ARE WE LOSING OUR FREEDOM?

Our cherished civil freedoms are slowly being taken away by an ever increasing centralized government. Weare gradually being deprived of the freedom of speech,the personal freedom to own and operate businessenterprises as we please, the freedom to hear the truthabout the conditions of government and its operation,and the freedom to worship without some sort of persecution. I do not mean that these are absolutelygone, but obviously the working of government in this country is slowly taking away these liberties by enactment of new laws and pressure tactics.

There are at least three reasons why this conditionexists; the greed and grab for personal power withingovernment, the effort to make all conform to the wayof life that suits the rulers under the guise of personal or"civil rights," and the continuing effort to centralizethe power of government in the hands of a few. Theseconditions are made easier by the fact that most citizens of the United States are indifferent to the trend and are willing to place more and more of their personalobligations upon the federal government. The more ofour personal responsibilities it takes, the more of ourpersonal liberties it takes.

Paul wrote to the churches of Galatia and said: "And that because of false brethren unawares brought in,who came in privily to spy out our liberties which wehave in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage" (Gal. 2:4). Peter speaks of the working of evilmen who would corrupt the children of God, and says ofthem: "While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a

man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage"(2 Pet. 2:19).

The same three reasons given above are responsiblefor the conditions of the church today that would takeus back into the bondage of sin and deprive us of theliberty we have in Christ. Liberty in Christ does notmean that we can do anything we want to do any morethan civil freedom means we are at liberty to do anything we please. In both cases we are under law,and our freedom is derived from that law. It is when the law is ignored or changed that the freedom under law istaken away.

The greed and grab for power in the church by a fewpreachers, elders and editors is promoted by lyingpropaganda promising more liberty and greater work.Some have power enough in some areas now to controlevery congregation in that area, telling them who canand who cannot preach for them, and directing the spending of their funds from the Lord's day contribution. More and more these "great preachersof today" are getting into a position similar to that ofthe pope of Rome. Some love the "praise of men morethan the praise of God" (John 12:43). Little by littlecongregations are losing their congregational freedomto these power-loving men who would lead them intobondage.

The effort to make all conform to that way of life thathas been planned by the present day promoters is asecond reason congregational liberties are taken away.By economic pressure, public sentiment, emotional appeals, and outright lying about those who opposethis practice, these "false brethren" continue to "line up" churches and individuals. They preach personaland congregational "rights" and all the while they aretaking away these "rights" given under the law ofChrist and replacing them with the "rights" of these "great preachers," elders and editors.

The third reason for the loss of our freedom in Christ is the continuing centralizing of power and effort undera few men. This, of course, is possible because the individual does not want to assume his personal responsibility. It is easier to drop a nickel in the contribution plate on Lord's day and let the churchsend the nickel to some sponsoring church (central control), which in turn sends it to some human organization to

do the work which that individual should have done in the first place. It will not be long before we find somenew headquarters on earth for "churches of Christ."

The combination of lustful men grabbing for power,the effort of these men to make the standard of life and bring individuals and churches to conform to it, and thecentralizing of power and control into the hands of a fewtakes away the liberties we have in Christ. In civil government it tends toward Roman Catholicism. So much freedom has already been taken away from manycongregations that they now have no safe ground uponwhich to fight for what remaining liberties they mayhave.

Paul's attitude toward these false brethren, as he spoke by the Spirit, was: "To whom we gave place bysubjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of thegospel might continue with you" (Gal. 2:5). Jesus said:"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall makeyou free" (John 8:32).

We cannot tell what the future years will bring forthe civil freedoms of this nation. Neither can we tell about the liberty in Christ. Dictatorship will result if wecontinue.

We are often asked to carry notices about congregations needing preachers and sometimes aboutpreachers who are interested in moving to a new work.As space permits, we carry such notices as news itemswithout charge. A few times we have printed"disclaimers" by stating that we do not have personalknowledge of all those who write such items and cannotguarantee that the work would be satisfactory underevery circumstance, nor that a preacher who announceshis availability is all that might be desired. We haveacted in good faith in trying to render a service toworthy brethren and shall continue to do so, though wefrankly do not believe this is the best way for a congregation to find a preacher nor for a preacher tofind a congregation. All of this prompts what we believe is a much-needed admonition.

It is scripturally right for brethren to be commendedby those who know them to brethren who do not knowthem. After Acquila and Priscilla taught Apollos theright way of the Lord at Ephesus, he decided to go intoAchaia. "And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples toreceive him: who, when he was come, helped themmuch which had believed through grace" (Acts 18:27).The brethren in Achaia did not know Apollos but thebrethren at Ephesus did. Paul indicated that while others might need letters of commendation to the church at Corinth, he did not for they existed as a people of the Lord through his labors and were therefore Paul's "epistle written in our hearts" (2 Cor.3:1-3). His implication is clear that while they alreadyknew plenty about him because of his work among them, others who came later and called in question thegenuineness of his apostleship, needed some kind of commendation from others. Paul wrote to Philemon and urged him to receive Onesimus as a brother,beloved in the Lord, though in the past Onesimus hadbeen unprofitable to Philemon (Philemon 10-17). WhenPaul came to Jerusalem and "assayed to join himself tothe disciples" they were "afraid of him and believed notthat he was a disciple. But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto themhow he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he hadspoken to him, and how he had preached boldly atDamascus in the name of Jesus. And he was with them coming in and going out of Jerusalem" (Acts 9:26-28).In the case of the benevolence to be sent from Corinth to Jerusalem, Paul wrote "And when I come, whomsoever ye shall approve by your letters, them will I sendto bring your liberality unto Jerusalem" (1 Cor. 16:3).Surely, evidences for the benefit of those who do notknow a man, or a congregation, are not out of place.

Worthy Men Do Not Mind Inspection

When a congregation is seeking a preacher and iscontacted by a man they do not know anything about,it is the height of folly to make a decision based on asermon or two, or good words and fair speeches in ahastily called business meeting. We have heard severaltimes of preachers who used high pressure tactics onbrethren by insisting that they "make a decision tonight" or else they might decide to go some otherplace. That ought to be a danger signal from a man whois desperate. No congregation should be placed in such a predicament. Worthy men do not mind brethren investigating their work at other places. How long didhe stay there? What about other places he has lived?Has his work been stable? Or has he been a problemeverywhere he has gone? Certainly any worthy preacherwill make some enemies along the line which will notspeak kindly of him, but some general things can belearned. Not only should brethren be concerned abouthis teaching, but about his personal conduct as well.Has he behaved himself? Was he hot tempered and self-willed? Was his family an asset or hindrance to hiswork? Did he pay his debts? Did he treat the youngerwomen as sisters "with all purity"? If he was involvedin misconduct at the last place, has he made it right? Ifhe has sincerely repented to the satisfaction of the Lordand the church then it should not be held over his head. If the charges of wrong remain, then congregationsconsidering such men would do the last place he workeda favor and the preacher in question one also byinsisting that the wrongs be corrected and all chargescleared.

Some preachers have never done a successful workanywhere. They have a record of moving from pillar to post after a year or maybe just a few months. Sometimes that might not be his fault. It could be that he made some seats too warm with his faithful preaching. But when that happens to a man over and over again, then surely wisdom demands careful investigation.

