay when only a small portion showed up. I inquired into the matter. "Oh, several met together in a hotel roomand broke bread at 8:30 this morning. A well-known Florida preacher conducted the service. They needed to get started early on their trips backhome." I learned that this is a common practice forthis group. Often times, they will convene in cities or exotic places where no faithful congregation exists. So they hold service. But as inour case, they held their own service when a localcongregation was only 3 miles away. Brethren, where is the scriptural precedent for such activity? Someone might say, "What about Paul?" I say that what Paul and his companions were doing is far different than a business convention. Paul had to meet with companions because there were no congregations, which situation he was going about correcting. When he found himself in a communitywhere a church existed, he worshipped with it (Acts20:4-7). And Paul was in a hurry to get home, too(Acts 20:16)!

I maintain that if one group of Christians can meeton their own when traveling,.they can do it anytime;and if one group or family can do it, then all can do it, and in principle the local congregation has justbeen abolished.

When will we recognize the importance of planningfor spiritual activities as well as physical when weplan our vacations?

Another problem closely connected with this is theproblem of Retirees moving to this area. Churches ofChrist are scarce in North Carolina, and ones that stick to the Bible even rarer. Travel in this area is not the easiest in the world, and people are just not careful to find retirement homes near the meetinghouse. In fact, some locate where the nearest sound congregation is 2Vt hours away. These people barely make it to one service and are absolutely of no further help or encouragement to the local congregation. People who much of their lives havebeen faithful stalwarts (or so we are led to believe)retire from duty in a resort area. They deliberately(though probably not premeditated) put themselvesin a position of being little help to the church.

We want people to move to North Carolina, but wewant them to move close enough to be a source ofstrength to the local congregation. Preachers can help. When a family gets ready to move, help themfind out about the local church in that community.There might be some situations where a family couldmove in and "start the church" in their home. But for many Christians it would be spiritual suicide to try.

I sincerely hope that these remarks will cause Christians to think and to examine their actions.

Rt. 5, Box 403-0Hwy. 25-A, Sweeten Creek Rd.Asheville, N.C. 28803

ELDERS IN EVERY CHURCH

"And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom theybelieved" (Acts 14:23). "And for this cause left I theein Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things thatare wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I hadappointed thee" (Titus 1:5).

These verses show that it was the practice of inspired men to appoint elders in every church, in every city. Paul had the same order for all the churches. Touching marriage in a time of distress, hewrote "And so ordain I in all churches" (1 Cor. 7:17).His practice in this established a rule or norm to be followed by others for he wrote "Those things, whichye have both learned and received, and heard, and seenin me, do: and the God of peace shall be with you"(Phil. 4:9). They were all to "walk by the same rule" (Phil. 3:16).

Pattern Authority

The verses just cited establish "pattern authority" in spite of the fact that many today are saying that there is no pattern. Milo Hadwin recently wrote a book on apostolic examples which waspublished by Firm Foundation and given editorial endorsement by Ruel Lemmons, in which he advocatedthat apostolic examples do not form a binding patternfor the church of the present. He said there was no reason for brethren to get shook up about that, for afterall, not a great deal was involved in accepting that premise. He said the only practices at stake were the first day of the week observance of the Lord's Supperand a plurality of elders in every church. Well now,, that sounds like a lot to me! This amounts to sayingthat the worship and organization of the church arereally not important anyhow. That is a little larger pillthan I am prepared to swallow. What think you, my fellow brethren?

Men are not prepared to be elders when they first become the children of God, for no novice is to be appointed (1 Tim. 3:6). Neither is one an elder justbecause of his chronological age. Paul "ordained" eldersin every church. Men get to be older whether you "ordain" them or not. Time takes care of that. In 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1, divine qualifications are set forth in order that men prepared for this work might berecognized and chosen in keeping with

divine wisdom. When such men are found and ordained, they are made overseers by the Holy Spirit (Acts 20:28). That means they have met the standard determined by God and revealed in the scriptures by theSpirit. They then are to "take the oversight" of "the flock of God among them" (1 Peter 5:1-3). They havea "rule" for which they shall "give account", hopefully "with joy" (Heb. 13:17). God's order then is a pluralityof elders in every church, exercising oversight of thatflock and no other. They are not to be overlords, supplanting the authority of Christ who is "the chief Shepherd" (1 Peter 5:4), but are to be worthy examplesbefore the flock in doing the work of the Lord. It is known by all that some men chosen as elders are farfrom qualified and that others have perverted the Lord'splan for the function of elders. But that does not mean that God's plan was wrong and that elders shouldbe abolished. When the storm door on your house needsfixing, you don't tear down the whole house—you fix the door. Certainly, situations develop which need correction. But in the process, let us not throw out God's arrangement which he ordained for all the churches.

A Great Need Today

We have heard much in the last few years about apreacher shortage. There is one, and it is serious. Brethren need to ask "Why"? But there is also a serious shortage of qualified elders. Again, we need toask "Why"?

How is it that a congregation exists fifteen or twenty years and never has at least two men in it qualified to serve as elders? Are the elders known by younger men such poor examples that those younger men have no desire to prepare themselves for this work? Have gospel preachers failed in their teaching totrain and inspire younger men to equip themselves toserve? Are younger men so preoccupied with earninga living and the pursuit of material goals that they fail to rear their children to be faithful to the Lord and thus rule themselves out of consideration because they do not have "faithful children, not accused of riot or unruly", though they themselves may finally awaken totheir own need for spiritual growth?

Is it that preachers in congregations without elders enjoy having things in a rather fluid state so they canrun things more easily? Or, is it that there are somebrethren in these congregations who know they couldnever be appointed, but who, at present, have much influence on congregational decisions? Are they afraidof losing their voice? Have some brethren read moreinto the qualifications than God put there and actedarbitrarily in rejecting qualified men? Have some who claim to "speak where the Bible speaks" decided thatthey have gotten along for all these years without elders and therefore do not need them? Beware brethren, for this assumes that we know better how to carry on the Lord's work than he knew. God's order is not to be perverted, subverted or supplanted.

Unscriptural Substitutes

Some congregations without elders have settled for majority rule and speak freely of "voting" tosettle questions. Surely, some means must be found to determine a consensus of judgment to arrive at workable plans. But to speak of "voting" to settle every matter leaves the impression that the churchis a democracy to be ordered by popular opinion. Itis the language of Ashdod. It also presents the temptation to play politics to line up enough "votes" ahead of time to carry the desires of selfishand ambitious men.

A few years ago, a northern Ohio congregationhad no elders. When they tried to appoint some, it was found that none were qualified. So they selectedseven men who were empowered to make decisionsfor the congregation. These men were styled "the board of governors." They had no elders, but theyhad "governors"! I had a session once with the preacher for that congregation and with one of those "governors" and both defended the practice.

