Volume 26 January, 1985 Number 1

One of my favorite characters in all of the Bible isMoses. His story is one of the most intriguing, inspiring and moving in all of history. For forty years he was anEgyptian, the adopted grandson of Pharaoh. For thenext forty years he played the part of an Arabian shepherd-boy and for the final forty he became knownas the great Israelite lawgiver and leader. Few menstand his equal.

34: 7).

• He was a man who loved God to the day he died—

... and was in every sense a LEADER! Is there ever a character like Moses in all of history?A man who went to the mountain and saw the backside of God. A man who witnessed the fingers of Jehovah cutting out the ten commandments. A man who communed with God concerning the laws for man. And aman who set forth the principles upon which every good law has since been predicated. And, yet, a humble man— "Now the man Moses was very humble, morethan any man who was on the face of the earth" (Num.

12: 3). Fittingly, Jehovah wrote the final epitaph on thelife of Moses in Deuteronomy 34: 10—

Since then no prophet has risen in Israel like

Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face.

Recently I had occasion to be in the gallery of theHouse of Representatives in the United States Capitol.The proceedings on the floor were rather uneventful andmy eyes wandered a bit making a mental note here and there on articles of interest in the historic chamber. One thing that arrested my attention (and curiosity) werethe twenty three portraits encircling the room. According to the Capitol architectural staff, these represent the people who played a "noted part in the evolution ofAmerican law. " There, cut out in white marble, were the likenesses of greats like Cicero, Seneca and Caesarof Rome, King Hammurabi of Babylon, Napoleon ofFrance and American statesmen Jefferson and Mason. And there, about halfway on the back wall was Moses.The influence of Moses upon American law and order iseasily recognized. Our nation was founded upon bibilical principles of the Old Testament and our government of law was based upon a reverence for God and respect for one's fellow man which emanated from biblical teaching. The civil laws of Moses' law formed the basis for our laws and Constitution. Dr. Harold O. J. Brown underscored that fact when he wrote in The Reconstruction of the Republic: (pg. 19)

... the Bible has had a tremendous formative influence on people and institutions even when it has not been accepted as the authoritative Word of God. It is perfectly correct tosay that a substantial measure of American

culture, attitudes, literary style, even lan

guage and laws and political institutions is

biblical in origin and inspiration.

... the basic source of values in American

society is biblical.

Most of these "values" can be traced directly back toMoses. God has always had a certain code of ethics andvalues that He legislated in order for man to get alongwith man. In fact, six of the ten commandments, thatMoses delivered to Israel, refer to man's relationship with man:

Thou shalt not steal

Thou shalt not bear false witness

Thou shalt not murder

Thou shalt not commit adultery

Thou shalt not covet

Honor your Father and Mother

As long as this simple code of civil morality is followedthe result will always be the same—a morally safe andsane society. And it was that code upon which our greatnation was founded.

Few men are as widely respected and remembered asthe great Jewish lawgiver named Moses. Few men havehad so great an influence upon our nation as he. The next time you're in Washington, D. C., go to the Capitol and visit the House of Representatives. Look for Moses. He's there and he's one of the reasons we are here.

QUESTION AND ANSWER COLUMN

As announced in the December issue, Marshall E.Patton, who has for twenty-five years written thecolumn, Answers For Our Hope, has asked to be relieved of that assignment so that he might do someother writing for the paper. After much thought and consultation with those who have written regularly forthe paper for many years, we have asked Weldon E.Warnock of Xenia, Ohio to handle this very importantfeature of the paper.

Brother Warnock has written a column for this paperfor a number of years and our readers are already wellacquainted with the products of his able pen. He bringsto this effort a keen mind, a broad knowledge of thescriptures and things related thereto, practical experience in debating and radio question and answer work, asense of fairness and a generous sprinkling of wit which promises to make his column highly readable. He hashad wide experience in local preaching and in gospelmeetings. He is now in his second term of work with thegood Knollwood congregation between Dayton and Xenia, Ohio.

We have decided to choose another title for this column and have agreed to call it "What Saith The Scripture? His first column under this headingappears in this issue. We hope to have this feature innearly every issue of the paper. Readers may sendquestions to: Weldon E. Warnock, 1021 Welford Dr.,Xenia, Ohio 45385.

Again, we thank Marshall E. Patton for his excellentwork for the past twenty-five years. We are grateful tobrother Warnock for his willingness to take on such ademanding writing assignment.

WHO MOVED?

The winds of merger are blowing again. The week ofAugust 7-9, 1984 found 100 preachers from churchesof Christ and conservative Christian Churches gathered in Joplin, Missouri to work for harmony. The desirefor unity among those who profess to follow the Lordis commendable. The platform upon which such unity may be realized has always been the stickingpoint. In the past, several such efforts have been made,all with-out success. The Murch-Witty meetings ended in Indianapolis, Indiana in 1939 after H. Leo Boleslaid it on the line. The medicine was too strong forthose with a

taste for compromise. In the late 1960's and early1970's two more meetings took place for similar reasons. The first was in Memphis, Tennessee and the lastone was in St. Louis, Missouri. I wrote a series of three articles in TRUTH MAGAZINE dealing with those meetings, entitled "The Fading Fear and the Spirit ofSt. Louis. "

The meeting in Joplin was arranged by Alan Cloyd,editor of RESTORATION LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY and Don DeWelt, publisher of ONE BODY.Each man chose fifty men from each side. Of those representing churches of Christ, all were of the liberalvariety, with most of them considerably bent in thatdirection. Of significance was the omission of some you would have expected to have been invited.

LIFELINE and the CHRISTIAN STANDARD, both connected with the conservative Christian Churches, were gleeful about the meeting in Joplin.After all such deliberations are over, the basic questionstill has to be addressed: Where do the scriptures authorize the use of instrumental music in public worship?What is the proper approach to the silence of the scriptures? Is it permissive or prohibitive? How can there beunity until these issues are properly resolved?

Is there any indication that those in the conservativeChristian Churches are ready to give up their instruments? I have seen no such indication. In fact, theCHRISTIAN STANDARD of November 25, 1984, contains an article entitled "Celebrate!" which has with it a picture of a youth band with guitar, drums, bass andkeyboard. The gist of the article is that worship periodshave become too stereotyped and make no allowance"for the diversity of age, culture, and experience which exists in our congregations. " The article goes on to recommend a "Sunday Night Live" worship periodevery other week designed for teens and young adults."A theme is chosen for each service and then developed through the use of a variety of art forms and media,including music, films, drama, pantomime, panel discussion, and slide programs. " Now I can see how someof the liberal brethren would have no problem with this,with the possible exception of the use of instrumentalmusic, though I doubt that some would object to that. '

Really, brethren, who has moved? Is it not true thatthose in conservative Christian Churches see that among our more liberal-minded brethren, many of thethings they do are accepted and practiced? Make nomistake about it. Those in the Christian Churches are no nearer to giving up their instrumental music than they ever were. If there is to be unity, then someone hasto move. They have not, nor are there any indicationsthat they intend to do so. The issue between us hasalways been Bible authority. The Christian Churcheshave their instrumental music without a single vestigeof scriptural authority. They have other practices justas unauthorized. Now, some of our liberal brethren havemany of the same things, also without divine authority.With some of them, failure to use the instrument is onlya quaint tradition. They will be able to accept it in time.

Meanwhile, some of us have not moved. It is not thatwe prefer division to unity. It is not that we are just hard-headed and illiterate. We are simply committed tothe proposition that we must not go beyond the thingsthat are written (1 Cor. 4: 6). We have nothing to give up,except our integrity and that is not for sale. We cansmile at each other and be urbane. We can decide to pourwarm syrup all over ourselves. When we are throughwith all of that, the fundamental question remains:Where is the scripture? Until someone is prepared toshow that to us, all the meetings in Indianapolis, Memphis, St. Louis or Joplin will be useless.

