IS IT THE WAY?James P. Miller

We are all familiar with the emphasis that ourliberal brethren are putting on multi-congregational action. By this I mean the city-wide meeting ievangelism, the exodus type of "mi ion work" and the general pooling of congregations and resources in every other field. It seems that they have just about reached the place when they have lost confidence in the ability of a single congregation to do any of the things the church was established to do. To those who are familiar with the historyof the church this is not new. It is exactly whahappened to the "Christian Church" little more than a century ago. God placed the responsibility forthe advancement of his kingdom on the individual (Matt. 5:13-16). This is the great message of the sermon on the mount. Not onldoes it teach the worth of the individual in the sightof God, but it teaches that through the individual the Father is to be glorified. Through the years brethren shifted much of this responsibility tthe chur ch, and while the chur ch is God's pr eaching agency (I T im. 3:15), brethren madethe church responsible for many things that individual Chr istians should have done, that thchurch "be not charged." Someone has said that we reached the point where we could not entertainanother family of God's people in our homewithout making it a church affair and in some cases sending the church the bill so the church could "have the glory."

With the rise of liberalism in the body of Christ with the desir e to improve on the "old paths",brings into being an attempt to not only set theuniver sal chur ch to work, but to activate lar ge groups of churches into action. I call this multi-congregational activity for lack of a better name.All of the churches in a city, county or state. This is not only unscriptural, but I am raising the question here of its efficiency. Is it the effective way to do the Lord's work? We should know from the history of the last division that it is not thebest way. The Missionary Society was formed onthis ver y plea, that through the society thbrethren would be more efficient and effective in their work. They would be able to grow faster and reach more people both at home and abroad. It took the better part of a century for God's people tprove this was not true. We slowly gainedmomentum until we were able not only to out grow our digressive brethren but to become one of thefastest growing groups in the world.

Let us take as a case in point the great meetinheld in Nashville the week of October 7 last year. Tremendous effort of every kind went into this meeting. Ninety-two churches were directly connected with the meeting to say nothing ofhundreds more who came to fill the new citauditorium in Nashville. One of the best preachers in the liberal ranks was chosen to do the preaching.The book published about the meeting does not givethe cost, but the meeting had to cost thousands ofdollars. Almost one hundred thousand peopleattended. We would believe that another Pentecost was in the making, but alas the net result was 16 baptized and 15 restored. This is astonishing whenyou think of the number that heard the gospel. Here is the quotation and the explanation from the book itself on page 18 of the preface.

"While responses to the Lord's invitation were

received each evening — a total of sixteen

baptized and fifteen restorations resulted —

the basic plan was to preach the gospel and

encourage obedience that would be reflected

in the work of every congregation in the area,

rather than to strive for large numbers of

additions at the auditorium. This course has

been fully justified by results."

T he same wr iter in the preface on page ninestates that "the purpose was to hold a simple gospel meeting". Just think of it; the purpose is,hold a simple gospel meeting, but the basic plan is not to have people obey the gospel when they hear it. Be this as it may, however, the point is this, regardless of how many were baptized later back in the local congregations, this is where the effective action should have taken place in thbeginning.

With 92 churches co-operating and 16 baptizedthe result was less than one fifth of a person per congregation. In other words, the direct gain to the Kingdom of Christ in new babes was .17 for eachcongregation and in those restored even less than this. If the hundreds of other congregations from as far away as Alabama and Kentucky were counted, the figure would be far smaller still. The truth of the matter is that this is the story in most,if not all of these efforts. Another recently reported in one of the great papers among the liberals wasmore successful, but when the figures were broken down the average was about 1.4 souls saved per congregation and less than ninety present for each congregation each night

E ven though I have been in meeting work all of my adult life, I do not know what a long time average in results for gospel meetings would be.At this writing, I am near the end of a meetingwith the South 231 Congregation in Owensboro,where Bobby Witherington preaches. We have hadseven to obey the gospel thus far. In the meetinbefore this one with the North Miami Church and Bobby Thompson there were three baptized anthree restored. At this rate of growth, the multi-congregational efforts, even if "the basic plan wanot to save souls at the very time the gospel, God's power to save, was preached, the addition should run into the hundreds. If the basic plan was to save souls when the gospel was preached, it should run into several hundred. The very fact that the individual congregations had to do the final work is proof enough that such meetings are not effective. In the paragraph just above, the onequoted on page 18, we find the three-fold purpose of the city wide meeting.