Some men run out of places to preach in this country and decide to become "Missionaries", takingtheir inept record with them to some foreign field. Weare much in sympathy with good and tested men wholabor diligently in the far-flung fields of earth and meanno discredit to a single worthy man. I believe most ofthe men I know anything about in other countries are equal (and in some cases superior) in ability to most ofthe preachers who labor in this country. But there havebeen instances of men going to other lands who havemade a shambles of every work they have attempted inthis country. Brethren interested in supporting a man for such work have every right, to say nothing of responsibility, to be fully satisfied as to the ability,faithfulness of teaching, and character of those who askfor their assistance. If you do not know the man, checkwith those who do. You are likely to be sorry if you don't!

A Two-Way Street

While congregations have a right to investigate aprospective preacher, gospel preachers have a right tocheck into the background, work and attitudes of congregations with which they consider working. It iseasy to bring a man to town, put him and his family upin fine circumstances, dine him, dazzle him with promises, inflate his ego with flattery and make a localwork look like Utopia when in reality that church has arecord of mistreating faithful preachers, crucifying those courageous enough to "lay it on the line" andthen summarily dismissing them "for the good of the cause." How many young men have such placesdisillusioned and discouraged from even preaching atall anymore? Only God knows for certain. This editorformed the practice years ago of reminding brethrenwith whom we were considering work that we were notonly aware of being "looked over" but we were "looking THEM over" as well. Are they having aparade of preachers, putting one in competition withanother? Churches that want to let the work out to the lowest bidder are not interested in supporting a man to"do the work of an evangelist"; they are simply lookingfor a cheap employee, and that is how they will treathim when he comes, CHEAP!

Some churches want men to submit what they call a"resume." Well, now, it would be pretty hard for afellow not to make himself look good under such circumstances. A divine principle is threatened undersuch a practice. "Let another man praise thee, and notthine own mouth; a stranger, and not thine own lips"(Prov. 27:2). Why not ask for references from thosewho are in position to fairly evaluate a man's work, incases where brethren do not know enough about a man and his background? Would that not be far better?

We have known of brethren employing a man overthe telephone without ever seeing him until the movingvan rolled up in front of the house. Both preacher andcongregation are "asking for it" in such an arrangement. Some brethren in needy fields come to thepoint of desperation at times and think they had betterlatch onto the first fellow that comes along and offershimself without knowing anything about him until theyare in trouble. There is a great need for preachers andcongregations to act responsibly toward each other andtoward the Lord in the greatest work of all. But in bothcases prior investigation would save many heartachesand would contribute immeasurably toward causingtroublesome preachers and congregations to shape up.

QUESTION: Please answer the following questions: 1)Should "liberal" brethren leave off orphan homes, etc.,in order to have unity? 2) Should we leave off Bibleclasses and multiple containers to provide unity? 3)Should the Bible not be taught in colleges in order tohave unity? — L.B.

ANSWER: These questions suggest, at least to me, that our querist is thinking of the tolerance amongbrethren authorized in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8. On this basis I shall proceed to answer the questions.

It should be observed, first of all, that the thingsunder consideration in these chapters are matters of personal indulgence in the realm of positive law. Personal indulgences stand in contrast to collective action. In the latter there is joint participation, and theconscience of many is involved. In the former only theconscience of one individual is involved. The matter of eating meat was not a church function, but rather theaction of an individual. Hence, Paul says to both the "weak" and "strong" brother: "to his own master he standeth or falleth" (Rom. 14:4). No one's conscience is involved but his own.

Matters of positive law stand apart from those of moral law. Brother J. W. McGarvey, in commenting upon matters of each, put it this way: "the former are always such as the moral law does not require, and suchas derive their propriety exclusively from the fact thatthey are commanded" (Justification by Faith," Lard's Quarterly, Vol. 3, pp. 121, 122). Clean and unclean meats, as well as days to be observed definitely fall intothe category of positive law.

Concerning such, Paul says, "Let us not therefore judge one another any more" (Rom. 14:13). Here, then,is a limited area in which tolerance among brethren isdivinely authorized. There is, therefore, a limited areaamong brethren wherein there may be "unity in diversity." However, to apply what is said here,irrespective of the limitations, to other matters is topervert the truth!

Both the strong brother of Romans 14 and the brother with knowledge in 1 Corinthians 8 are warnedagainst using their liberty so as to influence another tosin. In Romans 14 the danger is that of a weak brotherbeing influenced to violate his conscience (Rom. 14:1317). This might be done through rule, jest,intimidation, etc. In 1 Corinthians 8 the danger is thatof a brother without knowledge being influenced tosin, not by violating his conscience, but by indulging that which is sin itself. There is nothing wrong ineating meat sacrificed to idols, if it be eaten to satisfyhunger

and without conscience toward the idol. However, itsuch eating influenced one without this knowledge toeat not only to satisfy hunger, but with a consciencetoward the idol, such would be a sin on the part of both(1 Cor. 8:9-13).

It should be obvious in the light of this teaching thatQuestions One and Two do not fall within the realm of personal indulgences, but rather are matters of collective action or church function. Therefore, the principles of Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 do notapply. Question Three does fall within this realm sinceonly individual action is involved (so far as supportamong conservative brethren is concerned) and not church action. The principles of Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 do apply in this instance.

Concerning unity on Questions One and Two, all elsethat the Bible teaches concerning unity must be dulyregarded, then, the issue must be settled on the basis ofwhether it is right or wrong—whether or not there isdivine authority for it, either specific or generic. If thedeference to ignorant and weak brethren authorized inRomans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 be applied to churchaction, the elders would no longer be the rulers andoverseers (Heb. 13:17; 1 Pet. 5:2) in the final analysis,but rather the weak and ignorant brethren would be.Furthermore, this would result in weak and ignorantbrethren subjecting the church to "ordinances, doctrines and commandments of men" (Col. 2:20-23). This seems to have been the sin of the Galatian churches reproved by Paul: "Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you,lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain" (Gal.4:10,11). Here, brethren were seeking to bind the observance of days upon the church as a church function. In Romans 14, the observance of days wasconsidered only as an individual matter.

Furthermore, concerning Question One, an affirmative answer should be given for the followingreasons: After careful, honest, objective examinationhas been made of all involved, the facts show that the course of "centralization," the way of "liberal" brethren, even if it were lawful (and it is not) is neitherexpedient nor edifying (1 Cor. 10:23). The way of centralization cost more in overhead expense, involves excessive (wasted) motion in maintaining the intercongregational action, and produces less fruit perounce of energy expended than the course pursued by"conservative" brethren. While it may minister to pride and produce a sense of satisfaction as one looks upon the magnitude of the centralized effort, nevertheless, when the above examination has been made, the facts show both the pride and satisfaction to be false. Therefore, in view of this and out of respect for the heavenly plea for unity, "liberal" brethren should give up their intercongregational centralized controlled efforts.

On the other hand, in nearly all instances, QuestionTwo should be answered in the negative. While "lawful," it is very inexpedient, hinders the work ofedifying, and is very unproductive of the fruit thechurch is obligated to bear. A careful, honest, objectiveexamination of the facts show a wide margin of difference between the position of "Conservatives" in relation to Question One and "Conservatives" in relation to Question Two.

Unity is precious and is ever to be desired. We shouldall "follow after those things which make for peace, andthings wherewith one may edify another" (Rom. 14:19).However, unity at the price of compromise with error orthe sacrifice of truth is too costly! "Buy the truth, andsell it not; also wisdom, and instruction, and understanding" (Prov. 23:23).

