SPEAK TRUTH

THE KING'S MESSAGE: WHEREFORE, PUTTING AWAY FALSEHOOD, SPEAK YE TRUTH EACH ONE WITH HIS NEIGHBOR" (Ephesians 4:25).

At a convention in Atlanta last December, an Assistant Secretary from the United States Department ofEducation told of a lawyer who died and went to hiseternal abode. Large, red and yellow banners were strung across the gates to welcome him. Most of his friends and all the hosts of wickedness were there. Loud music was filling the air (no doubt provided by a hardrock band playing heavy metal "music" (?) and transferred to the outer limits of the realm through a cablenetwork similar to MTV, cgc). Satan, himself, was ready with a very special greeting. Such a massive gathering had turned out because this was a unique day! Thedevil stepped up to the disillusioned attorney and exclaimed, "Congratulations, you are the OLDEST manever to be admitted to this domain." "Oh," the barrister replied with relief, "a mistake has been made, I am onlyfifty years old." "No," the devil replied, "we checked allyour records carefully and you charged your clients for 977 years of professional services."

I am not certain how the Secretary would documentthis bit of data. It is obvious, however, that this professional man owed his presence as a special guest in themost populated place of souls to his response to thecentral moral issue of PERSONAL INTEGRITY.

Explicit and Implicit Deceit

Almost everyone who claims to have ethical standards understands that explicit falsehood is immoral.The devil is a liar and we take him as our father when we sacrifice our integrity (John 8:44). Satan induced thefirst human sin with lies (Gen. 3). In so doing, he deceived Eve: a) concerning the probability of escapingthe consequences of sin (vs. 4); b) concerning the viability of excuses for sin (vs. 5); and c) concerning the satisfaction received from sin (vs. 6). The Bible is filled withexamples of bald-faced liars who brought terrible consequences upon themselves and others.

Not all of us are so clear, however, in our thinkingabout implicit falsehood. "Implicit" falsehood is deception without actually, specifically, overtly, lying in expressed words. The word "falsehood" is translated fromthe Greek word pseudos. We anglicize that word as aprefix to many English words suggesting "pretendedreality." Falsehood is fiction. It claims something which is not so. The key to the sinfulness of one involved infalsehood is misrepresentation and deception. This may be done implicitly without express statement:

a) We might use deceptive business tactics and maneuvers or stretch facts to gain business advantage or monetary gain;

b) We might hide the defects in what we are sellingand leave a false impression for personal gain;

c) We might become careless with the facts: d.

We might spice up stories with untruth:

e) We might disregard promises and fail to fulfill our word or vows:

f) We might by some body movement (a shrug of theshoulders, a wink of the eye, or some other action) affirm that which is not true:

g) We might lie by silence hiding truth and creatingdeception:h) We might make insinuations which twist truthand allow harmful rumors to be initiated or continued: i) We might become hypocritical, allowing ourselvesto deceive others and to lie to ourselves! j) We might make untrue excuses about our conductor lack of it, or the conduct of others.

Every Christian is responsible in all aspects of life tomaintain honesty in character. He will not, for example,choose a profession which requires deception or dishonesty with any man. He will determine that he will be an

honest lawyer, or insurance man, or car salesman, orpreacher. He will avoid any temptation to rationalize deceit for whatever reason. Truth is not situational. Our responsibility to maintain impeccable integrity doesnot depend upon the circumstances of the moment.Situation ethics must be rejected as a system of thinking which promotes the philosophy that "the end justifies the means." Peter lied to save his life (the ultimate"reason") and yet his reaction depicts the lowest type ofcowardice. It will not do for a man to argue. "THIS ISJUST BUSINESS."

Secular and Religious Deceit

"Secular" here refers to all "non-religious" falsehood.Obviously, however, all lies have religious significancewith regard to one's relation to God. The old prophetlied to the "man of God" about his right to spend thenight at his house (1 Kings 13). Ananias and Sapphiralied to God about their money (Acts 5). Rahab lied about the spies (Joshua 2). Delilah and Samson playedterrible games with the truth (Judges 16). God rendered judgment in all these cases which involved physical,material things.

Our generation is not fond of identifying religiouslies. We want to give all people credit for being honestand sincere. Many are indeed sincere who nonethelessbelieve a LIE (cf. 2 Cor. 4:3-4). God is not as patient witherror, deceitful doctrine, and ignorant followers of untruth as weak Christians and soft preachers would liketo think (cf. 2 Cor. 11:13-15; Matt. 7:15-23: 2 Thes. 2:1012). All would be pleased if God did not care and if allthat he required was naive good attitudes, but the Devillaughs and counts up the souls he will receive when hesees us accept such a deceitful concept of religion. Wemust get back to the study of doctrinal truth so thefoundation of our faith will not rest on LIES!

(Editor's note: The following article was written by myson, Wilson Adams, as a tribute to his grandfather andmy father. I had intended to write something myself,but after seeing this article which appeared in GUIDEPOSTS, bulletin of the Wildercroft church in Riverdale,Maryland where Wilson preaches, I asked his permission to print it as my editorial for this month. We alsocarry in this issue an article by John L. Nosker of Richmond, Virginia which is a summary of his remarks atthe funeral service. It was my father's request thatbrother Nosker speak at his funeral assisted by the localpreacher of the Rivermont church near Hopewell, Virginia where he served as an elder for 15 years untilfailing health forced his resignation. Ronny Millinerassisted in the service and the grave service was conducted by Roy Diestelkamp who formerly preached atRivermont while Daddy served as an elder. CWA)

JOYNER WILSON ADAMS 1902-1986

We called him "Grand-daddy" and we loved him verymuch. He had a special kind of wit and wisdom that fewpossess. He never had much money nor did he enjoy theadvantages of education that others had, but he knewthe merits of honesty, hard work and family devotion.Last Tuesday night (December 9) he was given theblessed privilege of going home to be with the Lord heloved.

While some men leave behind a monument of marble or a slab of stone, "Grand-daddy left behind a livingmemorial of Jesus Christ enshrined in human hearts. All three of his children are Christians. All three married Christians. His two sons are gospel preachers andhis daughter married a preacher. All nine grandchildrenare Christians and three of them are preachers and onemarried a preacher. It is a legacy that few can match.Here was a man who understood that putting the wordof God into the heart of the little child was the most important priority of life for it would be the only monument that would ever last. He succeeded where so manyof us fail.

This December 23rd was to be their 63rd weddinganniversary. It was a beautiful love affair that definesdescription. The last several years saw our grandmother waiting on him night and day when he could nolonger care for himself. Hour after hour she sat at hisbedside, caressing, caring and feeding. Perhaps it washer way of thanking him for the many years he worked so hard to provide for her. Why the Lord allowed "Grand-daddy" to linger on so long no one knows.But maybe, just maybe, it was to teach the rest of usan unforgettable lesson: that marriage is sacred andthe marriage vow of "in sickness and in health" is still to be remembered even after 62 years!

Here was a man who was great because he never knewhe was. He liked the simpler things in life and never wasat all impressed with worldly achievement and earthlyaccolades. For fifteen years he served as an elder in theLord's church — the highest honor on the face of theearth — and understood as well as any man ever has, the tender, compassionate care required of God's shepherd.He wasn't afraid to shed tears over those who had wandered away nor was he the least bit hesitant tostand firm when the enemy approached the flock. When some of his own kin were swept away by the flood ofcompromise that brought division to churches of Christduring the last several years, "Grand-daddy" remained entrenched in his respect for scripturalauthority and dedication to the ancient order of God'sreligion. To him, Bible was thicker than blood and truth was more to be desired than compromise withkinfolks.

As I stood arm in arm with my father and peered one last time into the open casket, Dad said: "You know, Inever felt worthy to even walk in his shadow . . ."Everyone who knew him could say the same. I just praythat I will never place a blemish on the names that he sowell preserved — his own and his Lord's. And, if I had to pick one verse of Scripture to serve as a summary to hislife, I would choose Micah 6:8:

"And what does the Lord require of you, but

to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk

humbly with your God."