"We had planned, first of all, to hold asuccessful gospel meeting that would honor God, Christ and his church; next, we hahoped to make it an occasion that would gain respect for the Lord's church whenever the meeting was publicized; and finally, we hahoped to inspire individual congregations to want to do more for the Lord."

How well the first objective was achieved has already been discussed. How much respect on the part of the world it brought the church, I will leaveothers to judge, but WHAT A STRANGE WAYTO INSPIRE INDIVIDUAL CONGREGATIONS. The entire .multi-congregational idea is away from the effective work of the local church.

We are amazed at the boasting and bragging ofsuccess by false teachers. I suppose it has alwaysbeen the practice, but all this braggadocio is nothingbut whistling in the dark and singing by the graveyard. The Catholics brag about God's approval of their position by their prosperity inumbers and finances. The Holiness people boast about their righteousness shown in their success inmiracles and large folio wings. It seems to me that if a righteous cause is proved by material success and large numbers, the Catholics, Methodists,Mohammedans, etc. would have the edge over false teachers among us. Of course, no false teacher remains in the Lord's church, but some who oncestood with the Lord have left his word and his church.

I recently read a report of a Texas preacher whopreached in two or three meetings in the state ofFlorida and reported how the "loyal churches" are prospering in the state and "antism" is dying outThat report was about as reliable as the report of a trip through Russia directed by a Communist. Ofcourse, you would see only what the Communist wanted you to see. But if large, expensive buildings,and vast programs of work be the standards of success, I would like to direct attention to the denominational buildings and programs of work.The difference between these activities and real work in the service of the Lord is that thing calle"scriptural obedience." No work, no matter how big,is succe ful unless it is scriptural in all respects. Liberalism is not making the progress these reports indicate.

While I am on his subject of boasting anbragging, I noticed in a magazine called Revivalpublished by the fake healer, Leroy Jenkins Evangelistic A ociation, Inc. of Tampa, Florida,January and February i ues, a story called "One of this generation's most outstanding testimonies of conversion."

DID YOU FORGET TO RETURN YOUR

It is the David Harrell Story— "24 years . . . Church of Christ minister . . . now praying for the sick." Harrell "testifies" in this article that he was baptized at the age of 12 and began preaching atage 17. He preached for 24 years and then "learned" he was wrong when "I went to the tent expecting ashow." He states that in passing by the tent ofLeroy Jenkins, the "Man with the Miracle Arm",he had the desire to go back and hear this man.This happened in Daytona Beach, Florida. He went to the tent and sat three rows back from the front and listened to Jenkins preach. He claims to havewitnessed a number of miraculous healings by this "man of God." He then went back to "my congregation in Port Orange, Fla." and described what he had seen during their mid-week Bible study. Of course, the people there "criticized" hisviews, but he went back to the tent later and "was baptized with the Holy Ghost." He gave "testimony" of his experiences in a public meeting soon after his "conversion." Harrell said, "I knew the Church of Christ needed to be warned of the error they were in concer ning the Holy Ghost. . . . When I went back to the Bible class on that Wednesday night I toldthem I had some things to discuss with them. Theyhad already heard what I had done." He claims to have made this proposition to the brethren that night: "Well brethren, I will make a bargain withyou. I will promise not to speak any more of this Holy Ghost if you will do one thing. You will go andget several ministers together and we will come together and reason this thing out in this church building. We will not have a debate and get angry,but will ask questions and will answer them withGod's Word. Tell the ministers to leave their reference books, encyclopedias and concordances at home. We want the Word of God."

He tells of efforts by the brethren at Port Orangeto get some minister to discuss the matter withhim, but "the first three or four refused to discuss the matter." Then "One minister from the Church of Christ in Orlando agreed to talk with me inprivate-regarding these matters. He would not agree to open discu ion before the church."

My, how this man brags that no minister in that section would discuss the matter with him. Well, letme tell him and you this: I know some ministers who will DEBATE the subject with him PUBLICLY,ANYTIME! I know most of the preachers in Central Florida, and those who are loyal to the Book willdebate with him when he is ready. Only liberal brethren do not now believe in debating

But if he is not accommodated in Orlando, Florida,I know at least two in Tampa willing to meet him or Leroy Jenkins in public discussion. Their initials are: James P. Miller and H. E. Phillips. Try us and see!

AUTONOMY OF CHURCHES — NO. 2 Oaks Gowen, Bradenton, Fla

I set forth three principles in the last i ue of this paper upon which I believe the doctrine of "Church Autonomy" rests, namely: (1) Nature of Organization. It is local. (2) Equality of Churches. All have

the same head, foundation, structure, and identity.

