Among the great lessons we can learn from theOld Testament are those of a moral nature. Never since the days of Sodom and Gomorrah has therebeen a more immoral generation than the one inwhich we now live. In these articles we shall confine ourselves to a study of personal morality in the livesof three Old Testament characters —Joseph, Samson, and David.
Joseph
In the entire Bible there is perhaps no person of more outstanding and sterling personal characterthan Joseph. All young men of today (and older onestoo) can learn from the example of Joseph in thematter of purity of life. Genesis 39 records him asbeing trustworthy, a blessing to all with whom hecame in contact, and morally upright.
Having been sold into slavery by his enviousbrothers, he came to be the servant of an Egyptiannamed Potiphar who soon observed that the Lordwas with Joseph in all he did.
Joseph, being a handsome man, became a challenge to the wife of Potiphar. She was an aggressive woman and evidently used to gettingwhatever she set her mind on. Her mind was at this time set on making Joseph her lover. Joseph firmlyrefused her repeated attempts to seduce him andthus the challenge became even greater for this morally unscrupulous woman. Joseph tried toappeal to her sense of right and wrong and to thefact that to yield to her desires would not only be asin against themselves and Potiphar, but also toGod.
There came a day when she caught him in thehouse alone—no witnesses. Now was the time, shethought. This time she grabbed hold of his garmentdemanding that he lie with her. Joseph's reaction was swift. He knew he had to remove himself from her presence at once. He tore himself away from hergrasp, which evidently was very tight, leaving hisgarment behind in her hand.
Someone has said, "Hell hath no fury like awoman scorned." At least in this case it seemed to be true. Frustrated and thwarted in her adulterous attempt, she turned to her next weapon which wasthat of revenge. She lied to her husband, presentingJoseph's garment as evidence of an alleged attemptto lie with her. Joseph had to pay by going to prison. However, he remained pure in the sight of God. WOULD THAT THERE WERE MORE JOSEPHS!
Not only are there very few among worldly peoplebut in the church of the Lord there are not as manyJosephs as there should be. An increasing number of cases of fornication are reported among churchmembers, some even involving elders, deacons andpreachers. Brethren, even one case is too much. Menneed to learn as well as women to keep themselvesmorally pure, the fashion of the day notwithstanding. There seems to be a certain stimulation of the ego among some men in the church at the very thought that they might have some sexual appeal to a woman other than their companion. Men, do not be as a fool! Resist thetemptation (James 4:7).
Paul buffeted his body and kept himself undercontrol. He urged the young preacher, Timothy, to"keep thyself pure" (1 Tim. 5:22). Men, it takes realstrength of character to withstand enticements tofornication. Cast out that vainglorious and sinfuldesire, clean up your mind. If single, keep pure, saveyour desires for holy fulfillment in marriage. If married, think of loyalty not only to God but also toyour wife and family. Do not sin, my brethren. Stayaway from the undesirable situation, environment,or atmosphere that is charged with such dangers.Preachers and elders and other men in the Lord
take warning. Do not allow yourself to be drawn intoa situation with a woman—Christian or otherwise. Many people from time to time come and want totalk about something privately with elders and preachers especially. Make sure you are not alonebut that others are close by and do not close thedoor. You can have ample privacy this way withplenty of space between you and the woman, andwith the presence of others nearby as an added margin of safety. Joseph not only would not lie withPotiphar's wife, he refused to even be with her. Compare this with the amazing audacity of somebrethren who think nothing of visiting ladies whoare alone at home, going to lunch with a prospect (?)or riding around together to discuss some matters.If this is what it takes to be successful count me out. Such are toying with fire and some of them know itand like it. Young single people need also to avoidthe "cozy" situations that will lead to the arousal ofpassion or at least produce the temptation.
This is not to say that every time a woman wantsto discuss something privately that she has anulterior motive. However, discretion is always inorder.
Jesus, in the sermon on the mount said, "Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God" (Matt.5:8). Such a man was Joseph. He was pure of heart.Purity of heart is a prerequisite of purity of deed andis to be a characteristic of the citizen of God's kingdom.
Regretfully we must again say that there are notmany today like Joseph.(Next Article: The Morals of Samson)
TEST OF FELLOWSHIP
In the controversy over church supported benevolent organizations and sponsoring churches through which many congregations function through a single eldership, the advocates of thesepractices have argued that said practices were purely in the realm of human judgment or simplymatters of expediency. Whatever is in the realm ofexpediency must first be authorized. We are not at liberty to expedite unscriptural practices. Further,when we prove that a certain thing is authorized bythe Lord, and then work to expedite it, we mustrecognize that what falls in the realm of judgmentmay as well be left off as it may be used. If thechurch support of human institutions and sponsoring church projects are simply opinions, then itwould not be wrong to use them, neither would it bewrong NOT to use them.
Many of us have opposed these practices as violations of scripture. They have always beenmatters of principle with us. The church functionsthrough the congregational unit in all work peculiarto the church. The oversight of elders is limited inscripture to "the flock of God among them" (1 Peter5:1-3; Acts 20:28). The sponsoring church overstepsthese bounds. It is not just a matter of judgment.Some of us have been accused repeatedly of "binding where the Lord did not bind." The accusers have therefore taken the position that their practiceswere not bound but were only decisions of humanjudgment.
Now we are seeing some reversals of this position,at least in practice. Elsewhere in this issue we carrya note from James P. Miller together with a copy of a letter to a young couple in Dyersburg, Tennessee.This couple has been attempting to adopt a childthrough an organization known as West TennesseeAgape, Inc., which is operated by brethren whomwe regard as liberal in thinking and practice on thesequestions. The letter, written by Nick Boone,Executive Director, states the decision of the PolicyCommittee together with the Board, that no members of what they call "anti" churches are eligible as adoptive parents. Why? Well, because thecongregations of which these people are members donot contribute to Agape and oppose such contributions from churches on scriptural grounds. Asfar as they are concerned, the practice of contributing or not contributing is no longer just a matter of opinion—it is an absolute MUST for prospective adoptive parents. At least they are notat liberty to oppose it.
The Lake Road church in Dyersburg, Tennessee iscalled an "anti" church. They are NOT opposed toBible classes, or elders (they have both), NOR dothey teach that only one container must be used forthe fruit of the vine. The church is made up of somefine people, is led by several godly men as elders andhas an excellent local preacher in the person ofMartin Lemon. We have known the brethren there for nearly twenty years. For years they have beenactively engaged in extensive efforts to preach thegospel locally and throughout the world. Some ofthe ablest preachers of this and the previousgeneration have worked there. They support faithfulmen in a number of places at home and abroad in thework of the Lord. They assisted in our support in thework in Norway from 1957 to 1959. They attend totheir own benevolent needs as they arise and havehelped meet emergencies which rendered brethrenneedy in other places. What is their great sin? Whyis this couple declared ineligible for adoption? Because this couple holds membership in a congregation which does not believe it is scripturalto make financial contributions from the church treasury to support a private benevolent enterprise,a practice promoted as an expedient to the work ofthe church. Now, is it expedient or mandatory? Whois making laws where God made none?