Yes, I long for the day when I can see him again. Hispresence in the eternal emerald city makes the prospects of heaven even sweeter.—Wilson Adams

* * * * * * * * * * THE PATTON — PHILLIPS EXCHANGE

With this issue we begin the much awaited exchangeof articles between Marshall E. Patton and H. E. Phillips on the right of "certain put away" persons to remarry. There will be three articles by each man, followed by a brief rebuttal by each. The discussion willextend through the April issue. These men are bothcareful students of the word of God. They are goodfriends and fellow-workers of many years. They haveworked together as writers for this paper since it began in 1960. H. E. Phillips was editor from January, 1960until June, 1973. For twenty-five years, Marshall E.Patton wrote the question and answer column. The firsttwenty years of his work is now in a hardback book,ANSWERS FOR OUR HOPE, which was the title ofhis column in this paper.

This exchange reflects a difference between them asto the right of some "put away" people in a divorce situation to remarry. Brother Phillips does not believethat any "put away" party has a right to remarry.Brother Patton believes that only certain people in thatcategory may remarry without sin, when adultery has been committed against them. Both men repudiatewhat has been called for years "the Moyer position."Neither believes that one put away for fornication may remarry.

Circumstances in the lives of all of us sometimes make it hard for us to be completely objective touchingcertain issues, including this one. But we ask our readers to study this material carefully and with deep respect for the word of God. Do not settle the question byemotion, nor by reading between the lines of scripture.Let us all resolve to accept exactly what the Lord said,be as tolerant of each other as his word would allow, and accept truth wherever it may lead us.

We thank both men for their work and for their gracious attitude toward each other. Each reader will have to settle the matter in his own heart as to where the truth is found.

The passing of Joyner W. Adams at his home nearHopewell, Va. on December 9,1986, brought sadness tohis loved ones, brethren and friends. However, we "sorrow not as others who have no hope." Praise be to God for hope which serves as an anchor of the soul. How thankful we are that we do have hope, not despair. Thequality of the life of this patriarch in Israel provides asolid basis for our hope.

One indication of his character is the nature of his home and family. He and sister Adams had been married just a few days short of sixty-three years. Three children were born to their union: Wiley, Connie andGlenda (Mrs. Thomas Icard), all of whom survive. Thechildren expanded the family to include nine grandchildren and eleven greatgrandchildren.

Strong indeed are the bonds of love woven into thefabric of the Adams home and family. In these dayswhen marriages are breaking up on every hand, the loveaffair of Joyner and Nollie provides a beautiful objectlesson on the home and family as God would have them.These two cared for each other in good times and bad, insickness and health.

During the past several years of his declining health

— chronic illness frequently interrupted by crises requiring hospitalization — the depth of Nollie's love was so beautifully demonstrated. When questioned as tohow she could hold up, she replied: "He's a good man and he deserves it; I want to do everything I can forhim." How lovingly she nursed him and cared for him.And tribute is also due his loving sister, Miss Beulah,who throughout his long illness provided such strongsupport and help to Nollie. Together they gave a full measure of devotion (and more).

The wholesome religious environment in which Joyner and Nollie reared their children continues to bear fruit in succeeding generations. Every child and grandchild who has married has a Christian spouse, and allare faithful members of the Lord's church. Both of their sons are gospel preachers as is their son-in-law, threegrandsons and a grandson-in-law. That is seven preachers in the family. Son Connie is the editor of thisfine religious journal which touches the lives of thousands on a regular basis.

After their own children were reared and out on their own, the Adams home became the haven for a considerable number of foster children. There these troubled waifs found love and sustenance which they had not previously known. Several of them, now adults, returnfrom time to time to express their gratitude for thewonderful experience they had in this Christian home.

Some were at the funeral home to mingle their tearswith those of the family.

A review of brother Adams' life brings into focus thedepth of his spirituality. He grew up against a conservative background, and throughout his life he has respected the authority of the word of God. He has alwaysopposed deviation from the revealed will of God in thepractice of Christians, either individually or collectivelyas the church.

When the truth came into conflict with error, JoynerAdams could be counted upon to take a stand for thetruth, even if some of his associates were compromisingwith error. There were important crossroads in his lifewhen he did just that. Doing so meant taking a differentposition from some who had been near and dear to him;but, the Lord and his will was dearer to him than whatany man might think of him. When a decision was to bemade, he wanted to be on the Lord's side. He stood with those who defended the word of God without addition or subtraction.

The friendship of this writer with the Adamses datesback forty-three years. As a lonely, homesick serviceman during World War II, they were among those who extended a warm welcome to him. He was only one ofmany servicemen who passed through Fort Lee and were the recipients of the warmth of their love and hospitality.

Brother Adams' passing brings to mind the languageof David upon the death of Abner (2 Samuel 3:38):"Know ye not that there is a prince and a great manfallen this day in Israel?" Yes, a prince and a great man has gone from us. A prince and a great man! He was not a great political figure. While a success in life, he did not amass a vast financial empire. He was not a great oratoror a renowned entertainer. Why then princely andgreat? Because he was a Christian — a faithful, consecrated, humble and courageous Christian. A virtuousChristian.

Joyner's personality was adorned with humilitywhich can best be described by the words of 1 Peter 3:4:"a meek and quiet spirit." He never sought preeminence over others; he was self-effacing almost to a fault. Hebecame a Christian many years ago. He was a faithfulmember of the Rivermont church (near Hopewell).Brother Adams served as an elder of that flock until failing health forced him to give up the responsibilitiesof that office.

Attending worship took first place with him. He attended as long as he as able, and undoubtedly waspresent many times when one of lesser faith would havegiven in to health problems and remained comfortably at home.

Like Paul of old, he kept the faith, ran the race andfinished the course. We usurp not the role of judge, butwe have every reason to believe that our belovedbrother has now gone on into the expanded horizon ofeternal life.

"Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord

from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that

they may rest from their labours; and their

works do follow them."

FIRST AFFIRMATIVEBy Marshall E. Patton

RESOLVED: The Scriptures teach that the innocentperson (free of fornication) who has been put away without God's or his/her approval and against whom adultery has been committed may remarry.

For the sake of brevity, which the space allotted forthis exchange demands, I will leave it to our editor toproperly introduce and solicit the proper attitude toward this study.

I would like for our readers to know that Brother Phillips and I are personal friends of long standing; we each hold the other in high esteem and feel deep brotherly affection for one another. We engage in this debatefor the sake of determining truth, exposing error, andultimately the saving of souls. Neither of us questionsthe sincerity, integrity, or objectivity of the other.

The Issue

Both Brother Phillips and I believe that there are some put away persons who may not remarry. I affirmthat there is a certain put away person who may remarry and the proposition is worded so as to help identify this certain person. Brother Phillips believes thatno put away person may remarry, hence, the issue between us.

Definition of Terms

As the affirmative, it falls my lot to define the termsin the proposition.

By "the Scriptures" I mean the sixty six books of theBible. By "teach" I mean by direct statement, approved example, or necessary inference. By "the innocent person" I mean one free of fornication as stated in parenthesis in the proposition. By "put away' I mean thebreaking of the personal commitment made to one'sspouse when God joined them in marriage. I do believethat while not an essential part of either the marriage orthe putting away, when and wherever civil authorityprevails and civil action is required, one must be subjectto "the powers that be" (Rom. 13:1). In such cases thecivil action becomes a divinely authorized means to theend. By "without God's approval" I mean without divine authorization. God approves only one puttingaway, namely, the put away fornicator (Matt. 5:32;19:9). While God hates putting away (Mai. 2:16), in the interest of justice and for the protection of the innocent,He has authorized the putting away of the guilty party.Since God approves the putting away of the guilty

party, and since the putting away of the person in ourproposition is "without God's approval," it follows that the guilty party is excluded from this proposition. Neither I nor Brother Phillips believe that the put awayfornicator may marry another.

Also, by "without God's approval" I mean a puttingaway that takes place by human authority and in violation of the law of God. A clearer distinction between these two putting aways will be made later in this article.