Page 6

ARNOLD HARDIN, THE BAPTISTS, AND LEGALISM

Brother Arnold Hardin, who preaches for the ScyeneRoad church of Christ in the Dallas, Texas area, has had a number of articles in his paper, THE PERSUADER, on the subject of "legalism" and those of us who are members of the Lord's church. He ridicules our insistence of the necessity of people beingobedient to the commands of God. In this article, I want to review and answer a number of things that brother Hardin had to say in one of his articles entitled "What Is Legalism"?

Brother Hardin begins his article by saying,"Legalism is a legal concept as a means of sinners beingjustified. It embraces and sets forth the idea that weare saved by a dependence upon 'law keeping.' "

It has been said that if you allow a person to give anarbitrary definition of a subject (simply give his own definition), he can prove anything by it. Brother Hardin's definition of a "legalist" is certainly quite different from the definition of the word given byauthorities. A legalist is "one who advocates legalism,according to the law of works as distinguished from freegrace" (Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary,Page 975). But who believes what Webster has defined?Evidently from the way brother Hardin writes, youwould think there is one behind every tree. I do not know of a single Christian who would be classified as alegalist according to the definition given by Mr. Webster.

After brother Hardin gave his definition of a "legalist," he then proceeded to espouse his false theory in harmony with his false definition. He said, "Sinners are saved 'by grace through faith . . . not of works' (Eph. 2:8-9). This is the divine formula. Legalism would put us back under the law-works system; yet, God has placed all men under the grace-faith system because of the cross of Christ. Christ nailed not only the law of Moses to his cross, but, any'law system' of justification. You cannot prompt mento obey by citing commands and if you do it will not bethe kind of obedience that Christ wants. Paul says 'Youare not under law, but under grace.' Because you fearthat some one will take a statement of that kind and abuse it, do not in turn abuse scripture by saying weare not free from law."

So, with reference to what brother Hardin believes about "law" of any kind, we have the same old sectarian idea, in a new dress, that has been espousedby

the sectarians for hundreds of years. Let's examine it.

If there is no such thing imposed on man today as"law," then how could one be turned away by the Lordfor practicing "lawlessness"? (Matt. 7:23). If there isno law of any kind, then there is no such thing as sin,for "sin is a transgression of the law" (lawlessness)according to 1 John 3:4. How will we be judged by the"law of liberty" (James 2:12), if there is, in fact, nosuch thing as law? How could you have a King withsubjects and no law by which they are to be governed?The truth of the matter is, you could not have any of the above if there is no law.

Just a few passages of scripture will show that there is, in fact, "law" given by Christ; and that obedience tothis "law" will free us from our sins. "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from thelaw of sin and death" (Rom. 8:2). Thus Paul calls thatwhich made him free "the law of the Spirit." Again Paul says, "Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ" (Gal. 6:2). And, James calls this law,of which Paul speaks, "the perfect law of liberty"(James 1:25), brother Hardin notwithstanding.

Of course, you would think that if brother Hardinwas going to take the position that there is no suchthing as "law" that must be followed, the old sectarianargument about "no works" that could be performed byman that he might be saved, would soon follow. Well look what we have here in this statement by brotherHardin in the same article. "Sinners are saved 'by grace through faith ... not of works.' (Eph. 2:8). This is thedivine formula. Paul knew what he was saying when hesaid, 'Saved by grace through faith . . . not of works.' We need to leave it alone!" But with an understandinglike brother Hardin has of this passage that there are "no works" that are to be done, someone (namely me)should not leave that alone. However, as if that were not enough false doctrine on this subject, he says, "Brethren speak of God's side and man's side in redemption and equate the two. God forbid such a notion!"

This doctrine set forth by brother Hardin is Missionary Baptist doctrine, pure and simple. He is making the same kind of arguments that I have metwith Baptist preachers for years. They build up a strawman, and then beat him to death. Just because we talk about God's side and man's side doesn't mean we are equating the two. It is simply showing that God is theMaster, and we are the servants. When the Master commands, the servants obey. Even Christ understoodthis principle. "Though he were a Son, yet he learnedobedience by the things which he suffered; and beingmade perfect, he became the author of eternal salvationunto all them that obey him" (Heb. 5:8-9). Also, whatabout passages like Luke 6:46 where Jesus said, "Andwhy call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the thingswhich I say?" Or Matt. 7:21, "Not every one that saith unto me Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom ofheaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which isin heaven."

Brother Hardin's doctrine on this matter of someone

denying the grace of God because he teaches and

practices obedience, is false. If it had not been for the

grace of God in giving his Son, and the Son having the

same attitude, we could not be saved. We are entirely

dependent on them to provide for us a plan whereby we

can be saved. The Old Testament was written for our

learning (Rom. 15:4). When Naaman was told to go dip

seven times in the Jordan river that he might be

cleansed of his leprosy, was he practicing legalism when

he obeyed what God told him to do? I contend that he

was cleansed by the grace of God even though he HAD

to obey the command of God. His obedience didn't

change it one whit. But he HAD to obey in order to

receive the blessing that was provided by the grace of

God.

Brother Hardin's argument is similar to the one thatthe Baptist have been making for years on the subjectof baptism. They contend that baptism is a "work" andsince it is, it could not be essential to salvation. (Sincebrother Hardin has taken the position he has on works,how can he insist on one being baptized in order to besaved?) In Hiscox's Manual for Baptist churches weread on pages 20-21, "Baptism is not essential to salvation, for our churches utterly repudiate the dogmaof 'baptismal regeneration,' but it is essential to obedience, since Christ has commanded it. It is also essential to a public confession of Christ before theworld, and to membership in the church which is hisbody." They don't want baptism to be essential to salvation. But they do say it is essential to obedience, since Christ has commanded it. However, if it is not essential to salvation, but is essential to obedience, the conclusion would have to be that obedience is not essential to salvation. Also, since baptism is not essential to salvation, according to the Baptists, but itis essential to a public confession of Christ before the world, we would have to conclude that a publicconfession of Christ before the world is not essential to salvation. And, since baptism is essential to membership in the church which is his body, but is not essential to salvation, we can come to no other conclusion than the fact that membership in the Lord's church is not essential to salvation. Thus, whenyou get off on the "wrong foot" to begin with (asbrother Hardin did with his definition of a "legalist" and with his understanding of "law" and "works"),everything that you say after that becomes more and more ridiculous. How can brother Hardin or the Baptist stress that one needs to be obedient to Godand at the same time deny that that to which they are to be obedient is essential, or law?

So, a legalist would be one who believes he can besaved by keeping the commandments of the NewTestament without considering the grace of God and allthat it had provided. Who believes that? Jesus said, "When you have done all those things which arecommanded of you, say, We are unprofitable servants:we have done that which was our duty to do" (Luke17:10). Thus how could man's part be equal with God's part?

Now who would have ever thought that one would be

having to instruct a brother in Christ on the subject of

"works" mentioned in Eph. 2:8-9? Brother Hardin says

that it cannot be by "works" because it is by grace through faith—which is exactly what the sectarianshave always said about this passage. The problem isthat neither they nor brother Hardin recognize thatPaul specified the kind of works that he has under consideration. The passage itself says, " ... not of works lest any man should boast." So, he is talking about boastful works. What kind of works are there? (See chart below).