A second incident which reveals the same spiritoccurred recently in Hopewell, Virginia. The Cawson Street church, where the editor grew up andwas encouraged to begin preaching the gospel, hasgradually, through the years, moved into the practice of supporting institutions and the Herald ofTruth. The editor has known most of the leadershipof that church all his life and counts among its members some very good friends. Even when it reached the place that we were no longer welcome inthe pulpit there nor deemed worthy to lead a public prayer, we entertained no bitterness of spirit towardany at that place. There has been some grief of spiritover what used to be in the happier days of youthwhen my family and several others broke away fromthe Christian Church to stand upon the platform ofBiblical authority and to build according to the divine pattern, and began meeting in a rented storebuilding with little in the way of physical assets butmuch in the way of brotherly love, determination todo right and to even suffer reproach in the name ofChrist.
Recently, a young man left the Cawson Streetchurch to place membership with the Rivermontchurch which meets in Chesterfield County abouttwo miles across the Appomattox River from Hopewell. The editor's father is one of the elders. Though the Rivermont church was not started as anoutgrowth of differences over these issues, as timepassed and the issues congealed throughout the nation, the congregations found themselves on opposite sides. When the young man left Cawson Street to be identified at Rivermont, the elders atCawson Street wrote him a letter (a copy of which I have) withdrawing their fellowship from him andbranding the Rivermont church as divisive. The Cawson Street brethren have defended their practices as "expedients", simply "methods" of carrying out the Lord's work. Well, if they are just "methods " or "expedients" then it is not sinful to leave them off. If it is sinful to leave them off, thenthey are mandatory and none are worthy offellowship unless these practices are approved by them. Now, which way is it brethren? One cannothave his cake and eat it too! If the line of fellowshipis now being drawn over these things by you, and itundoubtedly is, then what of your formerarguments? Were you mistaken that time, or wereyou wrong in your withdrawal action recently? Nocharges of immoral behaviour or unfaithfulness weremade against this brother. His sin was in decidingthat the Cawson Street Church was not correct in its practices and in identifying himself with a congregation which does not practice them.
The editor is to preach in a gospel meeting at Rivermont in November of this year. AlthoughCawson Street members have been urged to stayaway from Rivermont, we cannot believe that fairminded people there will allow themselves to be intimidated. In previous years many from CawsonStreet attended meetings where we preached at Rivermont even when they knew we differed overthese matters. It is our sincere hope and prayer thatthis turn of events will cause honest brethren there and elsewhere to think this matter through for themselves. A number in that area receive SEARCHING THE SCRIPTURES. We hope thesefew lines of print have not so angered them that theywill refuse to study and listen. We are willing and eager to sit down with them, and others interested indivine truth, and study calmly what the Bible teaches. We hope to have that opportunity in November with beloved people whose lives have touched our own so joyfully in years gone by.
Meanwhile, we hope those not directly involved inthe immediate circumstances of either of these two incidents will be able to see who it is that draws lines of fellowship and binds where THEY say God hasnot bound.
PATTON—CHANDLER DEBATE
PROPOSITION: "The Scriptures teach that Christians may collectively teach God's word through service organizations, such as Florida
College."
I appreciate Brother Chandler's taking hold of theissue where I pitched it in my first affirmative.There is or there is not authority for the teachingaffirmed in our proposition. While his effort fails ofits objective, muddies the water, evidences confusion and a lack of knowledge of the very rudimentsof authority, I feel that it is the best that any mancan do who holds his position.
Brother Chandler expresses "dismay and chagrin" that I should "renovate" the "service organization" argument made famous by "liberals"when they "tried to equate their orphanages withutility companies." While he correctly represents the "liberals," he grossly misrepresents me. Their design in equating orphanages and utility companies was to show that the church may use anotherorganization. From this they equated contributionsto an orphanage with buying the services of such.Both Brother Chandler and I know they were andare in error in this. The very basis upon which theyoperate makes all the difference in the world— though both provide child care. Now, Brother Chandler, who is it in this discussion that equates aneleemosynary organization (the church) with a service organization (the college) in the serviceunder study? Who is it that equates the free serviceof the church with the selling of a service organization? Not I! I have always seen a difference— I still do. Much of my first affirmative wasgiven to making this distinction. Talk about "chagrin," you are the one guilty of making the famous (rather infamous) "service organization argument" of the "liberals." How confused can a man get?
You ask, Is "the local church capable of providing any and all spiritual services which the saints need?" It can and it must! Again, you ask, "Whywould the church or an individual buy from a humaninstitution what God specifically designed the church to give away?" Do you mean to imply thatwhen the church buys a service for itself and othersthat it is not providing that service? When the church buys hospitalization or the service of a nursing home for a needy saint, is it not providing the same, or must the church establish and maintainits own hospital and nursing home, staffed with itsown members? Ministration to poor saints is authorized by the Holy Spirit (Acts 6:1-6; 1 Tim.5:16). Is this "spiritual service"? When the church buys tracts, literature, and papers for use in its teaching program, is it not providing teaching?Does a tract teach? Does the author of a tract teach thereby? Is this a "spiritual service"? When the church buys such and gives it away, is it not providing a "spiritual service"?
Your position precludes a collectivity ofChristians producing tracts, literature, papers, andbooks of sermons for sale to individuals and churches. This teaching God has authorized thechurch to give away, yet, you ask, "Why . . . buyfrom a human institution?" Must each church maintain its own staff of writers for its literature as well as operate its own print shop? Must each individual write and print his own tract? Or do youmake distinction between a written lesson and an oral lesson, so far as the teaching that is done isconcerned? Surely, you are not prepared for all theconsequences of your position.
While SEARCHING THE SCRIPTURES maynot be as intricate and involved in organization assome others, nevertheless, it is an organization ofindividuals. Note the following chart:
therefore, are teaching collectively through an organization which is not the church. Since our proposition says "organizations" (plural), and since you object to STS, Why didn't you name others, asper request in my first affirmative?
Under "Clarifying The Issue," Brother Chandler once more makes the infamous "service organizationargument" of the "liberals" by equating an eleemosynary organization (missionary society)with a service organization. Brother Chandler, weboth deny the "option" I mentioned, but yourtrouble is: you confuse what is not an option withwhat is. You don't know when 'tis" and when "taint." Your failure to recognize the factual difference between eleemosynary and service organizations in the service rendered does nothingbut muddy the water.
My use of "Sommerism" in no way parallels thefalse stigmatic use of "Anti." You are the one whoplayed "that game" by your use of "liberal," as thisarticle shows. I did not misrepresent the historicalperspective of this issue. If so, I will gladly correct it. Do you deny that the quotes of Ketcherside and Garrett represent your position? While admitting adifference, you deny any difference sufficient to preclude one supplanting the other, so far as theservice of eleemosynary and service organizationsare concerned. Your statement that "God designed the church to give away the same thing which men
The above chart is representative of most papersand publishing companies to a greater or lesserdegree in the matter of organization. The writersteach in association with others under common direction as part of the whole and for the good of thewhole. Hence, they teach collectively through an organization.