By "without... his/her approval" I mean without anydesire, intent, or action on his/her part in relation to theputting away. If the put away person desired the divorce, had any intention of bringing it about, or indulged any action, orally or otherwise, that would markhim/her as a participant in the putting away, such aperson is excluded from this proposition. I make nodefense of such a person in remarriage. My reasons are based upon Matt. 5:32: "But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause offornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery."

This verse teaches that there is only one cause forputting away one's spouse, namely, "fornication." When a husband puts away his wife for some cause other than fornication, he does so without divine authority, violates the law of God, and causes her to commit adultery when she remarries. Any participant in theputting away, to any degree, shares in the guilt thatfollows.

Furthermore, this expression "without . . . his/her approval" excludes from this proposition those whowould play "the waiting game." By "the waiting game"I mean what is generally understood by that expression, namely, where husband and wife mutually agree todivorce with a view to waiting until the other commitsfornication thinking that he/she is then free to remarry.The mutual agreement makes each an active participant in the putting away. Such action is without divine authority, is in violation of the law of God, and isthe cause of the adultery that follows regardless ofwhich one commits it. I want it clearly understoodthat such persons are excluded from the propositionwhich I affirm. I make no effort to justify such persons in remarriage.

The last statement in the proposition, "and againstwhom adultery has been committed may remarry" is, Ithink, self-explanatory. If Brother Phillips thinks further clarification is pertinent to this study, I shall behappy to honor his request.

Matthew 5:32

"But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put

away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication,

causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever

shall marry her that is divorced committeth

adultery" (Matt. 5:32). Understanding this verse,

what is in it and what is not in it, is essential to

understanding the truth on the issue under study.

This verse shows that there are two putting aways:

1) The putting away of the one

guilty of fornication (authorized in the exception

clause). This putting away may be done by divine au

thority and, hence, with God's approval. 2) The putting

away for some cause other than fornication. This put

ting away is done by human authority and, hence, with

out God's approval.

Furthermore, this latter putting away is futile so faras breaking the bond formed by God when He joined them in marriage. That such action is vain (so far asbreaking God's bond is concerned) is evident from thefact that when the thus put away person marries again he/she commits adultery (v. 32b). There is another versethat makes this even more clear and conclusive: "And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife,and marry another, committeth adultery against her"(Mk. 10:11). Notice especially the expression "committeth adultery against her," i.e., against her that is putaway. Obviously, God's bond is still intact, otherwise the adultery would not be against "her."

All men need to learn that marriage approved of God involves a joining that takes place in heaven—not juston earth. Any loosening from this divine covenant musttake place in heaven. Until this is done the heavenlybond continues intact, regardless of what is done onearth. Man may break his commitment in marriage, goback on his word, fail to honor the covenant he made,dismiss his wife, and in this sense put away his spouse,but all such action (save for the cause of fornication) isfutile so far as having any effect on the heavenly bond isconcerned. There the bond remains intact, untouched—unaffected!

Who Is In Matthew 5:32

It must also be observed that the husband in this verse who puts away his wife is innocent of fornication,otherwise an adulterer may put away his wife when shecommits fornication against him. Surely, we are agreedthat only the innocent may do that. The wife in thisverse who has been put away (not the one in the exception clause) is innocent of fornication, otherwise theputting away could not be the cause of her becoming an adulteress—she would already be one. THEREFORE,Matt. 5:32b which says, "Whosoever shall marry herthat is divorced committeth adultery" CANNOT referto just ANY divorced person, but rather only to "her"who was divorced when there was no fornication involved. One simply cannot get out of a verse more than there is in it.

The put away "her" of verse 32b has for its antecedent the put away wife of 32a. This "her" was put awaywhen no fornication was involved. In fact, there is no fornication in this picture—not until the "whosoever" comes into view. This means that the innocent put away person of our proposition who hasfornication committed against her simply is not in verse 32b. To so apply the verse is to misapply God's word. The following chart (No. 1) illustrates the truthof this verse:

The husband who puts away his wife when no fornica

tion is involved causes her to commit adultery when she

remarries. The put away wife who remarries when no

fornication is involved commits adultery.

Therefore it follows that the b part of verse 32 cannotnegate the divinely authorized putting away in the exception clause. Fornication is the cause of that puttingaway. Verse 32b relates only to one put away for somecause other than fornication. Verse 32b, therefore, cannot negate the divine prerogative in the exceptionclause, i.e., the right to put away one's guilty mate—noteven if the one who puts away has already been putaway by human authority against his/her will. The divine prerogative still stands untouched and unaffected.The exception clause and verse 32b are unrelated! Tosay otherwise is to say that human authority takesprecedence over divine authority.

It is this divinely authorized putting away that supports my proposition. This putting away is implied inmy proposition and is necessary to the remarrying affirmed therein. Matt. 19:9 expands the exception clauseto not only authorize the putting away of the guilty butalso to authorize remarriage. When these two verses areconsidered together, we have full proof of the proposition affirmed.

It would be folly to say that the putting away actionalready taken by human authority negates this divineprerogative. Such would demand the following conclusions:

1. Human action by human authority and in violation of the law of God can negate that which is divinelyauthorized.
2. 2. Human authority supersedes divine authority.
1. It would set aside Acts 5:29 which says "We oughtto obey God rather than men."

I say, respectfully, that I see no way to escape theseconclusions unless one accepts the proposition affirmed in this debate.

Matthew 19:9

"And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put

away his wife, except it be for fornication,

and shall marry another, committeth adul

tery: and whoso marrieth her which is put

away doth commit adultery."

Limited space precludes a careful analysis and studyof this passage in this article. However, I promise such,along with other related verses, in my second affirmative. The following brief yet pertinent and vital pointsmust suffice for this article.

Matt 19:9, like Matt. 5:32, shows that there are two putting aways—one is done by divine authority, and the other is done by human authority. Concerning theformer, this verse teaches that Whosoever shall putaway his wife for the cause of fornication and shallmarry another commits no adultery. Notice the word"Whosoever." This is an all inclusive term and includes everybody, unless an exception can be shown. We havealready noted the following exceptions to the "Whosoever" in this verse when applied to the divinely authorized putting away:

1. The put away fornicator. He/she has already beenput away by divine authority which putting away had effect in heaven. Furthermore, he/she is not innocent,which the "whosoever" in this instance demands.
2. The verse itself shows that the one who puts awayfor some cause other than fornication is excluded from the "whosoever" when applied to the divinely authorized putting away. All such commit adultery whenthey remarry.
3. We have also shown that those who play the "waiting game," as defined in this article, are excluded. Such become an active participant in a putting away for somecause other than fornication. Again, adultery resultswhen they remarry.

Now unless Brother Phillips can find another exception in the Scriptures—one that excludes the person ofour proposition from the "Whosoever" when applied to the divinely authorized putting away, my propositionstands! I insist that the "Whosoever" in this verse in relation to the divinely authorized putting away includes the person in the proposition I have affirmed. Inot, Why not? Brother Phillips is obligated to answerthis question. If he finds a verse which he thinks excludes the person of our proposition from this "Whosoever," then I shall show that such fails the objective or Iwill surrender the debate.

Let all remember that as the negative in this discussion, it is the responsibility of Brother Phillips to followthe affirmative material which I have submitted and negate it.

I am not pleading for sympathy, but for objectivity when I say, remember that while you will have an immediate reply to what I have written, you will have to waitone whole month before reading my reply to whatBrother Phillips may write. I urge all to remain calm, tohonestly and objectively study the material written,and to patiently wait until all evidence is in.

FIRST NEGATIVE By H. E. Phillips

Divorce and remarriage is a growing menace upon society, and particularly in the church. It is makinghavoc of many congregations where it has not beenopposed from the pulpit and in classes. The problem hasbeen compounded by infiltrating the eldership, deacons, teachers and preachers. Because of its influenceupon the family and the church, I must oppose what I believe is error on the subject.

I do not believe a put away (divorced) person may remarry without sin. Brother Patton believes certainput away persons may remarry, thus this discussion.

Let me fully concur with Brother Patton in his introductory remarks of his first affirmative. I have expressed publicly and privately my personal affectionand high esteem for Brother Patton. I regard him as a Christian and a gentlemen of the highest level. There isno doubt in my heart that he loves the Lord and hisword.