We learned recently of a congregation which hasbeen in existence for a number of years without everhaving elders appointed, which conducted one of those meetings with enough "votes" in the pocket toappoint a committee of four men to function on behalf of the congregation in lieu of elders. If anyoneknows the scripture for this practice and will send itto us, we will surely print it for all to see!

Hope For Tomorrow

On the brighter side, we know a number of younger men over the land who have told us thatthey are trying to grow spiritually, work harder forthe Lord and rear their families with a view to someday being prepared to tend the flock of God.Last month a fourteen year old boy told me that hewould like to prepare himself to serve one day as anelder in the church. Surely, this offers hope for the future.

THE PATTON-CHANDLER DEBATE

Elsewhere in this issue we carry the first of threeexchanges between Marshall E. Patton and Darwin Chandler on the issue of the right of Christians tocollectively teach the Bible through a service typeorganization such as Florida College. In several parts of the nation this question has been heating upthe last few years. Cecil Willis and Jesse G. Jenkinshad an oral debate on the subject in the Houston area last year. In certain places it appears that feelings are pretty strong on this matter. The editorand those who write regularly for this paper are persuaded that such organizations have a right to exist and to teach the Bible as a part of the servicethey offer for sale. An editorial in this paper in November, 1974 prompted Brother Chandler to write offering to debate this question. We now havein hand all the material from both writers and will proceed with the publication of it in the Septemberand October issues.

We limited the disputants to six pages double-spaced for each article. This did not allow them enough room to fully elaborate on each point as theymight have wished to do. But we think it is fair to both sides and that it is also fair to our readers not to occupy all the space of the paper for three months on this one subject. We asked both writers to remember that they are brethren and to refrain frompersonal derogatory remarks. For the most part, wethink this has been done. We thank both men for their work in this and for their willingness to havetheir views tested in open controversy.

Now, we ask the reader to consider what they have said, make up his own mind and act accordingly. Both of these brethren stand opposed to church contributions to schools or publishing foundations. Personally, we see no reason for thisissue to become divisive, since it concerns individual conviction and practice. You will want to keep thisissue of the paper for checking and double-checking on points made in other articles than the one youmay presently hold in your hand.

PROPOSITION: "The Scriptures teach that Christians may collectively teach God's word through service organizations, such as Florida College."

For the sake of brevity I shall dispense with preliminaries. Elsewhere in this issue Brother Adams will have properly introduced this exchangeand solicited the right attitude toward it.

Proposition Defined

By "The Scriptures teach," I mean the word ofGod authorizes generically or specifically by eitherdirect statement, approved example, or necessaryinference. By the expression "that Christians may,"I mean those who have obeyed the gospel are atliberty to act or not act at their discretion within therealm authorized. By "collectively teach God's word," I mean impart knowledge of both the Old and New Testaments in association with others and as part of a whole. By the word "through," I mean agency or means. The word "organization is defined:"1. Act or process of organizing. 2. State or manner of being organized; organic structure" (Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary). The word "organize" is defined: "1. To give organic structure to. 2. To arrange or constitute in interdependent parts, each having a special functionor relation with respect to the whole" (Ibid.). In thelight of these definitions, by "organization," I mean the arrangement of individuals so as to constitute interdependent parts of a whole, and who function harmoniously under common direction in behalf ofthe whole. By "service organization," I identify thetype of organization involved in our proposition.The word "service," in our proposition, is used inthe following sense: ". . . 13. Act or means of supplying some general demand, esp. of conducting some public utility; as, gas or water service" (Ibid).In the light of this definition, by "service organization," I mean an organization that suppliesa product or service that meets the demand or needof individuals or churches on the basis of the same being purchased. Just as the utility companysupplies the demand of its customers on the basis oftheir commodity being purchased, so with the organizations of our proposition. They are really business organizations. While their business (atleast one aspect of it) is that of teaching God's word,they are, nevertheless, a business enterprise. Theysupply a product or service which is purchased by individuals or churches which product or serviceis then used by the purchaser in the fulfillment of his or her divine mission. It is this particular point (the fact that they are service organizations — selling their product or service) thatdistinguishes them from the church as an organization. In fact, if the church were to so function, it would be wrong! Because of this difference, I affirm that such organizations do not supplant nor in any way reflect upon the all-sufficiency of the church of our Lord. They are in a different category! By the phrase, "such as Florida College," I mean that such organization is one illustration of that which is under study. To this might be added: "Searching The Scriptures." If objection be made to this as an example, let BrotherChandler tell why, and then name some organizations that are. The proposition says "service organizations" (plural).

Clarifying the Issue

For the sake of clarity and with a view to savingboth time and space, let it be understood that I am afirm believer in the all-sufficiency of the church. I stand unalterably opposed to any organization thatwould supplant the church or in any measure reflect upon its all-sufficiency whether it be established, subsidized, maintained, and controlled by individuals or churches. This means that I am opposed to a missionary society maintained by individuals apart from the church. I do not believe that God has given individuals the option of doing the same thing through a human organization or adivine organization. If so, I think I know human nature well enough to know just which one the human being will favor.

Historical Perspective

This issue has a historical perspective conduciveto a proper evaluation of its gravity, as well as amore objective, sincere, and prayerful study of the matters involved.

"Sommerism" with its baleful effects, largely inIllinois, Indiana, and Ohio must be accounted for, among other things, upon the grounds of the failureof Daniel Sommer to understand the true nature of colleges in which the Bible is taught, until in hislatter years. Perhaps he was more right in his opposition to abuses than he was given credit for in hisday. Nevertheless, it is to be regretted that harmonybetween him and those who affirmed their right toexist as individual enterprises was not attained in his earlier years. Earl West mad,e this interesting observation: "It is difficult to escape the conclusion that if men of like thought of Daniel Sommer understood the true nature of the colleges, they would oppose them less" (Search For The Ancient Order, Vol. 2, p. 396).

Later, W. Carl Ketcherside opposed such collegesupon the grounds that their work was the work ofthe church; that they, therefore, reflected upon itsall-sufficiency: "I am here defending one body forthe purpose of doing the work of the Lord, while he

is here defending two bodies. The Book that I readsays there is one body. I believe that body isthoroughly capable of doing all that God expects tobe done. . . But my brother feels there must be anadditional body, another organization" (Wallace-Ketcherside Debate, p. 187).

Leroy Garrett opposed such schools upon the same ground: "We are discussing whether or notChristians may start an organization through whichthey do what the church itself should be doing. . .Friends, the Lord gave us one body, and that is allhe gave us. It is rather interesting to sit back andwatch a gospel preaching try to defend more thanone body" (Humble-Garrett Debate, pp. 121, 125).