While Brother Adams is "the sole owner, publisher, editor and managing editor" of STS, and while the paper makes possible the "extension of thework of a gospel preacher," it, nevertheless, is an"organization of individual Christians." Withoutstaff writers, contributing writers, and their teaching in their assigned fields (whether specific orgeneric) under common direction, there would be noSTS as it now exists. Such arrangement and function constitutes collective teaching through an organization in every sense of the terms, accordingto the authoritative definitions given in my firstaffirmative. Furthermore, when you agreed to the rules laid down by Brother Adams whereby thisteaching is done through STS, you also became partof the whole that produces the teaching. You, designed the college Bible department to sell" is exactly right, except for the fact that the college(not the Bible department) sells the service. The Bible department does not function independently,but rather as a functional arrangement of thecollege. God authorized both the church and the college. This brings us to the real issue—authority.
The issue in this discussion is not WHO is to do the teaching, but HOW the teaching is to be done.The issue with the "liberals" is the reverse, namely,WHO not HOW. Again, you have confused the two.Of course, I used individual passages—that is whatmy proposition obligates me to do. I am not debating what collectives may do—my proposition affirms what individuals or "Christians" may do. If the passages I cited do not prove that individuals may teach collectively, then my proposition falls. I insist, however, that they sustain my proposition.Here, I think we find your greatest problem—a lackof knowledge of the rudiments of authority.
Your mistake is the same as that made by our No-Bible-Class brethren. They fail to recognize the inclusive nature of generic authority. They fail to
understand that the different arrangements for teaching (including Bible classes) inheres in the genus of the command authorizing the church to teach. They insist upon specific authority for the Bible class arrangement and thereby involve themselves in numerous inconsistencies by using other arrangements not specifically authorized. Yourcase is parallel. You fail to recognize the inclusive nature of generic authority. You fail to understand that both individual and collective teaching (as a wayor how) are authorized in the genus of the commandauthorizing individuals to teach. If the HOW of teaching is specific, then you can't have it both ways—individual and collective. If it is generic, thenboth are authorized. Like the No-Bible-Class brethren, you involve yourself in numerous inconsistencies. Youdemand specific authority for collective teaching through a service organization (the college) while collectively teaching through other service organizations not specifically authorized, e.g., the publishing companies. Specific authority for the churchonly settles the issue of WHICH eleemosynary organization is to be used. I insist that my affirmative offered proof — generic authority (inclusive of service organizations) and, therefore, was not a "bare assertion." A thing can be authorized without being specified! Your trouble is in not recognizing authoritywhen you meet it. My position does not parallel the "liberals" who can give neither specific nor generic authority for the point at issue.
Concerning your charts 1,2, and 3, they can be attended to briefly. Once more you are guilty of what you accuse me of, namely, making an argument based upon the silence of the Scripture. "I deny the allegation and charge the alligator." "Music In Worship," "Ashes of Sprinkling," and Elements Of Baptism," as genuses, are not authorized. "Sing," "red heifer," and "water" are specific to begin with. You have no authority for yourgenus—I do. Your argument is based upon the silenceof the Scripture. Nothing on your chart is authorized,except that which is specific. Brother Chandler, there are no horses ashes in Num. 19— anywhere!
Concerning your " . . . Missionary Society" chart, you will have to tell me more about your P. E. M. S. I suspect that what you have in mind is not the same innature as the other service organizations. If it is the same, then it stands upon the same basis—with all thedifference in the world between it and the eleemosynary missionary society.
Concerning your chart on my "Task," again, you callfor specific authority when the thing in question is generically authorized. The scriptures I submitted in my first affirmative go where you have your questionmarks. If you fail to accept this, then we will have todeal with you further on the same basis of our dealingswith the No-Bible-Class brethren.
You will have to try again, Brother Chandler. My proposition still stands on the basis of the authority submitted in my first affirmative.
PATTON—CHANDLER DEBATE
Brother Patton accuses me of "equating an eleemosynary organization with a service organization." The readers know it is not so. I freely admitted the difference, thus throwing a monkeywrench into his planned argumentation. That chafed himso that he is going to proceed as if I never admitteda distinction. Brother Patton, the organizations aretotally different, but teaching God's word is teachingGod's word, whether that teaching is sold or given away.
His parallel between the college and utility company falls flat because he cannot distinguish between teaching and aids to teaching. Individuals andchurches may purchase utilities, books, Bibles, etc. to aid their work of teaching and worship, but those aids are not synonymous with the work. Publishing houses and utility companies do not teach. They merely provide commodities which aid teaching. The college does not provide commodities to aid teachingbut does the actual work of teaching. If, as he says, publishing and selling tracts is teaching, then publishing and selling song books and sermon booksis singing and preaching. Electricity, Bibles, tractsand papers are not teachers, but aids to teachers. If weteach when we buy tracts then elders can "feed the flock" by simply handing all members a tract. Gospelpreachers can be replaced with much less expensivebooks of sermons. Likewise, if the church "provides teaching" when she buys literature, thenshe could never buy literature from such organizations as Baptist Book Store, Baker Book House, etc. because she would then be "taught" by those sectarian organizations. Indeed, brother Patton's argument is the one which would require the church to"maintain its own staff of writers . . . as well as operate its own print shop." Such ridiculous consequences arise because he equates teaching with aids to teaching. Indeed I do make a distinction in "oral lessons" and "written lessons". Perhaps brotherPatton feels his preaching is synonymous with a bookof sermons. Would his elders allow him to "teach" his classes by simply handing each person a written discourse and letting them read for 40 minutes?
The owner and editor of SEARCHING THE SCRIPTURES says it is a one-man organization,yet brother Patton says it is "an organization of
individuals". Brother Adams needs to educate him. I find it incredible that he cannot differentiate between concurrent and collective action, even afterfighting this point with liberals for years. Parallel orconcurrent activity involves no organization or collectivity. Priscilla and Aquila taught concurrently (Acts 18:24ff). The Thessalonian churchtaught collectively (1 Thes. 1:8). Is STS a vehiclefor collective action? When Dwaine Dunning wrotean article defending instrumental music in STS (vol.XV, no. 1, Jan. 1974) was he working collectivelywith the other writers in that issue? If he was then we will have to deal with Patton and the rest of them on the terms of 2 Cor. 6:14-18; Rom. 16:17; etc. IsPatton working collectively with me in this very debate? No writer for STS is any part of that organization. STS simply provides a medium for concurrent work of individuals. Brother Patton wants to charge me with inconsistency in "teaching" through an organization which I say hasno right to do so. Well, I would go into the Baptistchurch, use their facilities, time and arrangements,if they will allow me to tell them their organization iswrong—AND SO WOULD PATTON! Would thatmake us inconsistent? Even if STS were an "organization of individuals" I would still use its pages to proclaim its unscripturality, just as the Apostles went into the temple to tell the Jews thattemple worship was not scriptural. Brother Patton, tell us what difference you see in concurrent andcollective action. Note, too, that as you equatepublishing companies with the college, your chartproduces the following:
We all grant that the church can buy teaching aidsalso buy the college's teaching for the lost in Africa? from the publishing co. Brother Patton, can the(Thus a Private Enterprise Missionary Society) church pay the college to teach her? Can the church
When the liberals could not show authority fortheir institutions they sought to draw attentionaway from truth by crying: "You're just like the anti-class folks". Brother Patton borrows their tactics once more and for the same reason. Myanswer to him is the same as we offered to the liberals. Non-class folks oppose what they think is ateaching organization separate from the local church, while I oppose what we all admit to be ateaching organization separate from the church. They at least have authority for the church to teach.Brother Patton has never obtained authority for hisorganization to teach, so generic authority for the means by which it teaches cannot exist. Generic authority is "inclusive" only within the realm authorized. He has never authorized his "realm".