The Issue

I agree with Brother Patton's statement of our difference and the point of issue between us on the divorcedperson who may or may not remarry.

Definition of Terms

I accept most of the definition of terms in the proposition. I have some question about the qualifying expression, "without God's or his/her approval." By the expression "without God's approval" Brother Patton says he means without divine authority: a divorce forother than fornication. By "without.. his/her approval"Brother Patton says he means, "without any desire,intent, or action on his/her part in relation to the putting away." He uses this to mean that the put awayperson resisted the divorce, did not mutually agree tothe divorce. Where is an exceptional clause that releasesa put away person from the statements in Matthew 5:32, 19:9; Mark 10:11 and Luke 16:18, and permitshim/her to marry another?

He did not even prove this in his first affirmation. Foreven though it was without God's approval, she wasnevertheless PUT AWAY, and whosoever marries onewho has been put away commits adultery, according toevery passage that discusses the subject.

Under the heading, MATTHEW 5:32, He says thereare TWO putting aways: 1) Putting away of the guilty party for fornication, and 2) Putting away for some

cause other than fornication. The first is by divine au

thority, and the second is by human authority.

The Bible speaks about one who is put away "for

fornication" and one who is put away with no fornica

tion involved (Matthew 5:32; 19:9; Mark 10:11; Luke

16:18). But actually, Brother Patton gives a THIRD

putting away: one where both parties mutually agree to

the divorce. There is no explanation from God as to

what the circumstances were regarding those who are

put away when there is no fornication involved. Brother

Patton explains that there may be a putting away

where both participants are in agreement with the put

ting away. He affirms that such a situation does not fit

his proposition and he "makes no defense of such a

person in remarriage." But where does Brother Patton

find such an explanation in God's word?

The last statement in the proposition says, "... and

against whom adultery has been committed may re

marry." This particular statement is so expressed as to

try to use Mark 10:11 to justify Brother Patton's sec

ond putting away. More about this later.

Matthew 5:32

Brother Patton makes Matthew 5:32 vital to this

issue. He points out that there are two putting aways

found in the passage. One, for fornication, and one, not

for fornication.

The second putting away involves Brother Patton's person who has been put away against her will. The reasonI know this is because the husband's putting her away caused her, when she remarried as per BrotherPatton's chart, to commit adultery. If it had been the person who had been put away by Brother Patton's "mutual agreement," he would not have caused her to commit adultery, she would have been the cause of it herself.His explanation of this passage also shows that if thewife "cannot contain" and remarries BEFORE the husband marries, that both she and the "whosoever" who marries her commit adultery. Hence, even thoughBrother Patton denies the "waiting game," it is clearlyset forth here in his explanation of this passage. She cannot marry UNTIL he marries. She must wait until he commits adultery against her so that (according tohis argument) she may THEN put him away and remarry. If this is not the "waiting game," I do not know what it is.

Brother Patton makes a point from Mark 10:11with the statement: "Notice especially the expression'committeth adultery against her,' i.e., against her that is put away. Obviously, God's bond is still intact,otherwise the adultery would not be against 'her.' " Hisargument is: Because Mark says that the one who putsaway his wife and marries another commitsadultery AGAINST HER, that this is the put awayperson of his proposition, who was put away againsther will, who may NOW put away her former husbandand remarry because she has had adultery committedagainst her.

Brother Patton assumes that the one who has adul

tery committed "against her" is the first wife. This is by

no means certain. All evidence does not agree that the

"her" is the wife. Some commentaries say the "her" is the woman who is number two wife,

According to the rules of English grammar, the antecedent of a pronoun is the closest noun to it which would be "woman" (understood.) You will note that the textsays, "... and marry another..." (woman understood).Thus the antecedent of "her" would be "woman" (wifenumber two).

There is not a single syllable uttered in Mark

10:11 about the put away person remarrying.

All fornication is "against" all those those involved,whether married or not. Of course, the wife is sinned against, but so is the other woman. Fornication (adultery) is a sin AGAINST one's own body (1 Corinthians 6:18). It likewise is a sin against the person withwhom that one commits adultery. Mark 10:11 has two wives: the one who is bound in heaven by God, and the second wife to whom he has no right (Matthew 14:3,4). His adultery is equally against both of them,because his body belongs exclusively to his first wifeand he sins against her if he gives himself to another; and he sins against the second by committing adultery with her because he has no right to her body(1 Corinthians 7:2-4). "Against" has no particularsignificance to just one person in this context.

Brother Patton must produce proof that the "her"in Mark 10:11 refers only to the wife who was put away, and not to the woman also whom he marriesafter putting her away.

Who Is In Matthew 5:32

In his explanation of "Who Is In Matthew 5:32,"

Brother Patton denies that the one put away for forni

cation is included in the "b" part of the passage.

Brother Patton has already stated that there are TWO

putting aways in 5:32a. Thus the one in the "b" part of

the passage would have to include one of the "put

away" ones in the "a" part. In addition, Brother Patton

needs to consider that the Holy Spirit in the "b" part

of the passage is emphasizing the one who is marrying

put away person, rather than the one who has been

put away.

However, if we grant everything that Brother

Patton says about Matthew 5:32, this really has

nothing to do with the person of his proposition, for

he has already admitted that the one who is put away

"for fornication" cannot remarry. He is looking for a

person who has been put away who CAN remarry. Up

to this point in time, he has not found her.

Now Brother Patton rightly states that Matthew5:32b does not negate the right of the exception clauseof 5:32a. He says they are unrelated. Matthew 5:32b isnot even talking about the one who does the puttingaway, which the exception clause sets forth. It is talking about the one who has been put away. WhatBrother Patton needs to find is where one who has been put away with no fornication involved and who has remarried without committing sin. This he has not done! He says, "When these two verses (Matthew 5:32and 19:9) are considered together, we have full proof ofthe proposition affirmed." Read both passages carefullyand see if this is the case. Where in either of these passages is

there a mention of anyone who has been put away re

marrying without committing sin? It simply is not

found. Yet that is the very thing Brother Patton

is trying to prove.

He makes a big play about the fact that civil law

cannot supersede God's Law. I know of no one who

thinks it can. If they do, they are wrong.

Look at 5:32b for a moment. Brother Patton said there were two putting aways: 1) the putting away forfornication, 2) the one for any cause other than fornication. Now the "whosoever" who comes along and marries either one is guilty of adultery. The first, because sheis an adulteress and when he marries her he commits adultery. The second, because she still is bound by God toher husband and when the "whosoever" marries her he commits adultery. I see absolutely no freedom for eitherof them to marry by God's approval. The verse says: "AND WHOEVER SHALL MARRY HER THAT IS DIVORCED COMMITTETH ADULTERY." There are no exceptions in Matthew 5:32b.

Brother Patton says that there is no fornication in

this picture—not until the "whosoever" comes into

view. But that "whosoever" is a part of the picture.

When he comes into view that is when the adultery

begins, and that is exactly what the verse teaches, no

more and no less. When that "whosoever" marries that

put away one in Matthew 5:32b, he "committeth adul

tery." Period!

Now Brother Patton links together Matthew 5:32b

and Mark 10:11 for his conclusion that "Verse 32b,

therefore, cannot negate the divine prerogative in the

exceptional clause, i.e., the right to put away one's

guilty mate—not even if the one who puts away has

already been put away by human authority against his/

her will. The divine prerogative still stands untouched

and unaffected."

He concludes: "It is this divinely authorized putting

away that supports my proposition . . . This putting

away is implied in my proposition and is necessary to

the remarrying affirmed therein."

Now we know that Brother Patton believes in the

"waiting game." Deny it if he wishes, and he does, his

proposition demands the "waiting" until the one who

put her away remarries. There is no escape from this

conclusion according to his arguments from Matthew

5:32, Mark 10:11 and Matthew 19:9.