(After many years as the writer of +. his question and

answer column, brother Marshall E. Patton has asked

to be relieved of these duties so that he might have more

flexibility to write on other topics of his own choosing.

Brother Adams has asked me to take up this task.

As I begin, at this time, not to take brother Patton's

place, for that cannot be done, but to continue this

work, I do so with great humility, realizing there are few

among us who can match the superior knowledge of

brother Patton. Nevertheless, I will try in the very best

way that I can to continue the high quality standard of

study and work that brother Patton has maintained

throughout the years of this column. )

WHAT IS THE ROCK?

QUESTION: "In Matt. 16: 18 Jesus said, "That thouart Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church. "What or who is the rock? Could the rock be Peter since Jesus spoke in Aramaic and there was only one word in Aramaic for rock, 'KEPHA, ' the equivalent of which is'PETROS' (Peter' and 'PETRA' in the Greek? Several commentaries take this position. ANSWER: Three views are held as to the interpretation of "this rock" inthe passage. (1) That Christ himself is the Rock onwhich the church was to be built. (2) That Peter's confession (v. 16) that Jesus is the Son of God is theRock. (3) That Peter is the rock.

The first view is supported by scriptures that statethat Jesus is the foundation. "Behold I lay in Zion for afoundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation" (Isa. 28: 16). "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is JesusChrist" (1 Cor. 3: 11). There is no question that Jesus isthe foundation of the church, but the issue is whetherMt. 16: 18 teaches that fact. We must keep in mind thatMt. 16: 18-19 is highly figurative and under the imageryof a city that depicts the church, Jesus is the builder ofthe city—not the foundation. In the same imagery, one person does not serve as different symbols. Hence,Jesus is not the foundation in the text.

In the second view the context lends strong supportto its validity. Peter had just confessed, "thou art theChrist, the Son of the living God" (v. 16). On "this rock, "this truth, Jesus said he would build His church. In theINTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY, Willoughby Allen wrote, "the PETRA is equivalent tothe object of APEKALUPSE (did reveal) in v. 17.'Flesh and blood did not reveal it, ' i. e. the Messiahship

and the divine Sonship of Christ. 'Upon this rock ofrevealed truth I will build my church. ' The play uponPETROS and PETRA means you have given expression to a revealed truth, and your name PETROS suggests a metaphorical name for it. It shall be the PETRA, or rock upon which the Church shall stand' " (GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MATTHEW, 176).This view is what I believe to be the proper and correctinterpretation of the passage.

J. W. McGarvey said, "the rock... can be no otherthan the truth which Peter had just confessed concerning Jesus" (COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW ANDMARK, p. 145). R. C. H. Lenski stated, "she (church)rests on the reality which Peter confessed, namely onJesus, 'the Christ, the Son of the living God' " (ST.MATTHEW'S GOSPEL, p. 626). R. C. Foster said, "itseems to make a clear picture to hold that the divinetruth Peter affirmed is the rock" (THE MIDDLE PERIOD, p. 235).

The third view that Peter is the foundation is supported by Catholics and several Protestants, althoughwith different connotations on the verse. Catholics claim the verse teaches Peter was given supremacy orpapal authority. While Protestant scholars repudiatethe Catholic claim as presumptuous and without Biblical support, they do maintain that Peter, in a sense, wasthe rock, the PETRA, on which the church was built.

William Hendriksen affirms that Peter was the foundation in a secondary sense, as well as the other apostles, in what he preached (Eph. 2: 20; Rev. 21: 14). Inother words, the apostles laid the foundation of revealed truth. However, Mt. 16: 18 says "Peter, " not "apostles. "

Others, such as Barnes, H. A. W. Meyer, PulpitCommentary, Vincent and Barclay, advocate that Peterwas "the rock, " not in the Catholic sense, but as thefirst to preach to the Jews and the Gentiles, to lay thefoundation, the first stone in the church upon whichother disciples were built.

But since Jesus himself could not be the foundation in this figure, because he is the builder, in like mannerPeter cannot be the foundation in any sense in the metaphor because he is the gatekeeper. He has the keys (v.19). Therefore, the only plausible alternative is that thetruth Peter confessed is the foundation. If Jesus were saying that Peter was to be the foundation, he wouldhave said, "that thou art Peter, and upon you, Peter,will I build my church. "

Concerning the Aramaic, NOBODY KNOWS enough about the Aramaic in Jesus time to make a definite judgment. The Palestinian Aramaic of that period isnot extant. We do not even know that Jesus spoke, ashis primary language, Aramaic. So a dogmatic argument based on the Aramaic is presumptuous and unconvincing.

Yet, in spite of scanty information about the Aramaic,the INTERPRETER'S BIBLE states, "In Aramaic there would be no separate form to indicate the masculine gender. 'You are KEPHA, and on this KEPHA I will build" (Vol. 7, p. 451). But seemingly, there was a distinction made by Jesus in Jno. 1: 42. Jesus saidto

Simon, "thou shalt be called Cephas" (KEPHAS, not KEPHA). Dr. Theodore H. Robinson said, "for there isonly one word in Aramaic and, EXCEPT WHEN USEDAS A MAN'S NAME (emphasis mine, W. E. W. ), isal-ways feminine (THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, p.141). So, the distinction made by Matthew in PETROS and PETRA was apparently made in the Aramaic byKEPHAS and KEPHA. Therefore, if Jesus spoke inAramaic, he would have said, "thou art KEPHAS (masculine gender) and upon this KEPHA (feminine gender) I will build my church. "

One thing is for certain, and that is that Matthewmade a distinction. He recorded Jesus as saying, "thou art Peter (PETROS) and upon this rock (PETRA) I willbuild my church. " The Holy Spirit used the Greek,made a distinction, hence, let's be satisfied with that.

R. C. H. Lenski wrote, "We know too little aboutthe Aramaic to assert that when Jesus spoke thesewords he used the same Aramaic term in both statements.... Therefore this appeal to the Aramaic substitutes some-thing unknown and hypotheticalfor what is fully known and insured as true on the basis of the inspired Greek of the holy writers themselves" (ibid, p. 627). Amen! William Hendriksenmakes the same observation in his COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW on page 646.

For a more in-depth study of the Aramaic consultTHE FINAL WEEK by R. C. Foster, pps. 334-338.

"BISHOPS IGNORE OUR SOCIETY'SREAL FOUNDATIONS"

A few weeks ago, the nation's Catholic bishops assembled for an annual conference, the key topic of whichwas a 120-page pastoral letter on the economy. In thatletter, the bishops insist that the U. S. governmentwork for a greater transfer of wealth to the poor. One ofits authors, Archbishop Rembert Weakland of Milwaukee, held a news conference to discuss the letter anddenounced the "tendency to try to measure one's worth by the accumulation of luxury goods. "

As I was thinking about writing an article concerningthe bishops' meeting, the following article by Joe So-bran appeared in a local newspaper. He says many ofthe things which I had thought about, so we will consider what he says under the above heading:

"WASHINGTON—C. S. Lewis once explained why it is a mistake to expect the church to provide a politicalprogram:

'The job is really on us, the laymen. The application ofChristian principles, say, to trade unionism or education must come from Christian trade unionists and Christian schoolmasters: just as Christian literaturecomes from Christian novelists and dramatists—not from the bench of bishops getting together and tryingto write plays and novels in their spare time. '

"The nation's Catholic bishops have found enoughspare time to cook up an economic program. They havenow served it up to the press, along with cocktails, atWashington's posh Capital Hilton Hotel.