So, when we have done all that the Lord requires ofus, we have nothing about which we may boast. Why?Because these are "works of righteousness" which Godhas devised. And as Jesus said, when I have done all these, I have done only that which is expected of aservant (Luke 17:10). But as we have always told thesectarians, so we tell brother Hardin, "read the next verse." Eph. 2:10 says, "For we are his workmanship,created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which Godhath before ordained that we should walk in them." If you will excuse the grammar I would like to point outthat Paul is saying that we "should walk in them goodworks." Yet, brother Hardin says there are "no works." I'm going to stick with Paul. So, since David said in Ps. 119:172 that all God's commandments are righteousness; and since Peter said that in every nation one who fears God and works righteousness (which amounts to keeping God's commandments) is acceptedwith Him, then I am going to continue to try to getpeople to obey what Peter said do, brother Hardin notwithstanding.

If we are not careful, when we begin to emphasize thegrace of God and leave off any works that are to be done by man, we will come to the conclusion that "once weare saved we are always saved" which is Calvinism pureand simple. How's that? Brother Hardin said what? "So men teach that if we die with just one sin againstus we will be eternally lost! Nothing is worse than suchlegalistic ideas. We ought to shun it like the plague."So, brother Hardin is saying that one who has not repented of a sin can still go to heaven. If that is true,what about two sins. If a person says that if one hastwo sins he cannot go to heaven, should we shun himlike the plague? What about 22 or 102? If one, then who is too say how many? Paul said, "Know ye not that theunrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?" (1Cor. 6:9). Also, John said in 1 John 5:17, "All unrighteousness is sin . . ."Of course everyone will admit that the grace of God, and God through Christ,is the only means by which we can get forgiveness ofsin. However, if God's grace is going to cover our sins without anything being done on our part, where is thepassage that so states. Brother Hardin did not cite it.But I can cite one that sets forth the fact that God said that if our sins are to be forgiven they will be forgivenby the blood of Christ when we confess them (1 John 1:9-10). If brother Hardin has a passage that statesotherwise, let him produce it. If not, then he will justhave to count me (along with Paul in 1 Cor. 6:9 and John in 1 John 5:17) as one of those preachers whoought to be avoided like the plague; because I am suregoing to tell people that no unrighteousness (sin) can enter into the kingdom of heaven. And with Paul and John, I think I am in pretty good company.

Conclusion: The doctrine taught by brother Hardin isgaining momentum over the country today. It is assectarian as any Baptist doctrine ever presented. In fact, if any Baptists read his article, I would not besurprised if they don't try to "vote him into" the Baptist church and ordain him as one of their preachers. If he keeps going the way he is, he will be"with them" before long.

In a previous article under the above title, I dealtwith the subject of idolatry as it related, 1. To God's people under the Old Testament. 2. To God's peopleunder the New Testament. In this article I propose todeal with.

Its Present Day Application

Certainly no one who respects God's word would dispute the teaching of the New Testament passagesof scripture that forbade idolatry, as they relate tothe worship of images, and their applicability to theChristians of Paul's day. Their teaching is too plain to permit any misunderstanding. What many fail torealize, however, is that they are just as applicable inthis twentieth century. For human nature, being thesame in all ages, man has the same proclivity towardidolatry as he had when the New Testament was being written.

I hear some one say, What can the subject of idolatry possibly have to do with us? No one in thiscivilized land would think of bowing down to and worshiping an image, nor of offering sacrifices to it. Isaw this attitude clearly demonstrated some yearsago in a meeting which I attended. Brother JoeCannon who had labored for some years in Japan,had returned to Canada for a visit. He had brought back with him an assortment of images that the Japanese had worshipped before they became Christians. There was quite an assortment of them, of various shapes and sizes. Brother Cannon then told of how some of the Japanese Christians had expressed deep concern over his taking those imagesto Canada. They said, Brother Cannon, aren't you afraid that the Canadians might start worshipping those images? Well, we smiled with a smug self-righteousness, and we felt a bit sorry for those brethren over there to think that they were afraidthat we might worship images. What! Worship images in Canada? No way!

But have we ever been guilty of idolatry in otherways? Let it be remembered that worship, whether itis the worship of God, or of an idol, is the reverenceand homage that one renders toward the object worshipped, or the unremitting service that one renders in pursuing some goal. Moreover worshipembodies the concept of sacrificial service as a meansof obtaining the favor of the one worshipped, or attaining the desired goal. Idolatry is thus not confined to the worship of images, but inheres in anything that displaces God in our life.

It is for that reason that much of the teaching ofthe New Testament is directed toward instilling in usa proper sense of values. Jesus said, "But seek yefirst his kingdom, and his righteousness; and allthese things will be added unto you" (Matt. 6:33). Paul said, "Set your mind on the things that are above; not on the things that are upon the earth"(Col. 3:2).

How much these admonitions are needed in this age of affluence when we enjoy a standard of living undreamed of a few years ago. Yet blinded as men sooften are by a false sense of values, they have theirmind set only on the things of this world, with God and the things of the kingdom crowded out of theirlife. It is not that we are expected to show no concernfor the things of this life. It is simply a matter of priorities. Things right within themselves become idolatrous to the extent that they crowd God and hiskingdom out of our life. To some of these we now give attention.

Cares, Riches, Pleasures.

In the parable of the sower, related by Jesus in theeighth chapter of Luke we have a sad story of idolatry. In his interpretation of the seed that fell onthorny ground, Jesus said, "These are they that haveheard, and as they go on their way they are chokedwith cares and riches and pleasures of this life, andbring no fruit to perfection" (Luke 8:14). Thus Jesusspoke of three things that can come between man andGod, and thus become an idol.

1. Cares. Not that such cares are inherently wrong.There are certain cares that inhere in one's responsibility toward his family (1 Cor. 7:33. 1 Tim.5:8). But when such cares reach the proportion of

sacrificing to provide his family with luxuries whileGod is crowded out of his life, they have become thegod that he serves.

2. Riches. It is not necessarily sinful to be rich.Some of the great men of the Bible were rich men.Nor is there any inherent virtue in poverty. But whenwealth becomes the goal in life and crowds God out ithas thus become an idol.

I said earlier in this article that worship embodiesthe concept of sacrificial service. Will a man sacrificeto the god of wealth? Indeed he will! How often havewe heard of some one who died in seemingly abject poverty, and it was found later on that he had thousands of dollars hidden away in furniture and dishes. They were willing to sacrifice the simplecomforts of life in order to satisfy their greed forwealth.

3. Pleasures. Christianity is not intended to rob life of all pleasure. However the mad scramble for pleasures of this life is often responsible for empty seats in houses of worship. The absentees will be found at crowded beaches or sports events. Theywere still worshipping,—but worshipping the wrong god.

Preachers

Yes, sometimes a preacher can become an idol. I recall in my old home congregation some years ago, amember who attended services only when he knewthat a certain preacher was going to be there. If hehad been worshipping God he would have attendedworship services every Lord's day and not just when that preacher was there.

A Fine Meeting House.

Christians are commanded to assemble (Heb. 10:25). Implied in the command is a place of assembly. Since rented facilities are seldom verysatisfactory, most congregations own their building.When viewed as an expedient in carrying out the command to assemble, the meeting house is scripturally authorized by general authority. When theattractiveness of a meeting house becomes a prime consideration in one's attending worship it has gotout of place and has become the thing that is reallyworshipped.

A woman from a large city where they had a veryfashionable place of worship one time visited somefriends living in a rural district. On Lord's day she attended service with them. The building was small and plain, heated by an old coal heater. The womanwas heard to protest, I cannot worship in a place likethis. Her words probably revealed more than she realized. Evidently she worshipped a fashionable meeting house.