Patton's Chart No. 1Matthew 5:32

The problem with Brother Patton's Chart No. 1 onMatthew 5:32 is that no one is free to marry anotherbecause no adultery is involved, and he said unless onecommits fornication, no one is free to marry again. Hischart does not prove any one free to marry without sin,and that is what he is trying to prove. Where is the proofthat a put away person may remarry? Divine authoritysays in every verse touching the subject, "Whosoevermarrieth her that is put away committeth adultery."With me that is final! That put away person in Matthew 5:32b commits adultery when she marries again. The Lord said so!

Matthew 19:9

Two putting aways, one by divine authority and one by human authority. He argues that the "whosoever" inthis verse is all inclusive and includes everybody. Healso noted the following exceptions to the "whosoever" when applied to the divinely authorized putting away:

1. The put away fornicator. He/she is not innocent.
2. The verse shows that the one put away for someother cause is excluded from the "whosoever." These commit adultery when they remarry.
3. Those who play the waiting game cannot remarrywithout sin.

CONCLUSION: "Now, unless Brother Phillips can find another exception in the Scriptures one that excludes the person of our proposition from the "Whosoever" when applied to the divinely authorized puttingaway, my proposition stands! I insist that the "Whosoever" in this verse in relation to the divinely authorized putting away includes the person in the proposition Ihave affirmed. If not, Why not? Brother Phillips isobligated to answer this question."

Brother Patton is so carried away with his "Whosoever" that he finds him/her everywhere. "Whosoever" refers to the person doing the putting away. If he putsaway for the cause of fornication, he may remarry, otherwise, he sins if he marries again. The only other "Whosoever" is the one who marries the put away person. In every case that "whosoever" commits adultery when he marries the put away person. There is no exception!

Until Brother Patton finds a "Whosoever" who can marry again (except the "whosoever" who puts awayhis spouse for the CAUSE of fornication), he has notproved his proposition.

I, as Brother Patton, urge calm and honest, objectivestudy of this material in the light of God's eternal word. The discussion is not over until all the material is in.

BROTHERHOOD PAPERS

I was five years old when my parents obeyed thegospel. Since then I do not recall a time when we did not have gospel papers around the house. Before I couldread I remember seeing my mother look at those papersbefore going to bed. For the most part my memory ofthe papers is a good one. There are several topics onwhich I would not have learned the truth had it not been for them.

I have also seen the papers abused. From the days ofthe "yellow tag of quarantine" imposed on noninstitutional brethren by the editor of the GOSPELADVOCATE in 1953 to this present time, I have witnessed harm done by various publications. But the papers are inanimate objects. They are lifeless tools thatbecome extensions of those who publish them. I wouldbe no more in favor of dispensing with the printed pagebecause it is abused than I would favor abolishing soap and eggs just because they are abused on Halloween.

Nevertheless, we must recognize the power of papersfor good or bad. The pen is mightier than the sword.Caution must be exercised toward their misuse and encouragement should be given when they are used tobuild up the cause of Christ.

Disadvantages of Brotherhood Papers

By "brotherhood papers" I mean publications that are sent across the brotherhood, not published by anycongregation and usually have a subscription price(though not always). They may be published by an individual, a bookstore, a college, or a foundation.

1. PAPERS MAY BECOME A "VOICE" FOR THE BROTHERHOOD. The Catholics have their popes, theProtestants have their presidents, but what does thechurch of Christ have? In the absence of any organizational structure for the universal church, papers haveoften fulfilled a role which they ought not. We mentioned the quarantine of 1953. Those were some of thedarkest days for brotherhood publications. No papershould be so powerful. But the Advocate spoke... andit was so. A brotherhood divided that might have beenable to find its bearings if the lines of communicationhad been kept open. That publication was given a nickname deserved only by the Bible. It was called "theOld Reliable."

Papers sometimes develop the power to determinewhat the brotherhood issues should be. Like the prophets of old, a local preacher must be a watchman.But he must not become a puppet for a paper. Reams may be published on some topic that has no bearing on alocal congregation. There may not be anyone for mileswho holds the views discussed. Rather than stirring thecongregation over a matter unheard of or would not beinclined toward, a preacher would be better off to dealwith the more pressing and important matters that facea local church. There is no "official voice" for the brotherhood today. No editor or group of writers should havesuch grandiose ambitions.

2. PAPERS CAN DISCOURAGE NEW CONVERTS AND THOSE WHO MIGHT OBEY THE GOSPEL. New converts have had their fires put outand potential Christians have been turned off by endless and numberless controversies that were handled carelessly. I know, because they have told me. Theyneed to know that being a Christian is joyous but willalso involve some conflict. If the papers are to be aroundin the future, they will be read and supported by the newconverts of today. Consideration for balance and theneeds of all Christians should be given by editors, unless it has been made clear that a paper is designed todeal only with certain subjects. Even then, thoughtshould be given to the manner in which it is done.

"Now all the Athenians and the strangers sojourningthere spent their time in nothing else, but either to tellor to hear some new thing" (Acts 17:21). Newspapersoften try to out-scoop each other to see which can bethe first to break a story. Papers among brethren havebeen abused in this way by constant reporting of theworst news that can be dug up in the brotherhood. Thisis not said to stifle needed warnings, but a steady diet ofit can kill one's joy in the kingdom. No editor should bepressured into feeling that he must be an authority onevery issue. I have heard Connie Adams say "What Iknow about that subject I could write on a postage stamp." A pitfall for all of us is to spend all of our timein trying to settle brotherhood issues to the neglect ofone's local work.

3. A PARADOX WHICH PAPERS FACE. Due to power of papers that may be widely read, there is theability to ruin a man's influence with whom there is disagreement. Papers may be justified in exposing certain men and they may not be justified. Generally, oneman is no match to a brotherhood publication. However, this cuts in both directions. The paradox is in thefact that many people are always for the underdog. A paper may end up the villain if it appears that a powerful paper has attacked a lone individual.

Advantages of Brotherhood Papers

1. THEY CAN HELP US UNDERSTAND THE SCRIPTURES. I was 800 miles from home attending acollege operated by institutional brethren when the institutional controversy was reaching its peak. Had itnot been for the papers I was receiving I could easilyhave lost my bearings. The papers kept me searching,studying and discussing those subjects until truth emerged bright and clear. Aside from helping me solve issues, articles have caused me to make soul-searchingexaminations of my personal life to see if I was reallywhat I ought to be. I didn't always like what I saw, but it has helped me. All of this, not to mention some of thegood sermon material I have gotten from the papers. Ihave never had those benefits from my daily newspaper, TV Guide, TIME Magazine, etc. Brethren shouldweigh these benefits when they spend money on reading material.

1. THEY CAN OFFER ENCOURAGEMENT. Not only can the articles give you a needed push but newsitems about the progress of the gospel in other placescan give you added incentive to greater dedication. Concerning the Thessalonicans Paul said, "For from youhath sounded forth the word of the Lord, not only inMacedonia and Achaia, but in every place your faith toGod-ward is gone forth; so that we need not speakanything" (1 Thes. 1:8). Similar statements are madeabout the church at Philippi. Such news was an encouragement to Paul. Efforts to preach the gospel on foreign soil or in remote areas in our country are always encouraging. It shows the spread of the gospel.
2. THEY SUPPLY HELPFUL INFORMATION. Meetings, lectureships, and debate announcements areoften carried in the periodicals, enabling one to learn ofevents and make plans to attend which he otherwisemight not have known about
3. THEY HELP CHRISTIANS WHEN TRAVELING. A list of services, phone numbers, and preachersare often carried in the papers. This helps us arrange toassemble with God's family when traveling to othersections of the country.
4. THEY WARN OF ERROR. This should not be thought contradictory to things said under "disadvantages." We need warning against error. Elders andpreachers will need to decide how much time should bespent and whether certain errors pose a threat to a particular congregation. If good judgment is not used, a preacher may soon be looked on as the little boy who cried "wolf."

CONCLUSION: Obviously, I believe the advantagesoutweigh the disadvantages by far. We would be betterChristians if we would spend more time reading goodliterature. But there are Bible principles that shouldgovern all of us who write—"Let all things be done untoedifying" and "Let all things be done decently and inorder" (1 Cor. 14:26, 40).