(3) Cooperation of Churches. The care Paul took in providing things, (arrangements included,)whereby churches were able to engage concurrentlyin the same work by choosing their own messengers,shows respect for the independence of each congregation.

How Churches Cooperate Is a Matter of ProperInquiry! Titus was moved by Paul's exhortation to go unto the churches in behalf of the poor saints in Jerusalem, and was "also chosen of the churches to travel with" Paul. (II Cor. 8:16-21.) Paul accepted the right of the churches to inquire as to Titus' relationship to this work in which manchurches were engaged. "Whether any do inquire of Titus, he is my partner and fellowhelper concerning you." (II Cor. 8:23a.) If, as some contend todaythere is no pattern for congregational cooperation, then it was of little moment whatTitus' relationship to Paul and the churches was, iwould make no difference, and churches would have no right to even inquire concerning such. Not only was it right and proper for them to inquire of Titus' relation to this cooperative work, but they had every right and reason to inquire concerning theposition of all the brethren traveling with Paul andTitus. In the last part of the verse under study, Paulsaid, "or our brethren be inquired of, they are the messengers of the churches, and the glory ofChrist." (II Cor. 8:23b.) As messengers of the churches, they were chosen by the churches themselves, and had a right to be agents of thechurches which chose them. But, again, if our "nopattern brethren" be right in their teaching tha"there is no pattern", then, I cannot see anygrounds for the right of inquiry by churches in this matter in the least, nor can I account for Paul's patient answer to such inquir y.

Individuals May Serve As Messengers of Churches, but Churches Cannot Serve As Messengers. Epaphroditus is said by Paul to be a messenger of the church at Philippi which ministered to Paul's wants by bearing the things sent to him by the brethren at Philippi. "Yet Isupposed it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus,my brother, and companion in labour, and fellow-soldier, but your messenger, and he that ministered to my wants. . . . But I have all, anabound: I am full, having received of Epaphroditus the things which were sent from you, an odour of a sweet smell a sacrifice well-pleasing to God." (Phil. 2:25; 4:18.) A messenger is one sent by another to another bearing something,either word or deed, for the one to whom he is sent. A messenger is bound by the will of the onesending him; and he is subordinate and subservient unto the one for whom he serves as messenger. An individual might be the messenger of any number of other individuals and churches. Titus and "the brother, whose praise is in the gospel throughoutall the churches," (II Cor. 8:18) were "chosen of the churches" as messengers to bear the liberality of thechurches in Galatia, Macedonia, and in Corinth unto the poor saints in Jerusalem. (II Cor. 8: 1, 19, 23; I Cor. 16: 1-3.) The apostles, as messengers of Christ,could speak only that which Christ commanded them; they were at all times subservient to the willof Christ.

Since messenger and agency requires subordination to another, churches CANNOT serve as agents and messengers of other churches and institutions without being subordinate and subservient to them. When they do this, they cease to be equal, and their autonomy is surrendered. T her e is not, and hear me, one single example inthe New Testament where one church ever served as a messenger or agent of another church or churches. But without this example you can never establish authority for the "sponsorial church" cooperation. Hence, those who defend such an arrangement among churches deny in practice oneof the three principles upon which autonomy rests.(continued next i ue)

I am now in a meeting in Cleveland, Ohio anhave before me a copy of the May 21st issue othe Firm Foundation in which the editor writes in his editorial, "Why We Like The Middle." To ourbrother, if language can be depended upon, themiddle is to oppose the college in the budget andefend the orphan home. I think our brother has his position r ightly defined. T his does put him ithe middle; he is in favor of one human institution living off of the Lord's money, but definitely opposed to another. Throughout the ages the so-called "middle of the road" has appealed to every man who does not want to take a stand. Jesus was scathing in his denunciation of the Jews whosought the middle. (Matt. 12:30; Luke 11:23). Imay be true that in the affairs of men the "middle' has its advantages, for whether it is in government, industry or social affairs, men havewritten the rules and none are perfect. This is not true, however, in the affairs of God. When theinstructions come from an all wise God there can be no middle ground. When we talk of the "middle of the road" we are talking of compromise. Toillustrate let us ask the following questions:

Where is the "middle" on the question of

inspiration ?

Wher e is the "middle" on the question of

creation? Where is the "middle" on the

question of

divinity ?