"From the substance of the document, you mightexpect the bishops to camp out in Lafayette Park andoffer bread and soup to the poor. But let's not complain.A few cocktails may be necessary anesthetic to anyonebent on reading the bishops' soggy prescription for the

U. S. economy.

"What are these participations? It is not easy to say.The defining trait of the document is its demoralizinglack of definition. It pays lip service to private propertyand personal freedoms, but it cuts away at these thingsat every point.

"It rejects a 'statist approach' to economic matters,but it specifies no limits on the power of the state. Itseeks to cover its intellectual nakedness with incessant references to "the poor'.

"But what makes the bishops' approach 'Christian, ' let alone 'the' Christian approach? The Christian is called to renounce his own possessions, not to make araid on those of his neighbors.

"If I give away what is mine, I make a sacrifice. If Igive away what is not mine, I commit theft. Granted,the modern state is massively engaged in blurring the distinction between mine and thine; but it hardly needsor deserves the help of the bishops, who ought to beexposing the counterfeit compassion of modern statism, not abetting it.

"The modern superstate is the problem, not the solution. The bishops offer a joyless vision in which the state is to take more, and more, and more, with nodefinite rationale capable of limiting its rapacity. Poverty? You can see poverty in the news clip from Ethiopia, where the Marxist regime avows 'economic rights' as glibly as the bishops.

"What the famished Ethiopians really need is notfood and water, but freedom—and not the false freedomof anarchy, but the concrete freedoms of civil society, inwhich government does indeed play an affirmative role,though not the redistributionist role favored by doctrinaire simpletons.

"The production of wealth depends heavily on culture—a Living body of moral habits such as industry,thrift and privacy. For a group of moralists, the bishopsare astonishingly blind to this level of human life, a levelthat has been wonderfully nurtured by the Protestantculture in which the Catholic hierarchy, who seem toappreciate no realities between sin and social engineering, are far less appreciative than most Catholic laymen.

"And a culture like this one can't be taken for granted. It needs to be actively and rationally appreciated, in the full sense of 'appraised. ' You don't have to Like it. You do have to realize the price of compromisingor destroying it. There is no reason this countrycouldn't be turned into an Ethiopia.

"But the prophets of the Hilton show little awarenessof the moral foundations of the society they criticize.Their very language is full of current cliché—'the feminization of poverty, ' 'institutional priorities, ' etc. — that betray their pathetic eagerness to imitate liberalfashion. Alas, it isn't even very chic. Even liberals are start-ing to criticize the failed poverty programs of the'60s. The bishops haven't heard.

"It can be exalting to worship in a church that is 500years behind the times, sublimely indifferent to fashions outside. But it is embarrassing to belong to a churchthat is five years behind the times, huffing and puffingto catch up. The believer seeks anchorage in the permanent, not in mitered trendiness. " (Arkansas Democrat,Nov. 18, 1984. )

On the same subject, we quote a statement fromJames Kilpatrick:

"The bishops assert confidently that 'everyoneknows the significance of economic relationships, ' but obviously this is not so. The bishops themselves seemnot to have even the foggiest notion of why some are poor and some are rich. Their gentle notion is that allmen are, or at least morally ought to be, substantially equal in this world's goods. The reality is that some of

God's creatures are more ambitious, more talented,

more productive, more industrious and just plain

luckier than others. There is respectable authority for

the proposition that the poor we shall always have with

us; and as long as we preserve a free society we shall

always have the relatively rich with us also.

"Why do people work? Tell us, gentlemen. Why? Isuspect the bishops have not thought this out, and thismay be because bishops never have had to work in theway that others work. Priests have the greatest job security on earth; they are more secure than federaljudges, crowned heads and tenured professors. The idea of working in a fiercely competitive marketplace—theidea of working to exhaustion in order to feed and clotheand house a family—is an idea the bishops know only atsecond hand....

"What to do about the poor? The bishops' feeble answer is to throw money at them. Our programs for, the,poor provide only 'meager' benefits; the whole welfare system is 'woefully inadequate. ' Funds should be distributed without regard to whether supplicants are capable of working. While some degree of inequality maybe both acceptable and desirable, the present distribution of income and wealth is so inequitable that it violates a 'minimum standard of distributive justice. ' So the bishops would redistribute the wealth, taking fromthe productive and giving to the unproductive. Perhapsthat is economic justice in the ecclesiastical view, but itlooks like spinach to me. "

Christians must never become oblivious to the needs of the poor. Paul said that the Lord taught it is moreblessed to give than to receive (Acts 20: 35). The earlychurch took care of its worthy needy.

But there are things to consider. Why are people needy? What will they do with what they receive? Willthey try harder to help themselves? The Bible says thatwe are not to help those who will not work (2 Thess.

3: 10).

The poor want a standard of living equal to that ofothers. By today's standards, many of us reared underconditions which would have qualified us for relief—atleast food stamps. But we didn't demand so much and managed to take care of ourselves. And we never thought of asking for help while wasting money. Frommy observation, the vast majority of today's "poor"manage to spend a lot of money on tobacco, alcohol, andthe like.

If we follow the bishops' advice and take from those who have and give it to those who have not, we willdestroy individual incentive and it will be only a matter of time until everyone will be needy. Then who will helpthe poor?

If the Catholic bishops are so concerned about biggovernment, why aren't they equally concerned about the religious government of which they are a part? It isthe largest hierarchy on earth. And why don't theyadvocate the use of some of the billions of dollars owned by the Catholic Church in helping the poor?

Speaking of their meeting under such lavish circumstances to consider the plight of the poor reminds us of an old saying about such bishops, "They never heard aharsh word or ate a bad meal. "

FORTY DOWN AND SIXTY TO GO

Any student of the Bible and history knows the church has gone into apostasy every one hundred years.Paul set his telescopic sights on the future when he said,"In the last days some shall depart from the faith,giving heed unto seducing spirits and doctrine of devils" (1 Tim. 4: 1). This departure by members of the body of Christ took place approximately one hundredyears after its inception on the day of Pentecost.History makes it crystal clear that this apostasy beganwith the "one elder" syndrome which is a direct violation of the apostolic examples set forth in the Bible (1 Pet. 5: 1). The church was shoved into oblivion untilColumbus sailed the ocean blue in fourteen ninety two.

Many people in America were fed up with both Roman Catholicism and protestant denominationalism and wanted to get back to the fountain head of Jerusalem. As a result of this assiduous attitude, theyrestored the New Testament church. For about one hundred years, scores of people obeyed the gospel and were added to that blood bought, spirit filled institution. After about sixty years, ominous cloudsappeared on the horizon and brethren became soft intheir deliberations. Their nomenclature included such things as "we need a more positive approach" or "Weshould not spend so much time fighting. " Well, itfinally happened in 1849, when a fine baby boy wasborn to a group called the "progressives" and theynamed him American Christian Missionary Society (ACMS). This episode split the body of Christ fromceiling to cellar and we lost almost all we had gained.

From Nashville and the Southland, a few brave soldiers of the cross picked up the mantle and preached theold Jerusalem gospel. We grew by leaps and boundsuntil about the end of World War II. It was then that we began to hear rhetoric which was incompatible with therestoration movement. It was not uncommon to hear brethren say, "We do not want any negative preaching. " or "The fight over the Missionary Society is over." Others would say, "We need to get out here and baptize more people and forget about instrumentalmusic and the ACMS. " The hue and cry was to preach the gospel and let other people alone. Well, it finally happened in

the early part of the fifties when a fine bouncing babyboy was born called the "sponsoring church. " This caused lots of excitement among its parents, which included a majority of members of the body of Christ.This new spiritual monstrosity, which is found on theblank page of your Bible, divided the precious body ofChrist and caused it to bleed at every pore before thegazing eyes of infidels and haters of the truth. Thus,another hundred years had passed and we had lost a majority of God's people to apostasy.