SERMONS INSIDE AND OUT Compiled by Hoyt

H. HouchenPreachable Sermons For Sinner

And Saint By 72 Gospel Preachers Paperback $5.95

Outlines You Can Use ORDER FROM RELIGIOUS SUPPLY CENTER

STATE OF RIGHTEOUS DEAD

QUESTION: Do the spirits of the righteous go directly to heaven at death or are they confined to Hadesuntil the resurrection?

ANSWER: It is my persuasion that righteous spiritsgo directly to heaven immediately after death. There are several passages that seem to suggest this.

Paul wrote, "For I am in a strait betwixt two, havinga desire to depart, and be with Christ; which is farbetter" (Phil. 1:23). There is no intermediate place between earth and heaven, namely, Hades, indicated inthis text. After Paul's departure (death) he would bewith Christ in heaven. In 2 Cor. 5:6 we read, " . . . knowing that whilst we are home in the body, we areabsent from the Lord." The implication is that if we are absent from the Lord while alive on earth in the flesh,then we will be present with the Lord when we are not inthe fleshly body or alive on earth. Verse 8 states, "...willing rather to be absent from the body, and to bepresent with the Lord." Again, no indication of the Hadean realm.

Prior to being stoned to death, Stephen saw Jesusstanding on the right hand of God. In the last momentsof his earthly life this faithful martyr prayed, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit" (Acts 7:54-60). When Jesus received his spirit, He would have had to receive it intoheaven because that it where Jesus was.

The apostle John, in his heavenly vision, caught a glimpse of the throne of God, and he beheld a greatmultitude BEFORE THE THRONE who had come out of great tribulation, having washed their robes andmade them white in the blood of the Lamb (Rev. 7:9-17).This multitude is the triumphant church in heavenwhile the 144,000 (Rev. 7:1-8) is the militant church onearth, spiritual Israel, still suffering from trials andtribulation.

Before the ascension of Christ back to heaven whereby the atonement was made for sins, all of God'sfaithful people were held in hades, that is, in Paradise inthe Hadean realm. When the beggar, Lazarus, died, hewas carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom (Lk.16:22), a figurative expression denoting "blessedness."To be in Abraham's bosom was to be where Abraham was, namely, safe, secure and happy in the unseen world(Sheol in the Hebrew; Hades in the Greek).

Jesus told the penitent thief, "Today shalt thou bewith me in paradise" (Lk. 23:43). This is where Jesuswent in the interim between His death and resurrection, and this is where the thief went after he died. Peter on Pentecost, quoting David (Psa. 16:10), said that Jesus' soul would not be left in hell (Hades, ASV and notGehenna or the eternal abode of the wicked). Hence,Jesus and the thief went to Paradise in the Hadean world.

But after Jesus made atonement for sins, the way wascleared for man to come into the very, immediate presence of God. Before the glorification of Jesus, there wasno absolute remission of sins. We read, "And ever prieststandeth daily ministering and offering often-times thesame sacrifices, which can never take away sins" (Heb.10:11). The blood of bulls and goats could not take awaysin. Man retained his conscience of sins (Heb. 10:1-4).Hence, until man's sins were covered by the blood ofChrist (Rom. 3:25; Heb. 9:15), and his debt cancelled, hecould not enter heaven or the holy of holies. Jesus preceded us into heaven, a forerunner, going before us toprepare the way for God's people to enter, both Old andNew Testament' saints (cf Heb. 6:19-20).

Jesus opened the new and living way to heaven."Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into theholiest by the blood of Jesus, By a new and living way,which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, thatis to say, his flesh" (Heb. 10:19-20).

Of course, the wicked would still be confined to theHadean abode, to a place of torment (Lk. 16:23), untilthe general resurrection. Subsequently, they will becast into hell, gehenna, the place of eternal fire (Matt.25:41; Mk. 9:43-48). The righteous will dwell with God,clothed with their glorified, immortal bodies, througheternity.

THE WAY TO PRAY (PART 2)

We must be reminded that when the disciplespleaded, "Lord, teach us to pray" (Luke 11:1), they werewanting to be shown the way to do it. Thus Jesusshowed them when he said, "After this manner therefore pray ye" (Matt. 6:9).

In our last article in this column we began noticingthe way God wants us to approach him in prayer. Weconsidered the characteristics of prayer or how we are to pray. We also examined the elements of prayer whichare mentioned in 1 Tim. 2:1. There are four found in this text, two of which were considered in our last article.Let us briefly review those and look at the other components in the text.

Elements (What)

1. Supplication. This refers to asking a need, an entreaty. Clarke says this refers to a request for the averting of evil.
2. Prayers. This refers to any discourse with God(petitions, praise, thanksgiving, et. al.). Clarke says thisrefers to a request for the obtaining of good.
3. Intercessions. This is a plea to God on behalf ofothers. There can be no doubt that we have a responsibility to pray for other people. And if we are going to dothat, we need to do more than just say "we pray for allwhom it is our duty to pray for." We quickly utter thatexpression and think that fulfills our responsibility. Weneed to be a little more specific. It seems that the Lordprayed for certain individuals, calling them by name(e.g., Peter-Luke 22:32). The apostle Paul did the samething. Carefully consider some passages that illustrate that he didn't just pray for his "brethren everywhere,"but he remembered particular ones (1 Cor. 1:4; Eph.1:15,16; Phil. 1:3-5; Col. 1:3-9; 1 Thess. 1:2-3, 3:10-13; 2 Thess. 1:3,11-12; 2:13-15).

We should pray for our brethren that they may grow and develop (Phil. 1:9; Col. 1:9; 1 Thess. 5:23; 2 Thess.1:11; Col. 4:12; Eph. 6:18). When they have sinned or are in need they need our prayers (Jas. 5:16; 2 Thess. 3:1; 1 Jno. 5:16; Acts 8:18-24).

Even our enemies should be included in our prayers(Matt. 5:44-46; Acts 7:60; Luke 23:34). It just may bethat with a little praying for them that they may soonbecome our friends and even children of God.

The rulers of the nation and other parts of the world need our prayers (1 Tim. 2:2). They have a tremendousresponsibility which tells us they could use some help.

Anyone who has just the slightest knowledge of thebook of Daniel will remember that God rules in the kingdoms of men. Thus our prayers can make a difference in how God uses certain men and certain kingdoms. We ought to pray for peace and that the leaderswill make the decisions that are best for the people andthe spreading of the gospel of Christ. This doesn't mean that we have to endorse their political policies if we prayfor them. It does simply mean that a whole lot moregood would be accomplished if we would do less complaining and a lot more praying!

Let's also pray for alien sinners. Paul's "heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel" was "that they might besaved" (Rom. 10:1). This does not mean that we shouldpray that God would save them in their sins, but thatthey will hear and have a heart to obey. It just may bethat we would baptize a few more if we started prayingfor them.

The sick and afflicted desire our prayer on their behalf knowing that "the prayer of faith shall save thesick" and that the "effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much" (Jas. 5:15-16).

As elders try to lead the flock of God and preachersattempt to instruct and exhort the same they all need the prayers of the saints (2 Thess. 3:1-2; Heb. 13:18).

Let's not only think about our own wants and needs inprayer but do more thinking about others and theirneeds (Phil. 2:4).

4. Thanksgiving. This is expressing thanks to God for the blessings of life, including both physical and spiritual (Col. 3:17; Phil. 4:6).

We have so much for which to be thankful. Have youever just sat down and made a list of as many blessingsas you could contemplate? If you haven't, I suggest you do it and "it will surprise you what the Lord hath done."If we ever get to the point that we realize how blessed we are, from that point on our prayers will be filled withthanksgiving.