Where is the "middle" on the question of the

purpose of baptism ? Where is the "middle" on the

question of the time

for the Lord's Supper ?

The answer is clear to every reader: There is nomiddle in any of these, for God told us what is right and all we need to do is believe it. It seems that all thinking men who believe the Bible to bethe word of God can see this. WHEN A THING COMES FROM GOD THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND.

Our brother should break down his position alittle and seek the middle on other matters. Where is the middle on the "college in the budget" question? If there is a middle on the broader question of institutionalism, where is the middleon the things he opposes? Is he willing to galong with the brethren who seek the middle on the "hospital" question and the "recreation" question and all others? Will he sit by and allow the church to become the handmaiden to institutions the God of heaven did not found and of which the wor d of God knows nothing? Here is his statement:

"The leaders of this far-left wing are better educated and far more cunning than the leaders of the far-right wing. They have to their advantagethe ecumenical spirit that is in the air, and therebellion of the brotherhood against the earlier rightest extreme. Plus this (and it is a very potent factor) : they have the unconscious aid of any andall who would advocate that the church be the servant of the various projects and institutions, rather than the gospel preaching, misery-alleviatinginstitution the Lord planned for it to be."

To analyze what our brother says, it is this: there should be no middle when men try to make thechurch the servants of projects and institutions. He puts it like this:

"Such elements as the college-in-the-budget sentiment will tend to break down the age olconcept of letting the church simply be the church, rather than handmaiden to other things, bywhich we have stood through the years, and whichwe believe the Bible teaches."

Although the construction here is a little difficult to under stand, I am sur e that the thing we havestood for through the years is to let the church be the church. Where is the middle of the road on letting the church be the church ? The brethren who are making the church the handmaiden of thecollege are wrong and there is no middle ground on putting the college in the budget. If there is middleground, would it be to put it in for just a little,or to put it in one time and leave it out the next?Where would the "middle ground" be in this case?Do not the br ethren who want the school to live off of the church have a right to take the same attitude toward our brother that he takes againsthose on the right? If what our brother says is true, and the men on what he calls the left are better educated than those who are on what he calls the right, perhaps they will have better success understanding our brother. In the meantime we will continue to call attention to the fact that when God speaks there can be no middle ground.

THE LETTER TO THE CHURCH IN THYATIRA

Curtis E. Flatt, Florence, Ala.

Read Revelation 2:18-29. Like others of the seven churches, nothing is known of the church atThyatira other than this epistle. Lydia, whose conversion at Philippi in Acts 16, was from Thyatira. However, we know not whether she ever had any contact with the church at Thyatira. To thischurch Jesus sent a letter which is of great profitto us.

INTRODUCTION

As we have already noticed in previous lessons,Jesus described himself in the introduction to each church with terms that indicate he was especiallyqualified to say the things which needed to besaid. Jesus began by saying: "T hese things saith the Son of God." Whenever Jesus made reference to the fact that 'he was God's Son, there was usuallynot an ordinary situation. In a flagrant mannerthis church had heaped to herself the wrong kindof teachers. And Jesus said, "These things saith the Son of God." As such, Christ was God's spokesman. (Heb. 1:1,2) As God's Son, he was the way for man to reach heaven (John 14:1-6). When people follow his instructions, they can beassured they will eventually reach God. When people, who follow Jesus, begin to depart from his instructions they somehow forget that God's Son has given the proper directions and that these directions lead to God. Any other instructions lead some other place. May we ever remember! Then Jesus described himself as one "who hath eyes like a flame of fir e." T her e was so much which was amiss with this church and Jesus could see it all. Nothing is hidden from him. "Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but althings are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do." (Heb. 4:13). T hen Jesus said, "and his feet are like fine brass." Strength is his. Ability is his. Power is his. (Matt. 28:18). His feet are like fine brass.

I KNOW THY WORKS

As in all seven letter s, Jesus began by saying,"I know thy works." This statement neither condemns or commends but asserts that he knew all about them — good and bad. And though we havenoticed this in previous le ons, it is good to ber eminded that Jesus knows just as much aboutus today as he knew about these churches (John 2:24,25).