Again the liberals cried: "The Bible says preachbut doesn't say how" (The no-pattern argument).Now Patton says: "The issue ... is not who is to do the teaching, but how . . ." (the no-patternargument). Our reply is the same in both cases:"The Bible says who is to teach—the individual andthe local church." In his frantic effort to escape thefact that he has been caught red-handed trying todefend collective action with individual passages, hecrosses himself. His proposition specifies collectiveaction and even specifies the collectivity he defends,yet he has the audacity to say: "I am not debatingwhat collectives may do . . ." How sorely he wishesthis were so. He says his proposition requires him to use individual passages. That is not true. He is required to use passages which show individuals canteach collectively outside the local church. The college is a collectivity, an organization. It is asmuch a who as is the church. The church (a who)uses means (a how) to teach. The college (a who)uses means (a how) to teach. His own chart provesthat the college and church are on the same
organizational plane. If one is a how then the other isalso. Really, whether the organizations are whos or hows, the result is the same. The church is specific in either case. The following quote expresses the truth:"When the Lord gave the local church as the functionalarrangement for His people, we do not have the right toinstitute other arrangements, either of individuals orchurches. The very desire betrays a failure to properlyunderstand and appreciate the church as the Lord ordainedit . . . The principle is, when God gives the arrangement and is silent about other arrangements,men do not have the right to act upon that silence ininstituting other arrangements." (Gene Frost, GOSPELANCHOR, March, 1975, pg. 13) When individuals work as part of an organization their individual action becomes lost in that of the whole and the work becomes an institutional work.
Brother Patton waved away my chart by saying I have no authority for my genus. If he will show me passages containing "collectively", "eleemosynary" and"service organizations" then I will show passages containing "music in worship". The genus exists because a specific subordinate of that genus is given.When God says "sing" we automatically know there is authority for the genus "music in worship". Letbrother Patton try to find anything in the entire NewTestament which will in like manner allow his genus "service organization" in the realm of teaching. He wishes he had generic authority for "collective teaching". But collective teaching is never referredto except in terms of that specific which authorizesit—the local church. Likewise "music in worship" isnever referred to except in
terms of that specific which authorizes it. In neither case can we go outside the realm of the specific.The one case automatically eliminates all other kinds of music, while the other automatically eliminates all other kinds of organization. The parallels I drew with his own chart are exact and he cannot run fast enough to get away from this. My argument against his organization is necessarilybased on the silence of Scripture, for the Scriptures aretotally silent about any collective arrangement for teaching except the local church.
He says I do not "allow sufficient difference" between his organization and the church to allow for thescripturality of his organization. The result of that reasoning means that the further away one gets fromthat organization described in the Bible, the more scriptural it is! What foolishness that is.
He wants to take the passages on my chart applying to individuals and place them after his human institution. Those passages will not even authorize theLord's institution. Much less will they allow his. Untilhe gets some collective passages for his collectivity,he fails totally. Passages authorizing the genus "individually" CANNOT authorize a totally different genus. We have the genus "collectively" because God specified a COLLECTIVITY— the local church. Generic authority is restricted to that realm which is authorizedby the specific.
By switching from collective to individual action,brother Patton renders his first chart worse than useless. If the college is individual action, he has hisorganization under the wrong genus! He must change his chart to look something like this:
Let us see if he will change his chart and tell us howhe does it.
He insists that I name other organizations which I oppose. It is his obligation to defend other organizations. However, I will state that I am
opposed to the Cogdill Foundation. Will he defend it?Now I insist that he answer the question he ignoredpreviously: "What spiritual work can your organization not do?" Indeed let him tell us if the following organization would be scriptural.
I am sure he will talk more about "non-class folks". well as anything else to fill his space. But that isHaving no scriptural argument, that will serve as alright. I can stand it if he can.
MOSES' LAST BIRTHDAY
"And Moses went and spake these words unto allIsrael. And he said unto them, I am an hundred andtwenty years old this day; I can no more go out and come in: also the Lord hath said unto me, Thou shaltnot go over this Jordan" (Deut. 31:1-2). This textrelates to the last birthday of Moses. Perhaps as headdresses the nation of Israel his memory is awakened and he is led back over his life's trail.
The life of this Old Testament prophet who camein the likeness of Christ, (Deut. 18:18-19; Acts 3:2223), divides itself into three periods of 40 years each.The first, begins with the romantic scene of a floating cradle and an Egyptian princess. Born intothe tribe of Levi, a child of slave parents, Amram and Jochebed, Moses became the adopted son ofroyalty. Blessed with all the privileges, power and treasure which being heir apparent could give,Moses was not content. His soul was restless amid the pomp and pleasure of court and he longed to do something for his people as they groaned under oppression. His yearning circumvented law and introduces the second period of his life.
Striking down one of the Egyptian taskmastersfor smiting a Hebrew, he is forced to flee to the landof Midian in southern Arabia. Here he dwells amid the peaks and valleys of Horeb as a shepherd. At theage of 80 the quietness of that shepherd life isbroken by a divine call. God speaks to him out of theburning bush, commissions him as Israel's deliverer. In obedience to this charge a 40 yearperiod of almost superhuman effort is ushered intothe life of Moses during which he led the people tothe border of the promised land. The faith that sustained this great man earned him a place oninspiration's honor roll of the faithful in Hebrewschapter 11. "By faith Moses" is indeed a challenging statement.
The scenes of life have now changed for Moses, heis going to die. Though he fulfilled the mission Godassigned him, he failed to realize his own hope.Canaan was not to be the earthly dwelling place ofthis man, he was not even to set foot therein. Something of the greatness of this man is evident inhis final hour. Although he was denied the reward ofthe promised land, we do not hear him complain ormurmur against his fate. His thoughts are not ofhimself but of his people, Israel. Addressing theentire nation his words are a reminder of the grace and favor of God extended to them, of his care andcontinued provision contingent upon their attitudeof submission. Fearing they might be scattered assheep without a shepherd, Moses insists that a successor to himself be appointed. The final sentiment he expresses punctuates the whole tone of hisaddress, "The eternal God is thy refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms" (Deut. 33:27).
