"SPURIOUS LIBERALITY"

Since the beginning of the Restoration movement,preachers have flooded the nation with religiousjournals of every size and kind. Many of these havedone much good, yet, all of them at times have comeunder sharp criticism from able and reflective brethren. The strictures have not always been justified, nor completely free of prejudice, jealousy orulterior motive, but in general they have served auseful purpose. Papers, religious and otherwise, areno less afflicted by human frailty than the men whopublish, edit and contribute to them. Constructive criticism is healthy for all concerned, and stingingreviews have been known to hit their mark well with force and effectiveness for good.

Harvey W. Everest, author of The Divine Demonstration, was head of the "Bible Department"of Drake University and a member of the progressivewing of the church when he died in 1900. Near theend of his life, when he had time to give seriousattention to papers published by the brethren, he wasdisturbed by what he found. He was probably morefamiliar with the liberal publications which most ofthem were at the time. But even though his own position in the brotherhood tilted to the left, he wasnevertheless anxious to see brethren hold to the truth without veering to extreme in either direction.

"In perusing our religious periodicals—morefrequently now than in former years," he wrote, "I find what seems to me a kind of spurious liberality.(Everest apparently used "liberality" here to mean freedom of action within the limits of divine truth, but he regarded claims for liberality beyond that as"spurious," or illegitimate. EK) It is often like whatwe find among the broad-gauged religionists, whoseem willing to give up, or hold in doubt, nearly every vital doctrine of Christianity—the validity of prophecy, the fact of miracles, the real divinity of ourLord, the inspiration and reliability of the Scriptures,the possibility of a place formerly called hell, thereality of regeneration, the necessity of church membership and the decisions of a final judgment-day. Not that any of our 'scribes' or 'Pharisees' would go that far, but they seem to be traveling inthis direction. . .

"We may stand so perpendicular as to lean backward. We may magnify differences, and widen the chasms which separate the churches. An extreme and indefensible position is a source of weakness. Of course, editors, and other writers of influence, need to be cautious. But the best and safestway is this: That we look neither to the right nor to theleft, but try to be right; try to 'speak the truth in love.' This is not only the honest course, but also the bestpolicy, for a half-way position is partly in the enemies' country, and is easily assailed. If a few writers are representative of our brotherhood, we seem to be weakening on several subjects once thought to befirmly established." (Alanson Wilcos, A History of the Disciples of Christ in Ohio, pp. 76, 78).

If Everest had lived a few more years, he would have found that some of the "scribes" whose writings bothered him continued to move in the direction he thought they were headed. Many of themcame to deny the "vital doctrines of Christianity"which course was formerly the preserve of "broad-gauged religionists." Yet, Everest himself had unwittingly encouraged the wayward travelers byendorsing a loose application of the noble principleshe so ably expounded.

An oft-repeated lesson the advocates of "spurious liberality" never seem to learn is that digression is never static. The men and papers that unleashed institutionalism and its kindred evils upon the churchin more recent years, now find themselves in thethroes of a full-blown apostasy. They are witnessing arapid disintegration of the church as they have known it. Some of them are going to their graves

Page 2

weeping over a departure from the faith which theyfathered and nurtured to maturity, but lacking the courage to acknowledge their mistake and completelypowerless to corral the stampede toward denominationalism that began when they carelessly

spooked the herd with their "no-pattern" lightning and institutional thunder. Could it be that we, too, are making the same tragic mistake?

FIRST PURE, THEN PEACEABLE

James drew a sharp contrast between wisdom fromabove and that which is from the earth. "But if yehave bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth. This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish. For where envying and strife is, there isconfusion and every evil work. But the wisdom thatis from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle,and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and goodfruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace ofthem that make peace" (Jas. 3:14-18).

It is the responsibility of children of God to hateevil, do good, seek peace and ensue it (1 Pet. 3:11). Ifpossible, we are to "live peaceably with all men" (Rom. 12:18). The fruit of the Spirit is "love, joy,peace" among other things (Gal. 5:22). As James said, a spirit of envy and strife with bitterness is"earthly, sensual, devilish." A factious, contentiousspirit is evermore condemned in the word of God.

Peace At Any Price?

There is such a longing for peace within some, thatthey are willing to sacrifice principle to have it. Inthe political realm, many a nation has traded its freedom and sacrificed its honor in order to appease some tyrant. We speak respectfully of the courage ofa Patrick Henry who wanted to know if peace was"so dear" as to be purchased at the "price of chains."

In the spiritual realm, every conflict and eventualdivision over unauthorized practices could have beenaverted had the opponents of error been willing tosilence their consciences, hold their tongues, acceptthe error, and bask in the peace of a false and emptysecurity and unanimity. The advocates of instrumental music, missionary societies, Premillennialism, sponsoring churches,institutionalism and what have you, wanted peaceON THEIR TERMS. They wanted no opposition.They branded the objectors as "troublers of Israel."It never seems to occur to innovators that they bearany responsibility whatever for spiritual warfare.

That such conflicts are sometimes necessary is emphasized by the fact that children of God are oftenpictured as soldiers armed for battle. If the Lord meant for us to have peace at any price, then whydid he tell us to "Put on the whole armour of God,that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of thedevil" (Eph. 6:11)? The gospel of peace must be advanced and defended by those who are "girt aboutwith truth" and who have on "the breastplate of righteousness" (Eph. 6:14-15). Doctrinal purity and moral uprightness must be found in concert in thelives of all who successfully wrestle against "spiritualwickedness in high places" (Eph. 6:12).

Determining What Is Pure

Since the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, we can never enjoy the peaceable fruits ofrighteousness unless we are able to determine what ispure. The underlying implication of divine revelationis that man is capable of comprehending it. God hasspoken unto man (Heb. 1:1-2). But he did us no favorat all if we are unable to understand what he said. Paul said he wrote what was revealed to him in words "whereby when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ" (Eph. 3:3-4).

Of late, a number of us have written to caution brethren against creating divisions over matters of private conscience. The warnings are needed. But there is another danger which we dare not ignore. Wemust not leave the impression that truth cannot bediscovered on any subject on which God has expressed his mind. Deadly compromises are beingpromoted, not only in the realm of doctrine, but inmorals as well. We have apologists for adultery,social drinking, immodest attire, dancing and youname it. Moral purity in the family, the most basic ofall human ties, is being compromised by the advocates of permissiveness in the matter of marriage,divorce and remarriage. Able, faithful and godly men have been abused and branded as radical partisansfor defending God's standard of purity in such matters.

The advocates of permissive moral behaviour are

not silent. They have been working to spread the

leaven of unrighteousness. Now, is peace so dear as

to be maintained only at the expense of moral

integrity? First, let us determine what is pure,

resolve to follow that, and then we can enjoy the

peaceable fruit which will inevitably follow in its

wake. Peace with God will enable us to promote

righteousness. Peace with the world will alienate us

from God and promote that which is earthly, sensual

and devilish.

——— o ———————

THE ADAMS — INMAN DEBATE

My debate with Clifton Inman is over. It was conducted May 29-June 2 at Middlebourne, West Virginia before an audience of brethren who came from twelve states. The use of closed circuit television enabled those who could not find a seat in the auditorium to see and hear on monitors placed inthe classrooms and in an adjoining garage. Brother Inman is a gentleman and the debate was conducted on a high plane with no ill-will expressed on eitherside. As has been true in most of the debates on the issues we discussed, very few preachers attended who stood with brother Inman. We did have a number of area people from congregations either "liberal" or "onthe fence". While we leave it to others to assess the outcome, it is my persuasion that a great amount ofgood was done. J. Wiley Adams, my brother in the flesh, served as moderator the first two nights.Sickness in his family required his returning home

Page 4

before it was over and my son, Wilson Adams moderated for me the last two nights. He is workingwith Rodney Miller and the Par Street church in Orlando, Florida. Wiley will write a brief review ofthe debate for Searching the Scriptures. HOW MANY OF THE SPECIAL DO YOU NEED? Have you placed your order yet for enough copies of ourAugust special on "The Church—Issues Old and New" for every family in the congregation to haveone? Do you have enough to give to your friendsor relatives who worship with congregations which have followed after the errors of institutionalism and its attendant practices? This 32-page special issomething you will want to keep for future referenceand study. See the ad elsewhere for subjects, writersand prices.

EXPLANATION AND APPRECIATION

On August 17, 1967, brother H. E. Phillips, then owner and editor of Searching the Scriptures, called to invite me to become a regular writer for the paper.Due to my appreciation for him and the work he wasdoing, and my desire to take advantage of everyopportunity to do all the good I can while I live onthis earth, I humbly and gratefully accepted the responsibility.

When brother Connie Adams became owner and editor in 1973, he requested that I continue to helpwith the paper. In 1974, I was asked to become the editor of the Gospel Guardian which I did with the first issue dated November 1. I continued the work until September 1, 1975, when the paper was soldand a new editor was selected.

I had published a small monthly paper called The Sower as a work of the church since January of 1955,but had discontinued it when I began the work withthe Gospel Guardian. When the Guardian changecame, my son, Olen, and I decided to revive theSower as a 16-page monthly paper on a subscriptionbasis. This continued with good success for two years (1976-77). For several reasons, we and the elders ofthe Arch Street church of Christ in Little Rock judged it expedient and profitable for the Sower to again become a work of the church. Since January ofthis year, it has been published as an 8-page monthlyand sent free to all who request it. It is having agood influence in thousands of homes across America.