I KNOW THY CHARITY

Jesus said: "I know ... . thy char ity." Possession of charity or love is an absolute necessity in order to please God. We need toremember what Jesus told the lawyer in Matthew 22:37-40. "Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt lovethe Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with allthy soul, and with all thy mind. T his is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." Without love we just cannot please God. Love was the lacking thing with the church at Ephesus. "Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love" (Rev. 2:4). Love does so much. Love of brethren shows conversion (I John 3:14). Love of the brethren shows true discipleship (John 13:34,35). Love of brethren covers a multitude of sins (I Peter 4:8).Love of brethren shows our love of God (I John 5:1-3). Love of brethren leads brethren to forgivebrethren (Col. 3:12-14). Love of brethren leadsbrethren to bear one another's burdens (Gal. 6:2). Love of the brethren leads to helping them (I John 3:17).

Love leads us to respect and obey God (Matt. 22:37-40). Yes, love does so much. However, in this day of turmoil in the churches when so manexalt loving each other as the answer to all problems, we ought to remember that love does not give us license to make law where God did notmake law. Neither does it give us liberty to gbeyond that which is written (I Cor. 4:6; II John 9). Neither does it give us license to teach false doctrine or to pollute the work and organization and mission and pur ity of the chur ch and thencr y that we ought to love each other more whensomeone condemns our sinful course. This church at Thyatira was known for her love, but she wascorrupt as could be in doctrine and therebycondemned.

I KNOW THY SERVICE

This church had other commendable things said about it. Jesus said further: "I know thy service." T his chur ch was diligent in her service or her ministry. This, more than likely, refers to her practice of caring for the physical needs of those to whom she had r esponsibility. Whatever it includes, the church at Thyatira performed commendably. The church is expected to perform thatwhich she is charged to do. We must keep in minthat such is also included in being a Chr istian. However, we would do well to remember here that when too much emphasis is placed uponminister ing to the mater ial needs of man,invar iably the idea of the social gospel develops. Although, many seem not to see it, this is one of the major problems in the chur ch today.

I KNOW THY FAITH

Jesus said then: "I know thy faith." Even inthe face of all that was amiss with the doctrine which produces the faith, some in this church were commended for their faith. This is especiallynoteworthy for it is most difficult to keep thfaith in the midst of false teaching. Yet, some were commended for keeping the faith.

I KNOW THY PATIENCE

Further, Jesus said: "I know thy patience." T he word patience here carries with it the idea of endurance or continuance. Every church is so charged. T his is expected of us, too (I Cor. 15:58).Endurance or steadfastness is one of the things which so many lack in our day. It can be developed(II Peter 1: 5-11). Salvation depends upon it.

I KNOW THY WORKS

Jesus concluded the commendation by saying:"I know thy works; and the last to be more than the first." The works here mentioned is a general term which, no doubt, embraces all four of the above mentioned things— charity, service,faith, and patience. This statement further shows that some were growing even in face of so great obstacles. He knew the last to be mor e than the first. We must grow to please the Lord. Phil.

3:15 Heb. 6-1; 12:1,2; I Peter 2:2; II Peter 3:18Some poet said:

"Not enjoyment, and not sorrow Is our destined end or way;

But to act that each tomorrow Finds us closer than today."

I HAVE A FEW THINGS AGAINST THEE

"Notwithstanding, I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel,which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my ser vants to commit fornication, andto eat things sacrificed unto idols." They were permitting a woman who called herself a prophetess to teach false doctrine and to seduce the disciples to commit adultery and beyond thatset a bad example in the eating of meats. It was so bad that it was said to be the "depths of Satan." Only the truth is to be preached (Gal. 1:6-9). Iaddition, she called herself a prophetess which may well indicate that she was in violation of thecommand for women to keep silent in the churches (I Cor. 14:34). So much was wrong. Then this statement comes: "And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not." Christ had been longsuffering. He is still longsuffering."T he Lord is not slack concerning his promise, assome men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish,but that all should come to repentance" (II Peter 3:9). But, we must remember that his patience and tolerance had grown thin at Thyatira and his long-suffering qualities will finally give way towrath if we stand against him time after time.

PROMISES

Jesus made several promises. First of all, he said: "Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them thacommit adulter y with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds." Then he further promised a just recompense of reward. "And I will kill her childr en with death; and althe churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: And I will givunto ever y one of you according to your works." This is some of the strongest language ever spokento a church. What an impression that ought to make upon us! Then to those who were not offenders, he promised no other burden. They were required,however, to do this: "But that which ye havalready hold fast till I come." The next promise was to them who did overcome. "And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, tohim will I give power over the nations: And heshall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vesselsof a potter shall they be broken to shiver s: evenas I r eceived of the Father, And I will give him the morning star." What all is included in this promise may be subject to much discussion. But whatever may be in it, this indicates great blessing for the faithful.