With his final words fading into history, Mosesturned away from the people he had so faithfullyserved, to take the trail to Mount Nebo. "And Moses went up" introduces this final chapter of Deuteronomy as well as the life of Moses. Death forthe righteous is indeed an ascent, a going up into thepresence of God. Through the eyes of faith, we seehim as he trudges upward on that rugged path. Wecan picture him as he perhaps pauses for a lastlingering look. His breast heaving, do we not hear asigh of sorrow?
Moses had climbed many mountains before, butthis was final. There was the mount of conflict as Israel encountered the Amalekites (Ex. 17). HereMoses sat upon a stone and Aaron and Hur stayedup his hands as they became heavy with fatigue andIsrael prevailed victoriously. At Sinai (Ex. 20), hewent up and communed with God, there to receivethe Commandments. At Mt. Hor the occasion was bereavement, Aaron's death (Num. 20). Now, atlast, he climbs his own mountain of vision anddeath.
As we allow the scene to unfold, the mountainrange of Moab sloping toward the Dead Sea is theplace. Mt. Nebo, Pisgah, east of the north end of theDead Sea, almost facing the city of Jericho is the point. So very near to the promised land of Canaan,actually only a giant step, and yet so far. He was notallowed to enter, only to see. Here he was to die(Deut. 32:48-52).
Words so tender describe the scene bringing Moses' career to a close in chapter 34. From thevantage point of a mountain peak Moses is privileged to survey the land of promise. His visionwas clear, "eye was not dim" and "God showed him." East and south offered not much of a view. The country in which Israel was to work out herdestiny lay north, west and southwest. This direction offered a grand view blocked only bymajestic Mt. Hermon to the extreme north. AcrossJordan, the mountain ranges of Judah toward theGreat Sea could be seen. Looking, the eye of imagination quite possibly saw the land settled bythe nation of God. With this satisfying vision beforehim, Moses is ready to die.
In this case death was not due primarily to theweakening of natural forces within. This whole scene is the result of a particular sin. "Because yetrespassed against me among the children of Israelat the waters of Meribah-Kadesh, in the wildernessof Zin; because ye sanctified me not in the midst ofthe children of Israel" (Deut. 32:51; Num. 20:11-13).Moses smote the rock when God said "speak." Such may to the human mind seem insignificant but toGod it was the difference between obedience and disobedience. For Moses it was the difference of entering the land and being excluded. So it is thatobedience will make the difference to all men. This man died in loneliness, without friends voice or thetouch of a brother's hand. In many respects hisdeath is the forecast of every man's. In the final analysis all die alone, human companionshipscannot walk that dark valley of shadows. We maytravel life together but we die alone. Though no manwas there, God was. His presence was all assuringand emphasizes that the man who walks with God inlife knows the blessedness of his presence in death.
Moses who had seen his generation perish on theArabian plains with but two exceptions must nowmake what was for him an untried journey. He had met God on the Mountain of Sinai but had not seen him with his eyes. Now he must see him as he is. Chastened from all regret, lifted above every fear hemakes his way to seclusion. Gently he is laid to"sleep with his fathers," buried by an unseen hand. There can be no doubt the place of Moses' burial was a place of beauty, indeed it would have to be for sucha lonely and majestic man.
Someone might ask why the secrecy as to thesepulchre of Moses? We are unable to reply withcertainty, a faith dependent upon the word of Godwill not permit. It could have been to prevent thetomb from becoming a place of worship. At any rate,there is the reminder that the radiant life of this great man and not the dust of his tomb is the thing to be remembered. The poet phrased it this way:
"By Nebo's lonely mountain,
On this side Jordan's wave,
In a vale in the land of Moab,
There lies a lonely grave.
"And no man dug that sepulchre,
And no man saw it e'er; For the angel
of God upturned the sod,
And laid the dead man there.
"Oh lonely tomb in Moab's land!
On dark Bethpeor's hill! Speak to
these curious hearts of ours
And teach them to be still.
"God hath his mysteries of grace-
Ways that he cannot tell;
He hides them deep, like the secret sleep,
Of him he loved so well."
In Moses we are impressed that a good life mayhave sore disappointments. Even so, it has no lessits reward. It is pathetic to think Moses neverentered the Land of Promise. Yet God was with him at the end and he died with a fair vision before his eyes and a fairer one in his heart. Workers in thekingdom of God may fall, the work goes on. Everyman may, indeed must, lend a helping hand, but letnone think he is indispensable. God's work goes onand on and will not fail. New workers with new hearts are continually being raised up to accomplishit. Let us ever be among that number.
The following letter speaks for itself. Jim and Becky Clark are a young couple of the highest moralstandards and any child would be fortunate to beplaced in their home. The institutional brethren saidno, you do not support us out of the church treasury and this is one of the requirements for a child. Nowwho has made the little child a pawn in this game offellowship? The Clarks are members of the LakeRoad church in Dyersburg, Tennessee.
WEST TENNESSEE AGAPE
Executive Director-Nick Boone May 22,1975 Mr. and Mrs. Jim Clark
2169 Morning Road Dyersburg, Tennessee 38024 Dear Jim and Becky:
I have what may be bad news as far as your beingable to adopt a baby through AGAPE. Our PolicyCommittee meets at intervals to discuss and recommend to the Board of Directors what our policy should be in regard to all areas of our work.We recently brought to their attention a case wherean adoptive couple attended a congregation which 1)does not approve or have Bible school or elders; 2)uses only one cup in the Communion service; and 3)does not believe in any cooperative efforts among congregations. Not only these, but that congregation does not fellowship congregationswhich do not believe as they do. Before the PolicyCommittee meeting, we had secured judgments from several of the leading ministers here in Memphis regarding whether they felt we should place a child in that family (we did not identify that family, of course). Although the comments were mixed, the Policy Committee—and subsequentlythe Board—adopted a decision as policy which states:
"The intended definition of "member of the church of Christ" requires exclusion of this couplefrom eligibility because the congregation is not inaccord with nor in support of West TennesseeAGAPE and because the congregation has withdrawn fellowship from congregations supporting AGAPE."
It has come to my attention that the Lake Roadcongregation is classified as an "anti" congregation—please forgive that term if it is offensive. If that is true, and if the congregation is onewhich could not support this work, then you would now be ineligible to adopt through West TennesseeAGAPE. I have put off writing you until I could becertain of our position in this. I am now convincedthat this is the intent of the policy regarding eligibility.
I will look forward to further contact from you regarding this matter. It would be nice to think thatthis could be worked out, but I believe it cannot ifyour situation corresponds to that mentioned above.I will sincerely regret it personally if this means wecannot place a child with you. But I am convincedthat the directors have a strong sincere desire to dowhat is scriptural as well as what is needed. In Hisservice,
Nick Boone, Executive Director
West Tennessee AGAPE, Inc.