Self

Then there is the old idol of self. Remembering that worship expresses itself in sacrifice, each one ofus would do well to ponder this question, How muchdo I sacrifice for God and for his kingdom as compared to what I sacrifice for myself and my own selfish wants. We sometimes take on a heavy mort-gage to acquire a home. We borrow money from

banks and other lending institutions to buy cars,refrigerators, and freezers, knowing that we are goingto have to sacrifice to make those inevitable monthlypayments. No criticism is intended of such, if done wisely. But, in the midst of all this splurge of spending, I suggest that we pause and honestly face up to this question. How much have I really sacrificed for God and for his work? Would I be willing to borrow money to make it possible that thegospel might be preached somewhere? Or does our practice cry out that we love ourselves more than welove the Lord?

No, we don't worship images as the heathen do.But idolatry is a distinct possibility, and an everpresent danger. It becomes a reality when we allowsomething, whether it be our home, our business, ouroccupation, money or pleasure to crowd God out ofour life. The words of Paul addressed to Christians of the first century are just as applicable to this twentieth century. "Wherefore, my beloved, flee fromidolatry" (1 Cor. 10:14).

THE SIN OF PREMARITAL SEX

There is no question but that the Bible teaches marriage as the only scriptural solution to the problem of sex. God made man and therefore knowsall about his needs and desires. Satan will get theadvantage of everyone who goes outside this divinearrangement. Other writers will explore this from every angle.

Instead of quoting a lot of statistics about the number of pregnant girls in our society and how premarital sex is one of the greatest problems today,let us turn to the Bible and see that the problem isnot new. If we could get man, and especially our young people, to just read the Bible and go to it for the ,solution we would have the answer as only God cangive it. Young people today have the feeling that theBible is out of date and does not deal with the question of sex. Nothing could be farther from thetruth. It reads like today's newspaper and recognizesthat young people have problems with sex. This isnot new but as old as time. There are many people intoday's society who must think sex is something justdiscovered. The Bible not only meets the problem head-on but gives the solution.

King David had a beautiful daughter named Tamar. She was not only the daughter of the king but a virgin. Remember this is a story of young people, the flower children" of antiquity. Tamar was looked upon with lust by her brother, Amnon. It must be remembered that this was before the daywhen it was unlawful for close kin to marry. Think ofIsaac and Jacob and you will know that this is true.Tamar tells Amnon that he should marry her in verse16 for this story is found in II Samuel, the 13th chapter. Jonadab contrived with Amnon to get himand Tamar alone, and Amnon being stronger, forcedher. Tamar, a girl of unusually good sense madethree points that are just as true today as they wereat the time they were made.

1. "No such thing ought to be done in Israel."Israel, of all the people in the world, ought to abideby the law of God. This was against that law andtherefore should not be done. We do not know how much the example of David had to do with the actionof Amnon, but it played its part.
2. "Whither shall I cause my shame to go?" Thisbrings out in graphic detail the price that the womanhas to pay for such sex. From the beginning of timeit usually is the woman who has to pay for suchactivity. Girls should remember this for after Amnonhad had his way he hated Tamar. We have this in therecord in verse 15. "Then Amnon hated her exceedingly, so that the hatred wherewith he hated herwas greater than the love wherewith he had lovedher." Amnon could not even remember her name but called her "this woman" and had the servants put herout the door and bolt it after her. Oh, great was thelove he had for her and he would have promised heranything. Does this sound like something our girlshave ever heard before? The man will make greatpromises and then fail to keep them. Remember thatwas young people and it is all in the Bible. Do not letthe world tell you that the Bible is an old-fashionedbook and does not deal with the problems of today.It is unbelievable that one minute Amnon could love Tamar to the point that he could not do without herand the very next minute hate her even more. That isthe way it is and our girls should recognize it. If a boy really loves a girl he will want to marry her. Ifhe simply wants to use her he will insist on premarital sex.
3. "Thou shall be as one of the fools in Israel." The boy has a price also to pay. He never completelyescapes. Regardless of how he feels about it he knowsall of his life that he is guilty.

This is not, however, the end of the story; but justthe beginning. Tamar had worn the robes of a king'sdaughter; of different colors, bright and gay. Nowshe puts ashes on her head and rends the garmentsand cries. Absalom tells Tamar to cause no trouble about the matter for Amnon is her brother, but Absalom does not forget. The Bible says he hated Amnon from that day. Two full years go by and hedoes not forget. He plans a sheep-shearing at Baalhazer, which was an occasion for a party. At great effort he persuades David to let Amnon go withthem. We do not know if David suspected what wasgoing to happen but after two years, perhaps thepassing of time had caused him to think that all hadbeen forgotten. At the party that followed, when Amnon was drunk, he was slain by the servants of Absalom. Thus we have added murder to the sin of premarital sex. Absalom has to flee and seeks refuge in Talmai where he remains for three years. Atthe instigation of Joab, Absalom is allowed to return to Jerusalem but does not see David's face for another two years but finally they are reconciled.

Thus we have the ugly story of the forcing ofTamar by Amnon in II Samuel the 13th chapter andyet the modern scholarship of the world says theBible is not up to date. This sinful act on the part ofAmnon cost him his honor and his life. It divides his father's house for at least seven years and spellsunhappiness for everyone. Amnon could have marriedTamar and it would have been a different story. In verse 16 we have her words, "There is no cause: this evil in sending me away is greater than the other thatthou didst unto me." But he would not harken unto her.

Every means of gratifying man's needs in regard tosex has been tried time and time again, for nothing is new. Marriage is the only answer, not only from aBible standpoint but from the standpoint of society.Young people may think they do not have to pay theprice for premarital sex but this is not true. The price is there and there is no escape from it. Young people, consider your bodies the gift of God and keepyourselves for marriage.

Regardless of what the world may say or do, you remember that you are setting standards for the world instead of the world setting the standards foryou. Understand the words of Paul in Hebrews 13:4,"Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled:but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge."

COGDELL'S "CAMPAIGN FOR CHRIST" REVIEWED — NO. 2

Brother Cogdell would justify the "sponsoring church" from the Scriptures because "manycongregations sent money to the Church to Jerusalem,to be used for benevolent work (Acts 11:27-30; Romans15:25-31; 2 Cor. 8,9)". Observe Acts 11:27-30 does notmention Jerusalem. Brother Cogdell, you have the wrong verse here. Acts 11:27-30 records brethren at Antioch sending to the brethren in Judea, not limited to just Jerusalem. This was during the "days of Claudius Caesar". Some twelve to fifteen years laterbrethren in the provinces of Macedonia, Galatia and Achaia sent to relieve the needs of the Jerusalem saints (Rom. 15:25-31; 2 Cor. 8 and 9). What is needed to justify the "sponsoring church" plan is to find in theNew Testament where Jerusalem took the funds she received and began to disburse them elsewhere. Jerusalem supplied the needs of her own members which she had been unable to relieve. Jerusalem did not take the funds and put on a "campaign for Christ".

Evangelism—Benevolence

Brother Cogdell reasons that since funds were sent to a church for relief or benevolent purposes in New Testament times, that such can be done for evangelismtoday. He mixes the New Testament pattern for benevolence with evangelism.

In New Testament times in evangelism, churchessent wages to the preacher (2 Cor. 11:7-9; Phil, 1:3-5;2:25; 4:15-20). They did not send to the church for thechurch in turn to pay the preacher.

In New Testament times churches sent to another church to relieve the saints for which the receiving church was unable to provide (Acts 11:27-30; Rom. 15:25-31; I Cor. 16:1-4; 2 Cor. 8 and 9). They did notsend to a preacher and let him be the one with theoversight. Brethren would do well to respect the NewTestament pattern for both evangelism and benevolence.