We ought to thank God for the protection and carethrough the day and night, our food (Matt. 15:36; Luke 24:30; Acts 27:35), clothing, shelter, reasonable healthand strength, our automobiles, furniture, money, modern conveniences which are so often taken for granted

(e.g. hot water, heating and air conditioning, electriclights, appliances such as washers, dryers and stoves,televisions, radios and easy methods of travel), friends,parents, mates, children and other family members, thesacrifice of the Son of God, the remission of sins, thehope of heaven, the privilege of prayer, the Bible, elders,deacons, fellow Christians (1 Cor. 1:4; Phil. 1:3-5; 1Thess. 1:2) and the opportunity and freedom to worship. Even our troubles could be included in thanksgiving knowing that they help develop patience and mature us. The little boy was thankful for his glasses forthen the boys wouldn't fight him and the girls wouldn't kiss him. Matthew Henry thanked God when he wasrobbed—that they didn't take his life and that theystole from him and not he from them. Yes, there are some things that we need, but are not so pleasant (e.g.glasses, false teeth and medication). We should thankGod for these as well.

In fact, we can and should thank God for everythingthat is good (Jas. 1:17; Phil. 4:6).

Time (When)

1. Make Time. Prayer is not a thing that we will doonly if we have a little extra time. We must make thetime! We have time to do just about anything we wantto do. You see, our real problem is wanting to pray.Jesus planned time to be alone with God (Mark 1:35).We have made our lives so busy that we do not alwaysmake time. In the mornings we are too busy gettingready for school or work. The day is packed full ofappointments and things to do. Then in the evening weare too tired from the day's activities and another daypasses without properly approaching God in prayer.
2. Someone made a survey some time ago that revealedthat the average Christian spends five minutes a day inprayer. Actually, our busy schedules ought to cause usto spend more time in prayer rather than less. MartinLuther once said, "I have so much to do today that Ishall spend the first three hours in prayer."
1. Daily. We need to establish some regular times forprayer (Psa. 55:16-17). It seems that Daniel had donethat (Dan. 6:10). I'm told that millions of Moslems prayfive times a day. Could we not plan some time every dayto speak to the true God"
2. When alert. Whatever time we choose to pray weshould pick a time when we are most alert. Trying topray when we are our tiredness doesn't always work.Have you ever fallen asleep praying"
3. Always. This doesn't mean that we must spendevery minute of every day in prayer, but it does meanthat we must continually be prayerful. Jesus taughtthat men "ought always to pray, and not to faint" (Luke 18:1; cf. 1 Thess. 5:17).

May we all try to find a quiet solitary place (Mark 1:35) that is free from distractions and there pour outour hearts to God in prayer.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE

Governor George Wallace gave a noteworthy re

sponse to the hue and cry over the overcrowded popula

tion of our prisons. He said, "Their victims don't have

much room in their graves either."

That side of affairs seems to be virtually ignored.Our crowded prisons, however, are presenting manyproblems of monumental proportions.

Daniel W. Van Ness, in an article in Eternity, April1985, reported that four hundred and fifty-four thousand men and women are in American prisons today.He observes: "If such a group were the population of acity we might be talking about Atlanta or Pittsburgh... if it were a nation it would be more populous than 23 ofthe countries that belong to the United Nations."

This number has more than doubled in the last decade

and is increasing 15 times faster than the general popu

lation.

In most every state, efforts are being made to find orraise the money to build more prisons. In the meanwhileextreme measures are being utilized to remedy the situation. In some places, early release programs haveturned extremely dangerous offenders loose on the public.

What Our Incarceration System Costs

The average American prison costs over $15,400 peryear to support. It's been observed that this is more than it costs for room, board, and tuition, to send someone to Harvard.

This ongoing expense does not include the price society must pay to relieve families of offenders while providing for the daily needs of the prisoners, howeversubstandard such provisions may be.

Neither does it include the initial expense of constructing these so-called correctional facilities. It costsbetween $60,000 and $80,000 per bed to build the average prison today.

Do Prisons Work?

Only in recent times have prisons been used as a formof punishment. Prisons throughout most of historywere used only to hold someone prior to trial.

If the accused was found not guilty, he was released.If he was found guilty, he was then punished, either bydeath, or beating, branding, banishment, or other methods.

Under the Old Testament law, an offender was stonedto death if he was guilty of certain transgressions (Exodus 21:12-17). The penalty for other offenses was restitution (Exodus 21: 19f; 22:lf). The only thing that resembled a prison system was the cities of refuge towhich a person could flee to await a fair trial. Observethat he was responsible for his own living expenses.

Van Ness writes: "The concept of penitentiaries as aform of punishment began in 1790 in the U.S. . . . A small group of Quakers persuaded the city of Philadelphia to convert part of the Walnut Street Jail from a place of detention before trial to a place where convictedoffenders could be separated from their criminal environments, given a Bible and counsel from a ministerand the warden, and brought to repentance—hence theterm penitentiary.

"Though the 'Pennsylvania System,' as it came to be called, failed in its aims, the use of prisons as punishment and rehabilitation spread through the youngcountry.

"What had this done to the Mosaic Law principles ofresponsibility and restoration? It changed the meaning of both. Responsibility came to mean the offender's accountability for violating the laws of the state (ratherthan his responsibility for violating the rights of hisvictim, K.G.). Restoration came to mean not restoringthe victim's loss, but rehabilitating the offender."

Since 1790, those in authority have evolved through many phases of attempts to rehabilitate criminals.None of them has worked. The FBI reports that 74percent of those released from prison are re-arrestedwithin four years. Chief Justice Warren Burger observed that no business could survive with this kind of failure rate.

The Logical Alternative

Is it not obvious that in this matter also, the foolishness of God is wiser than the wisdom of men? The course we have pursued has proved itself to beabsurd and unworkable in very way.

Most folks who respect God's word have cried out long and loud for capital punishment against dangerousoffenders. Such people are "worthy of death." God sodirects.

Those guilty of non-violent offenses, and this includes50 percent of the prisoners in America, should not bekept up at tax-payer expense. They should be made to work and make restitution to their victims. They shouldbe sentenced to some community service for governmental or charitable agencies.

Perhaps public flogging would serve a useful purposein some cases. One thing for sure. Something must bedone. Offenders must be required to accept responsibility for the consequences of their acts. As Van Nesssuggested, "Perhaps then we will be closer to fulfillingthe meaning of criminal justice."

SPENDING THE LORD'S MONEY

When we talk about "spending the Lord's money" itis generally understood that we have reference to thatmoney which is laid by in store upon the first day of theweek, and contained in a common treasury (1 Cor. 16:1,2). But, while we may be agreed on this point, thatunanimity seems to disappear when it comes to spending that money, and at what time it ceases to be the"Lord's money."

The priorities of some brethren seem to be inconsistent with the very term which they seem to emphasize so much. If it is indeed "the Lord's money," does not theLord have any instructions as to its use? I'm persuadedthat some brethren cannot forget the fact that thismoney once belonged to them (was in their power), and want to keep it in sight as long as possible.

Being a good steward of any money, and certainly the Lord's, is a trait to be desired and admired. It is commonly agreed by those who establish scriptural authority by direct command, approved example, or by necessary inference, that the church treasury may be used forpreaching the gospel, edifying the church, and relievingneedy saints. And, if we are required to assemble, thatwe have authority for a place to assembly, including notonly the place itself, but any necessary maintenance within or without. In fact, good stewardship would require that we take care of that which has been purchased by "the Lord's money."

Nowhere is this inconsistent use of the church treasury more apparent than in the area of supporting thegospel. In the Lord's sight, no greater use can be madeof the church treasury than that of preaching the gospel, yet some brethren inadvertently hinder the verything they attempt to do.

It seems that the main criterion for some in the spending of the Lord's money is to make certain that the preacher doesn't get too much of it. No expense isspared in buying choice lots, erecting a fine building,and paving the parking lot. Attention is often given toclassrooms, or the "educational wing" of the building,which would come under the heading of edification. Sofar, so good.

In fact, nothing much is said about giving a goodlyportion of the Lord's money to some sectarian orworldly contractor, and no effort is made to follow upthat money once it is spent to make sure such personsspend the "Lord's money according to our guidelines. Itmay in fact be the Lord's money one hour, and the Devil's the next. Neither does that recipient of "churchmoney" contribute a portion of his wages back into thetreasury of the church, the way a preacher does.