When brother Connie Adams heard of our new plans, he called immediately to invite me to return tothe pages of Searching the Scriptures—and here I am. It is a genuine pleasure to once again be associated with Connie and the other able and faithful brethren who are responsible for this paper and thematerial therein. They are some of the best men inthe church today, and I love and appreciate all ofthem.

In a special way, I appreciate the work of and association with Connie Adams. His faith is strong,his knowledge of truth is excellent, his observationsof conditions in the world and the church are adequate to the task before him, his convictions arenot for sale, and his life and integrity are beyond reproach. For many years I have appreciated hisknowledge, judgment and ability, and I'm sure that thousands of you join me in this expression of confidence and appreciation.

What about my new heading? Well, Ken Green has

Page 5

my old column heading and is doing such a good jobthat neither Connie nor I would ask him to give itback. That meant that I had to get me a new heading. Connie pretty well left it up to me, so longas I didn't conflict with the other regular writers, andthe decision was not easy.

We all understand what "problems" and "principles" are, but what about that "potpourri"? Ifyou are not familiar with the word, and don't look itup in the dictionary, you won't even pronounce itright. The word simply means: "a medley or mixture."But, you say, "That will allow you to write aboutnearly any thing." Exactly! Why do you think I chosethat heading?

Our approach will be a simple one. Whatever we write about (and our column will usually contain several short subjects), we will state the problem and then show the principle of truth which was violatedto create the problem. In other words, we will analyze the problem and give the solution—which is the responsibility of any teacher and especially a gospelpreacher. We will deal with problems and principlesin society, government, the religious world, and thechurch.

As is true with the editor and all of the writers, wemust work this responsibility into a busy schedule. I must edit and prepare the Sower each month, preachfor the Arch Street church, serve as one of the elders,publish a church bulletin, conduct a radio program,and preach in about ten gospel meetings each year. Imay not be able to get material to the editor eachmonth, especially for the next few months, but Ishall do the best that I can under the circumstances.

As you know, this is a good paper. It deserves oursupport in every way. We can, and I'm confident will, increase the circulation and thus the influencefor good. If we will all work, we can soon reach intoat least ten thousand homes each month. If you don'tthink we can, hide and watch us!

I'm thankful for the privilege of returning to thepages of this journal, and pray God's blessings uponall of our efforts to serve Him. There is so much to be done—and the time is running out!

THE GRACE—FELLOWSHIP ISSUE—No; 3 UNITY IN DIVERSITY—ROMANS 14

The title of this lesson has long been used by those of the NEW UNITY MOVEMENT (NUM) to identify both the spirit and the basis of its plea. Theidea is that sincere brethren in error remain in fellowship with God and should, therefore, remain infellowship with all others who are in fellowship withGod. In spite of some differences and error on thepart of sincere brethren, all remain as one—hence,unity in diversity. The expression is applied by the NUM to matters involving both individual and church action.

While I use the expression in the title of this lessonto identify both of these areas of action, I insist thatneither enjoys unity in diversity to the exclusion of the other. This simply means that Christians must beunited in church action while at the same time theymay differ in certain matters involving individual action. To apply the expression equally and exclusively to each area would involve a contradiction of terms. Such might identify a state of union in diversity—But not unity in diversity. I believe that the fourteenth chapter of Romans authorizes an area of tolerance, but that this area isdefinite, certain, and limited. Here the NUM is in error again, namely, it fails to recognize these divinelimitations. Furthermore, the NUM, based upon Rom. 14:4,5,13,17,19 teaches that brethren ought to avoid the "judgemental spirit" in the realm of"doctrinal instruction" (See paragraph 3, Article No.2). There is, therefore, an urgent need for a studyof this chapter and the divinely authorized area oftolerance with all its limitations.

GENERAL VIEW OF ROMANS 14

The thrust of this chapter is to show brethren whodiffer in certain matters how to fellowship with eachother in spite of such differences. In an effort to attain this end three primary matters are discussed,namely, clarity of conscience, individual action, andoffending a brother.

Concerning clarity of conscience, this chapter teaches that such is necessary on the part of everyChristian (vs. 5,22,23; Cf. 1 Tim. 1:5); that suchmust be respected by all, otherwise one is "destroyed for whom Christ died" (v. 15). The word "faith" (v.23) is used in the sense of a clear conscience. I knowthat "faith cometh by hearing. . . the word" (Rom.

10:17), and that whatsoever cannot be heard in God'sword is sin, but that is not the meaning of "faith" inthis verse. Here it is used to identify one's being fully-persuaded in his own mind (v. 5); one's lack of doubt

(v. 23), and one's not condemning himself in thatwhich he does (v. 22). To act otherwise is to sin!Why? Because he has violated his conscience, he wasnot persuaded in his own mind, he acted in doubt,and condemned himself in that which was done. He did not act believing in his own mind that it wasright. All of this simply means that a clear conscienceis an absolute requirement of all. One may be wrongfor other reasons, even with a clear conscience (Acts23:1), but one thing is certain: one is always wrongwhen he violates his conscience.

While a clear conscience is necessary, it is not always a safe guide. In fact, it is not the province ofconscience to guide. Briefly, it may be said that conscience is a power within us that urges us to dowhat we understand to be right. One may be lacking in an understanding of truth (hence, "weak in the faith"—v. 1), but conscience will not urge ahead of hisknowledge. Sometimes it is said that "conscience is acreature of education." No, we are the creature of education. When we learn more, don't worry aboutconscience, it will act immediately—urging us up tothe point of our knowledge.

There is a necessary conclusion that follows fromthe above. The judging that is forbidden in this chapter must relate to matters of individual action, otherwise there could be no differences amongbrethren and each maintain a clear conscience at the same time. If group action be involved, and somebrother conscientiously opposed the action, he wouldhave no alternative but to violate his conscience or to refuse to participate therein. That is why differencesinvolving church action have and do divide churches,e.g., instrumental music in worship, church supportof human institutions, the sponsoring church arrangement, the social gospel concept of the mission of the church, etc. On the other hand differences involving only individual action do not or should notdivide, e.g., the covering of 1 Cor. 11, the "war question," the observance of Christmas as a nationalholiday, etc. One may keep such to himself—practicesuch individually—and at the same time continue inevery function of the church with those who differ onsuch matters and neither violate their conscience.

Not only does this limitation to individual mattersfollow from what is taught about conscience, Paulteaches as much very plainly in verse four: "Who artthou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand." In other words no one else is involved with this brother in the act under consideration—he stands or he falls alone—unto his own master. Thus, Paul identifies the area of diversity in which we are to leave off judgingone another, namely, individual action. This simply means that the NUM perverts these verses on judging and is in error when it applies the same tomatters involving church action.

Paul is teaching in this chapter that while Christians may differ in individual matters, personaland private views—all of which are to be had to one's self (v. 22—not binding it upon others), the churchmay continue united in all that God has given it todo. This is the meaning of verse seventeen: "For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost." The context shows that in this verse "meat and drink" identify matters of individual action. Suchare not kingdom business or church functions. Hence,while Christians may differ over such matters, they continue in kingdom or church matters in "righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost."

ISSUES IN ROMANS 14

The issues of Romans 14 involved differences among brethren, "for God hath received him" (v. 3).Those who differed had been received of God. To apply what is said here to differences about how tobecome a Christian or to be received of God is to misapply truth. The differences among brethrenconcerned the eating of meats (perhaps, sacrificed toidols, or clean or unclean according to the law ofMoses), herbs, days, drinks, and perhaps other ordinances of Judaism.

Some, perhaps, are ready to ask, Do not Acts

15:29 and 1 Cor. 8:8; Rom. 14:2,3 contradict eachother? No, in the former, Paul condemns meat eating"with conscience of the idol" (1 Cor. 8:7). This would be wrong in either instance. In the latter referencesPaul approves only when eaten without "conscienceof the idol," when in compliance with other principlesof expediency, and when done individually—not binding it upon others. Some may also think that Gal. 4:10,11 and Rom. 14:5 contradict each other. However, a closer look shows the former to involve group action and an effort to bind upon others, whilethe latter involves only individual action. This showsagain how wrong the NUM is in applying Rom. 14 tomatters involving church action.

MATTERS OF INDIFFERENCE

Some would ask, Is this area of tolerance also limited to matters of indifference? Some think so based upon what Paul said about eating meat in 1Cor. 8:8. While it is true that the issues named in Romans 14 fall into that category, I find difficulty inso limiting it and in making application to presentday issues. This difficulty appears again in the lightof all that is here taught.

In the first place, where is the issue among brethren—even of an individual nature—that is not regarded by one or the other as a matter of faith? Ifboth understood the issue to be one of indifference,there would be no issue of any consequence. On the other hand, according to this view, if one understand the issue to be a matter of faith, Romans 14 does not apply. This view makes Romans 14 worthless so far as present issues are concerned.

In the second place, Paul did not tell the

vegetarian, who regarded the eating of meat a matter

of faith, to "judge not" because it was a matter of

indifference, but rather because it was an individual

matter (v. 4). While Paul later identified the issue in

this instance to be a matter of indifference (v. 14), he

did so not as a basis upon which to settle the issue,

but to show that one may "offend" even in matters

that are right in themselves. The basis for settling the issue is stated in verse 4.

In the next place, if Paul limited the "judge not" to matters of indifference, How could one ever "standeth or falleth" (v. 4) in such matters? Bothwould be standing though one would not know it.This verse recognizes the possibility of one in a fallencondition being made able (through the providence ofGod) to stand in time to come, and that the churchneed not divide over such.