Of course, I believe in the one body and its all-sufficiency. But to confuse it with a service organization is simply to fail to "approve things that are excellent" (Phil. 1:10), or "distinguishbetween things that differ" (Marginal reading). I am prepared to show that the aforementioned men, atone time in their life, misunderstood the true natureof such schools. Furthermore, the propositionsigned by Brother Chandler implies that he, too, isguilty of the same misconception,

Scriptural Authority

The Scriptures authorize the Christian to teachGod's word (Eph. 6:4; 2 Tim. 2:2; Heb. 5:12). Thisauthority is generic as to how the teaching may bedone, until we come to a certain kind of organization. The following chart will illustrate thismatter:

Individually, the Christian may teach directly hischildren, neighbor, and others, or he may teachindirectly by use of purchased lessons either writtenor oral. Collectively, the Christian may teach through service organizations by acting in association with those of a publishing company orby teaching in an educational institution, such asFlorida College. He may also teach collectivelythrough an eleemosynary organization—one that issupported by contributions and which in turn makes free distribution of its product or service.

I realize that the word "eleemosynary" might,from one viewpoint, apply to a service organization,e.g., when contributions are made to it in order tokeep it in business, but such contributions wouldnot change its basic and true nature— it still would be a business enterprise or service organization. I use the word "eleemosynary" on the chart as definedin the above paragraph. In this sense, such organizations are indeed different from service organizations. "Eleemosynary" and "service" organizations are co-ordinates as to kinds of collectives, but subordinates of the genus collectiveteaching. Co-ordinates are things on the same level,of the same order, subordinates of the same genus.

In order for Brother Chandler to sustain his side of the proposition, one of two alternatives face him.1) He must deny that collectives or organizationsfall into different categories; that they differ in nature, and, thus, make all collectives co-ordinatesin relation to each other. If he should do this, thenhe denies a distinction that is factual and at the same time involves himself in consequencesunacceptable to everybody, including himself. Thiswe are prepared to show, should he choose this position. 2) He must show specific authority for "eleemosynary organizations" as to kinds of collectives. This would exclude all co-ordinates as to kinds—even "service organizations." However,specific authority for only one kind of collectivewould not only exclude all other kinds, but wouldinclude every subordinate of the genus specified, hence, all "eleemosynary organizations." Thiswould not only authorize the church but the missionary society as well and all others the same innature. Which horn of the dilemma will he take?

The truth of the matter is that God has made specific the church which excludes all its coordinates—the missionary society and others thesame in nature. Observe, however, this specificationof the church cannot exclude the "college" which isnot a co-ordinate of the church, but rather a subordinate of another genus. Thus, the service organizations of my proposition stand.

I look forward to Brother Chandler's reply and tothe remaining articles in this exchange.

Brother Patton admits we are discussingcollective action of individuals, and that the collegeand church are doing the same work in teaching God's word, so I pass on his definitions. His organizations "supply a product or service . . . purchased by individuals or churches", which service is "teaching God's word." No objection is made to service organizations as long as they function only "within the realm authorized." We are not discussing the rightof service organizations to exist, but their right tooffer the same service that God designed the local church to provide. The church legitimately buys a utility service because her design is totally outside that realm. But what spiritual service does the church"demand or need" which she is not fully sufficient toprovide for herself? Teaching God's word is her special function. Why would the church or an individual buy from a human institution what God specifically designed the church to give away? The liberals made the "service organization" argument famous by trying to equate their orphanages with utility companies. I can only express dismay and chagrin that brother Patton resorts to a renovation ofthat old fallacy. Brother Patton, tell us plainly if thelocal church is capable of providing any and all spiritualservices which the saints need.

As to SEARCHING THE SCRIPTURES, the "statement of ownership" (vol. XV, Nov. 1973, no. 11)lists Connie Adams as the sole owner, publisher, editorand managing editor. Brother Adams wrote: "This paper shall continue to be an extension of the work of agospel preacher" (Editorial, vol. XIV, May 1973,no.5, emph. mine, D. C). Again: "The editor .. . alonedecides who writes for it, what goes in it and business judgment concerning its operation", (Editorial, vol. XV, Jan. 1974, no. 1, emph. mine, D. C). This shows that STS is not an "organization of individual Christians". However, for the sake of argument, let us suppose that STS is parallel to the college Bible department. Make the point you have inmind on that and we will be delighted to deal with it.

Clarifying the Issue

Brother Patton's efforts to exclude a human organization for evangelism (a missionary society), while including his own human organization for edification (teaching God's word) is highly instructive. I can hardly believe that he says: "I do not believe that God has given individuals the

option of doing the same thing through a human organization or a divine organization," when he signed his name to prove that individuals have been given that very option. The college Bible departmentis a human organization. When it teaches God's word it does "the same thing" which God's "divine organization" does. I am the one .in this debate who isdenying that individuals have that "option".

Historical Perspectives

Remarks about "Somerism" facilitate this debate in much the same way the epithet "anti" facilitated discussions on the institutional question years ago. I will leave that game with those who delight to play it.Earl West's present stand on institutionalism showsthe uselessness of his observations on the same in Sommer's day. West was just as wrong about the college then as he is about institutionalism now. As to the difference between the church and service organizations, I admit as much. Yet God designed the church to give away the same thing which men designed the college Bible department to sell. God authorizes the one. Men authorize the other.

Scriptural Authority

Here we are in for a treat of rare sorts. We are learning something new about establishing authority.We shall call this "PATTON'S RULE for obtaining collective action from passages authorizingindividual action." The liberals will love it. They havesought it diligently for years. They tried it with Js.1:27; Gal. 6:10, etc. Brother Patton merely changesthe argument to fit his own institutional requirements. Basically, "PATTON'S RULE" states: "If you can't find authority for your human organization,just say 'it is a different kind' of organization than thelocal church." Thus, as if by magic, all problems are solved. Brother Patton cannot use collective passagesbecause ever one of them refer to the local church. Thus having no scripture for his human organization,he must formulate a method of deriving collectiveaction from passages authorizing individual Christiansto teach. His every argument has its counterpart in institutional controversy of past decades. All of them arose directly from lack of Scripturalauthority. And he talks of "historical perspectives."

His three passages, by his own admission authorize individuals to teach God's word, then says: "Collectively, the Christian may teach through service organizations." (Emph. mine, D. C.) No proof is offered—just his bare assertion. All the scripture he can offer authorizes individual action, yethe says: "the Scriptures teach that Christians maycollectively teach . . . through service organizations."(Emph. mine, D. C.) His whole attempt at justifying this remark is no more than an off-shoot of the "nopattern" argument of recent vintage. His argument admits that God spoke nothing about such organizations, yet we are to believe them "scripturally authorized" anyway!!!