NB:jb (See Editorial)
After brother Connie Adams and I had discussed,my preparing an article on this subject, one of the first things I discovered was the fact that there is adearth of material on "chastisement." In fact, Icould not find a single article in any of the boundvolumes of the periodicals I have. Also, in many of the commentaries there is just a smattering of comments on the subject. Thus I do not know if Iam "wise" in trying to gather this material or if I amwalking in where angels fear to tread.In this article we want to examine the context of Hebrews 12:4-11 where the word "chastise" is used a number of times. Also, we want to note the definition of the word "chastise" as well as a number of other words used in these passages.
Misunderstanding
In talking to several people on this subject I foundthat many have the idea that the Lord punishespeople for some terrible wrong done by causing amember of their family to die; by causing greatfinancial loses; or generally just making another case like Job out of their lives. However, thoughthere is a possibility that God may allow these things to happen to us as they did Job, I find noevidence that Job's calamities came about as a result of some terrible wrong he had done. In fact, when we read the first chapter of Job we find Godsaying just the opposite. He was commending Job as being a good, God-fearing man, and said, "thereis none like him in the earth" (Job 1:8). Thus theidea of terrible calamities brought upon men forsome dastardly deed done is erroneous. Then what ismeant by chastisement?
Definition of Terms
The word "chastise" comes from the Greek word paideia and means, "Education, training up, of children, instruction, discipline. Correction, chastisement. To educate, instruct children, Acts7:22; 22:3; To be taught, learn, 1 Tim. 1:20; Toadmonish, instruct by admonition, 2 Tim. 2:25;Titus 2:12. To chastise, chasten, 1 Cor. 11:32; 2 Cor.6:9; Heb. 12:6, 7, 10; Rev. 3:19" (Bagster's Analytical Greek Lexicon, Page 299). "The whole training and education of children. Whatever in adults also cultivates the soul, especially by correcting mistakes and curbing the passions;hence, a. instruction which aims at the increase ofvirtue: 2 Tim. 3:16" (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon, Page 473).
Other word studies could be cited. However I believe a careful study of the definition of the word, and also of the passages cited, will show that God'schastisement involves much more than retribution for wrongs done. I do not mean to leave the impression that God's chastisement is not retributive,for it in fact is. However, I deny that such calamitiesas come upon all men are designed for that purpose.
How Does ChastisementCome Today?
For an example, let us say that two six-year-oldboys are in the yard playing. They live next door toeach other. One boy's family are all Christians. Theother's are not. They are playing ball. The ball goesinto the street. Both boys run after it. Both are hitby a car and killed instantly. Is God chastising bothfamilies? Has everyone in both families done something terrible so that God has to use such measures to get them "in line"? I think not. For firstof all, Paul said in Heb. 12:6 that God "scourgethevery son whom he receiveth" (underlining mine foremphasis, JTS). Thus Paul's explanation does notfit the case in point. Because, one family that lost achild was not a son whom God receiveth. The truth is that God does not place a wall around a Christianand his family and exclude them from normal adversity.
On occasion in the Old Testament, as in David's case, David was told that some terrible calamitywould come about as a result of his sin. And, as weshall see, God tells us what will happen to us. All chastisement brought upon us today by God is thatwhich is a direct result of our association with Him and His Word. This either comes about as (1) affliction from those who oppose us because of our teaching Christ and Christianity; or (2) from theteachings of the Bible itself which reproves andrebukes us for the things that we engage in whichare contrary to the doctrine of Christ.
Four Different Categories
Chastisement, according to the definition of theword, may be Educative, Preventive, Corrective and Retributive. As we observe these different categories, we are brought again to the realizationthat this involves the entire spiritual education of aperson, and not just a "whipping" for some wrongsdone.
Goal To Be Reached
Let's begin with verses 10-11 of Hebrews 12 and notice the ultimate goal that we will reach as a resultof "enduring" God's chastening. Paul points outthat no chastisement is joyous at the time. In fact,he says, it is grievous. The same thing is true withour own fathers who chastised us (verse 10). If itwas nothing more than saying, "you can't go outand play until you get your homework," it was grievous to us at the time. However, our fathers inthe flesh did this in order that we might get the formal education we needed; and in order to teach us a lesson, perhaps, that there is a time for all things
and work comes before play.
Paul says that God has an ultimate goal for us." ... that we might be partakers of his holiness" (verse 10). That we might "yield the fruit of righteousness" (verse 11). The way to reach this goal is to be "exercised thereby"—by enduring thechastisement that is brought upon us. This word "exercise" in this passage is an interesting word. Itis from the Greek word gumnazo and means, "To train in gymnastic discipline; hence to exercise inanything, train to use; discipline; 1 Tim. 4:7; Heb.5:14; Heb. 12:11; 2 Pet. 2:14" (Bagster's AnalyticalGreek Lexicon, Page 83). Now of the use of the wordin 2 Pet. 2:14 Thayer says, "A soul that covetousness or the love of gain has trained in itscrafty ways" (Ibid. Page 122). Thus we see the reasoning behind the apostles' statement. Here is an example. When I get a little overweight as I sometimes do, and literally get too big for mybreeches; I know two things I can do in order toreduce my weight. I can "cut down" on the amountof food I eat; and/or do some strenuous exercises,being fully aware of all the hard work and sore muscles that this involves.
That is what Paul is saying here. Our earthlyfather disciplined us so we would get the required, results. And as children of God if we will "endure" the physical and mental exercises given of God and not ""faint," (quit assembling and worshipping assome of the Hebrew brethren had done) when we are"rebuked" of Him, we can acquire the desired results of being "partakers of His holiness," and "yielding the fruits of righteousness."
Educative Discipline
First of all we want to examine the scriptures oninstructive or educative discipline. In Acts 7:22 weread, "And Moses was learned in ail the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words and indeeds." The word "learned" in this passage is fromthe greek word that is translated "chastise" in Heb. 12. Also, Paul said in Acts 22:3 that he was"brought up at the feet of Gamaliel and taughtaccording to the perfect manner of the law of ourfathers. . ." The word "taught" in this passage is aderivation of the word translated "chastise" in Heb.
12. And finally, the very familiar passage, 2 Tim.
3:16 says, "the scriptures are profitable for . . . instruction in righteousness." Again the word "instruction" is a form of the Greek word paidian.Hence, our spiritual education involves instructivediscipline.
Another part of our education as brought to us byGod in fulfillment of the Lord's promise, "the servant is not greater than his lord. If they havepersecuted me, they will also persecute you" (John 15:20). But James says that is for our benefit. "Mybrethren, count it all joy when ye fall into diverstemptations; knowing this, that the trying of yourfaith worketh patience" (James 1:2-3). As with the
Hebrew brethren, persecution may mean trials both byword and deed. In fact, that is the very lesson that isbeing taught these brethren.