CONCLUSION

Let no one conclude that every error of an individual nature falls within this area of tolerance. Obviously, sins of immorality, plainly revealed elsewhere, are not to be fellowshiped. I conclude thatthe only area of diversity permitted among Gods saints involves individual matters on the part of theconscientious, and that such must be kept to ones self (v. 22— no binding upon others). Furthermore, inall kingdom matters or church functions, we must all be one. This makes possible our keeping "the unity ofthe Spirit in the bond of peace" (Eph. 4:3), and ourmaintaining the kingdom in ' 'righteousness, andpeace, and joy in the Holy Ghost" (Rom. 14:17).

(EDITOR'S NOTE: We are happy to introduce to our readers Mackey Harden who works with the church in Wilmington, North Carolina. This is his'first full-time work in gospel preaching after havingcompleted his education. He has chosen a very needy

'field of labor and from all accounts is acquitting himself ably. He was in a gospel meeting with thechurch at Rivermont, Virginia last fall.)

EVADING RESPONSIBILITY

If I try to "evade" something, I am trying to get outof doing it. Random House College Dictionary deniesthe word "evade" as follows: (1) to escape from bytrickery or cleverness. (2) to avoid doing or fulfilling.

(3) to elude or get away by craft or slyness. Let's keep this definition in mind as we turn our thoughts to "evading responsibility" toward God Almighty.

In the book of Exodus we read the story of Moses ashe was chosen by God to lead the children of Israel outof Egyptian bondage. At first, Moses did not want any part of the great responsibility that God wanted to givehim. Moses evaded his responsibility toward God.Even though on several occasions God told Moses hewas with him (and gave him signs to prove it), Mosesstill evaded his responsibility. In Exodus 4: 14-17, the Bible tells us that "the anger of the Lord was kindled against Moses!" Moses had just made another excuse to God and told him that he was "slow of speech, and of a slow tongue" (vs. 10). Moses was continually evading his responsibility toward God.

Fortunately, this chain of events was to soon change. It seems to me, that as time went by, Mosesgradually accepted more of his responsibility, until finally, he was not making excuses at all. From Exodus 14: 13-14, we read where Moses had now developed into the responsible leader that God had wanted all along. As the children of Israel find the Egyptian soldiers in pursuit of them, they turn andsee they are trapped by the Red Sea. Moses boldlysays to the people, "Fear ye not, stand still, and see the salvation of the Lord. . . ." (vs. 13). Moses had indeed changed his attitude toward the great responsibility that he had as the leader of the children of Israel. He isn't evading his responsibilityanymore; he isn't making excuses to God any longer.He is the forceful, conscientious leader that he should be.

I believe all Christians today can learn some important lessons from the life of Moses, as he

habitually made excuses to God, and evaded his responsibility. We might very well ask ourselves some very important questions. Are we as Christianstoday making excuses to God? Do we continuouslyevade our responsibilities? Do we give excuses suchas Moses did? I believe that many Christians in thisday and time are not fulfilling their responsibility tothe Lord. We need to all be busy in the Lord's kingdom trying to save lost souls. Are we spendingas much time toward this as we should be? Or, do welet material things take priority over it. Are we serving the Lord and cheerfully fulfilling our dutiesas his children? Yes, I'm convinced that many of us need to "wake up" as Moses did, and grow andmature as we try to fulfill our responsibility to God.

I'm also convinced that if gospel preachers aren't careful, we can also evade our responsibility to theLord. Some preachers today become too involved inthings that hinder them from doing their full-timework. Brethren, this ought not to be! Paul admonished the young preacher Timothy in 1 Tim. 4:12, "be thou an example of the believers, inword, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith,in purity." Are those of us who are preachers setting the proper example? Or, are we evadingour responsibility along these lines. Paul told Timothyin vs. 15, "Meditate upon these things; give thyselfwholly to them." Are we giving ourselves "wholly"to the Lord and his work? If not, we may be guiltyas was Moses and make excuses to God, and in so doing evade our responsibility as preachers and proclaimers of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Yes, preachers need to be careful too. If we are supportedwith the Lord's money, we need to be busy doing afull-time job.

The Lord wants all of us to give him whole-heartedallegiance. Paul told the Colossians in chapter 3: 23,"And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to theLord, and not unto men." Let's not always be making excuses to God. We live in a society today inwhich making excuses is very prevalent. People makeexcuses to get out of doing just about everything,which includes serving God. As children of God, let's not get caught-up in this modern generation in whichpeople are constantly evading responsibilities of everykind.

Remember, Moses changed his attitude and quitevading his responsibility to God. If we are evading ours we can change just as Moses did. We can't evade our responsibility to the Lord and be foundpleasing in his sight. Let us think seriously on these things.

WHEN YOU MOVE be sure to send us your change of address. We must have your old address as well as the new one. This will save us money and will keep you from missing a single issue.

THE INACCURATE JEANE DIXON

Edmond Burke well said, "Superstition is the religion of the feeble minded." Newspapers give the names of many psychics but Jeane Dixon of Washington, D.C. is probably the best known. Webster defines a "psychic" as "a person apparentlysensitive to non-physical forces; esp. Spiritualism, onecapable of serving as a medium" (page 682).

Claims

What Jeane and others claim for her is very interesting. She claims in Life Magazine, Oct. 8, 1965,page 6, that her visions are divine and very sacred.On the first unnumbered page of her book, My Life And Prophecies, it is said, "Mrs. Dixon receives revelations which cannot be passed off with rationalexplanations or lucky guesses." On the third unnumbered page of the book, A Gift Of Prophecy,one said this book is "the most important book aboutprecognition (prophecy) ever written." That should tell us what she and others think of the Bible — God's book of prophecy. Of Jeane, Ruth Montgomery says of her "visions apparently liftthe curtain on tomorrow in much the same manner as did those Old Testament prophets" (A Gift of Prophecy, page 14). Montgomery further says, "sheis not infallible" and says she "made a few forecaststhat failed to occur" (Ibid., page x). In My Life and Prophecies, Jeane says in the "Author's Note" before page 1, "as God spoke through the prophets so doesHe convey a message through each one of us." Thus,she puts herself on a par with the prophets of God.In the same book, she further says "I believe that alike spirit that worked through Biblical prophetsIsaiah and John the Baptist works through some of us. It is a reactivation of that similar power that hasgiven me the inspiration for my revelations" (page 1).Again, in the same book, on pages 6 and 7, it is said,"Jeane Dixon. . .holds that it is only God's spirit, working through her, that is responsible for her visions and prophecies" and in answer to "under what influence did the prophets of old speak?" quotes"'For the prophecy came not in old time by the willof man; but holy men of God spake as they weremoved by the Holy Ghost.' 2 Peter 1:21." Claiming to be a prophet, who receives revelations from Godand that the spirit that moved Old Testament prophets moves her, on page 9 the question is raised"What general rule is laid down for testing allprophets?" The answer given is "To the law and tothe testimony: If they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." Isaiah 8:20." Thus, Jeane agrees that if a prophet doesnot "speak according to this word, it is because thereis no light in them." She defines "a revelation is God's hand resting on me, revealing what is to takeplace" (Ibid., page 59) and says "whatever God reveals in these revelations must come to pass" [Ibid., page 60).

God said, through Moses, "And if thou say inthine heart, How shall we know the word which the Lord hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh inthe name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, not come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken itpresumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him"(Deut. 18:21-22).

Admitted, "Jean made a few forecasts that failed to occur . . . . she is not infallible" (A Gift of Prophecy, page x). When Jeane says something willhappen and then it does not, she has her 'out.' She claims there is a difference in "prophecy" and "forecast" or "prediction." She says that "prophecy"is "of the will of God and will always come to pass"(The Daily News Journal, Murfreesboro, Tenn., June23, 1976, page 1) and she gives as an example ofprophecy the death of John Kennedy (Birmingham News, Punch section, April 22, 1976, page 22). She says of "forecast" or "prediction" it "can changebecause it is of the minds of men and will change astheir thoughts do" (The Daily News Journal, June 23, 1976, page 1) and she gives as an example of'prediction' the deaths of Robert Kennedy and MartinLuther King (Birmingham News, Punch section, April 2, 1976, page 22). Again, she says, "The deathsof Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Senator Robert

F. Kennedy were given me though telepathy, not through revelation, and need not have taken place ifthe events surrounding these two people had been altered" (My Life and Prophecy, page 60). What she fails to tell us is how events around two deaths could be altered, yet events around another death could notbe altered.

John Godwin stated the truth when he said, "Nearly all of her famous predictions were made privately and only revealed after they allegedly cameto pass" (Occult America, page 31).

On the back cover of her book, A Gift of Prophecy, it says "Her predictions have been so incrediblyaccurate that Presidents and Prime Ministers have come to her for guidance." The National Enquirer, July 20, 1976, page 37, says she has "pinpoint-accurate prophecies." She says, "It was the widespread publicity following my prophecy of thedeath of President John F. Kennedy, however, thatmade me well known both here and abroad" (MyLife and Prophecy, page 26). My history teacher in1956 called attention to the fact that every Presidentsince 1860 had died in office, if he were elected in twenty year intervals, like 1860, 1880, 1900, 1920,1940, 1960. If this means anything, one could "predict" that the President taking office in 1980 willdie in office. This is all Jeane did.

Let us look at her predictions that have been so"incredibly" and "pinpoint-accurate."