Brother Cogdell says it makes no difference how it isdone whether in benevolence or evangelism. If a churchcan send to a church in benevolence it can also send to a church in evangelism. He rejects the idea of two NewTestament patterns, one for evangelism and one forbenevolence.

Brethren understand a difference when it comes to salvation:

They understand that the plan of salvation to the alien

sinner is not preached to the erring Christian and that

the plan of salvation to the erring Christian is not

preached to the alien sinner. Yet, if they understood no

more about the two plans or patterns of salvation than

they do about benevolence and evangelism, they would

tell alien sinners to repent of sins, confess their sins

and pray for forgiveness. Brother Cogdell, if you can

interchange the pattern for benevolence for the pattern

of evangelism, why can you not interchange the pattern

for the erring Christian for the pattern for the alien

sinner? You reject the pattern of New Testament

evangelism by confusing benevolence with evangelism.

Why do you not do away with the pattern of salvation

for the alien sinner, and teach aliens and erring

Christians to repent, confess and pray to be saved? One

would make as much scriptural sense as the other.

Brother Cogdell says "God has not given us any explicit instructions as to how we shall work togetherfor ... evangelizing the world" and "the basic point,which we have made over and over, is that God has not specified how congregations are to work together".

Brother Cogdell doesn't think what he says would justify a Missionary Society, yet he makes the same arguments J. B. Briney used to defend the societywhen he debated Brother W. W. Otey in Louisville in1908. Said Briney, "they are voluntary organizations"(page 160 of Otey - Briney Debate). Cogdell says"funds are given voluntarily" as the elders are "usingan organization".

Note Cogdell says God did not tell us "how" to cooperate and J. B. Briney said, "I stated that theSaviour said Go, and that I said there was silence as tohow, leaving the brethren to decide as to methods anddetails in regard to the matter—leaving them largely toexercise their own judgment with reference to it" (page287 of the Otey — Briney Debate).

Brother Cogdell, if God has not told us "how" to

cooperate to preach the gospel, then what is wrong with

the organization of the Missionary Society as originally

purposed before abuses set in? Or do you endorse it? If

God has not given an order, then there can be no

disorder. Any arrangement to preach the gospel would

have to be endorsed by Brother Cogdell. Let Brother

Cogdell describe an arrangement he would oppose that

would not condemn his "sponsoring church"

arrangement.

(More to Follow)

MY SECOND TRIP TO THE PHILIPPINES

Jady W. Copeland

In early May, as Wallace Little, Frank Butler and Iflew over the blue Pacific after a tiring and profitabletrip to the Philippines three years ago (1973) Wallacesaid, "Let's all go back in 1977." I really never expected it to happen, but last year when Frank wroteme to go back with him, I gave it serious considerationand finally said "no." He then got Harold Tribble ofBremerton, Washington to go with him, but whenFrank had to back out Harold called me, wanting meto go with him since he wanted one to go that had previously been. I finally consented to go.

Thus on April 6, 1976 (a year earlier than Wallacesuggested) I boarded a plane in Fayetteville, and aftera stop in Honolulu, where I preached on Wednesdaynight at the Leeward Church (where John Miller nowpreaches) I proceeded on to Manila, arriving there onFriday morning, April 9. As usual, a goodly number ofbrethren were at the airport to meet me, includingHarold Trimble who had preceded me to Manila about aweek. So we were "off and running" on a very tightschedule (the Filipinos don't want you wasting timewhile there) that saw me preaching in 14 churches atotal of 36 times in 25 days, and taking into consideration the time of answering questions after many of the services, I suppose I preached theequivalent of 40 to 50 sermons, sometimes preachingthree or four times per day. I visited only one churchthat I had visited three years earlier and that was inthe city of Baguio, where Andrew B. Gawe is the verycapable preacher.

Since much has been written about the work in the Philippines, I will not give a detailed account of our trip(and Harold preached as much or more than I) but itmight be good to have brethren know our opinion of thework there from year to year by those who visit thecountry. Since I had been before, I think I can seethings more objectively this time, since the newness ofthe trip had worn off the first time around. However, itwas still a very interesting trip.

Improvements

I could see much progress the second time around.There are more and larger churches, more buildings,more preachers and a fine attitude among brethrenthere. Brethren are having much success in converting people — not only from the rank and file of people,but preachers, teachers and capable and educated men and women. We baptized (among about 55 or 60 baptisms) two sectarian preachers while there this time. In the main, preachers work hard, talk to a lot ofpeople personally, and do a fine job of preaching thegospel. We visited a few churches that had a regularattendance of about 100 souls. They have the customthere of counting only the adults in the congregation,so the record boards portray only the actual membersor adults who have been baptized. If they included thechildren in their attendance in such places as Lambayong (where Virgil Villanueva preaches) the boardwould show well over 100 people. We had upwards of200 in attendance there over the week-end we were there, but two or three smaller churches came in on theparticular day to worship with us during the meeting.Virgil is doing a very good work there in the heart of theMoslem country, where we could not go three yearsago. There is still some fighting near there, and weheard gunshots a couple of times when we were there,but they told us it was simply the police "keeping thecitizens alert." I don't know about the "citizens" but it certainly alerted this, "non-citizen."

Some Needs in the Philippines

I had debated with myself before I made up my mindto go as to whether we should go. The question in mymind was, "Is it worth the expense and trouble?" I think it is, but I also would like to sound this bit ofwarning. As I told the Filipinos, "I did not go to Americanize the Filipinos." And they need to realizethat eventually the churches there must (to a degree atleast) become self-supporting. We did some work alongthat line while there, and others who have gone havedone the same. However, I do not see in the near future, many churches there supporting their own preachers. This is simply a matter of economics. Thepeople are very poor in the main, and they are not ableto support a man. Many are barely able to survive. Butsooner or later, American brethren will tire of sending all the support to a man and they need to do some workalong that line. I have written a number of Filipino brethren to this effect—especially those who have written for support. I am not saying churches and individuals should stop the support. In fact I would strongly urge others to send more support than is nowbeing sent. But I do believe they need to begin torealize that support from the states may one day dropoff, and they will have to make it "on their own."

And this brings up another problem. There is alwaysthe danger of a man wanting support just as soon as heis baptized. He sees the preacher who baptized himmaking $200 a month from the states, and he wantsthat support too. This is the reason we have (even though it puts an extra burden on them) to rely on someof the proven men to give us recommendations for supporting a man. I talked with Romulo B. Agdumaabout this problem, and he recognizes it is there. But he is willing to take all the "brick-bats" so that worthy men may be able to get support. If he does not recommend a man for support, then he is criticized. Ifhe does, and then the man turns out to be unworthy(and this happens), then he gets the "brick-bats" fromthe states. So caution is needed along the line to besure. And brethren in the states who support men needto realize that Romulo B. Agduma's judgment mightbe something less than perfect just like mine or yoursmay be. He might recommend a man who turns out tobe unworthy ... and I might do the same thing. But Iassure you in the case of Romulo B. Agduma, it wouldbe a mistake of the head and not of the heart.

Should Americans Continue To Go?

Often this question arises. In my judgment it is worthwhile for American brethren to go to the Philippines if caution is exercised. As stated, we must not try to "Americanize" them. Their customs are different and I caught myself asked if the things theydid in their worship (that differs from our customs)were right or wrong. And after careful consideration, Iconcluded in most cases that it was purely a matter ofcustom. And the Lord did not bind custom on us.