The larger context of Heb. 12:4-11 goes back to Heb. 10:24 ff. They had forsaken the assembling of themselves together. The reason, Paul implies, is because they, in the very beginning of their endeavorto live the Christian life, were willing to "endure a great fight of afflictions." They "took joyfully the spoiling of their goods." However, the implication isthat they had "fainted" and were not "enduring" in thegood fight of faith.
The eleventh chapter of Hebrews was written to show them how much the Old Testament children of God had endured to be faithful. Not only had they become stronger in serving God, but they had finally been saved for eternity. And Paul points out inHeb. 12:1-3 that Jesus had resisted unto blood. He chides them by pointing out that they had not beenpersecuted to this point, of resisting unto blood, asdid Christ and others of the Old Testament. He implies that in their failure to persevere they had"despised the chastening of the Lord and had fainted" under the weight of that which was designed to makethem strong. It may be guess-work with man when hetries to direct his children in the way that is best forthem. But God, according to verse 10, always knowsbest and allows these things to come upon us only inour best interest.
Preventive Discipline
Persecutions may also be preventive. I am convinced that this was the purpose for Paul's "thorn in the flesh." Paul said, "And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of therevelations, there was given me a thorn in the flesh,the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should beexalted above measure" (2 Cor. 12:7). Paul states both at the beginning and the end of this passage thepurpose for this "thorn in the flesh", "lest I should be exalted above measure." Thus this was given Paul as preventive discipline.
You will note that I placed this illustration regarding Paul under "persecutions." It is my conviction that Paul's "thorn in the flesh" was the persecution of brethren and unbelieving Jews. I am convinced that Paul is using an Old Testament expression taken from Joshua 23:13. Here Joshua admonishes the people to continue faithful in servingGod and warns them that if they do not God wouldbring the heathen nations upon them (the ministers ofSatan) and be "scourges in your sides, and thorns inyour eye." Thus those who were servants of Satan were a "thorn in the flesh" of Paul.
Retributive and Corrective
When we sin today, God has made provision for us to be "rebuked." "These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority" (Titus 2:15). The scriptures are to be used for "reproof, for correction,for instruction in righteousness" (2 Tim.
3:16). "Them that sin rebuke before all that others mayfear" (1 Tim. 5:20). "Preach the word; be instant inseason, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort withall long-suffering and teaching" (2 Tim. 4:2). If this does not work, God has still another plan which is alittle harsher. "Deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh" (1 Cor. 5:5). Paul expresses itin other words in 2 Thess. 3:14. "And if any man obeynot our word by this epistle, note that man, and haveno company with him that he may be ashamed" (cf. 2Thess. 3:6).
And finally, "Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith, have made shipwreck: of whom is Hymenaeus andAlexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that theymay learn not to blaspheme" (1 Tim. 1:19-20). The word "learn" in this passage is a form of the same wordthat is translated "chastise" in Heb. 12, and literallymeans, "they may be taught" not to blaspheme.
What About Sectarians Who Are Persecuted?
Someone may ask, "Then doesn't this prove that somesectarians are children of God when they are persecuted because of their faith? For Paul said, 'For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth' " (Heb. 12:6).The answer is NO! Let me illustrate it this way. Whenone places himself in a battle, as some did during theWar Between The States, not having complied with therules in entering, he received the same abuses as the soldiers receive who are there lawfully. However, Paul said, "Thou therefore endure hardness, as a goodsoldier of Jesus Christ. No man that warreth entanglethhimself with the affairs of this life; that he may pleasehim who hath chosen him to be a soldier. And if a man also strive for the masteries, yet is he not crowned, except he strive lawfully" (2 Tim. 2:3-5). So, if the onewho placed himself in the fighting of the Civil War waswounded, he would not receive a pension for disabled veterans. For, he was not striving lawfully. Soit is with those who place themselves in the Lord's battle. Jesus said many would say that they had donemany mighty works in His name. He said he would tellthem to depart, for they were workers of "lawlessness"(without law) Matt. 7:21-23.
Baptist Claim Exposed
This final argument. The Baptist claim they cannot be lost because God will chasten them and bring them back when they sin, and use Hebrews 12 to try to prove it. However, Paul says that God's children will be brought back by chastisement unless they "despise" His chastening; if they do not"faint" when rebuked, and if they "endure" it. If Baptistswere children of God, which they are not, they could"despise" the chastening, "faint" when rebuked; and not "endure" it. And when this happened, they would be lost.
Conclusion
We have found that the "chastening of the Lord" inthe New Testament involves the entire process of
"bringing up children." In fact, Paul uses it just that way in Eph. 6:4, ". . . in the nurture." This expression is from the word paidea. It tells the story of earthly parents and also of the Heavenly Fatherwho seeks to cause us to be holy even as he is holy.And as we have shown in this article, by the definition of the word and a study of it in context,the idea is "the whole training and education of children." _____________
"ALEXANDER CAMPBELL" CIGARS
Earl Kimbrough
The museum at the Phillips Memorial in Nashville,Tennessee contains a variety of unusual and interesting items that pertain, in one way or another, to the Restoration movement (although ittakes some stretch of the imagination to figure out how
some of them are so related). There one may see displayed a walking cane and eyeglasses that belonged to Alexander Campbell, a copy of the firstedition of some early religious journals, and even a bustof Lyndon Baines Johnson. One of the most unusual,and at first sight startling, objects in the museum is an"Alexander Campbell," cigar box, depicting a coloredportrait of the Sage of Bethany.
I say this is startling because, while we understand that some of the pioneer gospel preachers usedtobacco (and sad to say a few still do), we just neverquite associated the name of Alexander Campbellwith a brand of cigars. But there it is, as big as life andtwice as natural, as the old saying goes. And we cannot argue with a demonstration. It evidently seemedfor a time that the world (at least the tobacco world) was about to bring to Campbell some long overdue recognition. But alas! this was not to be, for the "Alexander Campbell" two-for-a-nickel failed to survive. The cause of the cigar's demise is not known. It may well be that the name created such prejudiceagainst the product that denominationalists refused tobuy it, and there were not enough "Campbellite" cigarsmokers with a two-for-a-nickel taste to keep the business booming.
The now famous "Alexander Campbell" cigar box ondisplay in Nashville was found during the 1930's byHenry K. Shaw, a Christian Church preacher who wasthen living in Ohio. He happened to be in a drug storeand overheard a man tell a clerk he would take two of the "Alexander Campbell" brand cigars. Shaw's interest wasaroused and he managed to acquire the empty box.As the result of events we
will not relate, the box was sent to the curator of the Phillips Memorial where it has been preserved for posterity.
Aside from the human interest angle, there is littleexcuse for our taking up space with this story. If thereis any other definable motive for doing so, it springsfrom the joy we have in knowing the factory which made the "Alexander Campbell" stogies went out of business and the product is no more. So many things that seem incompatible with Campbell have been associated with him by modern liberal historians that we find a measure of pleasure in the failure of the"Alexander Campbell" cigars to catch on with the smoking public. Poor Campbell has rolled over in hisgrave so many times since he was interred on that WestVirginia hillside more than a century ago that it is comforting to think that maybe his restless bones found a moment's peace when the namesake cigar passed from the scene.