(1) Johnson President in 1968. In The Herald- News, Jan. 27, 1968, Jeane said President Johnson would receive the Democratic nomination for President. President Johnson said on March 31, 1968, "I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as yourPresident" (U.S. News and World Report, April 15, 1968). Senator Hubert Humphrey was the 1968 Democratic nominee. "When a prophet speaketh inthe name of the Lord, if the thing follow not. . .thatis the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but theprophet hath spoken presumptuously" (Dt. 18:22). (2) Johnson To Be Statesman. In her Sep tember, 1969 book, My Life and Prophecies she said of President Johnson "He will make a greater markon history as an elder statesman than he made asPresident. . ." (page 166). President Johnson died Jan. 22, 1973. (See Dt. 18:22). (3) Russia First To Moon. Jeane said, "Russia will be the first nation to put a man on the moon" (AGift of Prophecy, page 186). The United States putthe first man on the moon on July 20, 1969. (See Dt.18:22). (4) Bishop Pike. Of the Episcopal Bishop Pikeof California she said in her September, 1969 book,My Life and Prophecy, that the "clergy" was not where Pike would remain. "He will eventually becomesuccessful in another field" and "I see that he will lose his frustrations in his new vocation" (page 165).Pike died in Palestine on Sept. 7, 1969, the month her book came out. (5) Kissinger To Resign. In the National Enquirer, July 20, 1976, page 37, she said "Kissingerwill have major disagreements with Pres. Ford and resign." He did not. (See Dt. 18:22). (6) Vietnam War. On May 7, 1966, she said this war "would end in ninety days, but not on our terms" (Prophecy In Our Times, Ebon Martin, page 195), yet she said, "In every speech I have madeduring the past few years I have stated that thiswar would continue" (My Life and Prophecies, page 148). (See Dt. 18:22). (7) Jackie Kennedy. Jeane said in The Herald -News, on October 19, 1968, Jackie Kennedy would not marry. The next day she married Aristotle Onassis. However, Jeane claims "she was the victim ofediting in New York City where the word "not" was inserted without consulting her. She said she predicted the marriage, and that editors "played tricks on me before" (The Birmingham News, Punch section, April 2, 1976, page 22). If that were true,that is some prediction — one day before. (8) Castro Out of Cuba. In her column for "prophecies for 1970" she said, "Fidel Castro will bephysically removed from Cuba sometime this year"(My Life and Prophecies, page 246). He is still there. (9) Edward Kennedy. In My Life and Prophecy,page 156, she says, "Senator Edward Kennedy willendeavor to capture the 1972 Democratic presidentialnomination" but turns around and says in the samebook on page 245, "He will not seek the 1972 Presidential nomination. If he wished the nomination in 1972, he would certainly get it."

(10) Ford To Resign. Jeane says "Ford. . .will

resign" due to health (National Enquirer, March 30, 1976, page 4). He didn't.

(11) Rockefeller President. When President Ford resigns, Jeane says Vice President Rockefeller will be a "caretaker President" for the "Last months of Ford's term" (National Enquirer, March 30, 1976, page 4). (12) Assassination Attempt on Ford. Jeane says an assassination attempt will be made on President Ford in a "northern city" with him walkingoutside, there will be three shots fired, which will tear his gray suit, but security men will surroundhim and push him down near a fire hydrant. He will be wounded only slightly on his side (National Enquirer, March 30, 1976, page 4). This did not happen. (13) Reagan Only Republican Candidate. Jeane says at the 1976 Republican Convention Ronald Reagan will be the only candidate (National Enquirer, March 30, 1976, page 4). President Ford didn't know this for he showed up as a candidate and took the nomination. (14) Attempt on Reagan. Jeane says an attemptwill be made on the life of Ronald Reagan by a bombplanted in a basement or underground garage (National Enquirer, March 30, 1976, page 4). This didn't happen. (15) Carter and Humphrey at Convention.Our modern prophet "like" Old Testament prophets says at the 1976 Democratic National Convention it will be Jimmy Carter beating off late efforts of Hubert Humphrey and Morris Udall. Carter had no op position. (16) Second Coming. "Prophetess" Jeane "predicted the second coming of Jesus in the century" and "the earth will collide with the sun in another 5,000" (Memphis Commercial Appeal, May 24, 1971) yet she says "sudden destruction and war will occur in 1999" (My Life and Prophecies, page 149).

There is one statement Jeane Dixon has made that everyone should believe—"my predictions do not always come true" (her emphasis, My Life and Prophecies, page 54).

Jeane Dixon has nothing in common with prophetsof Bible days. What they said would come to pass, came to pass, when, where and how they said itwould. They were moved of God to speak (2 Pet.1:20-21) and Jeane is not. God has not revealed matters to Jeane; there are no prophets or prophetesses today (1 Cor. 13:8). She is a false prophetess. God said, "When a prophet speaketh inthe name of the Lord, if the thing follow not . . thatis the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but theprophet hath spoken presumptuously" (Dt. 18:22).

OTHER PREDICTIONS

The National Enquirer, July 5, 1977 on two pagesgives the "predictions for the second half of 1977" by"10 leading psychics." These "leading psychics" "predicted" (1) Jackie Kennedy Onassis will marry,

(2) Elvis Presley will marry — he died August 16, 1977, (3) an attempt will be made to kidnap AmyCarter, (4) Barbara Walters and Fidel Castro will fall inlove and he will come to the United States, (5) severaltop country music stars will die in a plane crash goingto Nashville, (6) President Carter will appoint his wife to a Cabinet post, (7) Dolly Parton will get a newhusband in November, (8) Johnny Carson will quit the"Tonight Show" (9) Donnie and Marie Osmond willsplit up, (10) John Kennedy, Jr. will be kidnapped, (11)Tricia Nixon and husband, Edward Cox, will separate, (12) a Concorde jet will crash at Kennedy Airport, (13) Billy Graham will accept a keypost as adviser to President Carter, and (14) President Carter will narrowly escape death in a boat accident.All of which never came to pass.

PRESENT TRUTH — IMPUTATION

The prolific Methodist preacher, Clovis Chappell,speaks in one of his published sermons of "majoringon minors." He gives the illustration of a pianist,who concentrates on the keys near the middle of theboard, and reaches for those at the extreme ends onlyoccasionally. They are of minor importance.

There are doctrines that the Bible touches on onlyoccasionally. The whole counsel of God must be proclaimed, but a dose of common sense should leadus to understand that we shouldn't major on minors.

I thought of Mr. Chappell's illustration as I read through the back issues of Present Truth magazine. The doctrine of the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the believer's account is the majorrefrain. The editors do not hesitate to call it the principal doctrine of the Bible. Editor Robert Brinsmead says: "Let this central biblical message berestored to its right place, and the Bible will becomeessentially clear."1

This is not really a case of majoring on minors,however. This doctrine does not find even a minor place in scripture. Present Truth keeps reaching for a key that doesn't exist. It's my conviction that there is not a scripture in God's word that teaches the Reformation doctrine of imputation.

PRESENT TRUTH'S TEACHINGON IMPUTATION

Since it is not so much our purpose to examine thedoctrine itself as to review what Present Truth saysabout it, we shall forego quotations from dictionaries,encyclopedias, word studies, etc., and simply setforth the doctrine as it has been ably expressed in the publication under review.2

Present Truth teaches the imputation of Adam'ssin to his descendants: "For if we can confess that we were made sinners by the disobedience of our firstfather, how 'much more' (to use Paul's expression) should we now confess that God has made us righteous and accepted in the Beloved."3

Present Truth teaches the imputation of our sins toChrist: "Q. Why did Jesus, who did no sin, receivethe penalty for sin—death? A. Because our sins wereaccounted to Him. . . Q. When sin was imputed toJesus, how did this affect His standing with God? A.It caused God to reject Him, to withdraw His presence from Him, for God cannot dwell with sinners. . . Q. Would it have been necessary for Jesusto have some sin in Him to merit such utter rejectionby God? A. No. It was sufficient that our sins only beimputed to Him."4

Present Truth teaches the imputation of Christ's perfect obedience to us: As we've indicated, this is the point of great emphasis. Robert Brinsmead writes: " . . . the gospel sets forth Jesus as the believer's only righteousness before God (Jer. 23:6).The sinner is accepted because Jesus is accepted inhis stead; he is declared righteous solely because hissubstitute is righteous". . . "His perfect obedience is credited to the sinner" (Rom. 4:4, 6; 5:18,19) ... "Christ stood in his place and kept the law ofGod for him". . . " . . . the righteousness of Jesuswill go with the believer to judgment and plead hisabundant entrance into the kingdom of glory."5

One of the most amazing statements that I've run across in Present Truth is: "It is no exaggeration for Koslin (The Theology of Luther, pp. 77, 78) to say that Luther was 'the first great clear preacher of the righteousness of faith sent to the Christian Churchsince the days of the apostle Paul.' It is doubtful if the early church ever really understood or appreciatedthe real force of St. Paul's doctrine of justification byan imputed righteousness. "6

So here is a doctrine that is supposed to be thevery foundation of Scriptural truth, yet we are toldthe early church probably did not understand it! Themodernist, Reinhold Niebuhr, is then called to testify. He suggested that the church was unable tograsp the truth of Pauline theology until she had adequately tried the alternatives and found them bankrupt.7 Such doesn't fit very well into Paul's statement in Eph. 3:3-5: "How that by revelation hemade known unto me the mystery (as I wrote afore infew words, whereby, when ye read, ye mayunderstand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit. . ."