On the one hand he says "the scriptures teach", then makes an argument based on the silence of Scripture. He says:

1. There are two kinds of organization, eleemosynary and service.
2. The local church is specific only as a subordi nate of eleem.
3. Since nothing is said of the other kind, it

is authorized. Brother Patton, how can scriptural authority exist for something never mentioned in Scripture?Specification of the local church eliminates all othersubordinates and all other kinds as well. We cannot have other kinds of organizations because God "spake nothing" concerning them (cf. Heb. 7:14). God's silence does not authorize, it prohibits. Surely all of us "anti's" realize that fact.

THE SOPHISTRY OF THIS ARGUMENT ILLUSTRATED

can't affect a different kind of music, thus all dif ferent kinds are scriptural. Must I find "specific authority as to kind" of music before I can say allother kinds are unscriptural? Who can believe it?

1. "Red heifer" specified as subordinate of "Bovine". This can't affect other kinds of animals, so all other kinds were scriptural. Must I find "specific authority as to kinds" before I can say all other kinds of animals were excluded?
2. "Water" is specified as subordinate of "liquid". This can't affect other kinds of elements, so all other kinds of elements are scriptural for baptism.Must I find "specific authority as to kind" of element before I know water alone is scriptural forbaptism? "PATTON'S RULE" says: "you must show specific authority . . . as to kinds of collectives . . . " before I can "exclude all coordinates as to kinds—even service organizations." If so, then thesame rule allows all kinds of music in worship, allkinds of animals for the "ashes of sprinkling" and allkinds of elements for baptism. Wonderful rule that is! The truth is that when God specifies, that specification is restrictive, period!

If service organizations are authorized (though intotal absence of Scripture) to teach God's word, then said organizations can also hire, support and fire evangelists. Is the difference that we can't have individually supported missionary societies but can have them supported by private enterprise? Brother Patton, tell us what spiritual work your organization cannot do, then tell us why.

His argument authorizes " ... the missionarysociety as well as all others the same in nature." Tellus how you will eliminate the "Private EnterpriseMissionary Society" brother Patton.

I accept the difference in the church and other organizations. I need show authority for nothing butthe local church, as that is the only organization of any kind authorized in Scripture. You must show authority either for another kind of organization, or any of its subordinates. Until you do, yourorganizations "stand" exactly where human institutions have always stood in the spiritual realm—without a shred of scriptural authority.

We can show passages authorizing individuals to teach. We can then show passages authorizingindividuals to teach collectively in the local church.You signed your name to demonstrate the passagesthat authorize individuals to teach through otherorganizations. Listing every "individual" passage inthe Bible will not help you. Bible authority isestablished by the presentation and proper exegesisof Scripture .Will you do this, or will you continue tolist passages authorizing individual action, then twist those passages into collective action? Will you attempt to show that such organizations as you defend were COMMANDED? Will you show thatthe New Testament gives EXAMPLES of such? Will you show what passages NECESSARILY INFER the scripturalness of such? As of now yourproposition stands upon the sum total of absolutely no scripture. Your entire first article goes for naught. Your human organizations are still undefended by God's word. [see second installment next month]

LOOKING FOR A "PHILIP" IN THEALABAMA WILDERNESS

R. W. Officer was an ordained Baptist preacher when, from his study of the New Testament, he learned the difference between Baptist doctrine andthe teaching of the apostles on the plan of salvation.This was soon after the War Between the States and New Testament Christians were few and far between in the North Alabama wilderness where he labored. It, therefore, became a difficult matter for him to find someone to baptize him upon a simple confession of faith in Christ for the remission of sins.

At that time the then 25 year old preacher had never heard anyone preach the gospel as it was proclaimed by the apostles in Acts, and he was unacquainted with the work of Barton W. Stone and the Campbells. He was limited in his search for one to baptize him mainly to Methodist and Baptist preachers. The Methodists wanted to sprinkle himafter asking some questions gotten up by men, andthe Baptists wanted to approve some "Christian experience" of his before immersing him after the Baptist manner.

On one occasion he heard a Methodist preacher deliver a stirring sermon on the resurrection of Christ. At the conclusion, Officer arose and said, "I believe with all my heart that Jesus Christ is the Sonof God, and I want to be baptized." The preacher,according to Methodist custom, produced a copy ofthe Discipline and prepared to ask the questionsprescribed therein, but Officer told him he had the wrong book. When asked for an explanation, the young seeker made what he later said was his first effort to preach. He talked several minutes about the cases of conversion in Acts and concluded by saying, "I am in the condition of mind the Ethiopianeunuch was in when Philip preached unto him Jesus.I want to find a man who will be as kind to me as Philip was to the eunuch. Can I find him here tonight?"

Several preachers were in the audience, but noneof them responded to his request. So he said, "Is there no convert here to the gospel which Philippreached to the eunuch? Then I will have to convert some one." For the next six months he searched without success to find a preacher to baptize himafter the example of Philip and the eunuch. Finally,he persuaded a Dr. Barris of Franklin County,Tennessee to meet his desire, and so he was baptizedlike the man from Ethiopia upon a confession offaith in Christ. This was in about 1870.

After his baptism, not having yet learned the wayof the Lord more perfectly, Officer served for six years as a missionary for the Liberty Baptist Association in Limestone County, Alabama. "He traveled extensively and labored continuously in word and doctrine publicly and from house to housein the mountain region of North Alabama. He quoted scripture readily and copiously from all partsof the Bible, and the people so far exaggerated hisfamiliarity with the Holy Scriptures as to think hecould read the whole Bible from memory. The tenacity with which he adhered to the Bible, and thevigor, and even recklessness, with which he assailedeverything in the way of religious work or worship not found in the New Testament, attracted much attention, drew large audiences, and caused no smallstir in the denominations wherever he went. . . . His work was disintegrating to all denominational institutions and ecclesiastical organizations, and for that reason the whole machinery of denominationalism was against him."

When Officer broke with the Baptists, he united with the brethren dedicated to restoring New Testament Christianity, and proclaimed the gospelfree of all denominational dogmas and interpretations. He thus became a "Philip" to many wayfaring sinners, preaching to them Jesus and baptizing them upon a confession of faith in Christfor the remission of sins. (Quotations from F. D. Srygley,'Biographies and Sermons, pp. 309, 311.)

Several months ago when Helen Reddy wasreceiving some kind of an award for a song she hadrecorded, she expressed thanks to those whom she said were responsible for her good fortune. Included in her benefactors was God, she said. In expressing thanks to God for helping her she referred to God as a "She." "She made it possible. .. .," said Miss Reddy. That made me want to rise upand say and do something. But, I charged it up to Helen's profound ignorance and let it pass. Now, recently a Catholic Nun appeared on "The Today Show" and declared that God was a "She." It is time we set the record straight.

It is a pity that people with enough intelligence toappear on national television could be so ignorant ofthings spiritual. We know that, in general, recording stars and Catholic Nuns have very little knowledge of and many times less regard for theBible. Oh, they may have a "form of godliness" but they "deny the power thereof."