Paul, in Heb. 12:1, wrote: "Wherefore, seeing we alsoare compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us." The grand apostle appreciated the problem of self-imposed hindrances.
My normal weight is 175 (or, it ought to be). Toooften, good eating takes it up to 195 or higher. I run three miles daily to maintain my health. When at myproper weight, I can consistently run that distance in18-22 minutes. Each additional pound costs me aboutten seconds to the mile. It is like running with a ten-pound weight tied to each foot.
I could get down to 175 with no real difficulty IF IWANTED TO PUT THE EFFORT REQUIRED INTO IT.
When we run the race of life, I wonder how many of us are carrying all that extra, unnecessary and soul-endangering weight Paul has in mind? Like with myrunning, we can " . . . lay aside every weight, andthe sin that so easily besets us, . . . ." if we want todo so.
Do we? Or, are we still running life's race like I do mydaily exercise, with a ten-pound weight tied to each foot?
FLOYD THOMPSON, 429 Eastside Ave., Santa Ana, CA 92701 —After more than forty years in local work in the samegeneral area of California, I have resigned local work. I preached 20 years and 10 months for the church at Birch and McFadden,Santa Ana. In 1955, about half that group, including me, begananother work in Garden Grove. I have now been with this group 20 years. Though resigning from local work, I am not retiring from preaching the gospel. The church on Fairview, Garden Grove, will work with me in an arrangement whereby I can devotemy time to holding meetings. If you are interested in having mecome for a gospel meeting, I will be happy to serve. The churchhere will be willing to help in needy places. Brent Lewis has already begun local work with the church here. You may write meat the above address, or, if you wish, contact the elders at 13211Fairview, Garden Grove 92640.
HOYT H. HOUCHEN, 12528 E. Alaska Place, Aurora, Colorado—We are happy to announce that a group of conservativebrethren are now meeting in Salida, Colorado. The church is presently meeting in the Boy Scout house on Sacket Street. They meet for worship on Sunday mornings at 10. Robert McDonald ofPampa, Texas preached there in a gospel meeting in July. If youare vacationing in that area, plan to meet with these brethren. Forfurther information, please contact Jack Smith, phone (303) 5394663.
NEW RADIO PROGRAM The GARDINER LANE church in Louisville, Kentucky has started a one-hour discussion and call-in program 10:30-11:30 eachSunday night on WFIA/fm (103.9 Me.) in Louisville. The program is known as "God Has Spoken" and devotes the first half hour to a panel type discussion on a previously announcedtopic with the second half hour taking live calls relating to the topic. Gene Frost hosts the program assisted by other gospelpreachers from the Louisville area. If you are in listening range ofLouisville, listen to this program.
THAYER STREET LECTURES
The annual Bible lectures of the Thayer Street church in Akron,Ohio will be September 15-18. Bobby Graham will speak each night on the subjects "God's Heritage", "Are We Really Different" and "People of Conviction." George LeMasters will speak each night on "Heaven, Hell and Judgment." Robert Welch will speak each morning on "Prayer". Also each morning the lives of Eve, Sarah and Priscilla will be discussed by Larry Chaffin,Ken Cooper and Jim Nicholson, respectively. Each afternoon Bruce Taylor will speak on "Sermon in Song" and will direct the congregation in singing. Also in the afternoons Charles M. Campbell will speak on "Is There a God?", "Misconceptions of God" and "True Concepts of God." Write to the church at 640 Thayer St., Akron, Ohio 44310 for further information. This annual meeting is proving to be one of the finest series in thenation. Take advantage of this opportunity if possible.
NEW DIRECTORY WALLACE H. LITTLE, P.O. Box 297, Peru, Indiana 46970—William E. Wallace of Lufkin, Texas is compiling a fifth edition of a directory of conservative churches. This will contain asection on churches overseas, both those composed primarily of military brethren and their dependants as well as those made up of saints native to the area where the churches are located. Brother Wallace asked me to assemble the necessary material. Please forward to me as soon as possible any information you may have so this work can be completed.
CARLOS J. VALENZUELA, Matain, Subic, Zambales 2215, Republic of the Philippines—For the benefit of any Americanservice men who may be assigned to the Subic Bay Naval Station in the Philippines, we remind you that there is a faithful congregation you may attend. The church at Matain, Subic, Zambales has Sunday services at 9 and 10 a.m. and at 7 p.m.with a mid-week service on Thursdays at 7 p.m. From Olongapo City take a taxi to White Rock Beach. One hundred yards before the beach entrance, along the National Highway our sign boardcan be seen. We would like to welcome every faithful Christian who will be coming to Olongapo City to worship with us.
KEN LUTES, Rt. 2, box 113, Battle Ground, Washington98604—A new congregation has been established in Battle Ground, Washington and meets in Pioneer Grange Hall at 3813
N. E. 199th St. Since we began, some have moved into the areato worship with us and some came out of the liberal church in Vancouver. Attendance now runs about 40. We meet at 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. on Sundays and at 7 p.m. on Wednesdays. Men in thecongregation are doing the preaching. In June, Barney Cargile of Seattle, Washington conducted a meeting dealing with home Bible studies and teaching the lost. For further information contact me at the above address.
GOOD MAN NEEDS HELP ERIC REED, P. O. Box 801, Springs, Transvaal, Rep. of South Africa—With reluctance I make this appeal. The inflationary ratein this country is spiralling compounding the problems of those living here on an American salary. There has also been a 15%devaluation of the dollar in the last 18 months. The price of gasoline has soared to $1.25 per gallon and foodstuffs have increased sharply in price. My family and I are finding itnecessary now to live on a future months salary each month and Iam forced to borrow money when it is necessary to go toSwaziland, Vendaland and other places for preaching work. Wesold our car and bought another, reducing payments. This helped some but not enough. If we could raise $250 a month for housing and utilities, we could keep our heads above water for awhile. I hope that my brethren do not consider this request a sign of ingratitude for if it wasn't for their generosity I would not be herein the first place. Please let us know if you can render assistance.
PREACHERS WANTED OKEECHOBIE, FLORIDA—A preacher is needed for this small congregation. Partial support is available with the rest having to come from elsewhere. Write to the church at P. O. Box 1023 33472, or call collect Franklin Barson (813) 763-3462, or Jeff Harward (305) 464-7765. PANAMA CITY, FLORIDA—The church here needs a preacher. Interested persons should contact Charles Wicke, 2323 W. 33rd St., Panama City, Florida 32401. Please provide information asto experience, education and references.
HUACHUCA CITY, ARIZONA—The church here is looking for a preacher, an elderly man, retired, partially supported, who can work with us. If interested, write Carrol Peabody, Box 4137, Huachuca City, Arizona 85616.