True, he wasn't speaking specifically of justification by faith, but his words are generally applicable to all scripture. God has revealed His message that we might read and understand. BrotherPaul has written some difficult things, but not so difficult that it took a millennium and a half to produce a man (Luther) who could understand and explain them.

The favorite expression of Present Truth is "the doing and dying of Jesus." In the June, '75 issue, forexample, we find on p. 12, "A life of obedience to thelaw —that which God demands—has been performedby the doing and the dying of Jesus Christ;" on p.

14: ". . . Jesus Christ has come to this planet andworked in our place. Actively and passively, by doingand dying, Jesus has pleased God for all who believein Him;" p. 16: "Acceptance can only be by trust in the Saviour's perfect doing and dying;" p. 20: "By doing and dying Christ made reconciliation for iniquity and brought in everlasting righteousness."

One does not have to tarry long in the writings of our "new unity—fellowship —grace" brethren to discover where they're coming from. One brother haswritten: "Their salvation (those saved in the last day)will be freely given because of a life of perfect obedience—not theirs, but the Lord's, who IS their righteousness. God's holy law will be satisfied, because of the perfect DOING and perfect DYING ofthe Lord Jesus Christ. . ."8

The Ensign Fair, edited by Brother R. L. Kilpatrick, (featured columnist: Brother W. Carl Ketcherside) has become a journalistic offspring of Present Truth. Brother Kilpatrick constantly arguesfor the imputation of Christ's perfect obedience to the believer's account. To say the least, he is leaning heavily toward the imputation to the world of Adam's disobedience.9 Consistency is drawing him to this position. In the May, 1978 issue, he began a reprint of Robert D. Brinsmead's Present Truth articles, "Justification by Faith and the Clarity of theBible."

SCRIPTURAL BASIS?

Like most theologians, Present Truth writers philosophize more than they exegete. The Reformation doctrine of imputation is a logical system. It seems to fit into several theological frameworks. Luther [Present Truth's favorite) taughtit. So did Calvin (their second favorite). The main problem with the doctrine is that the scriptures do notteach it. A number of passages are often referred to asauthority, but none of them says, nor do they imply, what Present Truth is saying.

Imputation is a Bible doctrine. I find nine times that faith is reckoned, or imputed for (eis, unto, in order to) righteousness.10 Twice, I read of sins not being imputed.11 Twice, I find mention of righteousness being imputed.12 But not once do I read of Adam's sins being imputed to the human race. Not once do I find the word "impute" used inregard to Jesus bearing our sins. And not once do Iread of Christ's perfect obedience being imputed tothe believing sinner's account,

Romans 5:9, 10 is a favorite passage: ". , . much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life."But even commentators who hold strongly to the doctrine do not so misuse this verse. Charles Hodge,whose commentary on Romans is permeated with theReformation doctrine of imputation, says: "The meaning is obvious: 'If while we were enemies, we were restored to the favour of God by the death ofhis Son, the fact that he lives will certainly secureour final salvation.' . . . 'because he ever lives to make intercession for us,' Heb. 7:25, and c."13

Romans 5:19 ("For as by one man's disobediencemany were made sinners, so by the obedience of oneshall many be made righteous") falls far short. It is obviously contrasting the one act of disobedience ofAdam with the one act of obedience of Christ.

I have studied carefully the few scriptures which are offered as proof-texts, and have not perceived howanyone could so interpret them. Hitler's big lie theory

Page 12

is still working. Tell a lie big enough, and often enough, and intelligent people will begin to believeyou!

SOME POINTS IN REBUTTAL

What shall we say in the way of opposition to thisdoctrine of imputation? It's not in the Bible. That should be enough. But, in closing, let us briefly note these points:

1. So what? Even if the doctrine were taught inthe Bible, what would it prove? Calvinists use it to prove the impossibility of apostasy. There's a question as to whether Present Truth holds this doctrine. One writer says: "Once a Church begins toboast of its 'orthodoxy' it begins to fall from Grace."14 Brethren who hold the doctrine use it as a basis of fellowship with erring brethren. But the doctrine would not negate the passages which demand that we have no fellowship with error. Evenif the doctrine were true, the Bible would still say:"When the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, shall he live?No, in his sin that he hath sinned shall he die." (Ezekiel 18:24). It would still teach that the lukewarm will be spewed out, and that every branchin Him that bears not fruit will be hewn down and cast into the fire.
2. A flaw in the system: If the perfect righteousness of Christ is imputed to the sinner's account, what need was there for the death of Christ?He did not die for His own sins, and if God accounts His sinlessness to us, there would have been no reason to die for our sins. The editors of Present Truth have written: "When Christ, as the Representative Man, fulfilled the law, it was just asif every man had fulfilled the law. When He died tomake full satisfaction for the law's penalty againstsin, it was the same as if every sinner had died andpaid for his sins.16 But what sins would every sinnerhave to die for if "it was just as if every man hadfulfilled the law"?
3. Forgiveness is overlooked. Very little emphasisis afforded the forgiveness of God in Present Truth. We are told that there are but two doctrines of righteousness. There is the Roman Catholic-subjective theory of God's righteousness being infused into the believer; and there is the Reformation-objective doctrine of Christ's righteousness being imputed to the believer's account. Brother Mike Willis has observed: "There is, however, another alternative: justification through forgiveness."

R. L. Kilpatrick took issue with this and claimed,"It is more or less the very thing we have been saying."16 But it's not the same thing" at all. Brother Kilpatrick even argues that if man becomesrighteous when he is forgiven, then "salvation is through personal righteousness which comes about through 'forgiveness.'" Well, what's wrong with that? Doesn't the word teach that salvation is a giftof God? And if a gift, doesn't it belong to the recipient? Present Truth affirms: "And the righteousness of God, in the New Testament idea, issomething which is a gift of God to us, and no achievement of ours before Him."1'

SUMMARY

Present Truth's doctrine of imputation is not consistent with Divine truth. Those who hold the doctrine are totally at variance on its properapplications. It would solve no decisive issue, even ifit were true. It is our firm hope and prayer that those who have quenched their thirst at this cistern will open their eyes and behold what a stagnant pool it really is.

1. Justification by Faith and The Clarity of The Bible; reprinted in The Ensign Fair, May, 78.
2. Mike Willis has done a commendable job in the first several numbers of Truth Magazine, 1978, in dealing with the doctrine.
1. Present Truth, Special Issue, Justification by Faith,
2. p. 11, also see June, 1972, p. 6; April, 1972, p. 7;Vol. 2, No. 5, p. 51
1. Ibid., Vol. 2, No. 1, p. 23. Also see Vol. 2, No. 4, p.
2. 34.
3. Ibid., March, 73, pp. 6, 8, 10, 13.
4. Vol. 5, No. 5, p. 20.
5. Reinhold Niebuhr,The Nature and Destiny of Man, Vol. 2.
6. Edward Fudge, A Journey Toward Jesus, p. 7.
7. Article on Romans 5 in The Ensign Fair, March 1978.
8. Romans 4:3, 5, 9, 10, 22, 23, 24; Gal. 3:6; Jas. 2:23.
9. Romans 4:8; 2 Cor. 5:19.
10. Romans 4:6, 11. Verse 7 makes it clear that the basis of such imputation is the forgiveness of God, which in turn, rests on the propitiatory sacrifice of Jesus (Rom. 3:24-26).
11. Charles Hodge,Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co.; p. 140.
12. Vol. 3, No. 2, p. 20; Also see Vol. 2, No. 3, p. 14; Vol. 2, No. 4, p. 28; Vol. 3, No. 3, p. 10, 16, 34.
13. June, 1972, p. 13
14. Ensign Fair, Vol. 6, No. 1, p. 18.
15. Vol. 2, No. 3, p. 32.

CONDUCTING A TALK RADIO PROGRAM

(Bro. Adams suggested that I write an article ontwo-way talk radio broadcasting. The following is a brief article in response to his request.)

The most exciting and interesting radio listening istwo-way talk radio. Several radio stations across thecountry have gone to two-way talk, either full-time orpart-time. Churches have capitalized on this new approach to broadcasting in conducting religious programs. Some of our brethren have been very successful in building large listening audiences and converting souls to Christ through talk radio.

While located with the Knollwood church at Dayton, Ohio, I conducted a Sunday morning talk program on a local talk station. The response was exceptionally good. We had four telephone lines tothe studio and they were busy most of the time. I was on for one and one-half hours every Sunday forquite awhile, but we finally went to one hour to makeit easier for me to get back to the meeting-house forBible study. The program is still on and is goinggreat with Mike Willis and Ron Halbrook as hosts.Presently, I am conducting an hour broadcast inAkron each Sunday morning from 8:00 to 9:00 o'clock on WHLO with good interest manifested.

One Talk Host

Personally, I prefer one talk host to handle the broadcast, rather than having two or three preachersin the studio. One handling the program and talkingto the caller allows better continuity in conversation.This approach, in my opinion, has greater appeal tothe listening audience. When two or more preachersare in the studio, and each one commenting on whatthe caller said, the caller is given minimal time, andthe effect of two-way conversation is lost to a great extent. The callers make the program. This is the whole philosophy of two-way talk.

This is not a criticism of the programs that havetwo or more preachers at a time. Some of them havebeen very successful. I am simply stating what I believe makes better radio listening and therebybuilds a bigger audience. However, in a small city, ifyou have a call-in program, two or more might bebetter because calls will be less frequent. The two orthree can carry on conversation while they are waiting for a call to come in.