Once again, a few noble soldiers of the cross tried topick up the broken pieces and salvage out of the turmoilas many as possible. The battles raged and "name calling" became as common as the cold. We have had tofight for every inch of ground we have gained. Manycongregations had to start with ten or fifteen membersbut have now grown to a hundred or more, but that wasabout forty years ago! Many like Israel of old havegrown weary (see Micah 6: 3). They have grown tiredof the issues. They have grown tired of negativepreach-ing. They have grown tired of fighting. Kind friend, we must differentiate between fighting and wrangling. We must not let wrangling among brethrentake the "fight" out of us (see Eph. 5: 11-15). I mustconfess that I am tired of wrangling among brethren and at times I will reluctantly confess that I grow somewhat weary of fighting the good fight of faith.However, I know this is indispensable with my salvation.

Yes, friends we have forty down and sixty to go andwe are right on schedule. I marvel at what I am hearingamong so called conservative brethren today. One man said, "Hogland, the fight over the issues is over. " Iasked him, "When did the victory take place?" Or perhaps was there a peace treaty signed that I failed tohear about. " Then, the seventeen year old girl in Florida walked up and said, "Brother Hogland, that is the first time I have understood what that division was over which took place before I was born. " Then, we say it isover? I recall as a seventeen year old boy that I neverheard ONE sermon on what was wrong with the Missionary Society and this is what set the stage for theapostasy of the fifties. Yes, kind friend, you can markyour calendar and see if it doesn't happen in sixty yearsor less. I marvel that history continues to repeat itself.When will we learn? I am not a prophet or the son of aprophet, but if this and other articles could be pulled out of the archives some fifty or sixty years in the future we could all see whether or not history has repeated itself. Iam saddened by what I am seeing and hearing today.Preachers and editors have all the "fight" taken out ofthem while trying to remove the "wrangling". Kind friend, if a preacher or editor doesn't know the difference in fighting the good fight of faith and a brotherhood wrangle he needs to go back to the drawing board of God's word. It stands as a divine postulate that whenGod's people stop fighting they are gone. We have become a pampered and pleasure loving people. It is notmy purpose to cast aspersions on any person but since Ihave lived through one apostasy and about thirty-fiveor forty years into the next; I see signs of the lastapostasy being espoused today. One does not have to be astute to know we must teach the boys and girls whatthe last division was about; then tell them what causedthe one before that one. When you explain it to them,they will understand and thus become a bulwarkagainst the next apostasy. It is later than we think. Yes,forty down and sixty to go. Shall we look back with sadeyes and a broken heart that another innovation has hitthe church in sixty years or less? Yes, friends the oldship of Zion is right on schedule to flounder once againon the rocks of institutionalism if we continue our course. Think about it and pray about it. Let us keep history from repeating itself the next sixty years.

A MARRIAGE CEREMONY

Sooner or later every preacher is requested to "perform a wedding" which, in our culture, calls for a ceremony suitable to the occasion. When I was a youngpreacher I was faced with the task of "doing the rites"for such occasions but could find no ceremony which suited my whims. This occasioned writing my ownwhich, with few changes. I have used for more than forty years, including the wedding of my own children.

While yet in the classroom of different schools I haverequests from younger men for help with inevitablesituations they would face as preachers. One result ofsuch requests was my reproducing for them the ceremony below. This work claims no special merit; however, a recent letter of appreciation from a youngpreacher, who uses and gives a copy of the ceremony toeach couple whose ceremony he performs, has renewed my awareness that practically all younger preachersface the same problem which caused me to prepare thislittle work when "I was then where they are now. !"

It also occurs to me that many who read my "Building Better Families" column each month may profit byreflecting upon the seriousness of their marriage vowsearlier made or soon to be declared before God and man. I earnestly pray that whoever reads or uses this ceremony may be edified by it. It is not copyrighted. Here itis:

MARRIAGE CEREMONY

Dearly beloved, we are gathered here in the presenceof God and of this company to join this man and thiswoman in the bonds of sacred marriage, an institutionby God ordered, by Christ endorsed, by the Holy Spiritinstructed, and declared by inspiration to be honorablein the sight of all men.

Who giveth this woman in marriage?

Fully conscious of the solemnity of this event and ofthe implications of the promises you are soon to make toeach other, it is altogether proper that your minds and hearts be impressed and your consciences indelibly stamped with words of truth and soberness concerningJehovah's law—that law which shall govern your livesfrom this day forward—as it pertains to the relationshipyou are soon to enter together.

The union you are about to form is not imaginary. Itis real—as real as the God who instituted it, as theChrist who approved it, and as the Spirit who taught it.It is as much reality as your standing in flesh and blood in the presence of God and this company. Likewise, thisunion is indissoluble save for the cause of unfaithfulness. Adultery alone gives either of you the right to putthe other away for life. Light and frivolous excuses arenot acceptable to Him before whom you must live andby whom you will be judged for eternity. Furthermore,this relationship is not one in which the weaker vessel isto be abused or the stronger vessel reproached. Woman has never intended to be man's slave, but his helper; norwas man intended to be woman's oppressor, but herprotector. Not from man's head was she taken lest she be his ruler, nor from his feet lest she become his drudge. But from man's side was she taken that shemight be his equal; from near his heart that she mightbe loved by him; and from under his arm that he mightprotect and preserve her, as along the rugged path andthrough the narrow vales of events they pursue theirway together.

Thus they rejoice, and together they weep;

Mutually the sunshine and shadows they

share; Triumphantly they tread the wine

press of fate; Yet learn not the scheme of

despair.

(Note: call names of couple if desirable).

That immutable law of the God whom you honor bycalling Him to witness the vows which you are soon tomake, provides that the wife shall submit herself untoher husband as unto the Lord; that the husband shall bethe head of his wife as Christ is the head of the church and the savior of that spiritual body; that just as thechurch is subject to Christ, so shall the wife be to herhusband in everything; that the husband is to love hiswife, even as Christ also loved the church and gavehimself for it. In like manner ought a man to love hiswife as his own body, not hating his own flesh butnourishing and cherishing it, even as Christ does thechurch. For this cause shall a man leave his father and his mother and be joined to his wife and they two shall be one flesh; therefore, let the man love his wife even ashimself, and let the wife reverence her husband. Thus,the marriage relationship is intimate and sacred, hallowed even to the extent that all other human relations are forsaken for the new one assumed. Man and woman never show more respect for one another than whenthey manifest love and devotion one to the other, nor dothey show less regard for themselves and heaven's will than when they abuse this holy union either by brutality or neglect.

(Note: Ask the couple to join right hands).(To the Man)

Do you, _____________ , take this woman whomyou now hold by the right hand to be your lawful andwedded wife? Do you promise to love and cherish her insickness and health, to provide for her in prosperity andadversity and, forsaking all others, cleave unto her andher alone until death you do part? (To the woman)

Do you, ___________ , take this man whose righthand you now hold to be your lawful and wedded husband and do by him the part of the faithful wife? Do you promise to love and honor him in sickness and in health, in prosperity and adversity and, forsaking all others,cleave unto him alone until death you do part?

Is (are) there (a) ring(s)? (Note: Rings pass topreacher)

For generations rings have been used as tokens ofpledges made in good faith and as seals of sacred vowshonorably declared. In the giving and receiving of this(these) ring(s), you pledge yourselves one to the other to discharge fully and faithfully those duties and obligations which devolve upon each of you in view of the state you are now entering. Just as the circular natureof the ring symbolizes the continual nature of this sacred union you are now forming, so may the nigh indestructible nature of the precious metal out of which it isformed symbolize the everlasting quality of your devotion and love.

(To the man) Place this ring on the third finger of your bride's left hand and repeat after me...