Americans do not need to go to the Philippines to convert souls, though there is nothing wrong with preaching "first principles" there. The Filipinos can convert their own people better than we can. But to goto encourage, teach young preachers, get informationas to support, etc., I think trips are worthwhile. I do believe we need to stay out of their problems as much aspossible. And they do have problems and about theonly thing I know to do is to preach the gospel like Iwould at home. For example, there is the problem of"preacher jealousy" there. And I preached along thatline several times while there. Good men can be of greataid in the matter of teaching dozens of young preachersalong the line of the deeper things of the gospel. Theencouraging thing about the churches there is thatthere are many young men who are capable and willingto preach the gospel.

Need For Materials

Besides the need for support for preachers, nearlyevery church needs tracts, song books, literature fortheir teachers (even a book for the teacher only) andBibles. Many do not own a Bible. It is far better to sendmoney to the man there to buy Bibles for they canpurchase them in their own dialects and besides you cansend the check for thirty-one cents whereas it wouldtake several dollars to send a Bible air mail. If churches or individuals are of the disposition to send such materials, many of us can furnish the names of churches who can use them. Also a devastating flood has hit Manila since we left, and much suffering tobrethren has come as a result of that. So your dollarscan well be used in the Philippines. Souls as well as mouths are hungry there—some for the gospel andsome for food.

WHERE THEN IS THE BODY?

Jacob Creath, Jr. was in Gaston, North Carolina on October 15, 1868, but he planned to be back in Missouria few weeks later. In a brief note to D. T. Wright, editor of the Christian Pioneer, he wrote: "Dear Bro. Wright: Please publish that I will preach what is calleda funeral Sermon in Shelbyville, Mo. the third Sundayin Nov. next at 11 o'clock A.M."

Considering the distance between the two states, theslow modes of communication and travel, and the absence of Ancient Egyptian embalmers, the lettermight give one pause to wonder about the body of thedeceased. However, Creath's notice perhaps reflects a lingering custom of pioneer times. "An old-time country funeral was an occasion of no ordinaryimportance. A simple service of song and prayer wasusually held at the grave, but the regular funeral sermon was preached at a place and time duly appointed and widely advertised, weeks and often months after the burial." (F. D. Srygley, Seventy Years in Dixie, p. 187.)

This explains the long delay in the funeral sermon,but what about the time of the service? Eleven o'clock Sunday morning! Surely a man of Creath's conservative bent would not take the worship hour toeulogize a man. There are two apparent explanations.Since Creath doesn't identify the dead, it may be thatthe funeral was intended for the church. (We knowsome that seem about ready for a funeral.) In this case,the Sunday morning hour would be an appropriatetime. But more likely, the eleven o'clock hour was not the time for "the regular worship." Brethren in those days often met on Sunday morning to hear a sermon,then dismissed for lunch, and reassembled in the afternoon for observing the Lord's Supper. Of course,Creath's method of preaching "what is called a funeralSermon" may have simply been to preach a gospelsermon that would be appropriate in any gathering ofChristians.

Anyway, Creath's funeral advertisement provides uswith an interesting view of how funeral customs havechanged in the last one hundred years. Customs stilldiffer in the various parts of the country, but we areglad the prolonged wait for the funeral sermon is athing of the past. By the time it came around thepreacher might forget which way the deceased went.

Oaks Gowen Passes Away

With much grief, we report the death of another stalwart soldier in the Lord's army. Oaks Gowen of Orlando, Florida passed away on Sunday, August 15 after suffering for two years. The last 20 years of his life were spent preaching in Bradenton, Jacksonville and Orlando, all in Florida. Our sympathy to his wife, Bernidine and their two children.

Please Help Us

Once again, the Postal Service has thrown us a "curve." Now we must pay 25 c for every address return. We have to pay for 50-75 of these each month. PLEASE — send us your change of address before you move so you will notmiss an issue of the paper, and so we will be spared this expense.

CORRECTION—Berwyn, Illinois meeting date isOctober 11-17.

J. EDWARD NOWLIN, 109 Cedar Rd., Perry, Florida32347 —The work of the Lord here goes well. We now have moremen in the church than any time since the liberals pulled out andsplit the church over the church's refusal to support humaninstitutions over twenty years ago. We occupied our new buildingin February, 1972 and last Sunday we burned the mortgage noteon it. This opens the way for us to be self-supporting soon. I have preached in meetings at Crossville, AL and Palatine, IL thisspring. In fact, we saw red buds blooming and leaves putting outthree times this year, including here in February, Crossville inMarch-April, and Palatine (Chicago area) the second Sunday in May.

ATTENTION CHRISTIANS IN VAN BUREN — ALMA, ARKANSAS AREA

Families who hold fast the faithful word are needed to move to the Van Buren-Alma, Arkansas area to help in establishing a church. At present there is not a church in Crawford County thatdoes not support the institutions. For further information, write Mrs. R. A. Roe, Route 1, Box 360, Alma, Arkansas 72921. JIMMY TUTEN, 111 S. 19th Court, Dade City, Florida 33525—During the week of June 7-13 I conducted my secondgospel meeting at Richlands, Virginia. Herb Braswell supportshimself and is doing an excellent job of preaching full time for thislittle band of disciples meeting at 203 Henderson Street. Thoughthe membership numbers about 25, they are loyal, devoted and zealous and an inspiration to larger groups. Interest was excellentthroughout with the number increasing Monday night throughSaturday without exception. It was a pleasure being with themagain. I look forward to being with them in the future. Since mylast report on the Dade City work, we have had five restorations.

DEBATE IN ATHENS, ALABAMA

A debate on Bible classes and women teachers will be conducted in the auditorium of the Middle School in Athens, Alabama September 13, 14, 16 and 17. On Monday and Tuesday nights, Hiram Hutto will affirm: The scriptures teach that a local congregation may arrange for the teaching of the word of God tobe done in simultaneous Bible classes, with women teaching someof the classes. Jerry Cutter of Oklahoma City will deny this. On Thursday and Friday nights Jerry Cutter will affirm: The Scriptures teach that an assembly of the church of Christ for thecommunion must use only one cup (literal drinking vessel) in thedistribution of the fruit of the vine. Hiram Hutto will deny this.Carroll Sutton is to moderate for Hiram Hutto while Bobby Pepperwill moderate for Jerry Cutter.

DEBATE IN WARREN, ARKANSAS

Hubert C. Wilson of the south Martin St. church of Christ met Marvin Hicks of the United Pentecostal Church in Corpus Cristi,Texas in a debate in Warren, Arkansas August 2, 3, 4 and 5. The debate covered the subjects of the Godhead, Holy Spirit Baptismand Tongue Speaking today. We are sorry we did not get thisnotice in time to announce it before the debate took place.

WORD FROM GUTHRIE AND MURIEL DEAN Nashville, Tennessee—After two trips to the hospital and open heart surgery, I am up again and back into the work as ofJuly. The Lord and the brethren have been mighty good to us.The people of Franklin Road have been extremely kind andgenerous. They have borne the major part of the expenses; eventhough churches and individuals from elsewhere have personallyhelped us with bills. In fact, even though all hospital and relatedcosts have still not been tallied, we are happy to announce that weneed no more financial aid for this illness. "Our cup runneth over."