Radio Presentation

Generally, when you go on the air, nobody is on the phone to talk to you. You have to throw out a subject or two to stimulate interest and provoke themto call. In talking about your topic or topics, beexcited and enthusiastic. People do not get workedup over a dull and dry talkmaster. Avoid a monotoneby raising and lowering your voice or develop thetopic in a crescendo fashion.

Make brief remarks about each topic you introduce,being careful to not exhaust everything on the subject yourself in order that the listeners will havesomething to add to the discussion. Remember, youare not preaching a sermon, but you are trying toprovoke people to call to talk about your topic. Pauseafter a brief statement of your views and ask theaudience what its thinking is on the matter. Do not be a "Gatling gun," never hesitating to ask for calls.

You might say, "If you do not agree with me, let's hear your side of the matter," If this does not arousesome in the audience to call, then you might tryusing a statement that is somewhat dogmatic andright to the point. If one subject does not get thephone ringing, switch to another topic. Maybe some will be interested in that topic.

An absolute MUST is frequent repetition of the phone number. Give the number often and keep asking people to call. Tell them you want to hearfrom them, to get their thinking.

Dealing With The Callers

When you receive a call, make it a TWO-WAY

conversation or dialogue. Do not permit the caller to

monopolize the time. Some will try it, but tell them

the format of the program is two-way conversation

and that they have had their say, and now you would

like to have yours. If they keep talking anyway, cut

them off the air.

Try to confine each conversation to two or threeminutes, unless it is a most interesting conversation.The caller has a lot to do with the length of a call. Agood two-way debate is informative and appealing tolisteners, so more time can be allotted to this type ofcall. On the other hand, if the call is meaningless,and thereby boring, use only a few seconds to tactfully answer the caller and move on to anothercall. Bad calls make a dull program.

Sometimes callers will ask a question and then saythat they will hang up and listen to your answer onthe radio. Do not let this happen if possible. Keep thecaller on the phone. He may not agree with youranswer and he will offer a rebuttal. Or, he may wantto further question something you said. He cannot dothis if he has hung up the phone.

Keep Abreast

The preacher conducting the talk program shouldkeep up with current religious and moral issues. Readthe daily paper, national magazines, relevant booksand religious journals to know what is going on inthe world. Keep abreast as to what people are thinking by listening to the talk station during theweek. Relate these things to Bible teaching.

People like to talk about Anita Bryant's stand on homosexuality, Larry Flynt and pornography and thequestion of abortion. The Bible has a lot to say onthese issues. Other subjects could be what BillyGraham said about baptism or what Oral Robertsstated on miracles. All of these topics will get response.

Guests

Once in awhile a guest can be featured that is knowledgeable in a certain field. Evolution is an areathat is interesting and that will generate calls. The talk host can act mostly as a coordinator, with theguest answering the questions and carrying on the discussion.

If arrangements can be made, a debate can be scheduled with a denominational preacher. Questionsare received from the listeners after the two preachershave introduced their positions. The questions wouldbe limited to the proposition under consideration.Both are given opportunity to answer.

Conclusion

In conclusion, if you are thinking about starting atalk program, advertise it well before you go on theair. For the first few broadcasts, have members to call in to "prime the pump." You must build a listening audience. In a small city, you will not likelybe overwhelmed with calls. A call-in program worksbetter in a large metropolitan area where there arehundreds of thousands of potential callers.

When somebody stumps you, say, "I do not know,but we will throw it out to the listeners to see if theyknow." The phone will soon start ringing with somekind of an answer. Best wishes in talk radio.

"DIAKONIA"

In Acts 11:29 the beloved physician gives us thisstatement, "Then the disciples, every man accordingto his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judea: which also they did,and sent it to the elders, by the hands of Barnabasand Saul."

Our study this month will be centered around the"relief" sent. As indicated in the heading, the wordrelief is from "Diakonia." This word is sometimes translated "ministry." Thayer, on page 138 of his lexicon says, "To send a thing to one for the relief ofhis want." He then gives our text Acts 11:29. W. E.Vine says, (page 272) "Diakonia, ministry, is translated 'relief in Acts 11:29." This text has served as a battle ground for a number of years. Brother Deaver, in our recent discussion, argued that "Diakonia" is general and therefore justified placingin the church treasury such items as beans, bacon orland. To the credit of brother Deaver he did not argue that the word excluded money. He believes the treasury of the church may consist of more than MONEY. He made this clear a number of times during the discussion. Let us now place the argumentunder the microscope of God's word and see if it willstand. First, may I say without hesitation that brother Deaver is correct in saying the word is general. However, the next question is; does this justify the conclusion that the church treasury mayconsist of items other than money?

We are now ready for the argument. As a matter offact, I shall now give four arguments and we willnotice the striking parallel between them. Please note:

(1) "DIAKONIA" This word is general. This word isused in Acts 11:29 "relief." Since this relief went to elders, and elders are over congregations, itwas possible that these disciples sent beans,bacon, land, (merchandise) and placed such in thechurch treasury. Money is not specified in this text.

(Answer given) It is true the word is general but the

context and the totality of God's law must tell us

its meaning. Acts four tells us people sold their

possessions and gave MONEY instead of land,

etc.

(Brother Deaver's response) Acts four has nothing todo with this text. The word itself is sufficient and since it is general it could include more than MONEY!

(2) "BAPTIZO" This word is general and means todip, plunge, etc. Acts 2:38 tells us to "be baptizedin the name of the Lord for the remission of sins". Since the word "Baptizo" is general we could bedipped in water, the Holy Ghost, tar or milk.There is no mention of water in Acts 2:38 or in the word "Baptizo" itself! Freewill Baptist, likebrother Deaver have argued with me that the baptism of Acts 2:38 could be Holy Ghost baptism.

(Answer Given) It is true the word is general with respect to the element but other passages(totality) tell us that baptism in the name of theLord is WATER baptism. (See Acts 10:17-48; Acts 8:15, 16).

(Answer of sectarians—Freewill Baptist) Acts 10:47,48, has nothing to do with Acts 2:38. The word isgeneral, and as such doesn't contain one drop of water. I am not interested in the context or totality. I insist the word "baptized" in Acts 2:38 could mean Holy Ghost baptism.

(3) "Artos" This is a general word and means "bread". The word could refer to the Lord's Supper or a common meal, In Acts 20:7 the disciples came together to break "bread". Since the word is general it could mean a common mealand is therefore wrong for one to argue that it isthe Lord's Supper.(Answer given) It is true the word "Artos" is generalbut the context and other passages (totality) tellus what it means. For example, Acts 2:47 andMatt. 26:26 both give us details about the Lord's Supper.

(Sectarian answer — Sabbatarians) I am not interested in what Matt. 26 or Acts 2 say about theLord's Supper. The word "bread" is general andcould mean a common meal and I insist that Acts

20:7 means exactly this!

(4) "PSALLO" This is a general word and means topluck or twang etc. Paul tells us in Eph. 5:19, to"Make melody" in our hearts to the Lord. Sincethe word is general and we could pluck the stringsof an instrument, or a carpenter's line, it could mean to pluck an instrument. So when Paul tells us to "sing and make melody" he could have meant to sing and pluck on the instrument.

(Answer Given) It is true the word "Psallo" is general and means to pluck but the context and (totality) other scriptures tell us the "heart" is where (the place) we are to make the melody. Therefore not on an instrument.

(Answer of sectarian-digressive] I am not interested in

what the context or other passages may say.

want to stay with the word itself. It ("Psallo")

means to pluck and could include the instrument.

Gentle reader, I have taken the time to give you the above arguments to show they are all fallacious. You may ask were these argumentsgiven brother Deaver and what was his response?Yes, two of the above were given "Artos and Psallo" and not one time did he attempt to answer either of them. Sometimes brethren are inconsistent in their polemics. If it serves their purpose they want to stick

Page 15

with the meaning of one word. But in exposing error,many times we must stay with the context and allother related passages. Think it over.

Around my home in south Louisiana there are many stagnant, swampy areas and slow moving bayous covered with green slime. These settingsmake unique scenes for artists to recapture on canvasbut, personally, I prefer beautiful rushing streams ofcrystal clear water.

While reflecting on "stagnant" bodies of water, Iam reminded of "stagnant" churches of the Lord. I say stagnant because there is a definite lack of activity on the part of these congregations. Everything seems to be at a perpetual stand-still.This dead, stagnant spiritual condition can often beeasily detected. It manifests itself in various ways. Sometimes it is obvious almost at a moment's glance. For example, there is a lack of reverence shown during the worship services, the congregational singing lacks enthusiasm, and manyof those who are present for the Sunday morningworship habitually fail to return for the other serviceson Sunday and Wednesday evenings. However, if this stagnant condition is not so obvious as it pertains to the attendance and worship of the congregation, it just might be that it will manifest itself in reference to the scriptural work of the church. In this regard, many show signs of indifference and apathy. Excuse after excuse is used for doing nothing. To hear some tell it: "No one is interested in hearing the gospel." "We tried and failed." "It won't work." "I'm too busy."

What's the answer or solution to the problem ofbeing stagnant? Well, we need to be stirred up! Andwhen I say "stirred up," I don't have in mind contention or strife. I simply mean that our minds and hearts need stirring concerning the things we supposedly have already learned. The apostle Peter said, "Yea, I think it meet, as long as I am in thistabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance. . . . This second epistle, beloved, I nowwrite unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance" (2 Pet. 1:13; 3:1).We must be stirred or moved to action or we will become stagnant. This can be illustrated by a well from which water is drawn. When water is drawn from it, it fills and remains clear. If water is not drawn from it on a continual basis, it gets stagnant.Thus, we must be actively giving of ourselves untothe Lord and His work. Also, it may be that we need to be stirred up discussing, planning and beinginformed of the work that is essential for the growthof the congregation. Or, perhaps, we need to be stirred up to act against error and sin.