"With this ring I thee wed, and with all my goods, Ithee endow—my name to wear, my home to share, myheart infold, my hand to hold, my life to be for thee andme, until death doth sever the tie that binds. "

(To the woman) Place this ring on the third finger of your groom's left hand and repeat after me...

"To your gracious offer I gladly respond, and, (with like token), I pledge you the loyalty of my life, the loveof my heart, and the devotion of my soul, and I promiseyou your faithful wife ever to be while along life's pathwe walk together. "

And now by the authority vested in me by the sovereign state of __________as a minister ofthe gospel of Jesus Christ, I pronounce you __________ and ___________, husband and wife.

And we pray, our Father, that the smile of thy face,the consolation of thy peace, and the sunshine of thylove may be theirs to enjoy as they entwine their hearts,enlarge their love, and build their home, through JesusChrist, our Lord. Amen.

BELIEVE, REPENT, AND... WHACK!

One of Webster's definitions for "plan" is: "method orscheme of action, procedure, or arrangements" (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, G. & C. Merriam Co. ).Since there are certain requirements that accompanysalvation, it is in order to talk about a plan of salvation.I had already come to this conclusion years before Ichecked Webster's formal definition of the term plan.By reading Mt. 28: 19, 20 and Mk. 16: 16, one can seethat there are certain things which must precede salvation, and these apply to "every creature. "

For years I have emphasized this plan of salvation inevery sermon which I have preached. Some preachers inthe Lord's church are announcing sermons in meetingswhere they preach as "containing no scripture, " andbrethren are shallow enough to swallow such foolishness. I just don't see how a gospel preacher can preach a scriptural sermon without referring to some scripture,and I don't see how brethren can listen to it. How do these brethren handle the invitation of Rev. 22: 17, or dothey just skip it?

Anyway, I have always "extended the invitation" inone way or another, and either at the beginning of thesermon, in the middle of it, or at the end, I not only tellpeople what to do in order to be saved, but I exhortthem to do it. As much as in me is, I try to create a favorable environment which would encourage peopleto accept the Lord's invitation. I don't always accomplish this.

While we must realize that the power to save is in the gospel, we should still try to bring "into the captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ" (2 Cor. 10: 4). Igenerally make some reference to the theme of the invitation song, and urge the song leader to be ready at theproper time to avoid an unnecessary delay. I try to remove any anxiety people may have relative to thearrangements for the baptism, telling them that "allthings are ready. "

But, in a recent meeting, an incident happened which has taken place in one form or another too many timesin my life. I was right in the midst of reminding peoplewhat to do in order to be saved, when... WHACK!, ayoung mother swats one of her children. And, the swatwas good enough to produce results, for the crying ofthe child just about drowned me out. And, what madethis incident even more noticeable was that the husband was holding the child, and the mother had to reach over another child to deliver the blow. Add to this the fact that they were seated in the first row of spectators,in the very center of the building, and you get the picture.

Now, I am a firm believer in discipline, and in order forit to be effective, it needs to be relatively timely. But, sois the invitation of the Lord important, and sometimesit needs to be administered at the right time in order tobe effective. Solomon couldn't understand some things in life, and I'm way behind him.

Why is it brethren, that we consign to the center of acrowded row of people the very person which needs torespond to the invitation? And, why do some of theseoften end up holding someone else's baby during theinvitation song? Why do people smack children, dropthem on the floor, or throw a song book, right after"believe, and repent"? I give up.

SIN, THE GREAT SEPARATOR

Peter wrote of the "living hope" of "an inheritance"for the Christian which is ' 'reserved in heaven for youwho are kept by the power of God through faith" (1 Pet.

1: 3-5). Paul expressed his confidence of receiving thisinheritance when he wrote "there is laid up for me thecrown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteousJudge, will give to me on that Day" (2 Tim. 4: 8). Johnaffirmed "that we may have boldness in the day ofjudgment" (1 Jno. 4: 17).

How may I have this boldness and confidence ofknowing I will receive the inheritance in heaven? Thequestion of the security of the believer has been one which has been discussed for centuries. The Calvinists have their view, the Arminians have their view, and theCatholics have their view. Our main interest should be what has God said about this matter! We purpose tomake a study of the Scriptures on this question. In ourfirst study we will see how that sin will destroy any relationship that we might have with God and that itwill keep us out of heaven. Our second lesson will bedevoted to a study of false views of security outside ofthe church of the Lord. Lesson three will give attentionto some false views being taught by some in the church.Finally in our fourth study we plan to look at the positive side by considering some factors involved in theChristian's security. Our final lesson will be devoted tothe question "How can I have daily security?"

We encourage you to study these lessons with an open Bible and an open mind. It is our hope that with thecompletion of this series your faith in God and yourdetermination for heaven will be increased.

The Chasm Of Sin One of the fundamental principles of the Bible is thatthere is a separation of God from sin. Sin and God donot mix! This fact is true because of the character of God. Because God is a holy and righteous God, evil cannot dwell with Him (Psa. 5: 4-8). Because God's eyesare pure, He "cannot look on wickedness" (Hab. 1: 13).Because God is "upright, " there is "no righteousness inHim" (Psa. 92: 15). Because "God is light, " there isin Him "no darkness at all" (1 Jno. 1: 5).

But some may ask, "Do you mean to say that any kind of sin will result in such condemnation?" In answer to the question let us notice some different kinds of sinand see what the result was in each case.

What about sins of rebellion? The Hebrew writer describes some who were "once enlightened, " knowingthe truth of God, but they go ahead and "fall away. "What's the result? He says it is "impossible... to renewthem again to repentance" (Heb. 6: 4-6). In chapter 10 he speaks of one who would "sin willfully" (Heb. 10: 27). The result is a "fearful expectation of judgment"(Heb. 10: 27). So the consequences of sin do not change in the case of sins of rebellion; the result is stillbad.

What about sins of weakness? The apostle Peter wasa man who tried to live right. Yet in a moment of weakness ("fearing those who were of the circumcision"), hewithdrew from the Gentile Christians in Antioch. Other Jews, and even Barnabas, gave into this pressure and became guilty of hypocrisy. Paul relates how he rebuked Peter openly because "he was to be blamed" (Gal.

2: 11-12). In the sixth chapter Paul writes about abrother who is "overtaken in any trespass. " Vine says ofthis word, "the meaning is not that of detecting a person in the act, but of his being caught by the trespass,through his being off his guard. " Another source says,"Paul has in view a fault into which the brother is betrayed 'unawares, ' so that it is not intentionally wrong" (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament,Vol. IV, p. 14). What is the condition of the brother whocommits this sin of weakness? Paul says he needs to berestored (Gal. 6: 1). It is thus apparent that something has been broken. So in the case of sins ofweakness the result is still condemnation.

What about sins of ignorance? Paul was a man who had been guilty of blasphemy and persecution of God'speople, but he "did it ignorantly" (1 Tim. 1: 13). Was hein a lost condition and in need of forgiveness? Apparently Ananias thought so for he told the penitent Saulto "arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins"(Acts 22: 16). Jesus spoke of "blind leaders of the blind"and warned that "both will fall into a ditch" (Mt. 15: 14).He spoke of two disobedient servants in Lk. 12. Onedisobeyed knowingly, while the other disobeyed and "did not know" (Lk. 12: 48). But they both were beaten.In Jas. 5: 19-20, we read of a brother who "wanders fromthe truth" or as Thayer defines the work "through ignorance to be led aside from the path of virtue" (p. 514). Yet this brother needs to be turned back from death. So once again, the result is the same—condemnation.

It matters not then concerning the type of sin, theconsequences will be the same. Neither will the numberof sins change the results. Adam and Eve were condemned for one sin (Gen. 3: 1-7). The young prophet died because of one sin (1 Ki. 13: 16-22), as did Ananias and Sapphira (Ac. 5: 1-11). Both the new convert Simon and the immoral brother at Corinth were rebuked for one sin (Ac. 8: 13-25; 1 Cor. 5: 1-13). Nowonder James wrote, "For whoever shall keep thewhole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty ofall" (Jas. 2: 10).