But, it seems that when it comes to supporting agospel preacher, at least some brethren (but not all), are obsessed with what they consider to be a divine mandate to keep the preacher from getting his share, ormore than his share of the Lord's money. They go intogreat detail itemizing and publishing every dollar spenton the preacher, but just lump everything else under the general heading of benevolence, maintenance, supplies,or miscellaneous. If any error is to be made in overspending the Lord's money, it seems that the place tomake it is in the support of the gospel.

Why will congregations deny their present preacher(granting that he is faithful and able), a decent salary,benefits, or a modest increase in either, but spend thousands of dollars in moving expenses to replace him withtwo or three successive preachers? (Not to mention thefact that some other congregation will have to pay moving expenses for the preacher they let go). Or, thepresent preacher can't get reasonable or needed repairsmade to the property where he lives, but the congregation will meet any request the new preacher makes,including a new house and increased salary. I cannotunderstand such reasoning, or "spending of the Lord'smoney," and I doubt if the Lord can understand it either.

Another thing which has always perplexed me is thatsome smaller congregations, with limited financial resources, put many larger congregations to shame when it comes to supporting the preaching of the gospel. Ihave known some congregations which spent ninety-five percent of the Lord's money on preaching the gospel, either at home or elsewhere. May their tribe increase.

Yes, brethren, it is a sobering responsibility to beinvolved in spending the Lord's money, but spend it wemust. The Lord surely doesn't want to find it here whenhe returns.

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

LALO ENRIQUEZ, 3011 Allen Rd., Bakersfield, CA 93312—After two and a half years of construction, doing most of the work ourselves,we are now finally worshipping in our new facility. We celebrated witha gospel meeting with Peter J. Wilson. In the past two and a half yearswe have had about 60 baptisms and several have been restored tofaithfulness with some families moving into the area. We have triedduring this period of construction to maintain strict discipline, anactive home Bible study program and have encouraged members tocare for each other. Our membership is now about 160. Dee Bowman isto be here in May for a meeting. Brent Willey, formerly of Susanville, C A, is now working with us.

JAMES H. SHEWMAKER, P. O. Box 283, Grinnell, IA— I have recently begun work with the brethren in Grinnell. There are about 23in Sunday morning attendance. Iowa has seven congregations supporting sound doctrine. I need to raise some outside support. If youare able to help, please write me. I am also available for gospel meetings. If you know anyone in south central Iowa who may be receptiveto the truth, let me know and they will be contacted.

FROM FOREIGN FIELDS EFRAIN F. PEREZ, Casilla 1317, Valparaiso, Chile, South America— In November three were baptized into Christ after homeBible studies. Brethren at Quilpue congregation are zealous, united and committed to the truth. They are trying to reach non-Christiansin the community. Attendance runs from 32 to 38.

PAUL WILLIAMS, 18 Fairlie Rd., Eshowe, 3815 South Africa— Five fine young people were baptized in Eshowe since my Septemberreport. One man is a school teacher. One 19 year old boy lost hisjob when his employer heard that he was going to the church ofChrist. A 17 year old girl is having trouble with her father and withsome school teachers because she has become a Christian. It seems that every person baptized can tell a story of persecution. The churchsent David Ngonyama to Jozini and Inqwavuma, and he baptized five in Jozini. David Hurst is having a hard time raising support, inpart because brethren have been turned off about South Africabecause of the

sensational TV saturation coverage of the past few months. If you canhelp him please contact him. The brethren in Johannesburg want him,are going to help on his support and can really profit from his coming.The opportunities are great in Johannesburg and in African ruralareas. Please help!

INDIA REPORT JERRY PARKS, 4437 S. 6th St., Louisville, KY 40214—On October 13 John Humphries and I met Bill Beasley and Gary Johnsen (bothfrom Arizona) in New York and the four of us traveled to India where we spent the next six weeks working together in the gospel.

Arriving in India is like going back 300 years in time. It is a paradoxof modern civilization trying to find a foothold in an ancient civilization that refuses to give way. On the crowded streets of Hyderabadyou might find a Mercedes Benz trying to pass a cart pulled by two oxen. Because of backward conditions, there is much that would be distasteful to westerners. In addition to the extreme poverty, there isthe heat and humidity, the noise and filthy stench of raw sewage along side of the streets. But you soon forget this when you see the opportunities to work with and teach some of the most receptive and graciouspeople in all the world. They may not have much but they will share itwith you. They are hard working and for the most part, happy andcontented. City people are being influenced more and more by moviesand television whereas village people are pretty much isolated from all

this.

At Hyderabad, we split up to cover more territory and double our teaching opportunities. Preachers from hundreds of miles around came to study with us at the house of T. George Fred. Bill and I stayedin Hyderabad for a week while John and Gary left for a week ofpreaching 200 miles northeast of Hyderabad. We conducted classesfrom 10 A.M. to 4 P.M. each day. In the evening we went into thehomes of various members to teach all who came. We baptized 8 fromthe classes there.

John and Gary met great success in Yelandu and Kottuguttum.Local preachers had done much preparatory work and these combinedefforts resulted in 136 being baptized on this trip. Because of methodsused by liberals in this area, brethren had grown to expect Americans

________________________________________________________________________________________ Page 17

to build not only meeting places but also schools and orphan homes.Much time was spent dealing with these issues.

Following that week, John and I, along with T. George Fred, his wifeand youngest son and a driver left on a 400 mile trip southeast ofHyderabad. In addition to classes in the home of a lawyer, we hadopportunity to address one of the groups with which a man wasworking who was trying to find the truth. Our message was warmlyreceived and other study efforts will be made by brethren in that area.

We visited some villages of "untouchables", being the first whitepeople in one village. At Julapalem village we taught adults andchildren for hours at a time. We lived in their midst a week and I fell in love with the people and the children. After the rain subsided, wepreached in other villages during the day and returned to Julapalem for evening services. After Sunday morning service we walked about 3miles to the Krishna River where 6 people were baptized.

While we were there Bill and Gary traveled north by railroad to thetown of Kozipet. There they worked with Vinaya Kumar, a schoolteacher, who took time off to work with them.

Thanks to the generosity of many brethren in the USA, we were ableto purchase 551 Bibles to distribute to "daily wage" people. These are poor people who make only enough per day to buy rice for theirfamilies. In addition to these Telegu Bibles, we distributed 2,000 of afirst principle outline "Learn What Your Bible Teaches." T. GeorgeFred had translated this also into Telegu. Two members from Expressway in Louisville worked on the layout and printing. People were soeager for it that we had 4,000 more copies printed at Hyderabad. BillBeasley worked with Vinaya Kumar who translated L. A. Mott's tract "What Is The Church of Christ" into Telegu. They had 10,000 copiesprinted and distribution was made as we traveled from place to place.

All total, we traveled about 20,000 miles by air and between 1500and 2000 miles within the country by car, bus, train, auto rickshaw, bicycle rickshaw, boat, ox cart and many miles of walking. We had good health during the trip and rejoice in the good done. We thank allwho made it possible for us to go. The rising threat of Communismmakes me wonder how much longer this door of opportunity will beopen. That makes these trips all the more urgent. Indian preachers need much teaching to be grounded in the faith so that the work willcontinue even if the door is closed for us to travel to India to teach.

Lord willing, I plan to travel to India again. I feel compelled by the gospel after seeing such tremendous opportunity. Until I can return, itwill seem like a fire burning within me. Remember the good brethrenin India in your prayers.

PREACHERS NEEDED JOHNSON CITY, TENNESSEE—This self-supporting congergation of about 85 in upper east Tennessee needs a full time preacher in a town of 50,000. Everett Hardin, who was here forseveral years, has moved to Fletcher Avenue in Tampa, Florida. Ifinterested, contact Olie Williamson, P. O. Box 38, Greeneville, TN 37744. Phone (615) 639-7212 or 638-6172.

PREACHER AVAILABLE

I know of a preacher, 34 years of age and with 11 years of experience,who is interested in making a move in 1987. I would be happy to putyou in contact with him. You may write to me — DON POTTS, 417East Groesbeck, Lufkin, TX 75901 or call (409) 632-1800

IN THE NEWS THIS MONTH BAPTISMS 217 RESTORATIONS 66 (Taken from bulletins and papers received by the editor)