The stirring up process in doing what the Lordwould have us do requires much effort and energy.Occasionally, it may be unpleasant. But, for the mostpart, it will be rewarding and uplifting. Hence, wemust guard against becoming as the widow described by Paul who was "dead while she liveth" (1 Tim. 5:6). The Lord told the church at Sardis, "I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead" (Rev. 3:1). Could it be that many churches todayare in that same condition— DEAD? If so, the Lord has said, "Be watchful, and strengthen the thingswhich remain, that are ready to die: for I have notfound thy works perfect before God. Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, Iwill come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee" (Rev. 3:2, 3).

In the summer of 1963, I moved to Paden City, W.Va., from Akron, Ohio. For the next six years, I labored with this good congregation in the gospel.Besides preaching in the community and on a localradio program, I had the opportunity to preach inseveral meetings, many of them within drivingdistance of Paden City. During this time I was able to confirm a long-held conviction that there was another good work in this area which someone neededto do. During the last year or two of my associationwith the Paden City church, I began to make plansfor this work.

Brother Earl Rockwell, one of the elders at PadenCity, accompanied me on many of my preaching trips to those congregations within driving distance. I valued his song-leading ability, as well as his wisdomand advice as an elder in the Lord's church. One evening, while travelling to a meeting at NarrowsRun, Ohio, we were discussing the tide of liberalism which had swept into the Ohio Valley from otherparts of the country. It took longer to reach us thanit did some other places, but come it did, and with itscoming, some congregations stood, and some fell.Most congregations of any size had already set their course for better or for worse. Brother Rockwell suggested that our best course of action now was tostrengthen the smaller congregations, or establish new ones. In a few words, he was able to give myplans a sense of direction which I have followed thesepast nine years. I would like to share the results of these efforts with others.

To Elk Fork, and Beyond

Many of the smaller congregations in this area had been receiving what teaching they could afford,generally in the form of a different preacher eachLord's day, and a gospel meeting or two each year.

While this system had done some good, I could seesome disadvantages, especially now that new issueshad come to the front. In some congregations, therewould be a liberal preacher in the pulpit one Sunday,a conservative preacher the next, a middle-of-the-roader the next Lord's day, followed by one who wasn't sure what he was. As a result, the congregations were confused as to what the real issues were, and what their attitude toward them should be. This is where I decided to concentrate myefforts. I had always felt that several of these congregations would stand for the truth when pointedout to them, and blamed the preachers more than thecongregations for their predicament.

Brother Paul Rockwell had been preaching at Elk Fork for a number of years, going one Lord's dayeach month, and teaching a Bible class each week.When these brethren learned that I was going toremain in the area and was available, they invited meto preach for them on a regular basis. They would furnish part of my support, I would provide the restof it working at the construction trade, and I wouldstill be free to preach in meetings wherever I saw theneed. With this accomplished, I was now ready toproceed with the next step in the plan to salvagewhat we could for the Lord's cause.

By filling the pulpit each Lord's day, I not onlykept some undesirable teaching out, but was able tobuild on what brother Rockwell had alreadyaccomplished, along with others like him. Now thatI had "taken" one of his Lord's day appointments, Iencouraged him to concentrate his efforts on one congregation. This he did, and accepted the invitation of the church at Narrow's Run, Ohio, to preach for them each Lord's day, while teaching aBible class during the week. They later began theirown radio program over a local station, and I had thepleasure of helping with it.

These moves had a domino effect on other congregations and preachers in the area. Each time, Iencouraged the preachers affected to concentrate theirefforts on one congregation, helping others as theyhad opportunity. Right here, I would like to givecredit to brother Paul Rockwell, and several others like him, not only in this area, but all over the country. These faithful and able men who supportthemselves at secular work, and still accomplish asmuch as some who are fully supported by the church.They preach in the pulpit, on the radio, in meetings,teach Bible classes, edit and publish bulletins and papers, and preach at funerals. They may only besupported "part-time" by the church, but some ofthem are doing a full-time work that would mostly beleft undone if it weren't for them. I have used both methods of preaching the gospel, and have the deepest respect for those doing the work of an evangelist, whether supported by their own hands orby the church. We need both kinds, and I hope thatwe will let the situation determine what is the best course to follow.

During the past nine years the Elk Fork churchhas spent about seventy thousand dollars preaching the gospel, performed needed repairs to the building (we just recently moved the rest-rooms inside), has helped train speakers and song leaders (some ofwhom are now helping the church in other places),and still has a healthy bank balance at this writing.Similar things could be said of other congregations inthe area who have taken a stand against the innovations of our generation. Some thought that these congregations would "go liberal", and some (both liberal and conservative), thought that they weretoo small to fool with.

I will come to "visions and revelations" in a figurative sense. When I was invited to preach inCanada a few years ago, these small congregationswere the first to rally to my support. They were alsothe last! When brethren heard that I had been invited to preach in the Philippines, and was willing to go,they asked me to let them help. Several small congregations and two individuals had assured me of support in this effort, and everyone of them volunteered to help, long before I was ready to go. Icould also cite examples of benevolence toward needysaints in these congregations, which would total thousands of dollars. I have preached for some of thelarger congregations in the Ohio Valley, both in whatwe call located and meeting work, and may do soagain in the future. I'm sure that some of these congregations would have responded in the abovecases, had they been asked. Many of them are already doing a lot of similar works. But, I decidedto let these smaller congregations have fellowship insuch matters also, that they too might have a reward, and that I might be encouraged by their willingness to support the gospel. Some of them may not be able to furnish a preacher's house, or his fullsupport, but they need to be encouraged to do whatthey can, and then given an opportunity to do it.

Personally, I have been more satisfied with theresults of my labors during these past nine years,than I have for several years prior to this time. Whensome of the liberal brethren heard that I had started "working with my hands" they immediatelyprophesied that my conservative position on currentissues was depriving me of a place to preach. Whensome read this they will know what I have "been upto", and there are some around here that know full well that I am still "alive and well." In fact, I have done more preaching using this method, than when Iwas supported fully by the church.

And, to those good brethren who were really concerned about me "giving up preaching", let me apologize for not keeping you informed with monthlyor annual reports. The fact is, I've been too busy! Ifsome of you are favorably impressed by my methods,then let me say, "Try it; you may like it. And maybethe Lord will too."

INCREASED AWARENESS OFOVERSEAS WORK

Increased awareness among brethren of overseas work is gratifying. It has not always been so. Gospel papers among us print comments and articles concerning this. I thank God for the editors who publish such material. Yet, more remains to be done, to increase our awareness of our RESPONSIBILITIES, and fulfill them, that God's gospel might be preached in other lands. The Lord wants those beyond our borders to hear His Word. Itis His power to save the brown and black as well aswhite people.

Sometimes it is necessary to send an American preacher and his family. This can leave the impression he is bringing an "American religion". Inmany instances, it is more effective and economical tosupport native preachers. In their own country, theyhave many advantages over the American alien.

To my point: There is much more to be done. In spite of our present economic difficulties, we are anation materially blessed beyond all others on earth.But as saints, we have these blessings in stewardship. God will demand an accounting. Think for a moment, of our impulse buying, our accumulationof things which at best have only marginal use tous, and the fact the cost of a single vacation maybe more than it takes to support a native preacherin many countries FOR AN ENTIRE YEAR!

Thus, while our awareness has increased, so haveour responsibilities. Remember, God could tire of ourcontinuous unnecessary accumulation of things and excuses for our stewardship failure. He could withdraw our material blessings as punishment. Then we would have the remainder of our lives (andeternity?) to repent of not doing what we could withwhat we had while we were able.

On Traveling Filipino Preachers

Some men like to travel; others fool themselvesinto believing they are modern-day-Paul-the-apostle(s); some are useful in moving about in theirpreaching. On more than one occasion, however, Filipino preachers with more zeal than knowledge and experience decided they needed to go to as manyplaces as possible to preach the gospel. Their aim and purpose was good; their results all too often were adisaster. I know of a NUMBER of situations where many have been baptized as a result of such traveling . . . and left with no further guidance orteaching. As soon as the converting preacher packedhis bag and moved to his next location, the new saints became like a rudderless ship. Many of these have not assembled for a single period of worship onthe Lord's Day. Also, the local church where the preacher "regularly labors" is generally neglected.These brethren are not edified, growth slows or stopsand attendance dwindles. The preacher's family alsosuffers from the continuous, extended absences of thehead of the house. Both effort and money is wastedbecause these men, with all good intention, have veryimpractical ideas in moving about, spending a fewdays or a week in each place, then moving on.

Some Filipino preachers have appealed to their US-supporters for travel money. They cite the need totake the gospel elsewhere. Unfortunately, too manyUS brethren have responded favorably to such requests without first looking into the situation carefully. Inadvertantly, they helped create and sharein what I am describing.

Brethren, let me urge you to consider Mt. 28:20, where Christ said: "TEACHING THEM TO OBSERVE ALL THINGS WHATSOEVER I HAVE COMMANDED YOU: and lo, I am with you alway,even unto the end of the world. Amen." This is as much a part of the great commission, and of at leastequal value, as the first, in verse 19 where we arecommanded to go, to teach and baptize.