I could call attention to the fact that the words for God, in the Bible, are uniformly masculine in gender. But since I know very little about the Greekand since Helen and the Nun know absolutelynothing about it, I want to approach this thing in away that ALL can understand. I want to suggest,before I come to the proof, that, since people don'tseem to know the difference between masculine and feminine, between he and she, between father and mother, it is little wonder we have so many "gay"people in the world. No wonder there is so much perversion among the sexes. But to the understandable proof that God is not a "She."

1. God is a FATHER! Jesus said, "After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art inheaven. ... ." (Matt. 6:9). Now, come on, Helen, areyou "Reddy" to answer me one thing? Is "Our Father" a she? Not only did Jesus tell us to say"Our Father" but in Matt. 6:14 and also in verse 15 Jesus said, "Your Father." And so we could gothroughout the Bible and find God referred to asFATHER.
2. God is a HIMSELF! Jesus said, ". . . the Father hath life in himself" (John 6:26). Jesus alsosaid, "And the Father himself which hath sent me . . ." (John 6:37). And so we could go throughoutthe Bible finding God referred to as HIMSELF. I don't believe Helen is "Reddy" and I think the Nunshould be DONE with this blasphemous business ofcalling God a "She."
3. God is a HE! In Acts 17:30-31 Paul referred to God and then FOUR times used the personal pronoun "He." But all through the Bible, God iscalled a He. Now, does anybody still want to call God a She?
4. Finally, in James 1:18, we read, "Of his ownwill begat he us. . . . that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures." Not only is God a HE, butwe are HIS creatures, and that according to HISwill!

God is a HE, a HIMSELF, a HIM. Furthermore,God is a FATHER and HE BEGAT us. Is a she a he? Is a she a himself? Is a she a him? Is a she a father? Is a she able to beget a child? Nonsense?That's exactly what I said when I heard these "Misses" refer to my God as a,She.

But that's not all. Christ is a He. a Him. a Himself, a man. And the Holy Spirit is a He.

Some women are not satisfied that God made man first and that the woman was in the transgression (1Tim. 2:13-14). Some women are not satisfied thatGod said for women to learn in silence (1 Tim. 2:11).Some women are not satisfied that God said for them to submit themselves to their husbands (Eph.5:22). Some women are not satisfied that God madethem feminine. God pity such women.

Women are in a position where they can influenceeverything and everybody if they will stay on thehigh plane where God placed them. She is not goingto influence anything or anybody for good if sheinsists on disregarding everything God has said relative to the sexes and as long as she wants to be a man.

"Is Christ divided?" was a question asked of the Corinthians in arresting their attention to the situation among them as displeasing to the Lord.They still met under the same roof, in the sameassembly —but they were divided! They were speaking different things; there were differences injudgment; they didn't think alike. These brethren were divided!

Every student of the Bible knows, without adoubt, that division of a congregation is sinful. Someone is at fault! Dividing the church of the Lordwill be the cause of many losing their souls. Divisionof a church cannot be justified in any way.

When division is referred to in this article, I havein mind the situation which results in the rupture ofa local fellowship. The peaceful move of brethren leaving one fellowship to a different locale in thefurtherance of the cause of which all Christians are truly concerned is not to be confused with the thrustof this article. Brethren everywhere, and especiallyin a congregation where the need is seen to "swarm"to another area, rejoice with the starting of newcongregations. Not only are Christians caused to rejoice but our Lord is well pleased.

Sometime sin is allowed to continue among themembers of a local church to the point that brethrencan no longer worship and work in that situation.Possibly the elders have determined to set thecourse of the congregation in digression so thatwhen brethren go along they also will depart fromthe faith. Knowing what their end will be if they continue, leave that fellowship because of sin condoned. These brethren should be commended for their love for and faith in the truth by taking theirstand for the right. Even this situation is not to beconfused in the article under consideration.

I know of several congregations which have divided over the past few years. I have served aslocal evangelist for two of them and am naturallygreatly concerned with their past and future. (Letme hasten to explain that these two congregationsdivided either after or before my labor with them.)In observing the events leading up to and the actualdivision, I have noticed the underlying cause is thesame in each instance and am convinced this will hold true in every division of a congregation. This ispride of life! Some are ambitious and determined to rule or ruin—completely ignoring the welfare of theirbrethren. This struggle for power in the church may come from preachers, elders or other influential members. When their ambition is challenged, unrestusually follows and if the problem is not taken careof, division will not be long in coming.

Even though pride of life is the underlying causeof division when all involved claim to teach and practice the same thing, other excuses are offered tojustify the division itself. I remember one church,which saw fit to ask the preacher to move, dividewith, about one third of the members leaving. Thepreacher involved had labored with the congregationapproximately six months. The departing brethrenclaimed they were so concerned that he had been asked to leave and treated so shamelessly, in theirestimation, they just couldn't fellowship theremaining members any longer. Without any noticeat all, the faction "walked out" in a preplannedmove. The underlying cause? Some of the brethrenhad tried to take control of the congregation buttheir forces were too weak, so they just "walked out" to "start a new congregation."

Another congregation was divided for the same cause— pride of life. Some of the younger, progressive (?) members wanted to construct a newbuilding for a congregation of about 150 members.The estimated cost was $250,000. The majority ofthe congregation were agreeable to constructing a new building—but not for this cost. Instead of working to make plans for a more modest structure,the young preacher set his sights on appointingadditional elders. You see, the eldership was dividedtwo to one on the building. So, if additional elderscould be appointed to help the "lone elder", then theeldership could be neutralized and force the actionby a majority of the church. But this move backfired! Objections were submitted by some of the members and the "elder candidate" was rejected.The move was then made to replace one of the elderswho had faithfully served the congregation for several years. Two of the elders, realizing the causeof the developing trouble was traceable to the youngpreacher, gave him notice (in writing) that hisservices were terminated with that congregation.What happened? Three nights later at the beginningof a midweek service without any previous notice,approximately one third of the congregation, upon aplanned signal, arose (having assembled only aboutfive minutes) and walked out. Why were they leaving? They said they wanted to start a new congregation! No, no. they were dividing the churchof our Lord because someone's pride was involved.

The sad thing about these divisions is preachers inother places will be contacted by these factions tohold meetings for them. Not knowing all of thefacts, neither have they taken the time to try to find out, many of these preachers respond, thinking theycan lend some help for good. It is sad to say, butthese preachers are giving encouragement tobrethren in their sin. If these preachers would refuseto preach for factions until the necessary correctionswere made so as to re-establish a proper fellowshipwith the brethren involved, many of the problemsamong brethren could have been resolved.