The Cure For Sin

If this is true about sin, and we have all sinned (Rom.

3: 23), how is it possible for us to have a relationship withGod? How can an impure, unholy, unrighteous sinnerbe with and remain with a pure, holy, and righteousGod?

Let us turn to the book of 1 John to see some thingsJohn has to say in answering our question. There arethree passages in 1 John where John states the purposeof his writing this short epistle. In 1: 3-4 he states hisreason for writing is "that you may have fellowshipwith us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ" and "that your joy may befull. " In 2: 1 he writes "that you may not sin. " In 5: 13 he gives as his purpose for writing "that you mayknow that you have eternal life. " I do not believe John had three different reasons for writing, but thathe has one reason which is stated three different ways.We may know we "have eternal life" because we have"fellow-ship... with the Father and with His Son, " andwe can know we have that fellowship when we sin not,for as we have already seen sin severs us from God.

In 1 John, the author shows us how we can have"fellowship with the Father and with His Son JesusChrist. " A pure, holy, and righteous God is not goingto have fellowship with us by lowering Himself to our impure, unholy, and unrighteous state. Instead, theonly way we can have fellowship with a pure, holy, and righteous God is to raise ourselves to a pure, holy, andrighteous state. Thus John exhorts us to "walk in thelight AS He is in the light" (1: 7), "to walk just AS Hewalked" (2: 6), to purify ourselves "AS He is pure" (3:3), and to practice "righteousness... AS He is righteous" (3:7).

But how is it possible for me, a sinner, to become pure,holy, and righteous. John shows us two factors involved in this change. God has provided a "propitiationfor our sins" (2: 2) and "an Advocate" (2: 1) so that oursins can be forgiven. But in order to become pure, holy,and righteous we have to meet God's conditions forobtaining forgiveness. John mentions one such condition in 1: 9.

When a man who is not a child of God comes to me and asks how he can be reconciled to God, I must answer, as God has directed in His word, that he must beforgiven of his sins. It is these sins which alienate himfrom God. When he asks how he may obtain forgiveness, I must answer with the divinely-given conditions.Do I have a right to offer a man the blessed assurance ofsalvation of any other basis? NO! To do so is to speakwhere God has not spoken (cf. 1 Pet. 4: 11).

When an erring child of God comes to me and askshow he can be secure in fellowship with God, I mustanswer, as God has directed in His word, that he mustbe forgiven of his sin. It is his sin which alienates him from God. When he asks how he may obtain forgiveness, I must answer with the divinely-given conditions.Do I have a right to offer a brother the blessed assurance of salvation on any other basis? NO! To do so is tospeak where God has not spoken (cf. 1 Pet. 4: 11).

Conclusion Let us see the terribleness of sin. Let us not excuse it,lighten its consequences, or continue in it. Let us learn to hate sin as God hates sin. Let us also give glory to Him who has provided uswith so great a salvation. Let us put sin out of our lives.Yet when we do sin, let us hasten to our Advocatethrough meeting the conditions God has given beingthankful to obtain the forgiveness. It is in this way thatwe may have "fellowship with the Father and with HisSon Jesus Christ. "

Those who claim that the Bible is their sole authorityin religion would, without hesitation, agree that thechurch in the New Testament pages is the Lord's. This is even true also with those who may entertain the ideathat there are other sources of authorities equal withthe Holy Scriptures. As a matter of fact, we hear ofdivers and loud claims from many of those in the Sectsand the Denominations explicitly or implicitly sayingthat the "Church" to which they belong "is the Churchof Christ. " And, this is understandable because the inspired Book speaks of groups of people banded togetherand serving God—as churches of Christ (Rom. 16: 16).

One such religious group is the so-called Church ofChrist which originated in the Philippines. It is said tobe founded by the deceased Mr. Felix Manalo and, registered with my government on July 27, 1914. This sect unabashedly claims that their founder was the fulfillment of the "ravenous bird from the east" written in Isa. 46: 11. Other passages both from the Old Testament and the New Testament are other corollary tenets which they indoctrinate among their members. According tothem, Jesus established the true Church during the firstcentury but, as predicted, it shall COMPLETELY "fallaway from the faith" (I Tim. 4: 1-3) and will apostatize(II Thess. 2: 3-7), thereby losing its original identity tobecome what is now known as the Roman Catholic Church! (See alleged add. evidences: Acts 20: 29-30;Rev. 12. ) This theory on the matter aforementioned,opportunely paves the way for them to concoct a queersystem wherein Mr. Manalo was installed as "God's messenger from the east" called to establish the "Church of Christ" beginning from the Philippines.(The following passages allegedly identify Mr. FelixManalo as that "messenger rising in the east" which isthe Philippines—Rev. 7: 1-3; Isa. 43: 5-6 and, the timeof fulfillment being in 1914 when World War I began—Matt. 24: 5-14; Phil. Hist. Book. )

Another deplorable error they indoctrinate among their votaries is the shameful denial of the deity ofJesus. To them, He is only human! By necessary inference, our Lord is classified as a mere Old Testamentprophet compared only in the category of Moses andeven with Mr. Manalo himself! The tragic system theyemploy in interpreting the word of God just to denyJesus His divinity leads them to other grievous errors.This religious organization is highly CENTRALIZED.Money collected from each local church is amassed together with the other collections in one treasury anddispensed by their higher authorities. All of their so-called Ministers are trained, ordained and assigned by the Hierarchy. On top of these, the subjects these Ministers preach on Lord's days are prepared at the CentralOffice, being the same throughout all the local churcheson a given period. I can enumerate more "religious practices and teachings" by this organization pretending tobe the "Church of Christ, " which are so presumptuous!However, these will suffice to show that this "Church ofChrist" is NOT THE LORD'S in the light of the oraclesof God.

The church established by Jesus in A. D. 30 (not in1914) is the Lord's. He said that, "... upon this rock Iwill build my church" (Matt. 16: 18). Paul affirmed (Acts

20: 28) that the Lord purchased it with His own blood (See also: Rev. 5: 9-10). God in His wisdom so organized and equipped it that it may glorify Him "...in Christ Jesus unto all generations for ever and ever"(Eph. 3: 21) and, that it might edify and perpetuate itself(Eph. 4: 10-14; II Tim. 3: 14-17). The church which Jesus built is the fullness of Christ and the manifold wisdom of God (Eph. 1: 23; 3: 10-11). As to His nature,Christ who is Lord of all things in the church is bothhuman and divine. (John 1: 1, 14; Rom. 9: 5; Phil. 2: 6

8. ) He could not have been a perfect Mediator between God and men (I Tim. 2: 5) unless He had this dual-nature. He is now both Lord and Christ since the "last days" were ushered in and, at the last day, He willpresent the church to the Father, unspotted and unblemished. (Acts 2: 36; Eph. 5: 27; I Cor. 15: 24

28. ) It follows that the Bride of Christ must adornherself in such manner as is acceptable to God— In thisconnection, we must consider the fact that the NewTestament enjoins churches of Christ to be alwaysautonomous in their relationship with each other. (I Pet.

5: 2; Titus 1: 5; Acts 14: 23; 20: 17, 28. ) Asmentioned before, be it always remembered that each church is perfectly equipped by God to carry out itsown given work. And that, there is no authority fromthe inspired Scriptures for a church to tie itself up with other churches of Christ to form one big organization and, for that matter, other smaller organizations within the church!