Experienced and mature Filipino preachers have verified what I write. Money and time wasted in suchtraveling efforts would be more wisely spent in edifying those already converted. This IS the New Testament pattern. The travel money could be betterinvested in another preacher who could go, convert,THEN STAY TO EDIFY. It does little good to convert, then leave.

There is a legitimate and valid need in SOME menmoving about. These are a FEW of the mature, experienced men, and their purpose parallels gospelmeetings here, or the intensive instruction of youngerpreachers. But we ought to realize, ONLY A FEW ARE CAPABLE OF THIS.

So, when the man you are supporting asks you toprovide him money beyond his basic living needs,that he may travel, and bring the gospel to otherplaces, consider whether this activity will really be profitable in God's service there. Then act with caution. Regardless of the purity of the motives,more than a little has been wasted in such efforts in the past; efforts careless and thoughtlessly undertaken.

Personal View of a Christian in England

While in the USAF, bro. R. E. Hansen spent 1973through 1976 in England. His wife and four childrenwere with him. I have summarized their impressions.

Locating a congregation was work. Faithful churches in England were scarce. Most have memberships of fewer than one hundred. The base chaplain provided no information. There was no known contact. Driving one day, they accidentally found an old building formerly occupied by the Methodist Church. The sign nowread: "CHURCH OF CHRIST MEETS HERE".

Due to the closeness of the military base, the congregation was composed primarily of Americans.

Also, there were two English families and the preacher and his wife were from Northern Ireland.The local people believed the Americans controlledthe purse strings (an idea some Americans cultivated). To them, it was an "American religion". Fortunately, this was changing by the time the Hansens left.

The community's religious composition was Churchof England, Roman Catholic and Methodist. The people seemed as poor spiritually as they were materially. The English liked Americans but thought we were "pushy" and too hurried. This created problems in making contacts. One gets into English homes only when invited. Happily, gospel meetingsand vacation Bible schools provided fruitful ways ofmeeting folks. Many visited, if for no other reason, tosee what this "CHURCH OF CHRIST" was.

The English were very strong-minded, even whenwrong. It was hard to change their beliefs. Bro. Hansen mentioned the example of an "elder" from the Methodist Church who had attended midweek Bible class with the brethren for more than a year. While agreeing with the Bible teaching on one church, he still saw no reason to "change boats" after more than fifty years as a Methodist. The Hansens' concluded the English believe the Queen of Englandwas (representative of) the Church, and so long asthey followed her, they were saved. Such makes conversion difficult.

Much work remains to be done.

AVAILABLE FOR MEETINGS IRVEN LEE, P.O. Box 866, Hartselle, AL 35640 — As of this date I have given up my regular local church work to go into fulltime gospel meetings. I am as strong as I have been since theheart attack and open heart surgery in 1974, but that does notmean that I have the strength to have the long working day thatwas mine for several decades. I began going out to preachregularly more than 47 years ago. The time has come to limit mywork to writing and to gospel meetings with Sunday preachingwhen there is no meeting scheduled. I am in a position to go inmeetings at very small churches as well as to larger ones thatmight be able to give more for my work. Command freely if I canbe of service to you.To supplement my income, I need to sell more of the books mywife and I have written. Think of them for gifts when they areappropriate. I am now working on a new book which we plan tocall "God Hath Spoken." It will be a book of sermons covering various subjects.ELLIS WEBB, P.O. Box 405, Winchester, Ohio 45697 — It was my privilege recently to preach in a meeting for the church meeting at 119 Broad St., Washington, N.J. Average attendance was 25. This small group of dedicated Christians isdoing a great job in a hard area. This congregation meets but astone's throw from New York City where the cause is weak. Brethren, when you travel in that area, plan to worship with thesebrethren. It will encourage them and will do you good.FRANK INGRAM, 1320 Gardiner Lane, Louisville, KY 40213 — I recently moved to take up the work at Gardiner Lane in Louisville, Kentucky. It is good to be back in full swing with sucha fine congregation. My new address is 5511 Bruns Dr., Louisville40216. Phone 448-9458.

Gardner Hall

Our readers will be saddened to learn that Gardner S. Hall, well-known gospel preacher of Birmingham, Alabama, has departed this life and gone to be with the Lord. He worked with a number of area congregations and served at times as an elder. Our sympathy is extended to the entire family.

NEW CONGREGATION IN ARKADELPHIA,

ARKANSAS JADY W. COPELAND, 2480 Old Wire Rd., Fayetteville, AR72701 — In March, I conducted a meeting for the new church inArkadelphia, Arkansas which began meeting about the first of theyear. They began with two families. One of the men, brother JohnRagsdale, had been meeting with the liberal church there for sometime and had tried to reason with the elders about a number of things, not only the institutional question, but the social gospel,renting property, etc. Finally he decided he could no longerworship there, and finding another family, brother Mike Lesterand family, decided to start a new church. They rented an old home on the corner of 6th and Oak Streets and began meeting. A teen-age girl also worships there, and by the time this is publishedthere will be two more families from West Memphis, Arkansaswith them. I also had word since the meeting that another ladyhad identified with them, and she was in hopes that her husband would soon do the same.

The building is located within a block of Ouichita Baptist University, and within about three blocks of Henderson State University, so college students will have easy access to a place ofworship. Brother Ragsdale is the manager of the Arkadelphia daily paper and is well thought of in the city of Arkadelphia. Ipreached in Arkadelphia in 1943-44 when the church there wasthen very small, and it seems now we are having to begin all overagain. But isn't that the case all over America? Worship withthem in Arkadelphia, and for a contact, write John Ragsdale,1219 Evans, Arkadelphia, Arkansas 71923.JIMMY TUTEN, JR. 6710 Dorchester Rd., Apt. 2200-H, Charleston Heights, SC 29406 — We have just completed a series of meetings with Marshall Patton preaching. The entire meeting was devoted to the church and brother Patton did an outstanding job of edifying the congregation. Our personal work is bringing results. In April one was baptized and two identified from the liberal church in Charleston. At present I have four home studies in progress. I have an interesting class each weekwith an inmate in a correctional center at Ridgeville, SC and hedesires baptism but this is being hindered until July because ofred tape. He is anxious after his release to work with and for thechurch. Through him we hope to reach his family.

During April I conducted a meeting in Warrenville, SC with onerestored, good interest and visitors in attendance at every service.I am in need of some additional support. I have no desire to leavethis difficult work and am content to stay as long as I am needed

Pa«e 19

and support can be obtained. Come to historic Charleston for avisit and worship with us.

SPANISH SPEAKING WORK IN CALIFORNIA

MELVIN ROSE, 8221 Somers Dr., Anaheim, CA 92804 — Whileliving in Houston, Texas several years ago, I became involved inthe Spanish work, thanks to the encouragement of such brethrenas Charles House, Wayne Partain and Glenn Rogers. Ruben Amador (Houston) invited me to preach my first sermon inSpanish. While living in Houston, and in West Columbia, for some eight years, I began to preach meetings in Spanish, both in the States and in Mexico.

Having been brought up in California, however, and realizing there was a tremendous Mexican population in the state, I beganto think about entering the Spanish work full time, working inCalifornia. As far as I could determine — and I did quite a bit ofresearch — there was not a single conservative, non-institutionalchurch among the Spanish speaking people anywhere in the state!In January, 1976, we moved to Anaheim where we began to workwith the Spanish speaking members of the West Anaheim congregation. After a year with this group, On March 26, Spanishspeaking brethren in this general area met for the first time,forming a new congregation. We now have 15 adult members and a lot of children. Attendance last Sunday was 40 with the contribution running about $100 weekly.

Our most pressing need at the moment is a place to meet forstudy and worship. The church meets in my home at the moment.We have a gospel meeting upcoming with Guadeloupe Alvarez, ofDallas Texas. This will be our first meeting and we are all looking forward to it. We solicit your prayers on behalf of the new workhere.

BOB WEST MAY ILLUSTRATE YOUR SERMON FREE

Preachers are invited to submit their sermon outlines and those outlines which are 'selected will be published in GOSPEL TEACHER Magazine with first-class overhead transparencymasters, custom-made by professional designer/illustrator. These visuals will also be suitable for opaque projection, for making35mm slides, class handouts, etc. To take advantage of thisopportunity, send your sermon outline (with written permission topublish it) to GOSPEL TEACHER, 6121 Hudson St., Orlando,FL 32808.

PREACHERS NEEDED

NEW ORLEANS (Metairie) LOUISIANA — The Lake Villa church is in need of a full time preacher to begin work at the endof the summer. The church is completely self-supporting, has aweekly radio program and averages 65-70 in regular weekly attendance. Anyone wishing to locate in the New Orleans area should write or call Ric Keaster, 6509 Ithaca St., Metairie, LA 70003, (504) 454-1274.WILLISBURG KENTUCKY — The church here is seeking a fulltime man to work with the church in preaching the gospel. At the present time we can only supply partial support. The church hasgrown recently and there is the potential for more growth in this area. Willisburg is in Washington County between Louisville andLexington. Anyone interested please write to the church of Christ,Willisburg, KY 40078.CORINTH, MISSISSIPPI — An experienced preacher is needed towork with a self-supporting church in Corinth, Mississippi,beginning August 1. Contact either Howard Bynum (601-287-5761) or James Claunch (601-286-5098).

IN THE NEWS THIS MONTH

BAPTISMS 413

RESTORATIONS 117

(Taken from bulletins and papers received by the editor)