In regard to the divisions referred to, if preachersoutside of the immediate difficulty would have keptthemselves from being used in any way by thefactions, the brethren, now alienated, could havebeen reconciled. But as long as preachers allow themselves to be used by these factions and respondby giving them comfort and aid in their sin, thosebrethren are in danger of losing their souls.

When a situation exists in a congregation and anumber of brethren feel they can no longer maintaina proper frame of mind by working and worshippingwith that congregation, can nothing be done? I believe there is an answer and one which will avoid the bitterness, proselyting and other ungodly actions which usually follow a division.

Let us suppose there are several brethren who areno longer happy where they worship. There are "personality differences" (?) or other matters which hinders their fellowship. These brethren, having talked among themselves, want to sever their membership with that congregation and start another. Can they avoid the bitterness and heartache which is so common in division? Most assuredly! Let these brethren call a meeting with the elders and explain their plans and at the same timelet it be known they want to continue a pleasantrelationship with the congregation. They have no intention to try to destroy the congregation wherethey presently worship and will make no effort to tryto entice brethren to leave to the new work. I am firmly convinced the brethren, remaining with thecongregation, will give their hand of fellowship tothose brethren departing and a pleasant relationshipwill prevail. Should not this be the course thatbrethren should seek to follow rather than a demonstration of "walking out in a huff", wounding feelings of many innocent brethren and building upof bitterness and misunderstanding and alienatingbrethren for years to come? I know it is!

Brethren should put forth every effort, short ofcompromising the truth, to maintain peace amongthemselves. Our love for the truth of our Lord should be manifest in our walk of faith and labor of love. And surely each and every one will put forthevery effort "with all lowliness and meekness, withlongsuffering, forbearing one another in love; endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (Eph. 4:2-3).

A great interest has been manifested in the pastfew years among the denominational churches andmany of the more liberal churches of Christ for whatis termed as a "youth rally" or "youth revival." Usually one finds stress being placed just as much,if not more, on the physical man as on the spiritualin these meetings. Cook-outs, baseball, camping,swimming, and other types of recreation have beenjoined to the study of the Bible, and all under thesupport of churches. Much has been written, and rightly so, showing the error of such rallies. The gospel alone is God's power to salvation (Rom. 1:16), and the church has no business in the entertaining field.

But Webster in defining "rally" gives as one of itsmeanings, "2a: to arouse for action." With such an understanding of the word, I certainly believe thatin many places there should be a "youth rally." Fartoo many of the young people today have little or nopart at all in spiritual matters, and they need to be"aroused for action."

Let us observe two local congregations located inAnytown, U.S.A. They both have a good number of young adults, about forty in number. Of this number congregation A has only 44 % who are members of the church. Over half of the youngpeople of this congregation are not Christians. On the other hand congregation B has 89 % that aremembers. In looking at the two congregations I believe we can see why the great difference in numbers.

Bible Classes

Both congregations have regular Bible study classes for different age groups on Sunday and Wednesday. A typical class period for congregationA might go like the following. The teacher calls onone of the boys to lead the class in prayer. They thenbegin to read the text for that particular lesson, eachreading a verse. After the reading, the teacher thenbegins to ask the questions found in their workbooks. About one-fourth of the class do not have their answers filled in. The questions consist of somefill-in-the-blanks and some with short answers, as "How many 'ands' are found in the first seven verses?". After the workbook questions have all been answered the teacher then asks for questions orother comments. There are none. About that time, the bell rings and the class is dismissed, overflowing in their knowledge of the Bible!

The class at congregation B begins in much the same way, but there is also a review of previouslessons and instead of reading the text, one of thestudents was assigned to outline the chapter to giveorally to the class. There were also two additional reports by different students on subjects mentioned in the lesson. The teacher then spot-checks some ofthe questions in the workbook, asking what he considers to be the more important ones. He observes that only one has not filled in his lesson. Hewill speak to him privately after class. After a discussion of the lesson and questions, the teacherthen lists the main points learned in today's lessonon the blackboard. A discussion follows by the classon how these points would help them live the life of aChristian. The class ends with this discussion. Also the teacher occasionally gives tests as a means ofreview and to observe how well the students are learning. The results of such tests are always reported to the parents.

But these regular Bible study classes are not theonly periods of study which have been set up by theelders of congregation B. They also each year have aweek of Bible Study in the summer. Also they haveoccasionally set aside a week-night or Saturday afternoon to study questions submitted by the students before hand in dealing with their specificproblems as young people. They are also encouragedto take part in distributing tracts or visiting the sickand the shut-ins.

In the Assembly

One of the most outstanding differences of the teenagers of these two congregations occurs when allthe members assemble together to worship God andedify one another. In congregation B all of the young folks are sitting near the front, while in congregation A only a few sit near the front with themajority located on the back pews. The young ofcongregation B participate in the singing. Some of its younger men are called on to lead in prayer orsinging, and to give short talks. While their parentsand other members of congregation A are engaged inworship, one will find their young talking, laughing,writing notes, or carving their initials in the pews!

Congregation B also has special training periodsfor their young men. They are always being used inthe services and are always encouraged by the members when they do so. They have had severalyoung men devote themselves to the preaching ofthe gospel. While on the other side of town the participation of the young people of congregation Ain the services consists of helping to pass the emblems of the Lord's Supper. Congregation A has never had one of its members devote himself to preaching.

Association Together

The extent of the association of the young peopleat congregation A with one another consists of about four or five hours a week. Even though theyattend the same school, their close friends are not Christians, but those of the world. The truthfulness of 1 Cor. 15:33 has been exemplified in the lives ofthese teenagers. The American Standard Version reads, "Be not deceived: Evil companionships corrupt good morals." The young at congregation A, even some who are supposed to be Christians,have the appearance, speech, and action of their non-Christian friends.

The association of the young at congregation Bdoes not end with the last "amen." Their close association continues in school and other activities. As a matter of fact they prefer to associate withtheir Christian friends. Their closeness with one another is seen by their many "get-togethers" which are arranged by either themselves, their parents, or other concerned Christians (not the church). Also this closeness which they have is seen as when one might go astray or be tempted to engage in some sinful act, he is corrected by hisChristian friends out of love and deep concern.

Conclusion

About eight or ten years ago the average attendance of these two congregations was around

130. Since that time congregation B has doubled insize, has had six of its young men to begin the workof gospel preachers, and continues to be a strongcongregation under godly elders. On the other hand,congregation A's attendance has dropped down intothe sixties. It no longer has men qualified to serve aselders. It's members have little zeal in the work of the church. What will the next ten years reveal ifthese congregations continue along the same roadthey are now?

It is often said that the young people will be thechurch tomorrow. But that statement is true, if, and only if, they are a vital part of the church today1.