This so-called Church of Christ purportedly established in 1914 by the will of God prides itself for havingextended its work in some parts of Hawaii and the U. S.Mainland. This is through the immigration of a numberof Filipinos who are members of their religious organization. But, I am certain that others were brought totheir fold without having investigated diligently theclaims of this "Church of Christ" especially on the matters discussed; for IF they did, I have no doubt that nothing in this world or the world itself can persuadethem to accept such fantastic theories as they do teach concerning the True Church and its Founder, the Deityof Jesus our Lord and the Organizational set-up assuggested here. The preposterous claims they make onthese matters argue clearly and strongly against them,that is, this "Church of Christ" which they boldly proclaim is not the Lord's!

READ YOUR BIBLE TODAY

I

The New Testament is our pattern for living. Its

pages reveal the will of God concerning personal godli

ness, church organization, our relationship with non-

Christians, and a host of other subjects. The New Testa

ment shows us, through various figures and numerous

examples, how God wants us to live and work as His

children.

If I may be allowed to use the imagery of a photograph album, the book of Acts preserves for us a seriesof snapshots of how the Christian life was lived in the first century A. D. It is the New Testament pattern inthe form of historical, literary pictures. As one goesfrom chapter to chapter in Acts, he sees picture afterpicture of life in the early church. An interesting picture appears in Acts 4: 23-35. In this portrait of the earlychurch we can see several remarkable things which we ought to have in the church today. The portrait of Acts

4: 23-35 shows the early Christians in a difficult situation: Peter and John had just been released by Jewishofficials, having been threatened not to preach Christpublicly. Yet because of the marvelous features apparent in this portrait, the early church stood firm.

Prayerful

These Christians knew about the power of prayer andused it! When the world threatened them, they did notdisband. They did not waste their precious time worrying about the threat of persecution (Phil. 4: 6), nor didthey place their trust in their own plans, programs, orstrength. Instead they gathered together to pray. Theyknew that God cared for their state and was receptive totheir pleas, and thus they placed the matter squarely inHis hands. Even if they themselves could do nothing to stop the threats of their enemies, they knew that Godcould and would care for His own.

Their prayer, recorded in Acts 4: 24-30, is a gem. First of all, these Christians asked for strength to do God's work (v. 29). How many times do we find ourselvesasking God to do our work for us! But these Christianswere not so lazy. They wanted to do God's work, andthey prayed for the necessary strength. Sure, the workwas difficult, and they knew it. That is why they did nottry to do it on their own. The early Christians knew thatthey could be effective only if they relied on thestrength which God supplied, not on themselves. Wewould all be benefited immeasurably if we would stopasking for worldly things, which only drains ourstrength and hinders growth (Jas. 4: 3), and start praying as the early Christians prayed.

Secondly, the early Christians realized in their prayer that all things, including their present distress, were inaccordance with God's plan (v. 24-28). They, like theirLord, had resigned themselves to accept God's will andworking, and put their own desires aside. How great alesson this is for us today! Too many times the Lord's work is hindered because of our petty jealousies and conflicting worldly desires. We ought to review whatcommitment to Christ really means.

God heard their prayer and answered it. Although we may not expect miraculous answers to prayer (of thekind in Acts 4: 31) today, we may still expect an answerto our prayer. Just as God indicated His support ofthese early Christians, so will He be on our side if we willresolve to do God's will regardless of what the worldsays and ask for God's help in doing it.

United

The early church was united. One of the most common features among all the portraits of early church life inActs is the unity of the believers. That such an emphasis on unity should be apparent is no accident. Godwants us to know that a church which is pleasing toHim is not ridden with strife and factions, but rather isunited in peace (Eph. 4: 3).

The portrait in Acts 4: 23-35 gives great place to unity. "And the multitude of them that believed were ofone heart and soul: and not one of them said that aught ofthe things which he possessed was his own; but they hadall things common" (v. 32). Their unity was not superficial, but real. It was grounded in their hearts andsouls and was manifest in their attitudes toward each other. The determination and sentiment among themwas one. And it is this very thing which accounts in agreat measure for the immense strength of the earlychurch. Rome fell to pieces in the first century but thechurch stood solid. Herein lay God's message on growth, effectiveness, and progress: it begins with unity in spirit. But where there is selfishness there is noflowering of the Lord's work.

Evangelistic

The early Christians knew that their primary workwas to preach the gospel to the lost. Thus Acts 4: 33 records, "And with great power gave the apostles theirwitness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and greatgrace was upon them all. " This preaching the gospelwith great power was due in part to the unity of the church, but its real cause lay in the grace of God. Grace isfavor. God favored and approved of the work theseChristians were doing in spreading the gospel, and Heblessed them in doing it. Brethren, God will bless us in the same way if we will just get engaged in that samework.

Because the early church was evangelistic, it grew.Notice that it grew, not swelled. There is a difference.Churches swell in size when there is a shifting of members to different locations, but growth only comes whenthere are new additions to God's family. But more specifically, the early church grew because of the essence ofits evangelism: the resurrection of Christ. The first century Christians did not push human creeds or try toaccommodate current social tastes. They simply laid emphasis upon Christ's resurrection, knowing that this isthe cornerstone of Christianity and the very basis ofChristian living (Rom. 6: 4; Eph. 4: 24).

Characterized by Love and DevotionAmong Its Members

Acts 4: 34f is one of the most remarkable features of this portrait of the early church. When was the last timeyou saw or heard of a Christian selling his house to helpanother Christian financially? I am not denying thatthis ever happens today, but you must agree that itoccurs only rarely. I know that our society is extremelyaffluent compared to the setting of the New Testament,and that saints in such a condition of need as in Acts

4: 34f are usually not seen as a result. But what Acts 4: 34f shows is a lack of worldliness in a willingness tohelp one another. The Christians of the first centuryfreely gave up their possessions for the cause of Christ, and this was the effect of their great love and devotionto each other in the Lord. Such love is described in 1

Cor. 13, and its results are seen here. Eph. 4: 16 de-scribes these Christians perfectly.

Of course these Christians were devoted to Christ more than anything else, but their devotion to Christcaused them to love each other in a sacrificial way. Theydid not mind sacrificing possessions and pleasure forthe benefit of brethren. And so must our attitude be today. The apostle John asked the timeless question,"But whoso hath the world's goods, and beholdeth hisbrother in need, and shutteth up his compassion fromhim, how doth the love of God abide in him? My littlechildren, let us not love in word, neither with thetongue; but in deed and truth" (1 Jn. 3: 17f).

Conclusion

In Acts 4: 23-25 we see the church as God would have it. But the Lord's church in any locale can only be thisway with the "working in due measure of each severalpart" (Eph. 4: 16). If the local church is to be pleasing to God, it will take each member working with this goal inmind. Let us all resolve to copy the portrait of Acts 4.

Send all News Items to: Connie W. Adams, P. O. Box 69, Brooks, KY 40109

DON GIVENS, 13000 N. E. 84th St., Kirkland, Washington98033— It is with sadness and sympathy for Lowell D. Williams ofKirkland, Washington that we report the death of his beloved wife,Doris. Sister Williams passed from this life Friday, November 9, 1984 while under-going heart surgery. The funeral was conducted on November 12 with over 400 present. James Puterbaugh and thewriter conducted the service. Truly a great Christian lady, wife ofan elder and preacher, shall be missed. She left us a supreme example of the "worthy woman. " Some of you may wish to express condolences to Lowell Williams in this great loss. Addresshim at 13000 N. E. 84th St., Kirkland, WA 98033.

WARD HOGLAND, 1800 Hairston Ave., Conway, Arkansas 72032— Maxine and I moved to Conway the first part of August. The West Booneville church and the Northside church here in Conway are both fine congregations. Both are engaged in goodprograms of evangelism. I was with West Booneville church for over 7 years. Meetings for 1984 included: Myrtle Grove in Pensacola, FL;Fletcher Ave. in Tampa, FL; Case Street in Weatherford, TX; Savannah, TN; Southside in Owensboro, KY; Lanton (Columbia), TN;Bethesda, Birmingham, AL; Royal Heights in Franklin, TN; Lakeviewin Hendersonville, TN; Riverside Dr. in Nashville, TN; Greenwood Rd. in Ft. Smith, AR; Paden City, WV; Mt. view, AR; Quitman, AR.When in Conway visit us at 1800 Hairston Ave.