We thank all of you from the depth of our hearts for your love,your interest, your cards, your calls, and your prayers. We are humbled, and felt so unworthy as the "best wishes" came pouringin from many interested friends, including scores of churches andfellow-preachers. If we can ever be of service to any of you, in anyway, and at any time, please call on us. Continue to pray forMuriel and me that the Lord may have further work for us to doin His kingdom here below. We have such a good God, and wecertainly want to leave this world prepared to meet him. And inas much as possible, we want to be at peace with all men, whenthat time comes. Thanks again, and may God richly bless each ofyou. And thanks again, Lord.JACK GIBBERT, Route 4, Box 66, Newport, NC 28570—Afteralmost 7 years with the church in Virginia Beach, VA I havemoved to work with the church in Newport, NC. Doug Lyle of Richmond, VA follows me in the work at Virginia Beach. Brother Lyell's address and phone number will be the same as ours hasbeen for the past 7 years, so please put him on your bulletin mailing list.IRVEN LEE, P.O. Box 866, Hartselle, Alabama 35640—As of July 1, 1976 I have decided to accept no more invitations forgospel meetings out of this immediate area except on rare andunusual occasions. I do not plan to cancel the meetings that Ihave already promised. It has not been easy to make this decisionbecause meetings have always been very pleasant efforts for me.There has been no further set back in health since the heart attack and heart surgery of 1974, from which I have made satisfactoryrecovery. I just do not have the strength to do proper local workand be away part of the time in meetings.GARY HARGIS, Box 715, Byron, Minnesota 55920—The pasttwo months has been a time of elation here. We have had six baptisms and three restorations. One we are especially proud of isPat Johnson's husband, Jerry. Pat was one of the originalmembers here. She wrote a much questioned letter that brought us here in the beginning. Many preachers who read her articlewere upset at it because of her bluntness. The membership is now34 with attendance 46-50. Contributions last month with five Sundays was $950. We have purchased a lot on which to buildand plan to start next April. If you know of anyone with moneyto lend on church bonds please contact me as soon as possible. Wewill pay 8% interest on such bonds. Three months ago two families left us to start meeting in Red Wing (50 miles north of

Page 15

here). They have had 4 baptisms and 3 restorations lately bringing their total to 23. Two of the members are doing the preaching.

DEATHS RUSSELL H. PARKS—It is with deep sorrow that we report theuntimely death of Russell H. Parks, preacher for the church inTerre Haute, Indiana. Funeral services were conducted in South Bend, Indiana by the writer on March 15. He began preachinglate in life and desired to work with a small church that could provide a place to live while he lived on his retirement income. InOctober, 1975 he began work with Central church in Terre Haute.On March 4 he was returning home when he became sick.Stepping from his car to the sidewalk, he was attacked and brutally beaten by some one or ones who placed him in his car anddrove him to another part of town, taking his billfold and leavinghim paralyzed from the neck down. Some 12 hours later a child heard his call for help and summoned assistance who took him tothe hospital. He passed away one week after the brutal attack.Our sympathy is expressed to all his family. His cheery smile andencouraging words will long be remembered. —Cecil Belcher, South Bend, IndianaMAJOR R. QUALLS—We lament the loss of Major R. Quails, afaithful Christian and an elder of the Boston Street congregationin Aurora, Colorado. Although we weep over his loss, we rejoice over the fond memories of this saint. He departed this life on May27, 1976 and funeral services were conducted by this writer, May29, assisted by Roy H. Lanier, Jr. and John Flannery. MajorQuails was born in Hillsboro, Texas in 1895, one of twelvechildren. He met Myrtle Thompson in 1923 at the old SouthDenver church in Denver, Colorado and they were married. Tothis union were born two children: Richard and Norma Jean. Richard Quails serves as one of our deacons at Boston Street. TheQuails family attended the Sherman Street church in Denver until1954 when Boston Street had its beginning and they beganmeeting with it.Major Quails had served as an elder at Sherman Street and wasserving as one of the elders at Boston Street in Aurora at the timeof his death. He was generous, always ready to help those whowere in need and he spent much time studying the word of God.He was an encouragement to me as a gospel preacher and J. C. Moody and I, who presently remain as elders at Boston Street,will miss his counsel. Our work at Boston Street continues to be pleasant and fruitful.We have just concluded a good vacation Bible school. This churchpresently aids in the financial support of four gospel preachers inaddition to me, and commitments are made for the support ofsome additional men. We have many visitors from all over the nation. When in Colorado visit us at 1297 Boston Street in Aurora.—Hoyt Houchen, Aurora, Colorado.JAMES W. MIDDLETON, SR.—At the age of 75 years, thisbeloved brother departed this life June 11, 1976 at Kermit, Texaswhere he had preached the last two years for the Parkview church.He died of lung cancer. Brother Middleton and I labored together in the states of California, Oregon and Texas and were closepersonal friends. He was a lover of poetry, and had composed

several poems, some of which were published, not the least ofwhich was the Book of Genesis in poetry and the Book of Acts inpoetry. But he will be best remembered for his great love for thetruth and his insatiable desire to preach and teach it. His body was interred June 14, 1976 in the Rosemont Burial Park inWichita Falls, Texas —Choice L. Bryant, Arlington, Texas

PREACHERS NEEDED ANCHORAGE, ALASKA—The church in Anchorage needs a full-time gospel preacher to work with a growing and stable congregation. The meeting house is paid for. Attendance averages100 or more. We are able to furnish full support. We would prefera man around 35, married, who would agree to work with us for at

least three years. If interested, write to Dwayne Lee, Box 20,Caryboo Street, Eagle River, Alaska 99577.WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA—This small congregation is

looking for a full-time preacher who can supply or locate much ofhis own support. Some congregations in the area may help.Contact: Ed Fielding, 5166 Laird Lane, Jupiter, FL 33458. Phone

(305) 746-0343. COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA—The Lower Richland church in Columbia is in dire need of a preacher. He must bring the majority of his support. Columbia is the capital of SouthCarolina. The church meets in a small but new brick building on a 12/3 acre plot and will be debt free by January, 1977. If interested

please write or call: Ernest W. Porter, 7268 Fontana Dr., Columbia,SC 29209. Phone (803) 776-2229.

TUNBRIDGE WELLS, ENGLAND—The church in Tunbridge

Wells, England is looking for a preacher willing to come here andhelp us. We have our own 12 year old building which is free ofdebt. There are 12 local members with 2-3 who meet with us as possible. At present there are three American families in membership with us. We in turn help where possible in a smallchurch in Brighton (Sussex) of 8 members, and Kentish Town,London where R. B. Scott preaches. Two preachers (and family) have helped here over the past 6-7 years. Fred Melton was herefrom 1971-74 and then in Bristol for 8-9 months. Since February,1974, Billy Murrell has been here. They are returning to the U.S.A.in mid-September. There is a desperate need for preachersthroughout England and especially in the Southeast. There is a population of several million within a 30 mile radius and just twosmall congregations. Who can help? Who can come? Churches ofthe New Testament order go back over 170 years in the UnitedKingdom. At present there are about 70 churches, mainly in theMidlands and North. Basically they are conservative but with agrowing influx of liberal support and preachers from the states,there is a growing tendency to become more addicted to liberalideas. Anyone interested should contact: Derek L. Daniell, 34 North Farm Road, Tunbridge Wells, Kent TN2 3XD, England.JULIAN R. SNELL, 4724 E. Manslick Rd., Louisville, KY 40219 — I need the following back issues of SEARCHING THE SCRIPTURES to complete my set and will pay a reasonable pricefor these: Volume I. Numbers 1, 2, and 3 (January, February andMarch, 1960); Volume VI, Number 4 (April, 1965), Volume XI,Number 3 (March, 1970).