320 Oak Street Lebanon, Kentucky 40033

"A GOOD SOLDIER OF CHRIST JESUS"

by Norman E. Sewell

The apostle Paul compared the life of the Christian to a life of soldiering. In writing to Timothy (II Tim. 2:3), Paul urged this young gospelpreacher to "Suffer hardship with me, as a good soldier of Christ Jesus." He further instructed him not to become entangled in the affairs of this life but to please the one who enrolled him. In the Ephesianletter, 6:10-20, Paul infers that all Christians are soldiers and thus must take up the whole armor ofGod. Most of us haven't really done a very good jobof putting on the armor of God, or of practicing withthe only offensive tool given, ". . . the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God"(v. 18).

Sometimes soldiers go AWOL. When such happens in the military, the missing individual iscounted as disorderly, or out of rank or place, andefforts are begun to find him and return him to hisproper place. After a long time he may be counted asa deserter. When a soldier of the Lord goes AWOL,and some do, what is to be our course of action? "Brethren, even if a man be overtaken in any trespass, ye who are spiritual, restore such a one in aspirit of gentleness; looking to thyself, lest thou alsobe tempted" (Gal. 6:1). Our duty then is to restorethis one, being careful not to fall into the same trap.

The result of finding and restoring a brother or sisterthus overtaken is stated by James (5:19-20), "Mybrethren, if any among you err from the truth, andone convert him; let him know, that he who converteth a sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall cover a multitude of sins. "When we let a brother or sister go AWOL and try to do nothing to restore that one, we have donewrong, just as the erring or wayward individual.

Some have argued that when one separates himself, from the Lord's church, or withdraws himself from assembling with the saints that we have no way of dealing with him. In other words, itis said by some that if one withdraws himself fromwork and worship with the church that we cannot withdraw from him. The scriptures certainly do notteach such a position. In II Thess. 3:6, Paul told those brethren to "withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us. " Nothing is said to indicate whether or not the individual was still associated with the saints in worship or had withdrawn himself. If he was disorderly he was to be withdrawn from. The object of the withdrawal as taught by Paul was "that the spirit may be saved inthe day of the Lord Jesus". It was also obviouslynecessary that the bad influence be removed from among the saints (I Cor. 5:5-7).

As good soldiers of Christ Jesus, let us not goAWOL. And when our fellow soldiers do go AWOL,let us do 'our duty and go out and find them, restoring them to the Lord through teaching,reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness.If the AWOL soldier will not repent and return, we must then, after a time, withdraw from him according to the command of the Lord. Brethren, our own souls are at stake if we do not obey this command of the Lord!

2020 Vivion Road

K. C, Missouri 64118

that one day out of the seven has to be the Lord's day. Since we only have seven calendar days, wemust, through the process of elimination, find which it is. The Bible no where hints that the days ofMonday through Friday would be the Lord's day, so we can eliminate them immediately. To myknowledge, I have never heard anyone in the religious world claim that any day between Mondayand Friday would be the Lord's day.

However, when one hits Saturday, problemsbegin to arise. Sabbatarians claim that Saturday isthe Lord's day and Christians claim that Sunday isthe Lord's day. This must be solved on the basis of scripture. One of the arguments Sabbatarians usefor their position is Heb. 4:4-9. The writer says, "For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day onthis wise, and God did rest the seventh day from allHis works. And in this place again, if they shallenter into my rest. Seeing therefore it remaineththat some must enter therein, and they to whom itwas first preached entered not in because of unbelief;again, He limiteth a certain day, saying in David, today, after so long a time; as it is said, to day if yewill hear His voice, harden not your hearts. For ifJesus had given them rest, then would He not afterward have spoken of another day. There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God." Itis argued by Sabbatarians that the word "rest" in all these verses except verse 9 comes from "katapausis" and means rest after fatigue. However, they claim the word "rest" in verse 9 comes from "sabbatismos" and means the Sabbath or Saturday rest. Thus they claim Saturday is the Lord's day. The context shows "the rest" under consideration in verse 9 is not the Sabbath rest but the rest Christians anticipate in Heaven. The expression "there remaineth" conveys this idea. Sabbatarians also slip a cog in their reasoning bysaying the "Sabbath comes from the Greek "sabbatismos." The word "Sabbath" in the New Testament always comes from "sabbaton." As a matter of fact, the word "sabbatismos" is used only once in the New Testament. Grammatically,(sabbatismos) in Heb. 4 is used as a singular noun, third person, nominative case and used as the subject of the sentence. However, (sabbaton) in Mk.

2:27, "The Sabbath was made for man" is used as a singular noun, third person, nominative case and alsothe subject of the sentence. The big difference comesin gender. Since our word "Sabbath" in the New Testament comes from "sabbaton", we find it is neuter gender but the word "sabbatismos" is masculine gender. They are two entirely different words.

Paul also refutes the Sabbatarian concept in Col.

2:14. He says, "Blotting out the handwriting ofordinances that was against us, which was contraryto us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to the cross;". He goes on in verse 16, to say, "Let no mantherefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or inrespect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of theSabbath days." Thus Paul with the process of elimination is showing us that the Sabbath has beennailed to the cross with the other prohibitions and inhibitions of the Mosaic Law.

Since the Sabbath law has been abrogated, itleaves only one day which could be the Lord's dayand that is the first day of the week. This day isenhanced by the fact that out Lord was raised onthis day; the early church observed the Lord's supper on this day and gave as they were prosperedon this day (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:1-2; Mk. 16:9).

One might ask. why didn't the Lord say "I was inthe spirit on the Lord's day which was the first dayof the week?" I am not sure that I know the answer to that question. However, one thing is sure, theprocess of elimination demands that we do somestudy. It could be that God wants us to study theseproblems to their conclusions based on Bible authority. It seems that God gives us the food buthe wants us to chew and swallow. It is obvious that some things in the Bible could have been madesimpler, but no doubt God has a purpose in all thathe does. Box 166 Greenville. Texas 75401

WITH ALL BOLDNESS

Apologies are offered to Brent Lewis for not having reportedhis new paper, WITH ALL BOLDNESS which began inJanuary, 1975. This 34 page monthly has excellent appearanceand layout. A number of capable and able writers have contributed material for the first several issues. Brent Lewis is an excellent writer himself and his material is always worthwhile. We do not believe WITH ALL BOLDNESS was started to chase any special rabbit, but will be a paper of balance andsubstance. It should appeal to all brethren whether preachers or not. The west coast needs a good paper and we heartily recommend it not only for that area, but for brethrenevery where. Subscription price is $7.00 a year. The address is P.

O. Box 2061, Cypress, California 90630.

GOSPEL GRAPHICS

This quarterly, edited by the talented Bod West (creator ofthe Theophilus teaching strip), is designed as a "how to" paperfor morn effective visual and printed communications in the localchurch. You will find ideas, information and inspiration, methods, equipment, materials and sources. Help for churchbulletin design and production is offered, also helpful hints andtips for more effective use of overhead projection transparencies.You can learn how to improve your advertising. The first twoissues will be sent free to all requesting them. Then, the annualsubscription rate is $2. Write to Bob West, GOSPELGRAPHICS, 6121 Hudson St., Orlando, FL 32808.