EARL E. ROBERTSON, Rt. 4, Box 358, Tompkinsville, KY 42167— 1984 was a very full and eventful year for me in serving Christ. By invitation I was engaged in numerous gospel meetings over several states with some baptisms and, restorations. The work with the Westwood church in Glasgow continues to go well.Our radio program continues to be heard with good-will. Gospelmeeting work for 1985 looks great. By the grace of God I hope tokeep the many commitments filling the year. On August 15, 1984 Iresigned from Guardian of Truth foundation as president and chairman of the board. I had

worked for it 22 years. We continue to live at the above address withphone numbers: (residence) 502-487-6974; (office) 502-487-5535.

MATERIALS AVAILABLE SHERREL MERCER, Edna, Texas—As a result of a building modification, the church in Edna, Texas has the following material available:

Two gas-fired heater units with blowers, one approx. 120,000 BTU,the other approx. 150,000 BTU. Air conditioner evaporators can be added above these units. Ages 10 years and 5 years respectively.

Two 5-ton air conditioner compressors, age approx. 15 years, thatuse type 500 refrigerant.One 15-ton air conditioner unit, age approx. 30 years; compressorsare inside aid handler; triple-unit condenser mounts outside.

One 5-ton evaporator coil suitable for duct use.

This material is immediately available at reasonable or no cost.Contract Sherrel Mercer, 512-782-E378 after 7 p. m. if interested.Items will be offered to the public after December 15, 1984.

ISMAEL RANGEL, P. O. Box 47, Raymondville, Texas 78580—After four years with the 8th and Kimball Spanish speaking churchin Raymondville, my wife and I are planning to move in January, 1985to Fort Stockton, Texas to help the work there. Fort Stockton is a bit larger than Raymondville. There is only one family with whichto work. Much has to be done. The church in Raymondville whichhas been supplying $250 monthly support will have to discontinueafter we move. We will need to locate support for this work. I can bereached at the above address until January 1.

HARRIS J. DARK IS DEAD

We learned recently of the death of Harris J. Dark of Murfreesboro,Tennessee. Brother Dark was incapacitated the last few years of hislife. For years he taught math at David Lipscomb College until a clashover his conservative convictions brought about his resignation. Hethen taught at Middle Tennessee State University in Murfreesboro for

PAGE 17

a number of years. He was always a preacher of much ability. He was blessed with a brilliant mind. Some of his tracts dealing with thenature, work and organization of the church were classics. The world isbetter because he lived in it. We express to all the family our deepestsympathy.

KEITH E. CLAYTON, 55 East St., Bristol, VT 05443—Should any of your readers be interested, I have PULPIT COMMENTARY ingood condition which I will sell for $ 150 plus postage. You may writeme at the above address or call 802-453-2593.

LARRY H. FAIN, 1105 Williams Ct, Claremore, OK 74017—I am writing for the South 88 church meeting in Claremore, Oklahoma.In the September, 1984 issue, you published a news item concerning pews for sale. Before the issue could get circulated good, brother Diehl, the listed contact, moved to California. We still have these furniture items for sale. We have 23 14 ft. long solidoak pews, with solid oak pulpit and solid oak communion table for$2, 500. If interested, write me at the above address or call me at 918341-7481; or call Eldon Turner at 918-341-7771.

KEN OSBORNE, 4201 Crosby Dr. #305, Knoxville, TN 37919—I ama prospective 1985 Graduate Veterinarian with 10 years "full-time"preaching experience and would like to locate with an established veterinarian who is a Christian. I would prefer to locate in an area where I could be of most benefit to local congregation(s) for fill-inpreaching or teaching. References available upon request. Phone: 615584-3427.

CARLOS CAPPELLI, Buenos Aires, Argentina—Since last report, four have been baptized in our work in Argentina. We havebought a house for the church in Jose C. Paz as a meeting place. It isold and will require much work but we had been renting a place. Inthe congregation in Boulogne, seven men are now able to take part inthe services. In January, 1985 I plan a trip to Bogota, Columbia tovisit the brethren and then plan to visit the United States. My visahas been approved. I have invitations for meetings with Spanishchurches in Kerrville, Texas and also at Reagan St. in Houston, Texas.

PREACHERS NEEDED PISCATAWAY, NEW JERSEY—The church here needs a mature, knowledgeable man to work with us as a gospel preacher.Contact Richard at 201-359-1928.

BRUNSWICK, GEORGIA—We are a small congregationcurrently meeting in the home of one of our members and nowlooking for a building to rent. We need a full time preacher to help us.Brunswick is a coastal city of over 40,000. We can help secure partof the outside support needed. Contact Bud Montero, 718 King CottonRow, Brunswick, GA 31520. Phone 912-264-5876 (after 6: 30 p. m. )

STANLEY W. ADAMS, 2426 Tahiti Lane, Alabaster, AL 35007— I have an offset press I would like to sell and thought some ofthe

readers might be interested. It is 6 years old and in excellent condition.It has a platemaker, new blanket and all supplies available. Plates aregood quality. This originally sold for $3, 200. 1 will sell it for $750.Call 205-663-1092.

DUDLEY ROSS SPEARS, 2081 Old Scottsville Rd., Alvaton, KY 42122—The West End church, 1609 Parkside Dr., Bowling Green, KYinvites everyone to hear Johnny Stringer in a series of sermons dealingwith the "Grace-Unity" issue. Dates: January 18-20. There will be aspecial meeting, Sunday at 3:00 P. M. and after the sermon, questions will be answered. Each night service will be at 7: 30 P. M. Anyonedriving through or in our area is invited to attend.

SAFELY HOME FROM INDIA John Humphries, Bill Beasley and Tom Moody are safely home after five weeks of preaching in India. They report successful efforts inpublic preaching and in various classes conducted to train preachersand teachers. Some were baptized, though their emphasis was onbetter preparing native brethren to work among their own people.Their flight left New Delhi about two hours before the assassination ofIndira Ghandi. I understand things got pretty tense before they could get out of Bombay. They remained in good health during the trip andwe are all thankful that they are safely back. While this was the first trip for Tom Moody, John Humphries is a veteran of many suchpreaching trips and so is Bill Beasley. We commend these brethrenand encourage others to help where possible in gospel work anywherein the world there is an open door.

A HEARTWARMING WEEK

R. J. Stevens was with the Expressway church in Louisville, KY inlate October in a week of singing instruction. Attendance and interestexceeded expectations. The last night 334 gathered to spend an hoursinging. The theme for the evening of singing was "Christ. " Those present will not soon forget the edification of that hour. Brother Stevens knows how to sing and knows how to teach others to sing. Heis practical in his approach and emphasizes worship from the heart,whether we sound good to others or not. I tell brethren regularly thatone reason some churches do not have meetings like we used to have isthat we have grossly neglected our singing. Good singing prepareshearts to receive the gospel and fires the hearts of preachers to try anddo their best. Good singing is good teaching for those present whilepoor singing is poor teaching. I just have to say it again: I haveNEVER seen a meeting helped by trading song leaders every night,and I have seen many meetings which were badly crippled by thatvery practice. There are a number of brethren over the country who are capable of giving good instruction in singing. R. J. Stevens certainlyhelped us at Expressway. (EDITOR)

IN THE NEWS THIS MONTH

BAPTISMS 196 RESTORATIONS 68 (Taken from bulletins and papers received by the editor)