J. M. KENNEDY, Box 50 Williams, Indiana 47470. After 3 years with the church at Williams (near Bedford) I desire torelocate with another congregation this summer. I am 47 years old, married and have four children, three of them still at home, one yet in school. I have been preaching 29 years. Any interested congregation may write me at the above address or call

(812) 855-4565. WILLIAM C. SEXTON, 2219 South Glenn, Wichita, Kansas 67213. The Westside congregation began in Wichita, Kansas onJune 8, 1975, meeting temporarily at 2016 South Elizabeth,Building 1000.1 will be preaching for the new work. We shall belooking for a permanent place to meet. If you have friends orrelatives we could contact please get in touch with us. Look usup in Wichita or call (316) 943-3332. CLARENCE R. JOHNSON, P. O. Box 98, Springhill,Louisiana. After almost 5 years with the church here I ammoving to La Porte, Texas to work with the Broadway Streetchurch. The church in Springhill is looking for a sound gospelpreacher. They are self-supporting and have a three-bedroomhouse for the preacher. Anyone interested should contact eitherof the elders, A . M . Sanders (318) 539-4985; or Alvin Powell

(318) 859-4693. VERNON LOVE, Clermont, Florida. A NEW CONGREGATION is now meeting in Lady Lake, Florida.Known as the Central Church of Christ, they are meeting in the home of G. J. Robbins, P. O. Box 215, Lady Lake, Florida 32659. Phone number is 753-2699. They need a full-time preacher. If anyone knows of members in the area who shouldbe contacted, please write or call Brother Robbins. Worship withthemwhen in that area. LARRY A. BUNCH, 5475 Cole Rd., Beaumont, Texas 77708. Ihave moved back to Texas to work with the Rosedale church located at the north end of Beaumont. The building is easilyreached by taking the Sour Lake exit (Hwy. 105) off the EastexFwy. (Hwy. 69, 96, 287) and going about two blocks east. B. G.ECHOLS, 7 Ridgewood Ave., Glen Ridge, NJ 07028. I recentlycompleted my seventh year of work with the church in East Orange, N. J. It was a year of peace and progress. We had eightbaptisms and four to be identified with us. We lost one by death and had two move. We began supporting Azuonye Udugwuin Nigeria.STEVE BOBBITT, 119 Eze Ave., Waverly, TN 37185. Faithfulbrethren will be encouraged to learn of the progress of the CourtSquare congregation in Waverly. Beginning in June of 1974 witha nucleus of 18 we now average 45-50. We have a daily radioprogram and send out an eight page monthly bulletin. Also useful have been a weekly newspaper column and correspondence courses. The Oak Ave. church in Dickson supports the localpreacher and buys time for a second daily radio program, this acall-in format in nearby Camden. We are thankful to God forthis increase. Bobby Witherington will preach in a series ofmeetings in August. GARY FISCUS, 825 W. Second St., Bloomington, Indiana47401. ATTENTION INDIANA UNIVERSITY STUDENTS

— In the county where Indiana University is located there are 17 churches of Christ. The two closest to the campus are quiteliberal. Others, except for Elletsville, ten miles west are "fenceriders", or extreme "right or left winged." The church meeting at 825 West 2nd St. in Bloomington is one of the few conservative churches in the area. We are located 11 blocks west of the campus, six buildings west of the Bloomington hospital, or 1.9

miles east of Highway 37 by-pass on Indiana 45 (2nd St.). If wecan help incoming students in any way, please contact me at theabove address. On Sundays we meet at 9:45, 10:30 and 6. Wednesday nights we meet at 7:30. JAMES P. MILLER, 1111 Hickory Lane, Cocoa, FL 32922. Onthe nights of May 13-16 I debated J. D. Childress of the UnitedPentecostal Church in Jacksonville, Florida. The discussion was held in the National Guard Armory at 609 St. Johns BluffRoad. Mr. Childress is an experienced debater and made all thearguments for the "Oneness" position. I was called for this workby the Southside congregation where Harold Dowdy preaches.They not only supported the debate but Brother Dowdy workedmany hours to bring it to bear. Following the discussion Ipreached in a meeting for the brethren in Marietta, a suburb tothe west where Jamie Rhoden labors. As the result of the advertising given the meeting at the debate the house wouldscarcely hold the people.

There is a young preacher in Jacksonville who is well spokenof by the brethren. He preaches nearly every Sunday somewhere in that area of northern Florida. He is married to the daughter ofone of the elders at Southside and they have one child. He couldbe persuaded to enter full-time work if brethren are interested. Ifbrethren will write to me I will see that they are put in touchwith this man. OTIS JORDAN. P. O. Box 414, Perry, Florida. After 5 yearswith the Spring Warrior church, I begin in August with thechurch in Mayo, following Frank Andrews. We have enjoyedseeing some 115 responses to the gospel call during our time atSpring Warrior. 56 were baptized here and 13 away in meetingswith 40 restorations here and 6 away in meetings. My lastmeeting was at Orange Park (Jacksonville), Florida in which 9responded. Though some of the above number have returned tothe world, we rejoice over the many who remain faithful.

PREACHERS NEEDED BELLE GLADE, FLORIDA. Frank Ingram moves to MiamiShores, Florida the first of September where his address will be22fi N. W. 111th St., Miami Shores, FL 33168. The church at Belle Glade therefore will be in need of a preacher. Anyone interested should call Graham Mole (305) 924-7225 soon. MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE. The Trezevant Street church is seeking a full-time preacher to work with this self-supportingcongregation. L. E. Sloan, the previous preacher for a number ofyears, is moving to Preston Highway in Louisville, Kentucky.Anyone interested in the work in Memphis should call eitherTom Evans (901) 386-3747, Richard Jackson (901) 388-6187 orJerry Hayes (901) 358-9607.

DEATHS GRADY TURNER, one of the elders of the church at Hardies Chapel congregation near Gordon, Georgia, died of a heart

attack May 3rd. He served as an elder for 18 years. WILSONCOON, gospel preacher in Texas, died recently according to abulletin report by Paul Keller. INEZ STRICKLAND, wife of gospel preacher Clyde Strickland, died suddenly in June. BrotherStrickland preaches for the 6th Ave. church in Pine Bluff, Arkansas. BILL WELIEVER, son of one of the elders at Plainfield, Indiana and brother of gospel preacher, Ken Weliever, diedrecently of injuries received in an auto accident in Illinois. Hewas active in the work at Joliet, Illinois and also did somepreaching. He was a personal friend of the editor.

We weep with those who weep. May the promises of thegospel strengthen the hearts of all who mourn.