He concludes again with the admonition commonto all the epistles: "He that hath an ear, let himhear what the Spir it saith unto the chur ches."

DANGERS CONFRONTING THE CHURCH— No. 2

Thomas G. O'Neal, Jasper, Ala.

One of the dangers confronting the church todayis liberalism and modernism. This in manyinstances is an outgrowth of church support of human institutions. Brethren favoring church support fohuman institutions have preached so much in recent years about liberty, freedom in Christ, not beinbound by law, not being legalist, etc., until some among the institutional camp are becomingconcerned when they see some of their number beginning to a ociate and fellowship the denominations or travel in that direction.

Modernism and liberalism in its complete forms are seen in the denominations. In fact some in the denominational wor ld do not hesitate to say that they do not believe in the virgin birth, miracles,and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Some preachers who fill the pulpits in sectarian churches will openly admit that they ar e not going to be boundby the Word of God because that is too legalistic for them. They are interested in freedom in Christ, which they think means not being governed by the law or author ity of Chr ist.

With so much of the attitude of liberalism and modernism about us one need not be surprised tofind it working its way into the church. According to the late brother G. C. Brewer the University of Chicago has "announced that it willnot give a doctor's degree from its divinitydepartment to any man who believes in the deity oChrist." (Gospel Advocate, 1948, P. 702.) In thechurch today we have too many men who are taking their Ph.D. degree from the University oChicago. The Harding of Memphis Graduate School Bulletin, Vol. 1, No. 5, Oct. 1962, reports three graduates of their three year program workingtoward higher education at the University oChicago. One of them is working on his Ph.D. and at the same time serving a church of Christ as "associate minister." In the Torch, 1950, brother Foy E. Wallace, Jr., said, "Twenty five years ago a fine tooth comb could not curry a modernist out of the church of Christ; but today we can take a hay-rake and bale them up." Modernism is adanger confronting the chur ch.

One of the sources of modernism from within the church is the Gospel Advocate Companyliterature. The authors of their literature have read and quoted from modernists. The authors of this literature are not full-fledged modernists, but are well headed in that dir ection. Look at some examples of their modernism.

Gospel Advocate literature declares benevolentinstitutions started by men are divine in origin.

"Of course, a home must be supplied for botfatherless children and destitute widows; and,it is the obligation of the church to providesupport for them in a home. Here is obvious scriptural sanction for the support by thchurch, of the orphan homes and homes for the aged, among us. Such a home must meetthe requirements of the state in which it operates. In supporting such a home, thechurch is not contributing to a humainstitution, but a divine one. Those thus provided for are entitled to a home as much so as those who contribute thereto." (Adult GospelQuarterly, Oct., Nov., Dec, 1961, Page 40.)

". . . Exact Cause . . . Not" Known

"exact cause" of Ananias and Sapphir's death is

not known.

"In a heart-searching examination, Peter revealed to public gaze the awful guilt of this wicked couple. The Holy Spirit evidentlyrevealed to the apostle the motives whichinfluenced them." (Adult Gospel Quarterly,July, Aug., Sept., 1954, P. 28."Punishment upon Ananias was sudden andimmediate: When he heard the words of Peter,he "fell down and gave up the ghost," i.e., h"breathed out his life." The exact cause of his death does not appear. Whether it came as ashock because of his exposure, or whether by adirect stroke from God, we cannot know . . .Whatever the method by which death was produced, it is certain that it was the intention of the Holy Spirit for us to knowthat it was a punishment inflicted on Ananiasfor his deception, dishonesty, and hypocr isy."(Ibid. P. 29.)

Quotations like these could be multiplied from the Gospel Advocate literature. With this attitude in the church, we are well on our way to full-fledged modernism and liberalism in the church. May we all stand against such with the Sword of the Spirit.

VASHTI AND MODESTY

Fred A. Shewmaker, Sun Valley, Calif.

In an article in the February issue of SearchingThe Scripture it was assumed that Vashti's modesty compelled her to disobey the King'scommand. I say assumed because it is not stated as fact in the Scriptures. I realize the a umption is drawn from Esther 1:11: "To shew the people andthe pr incess her beauty: for she was fair to lookon." But why should this statement lead to this assumption ?

Somehow the idea has possessed us that it is impo ible for a woman's beauty to be observed aslong as she remains modest. I deny it. It mightbe said that Ahusuerus intended that the queenappear immodest. My Bible does not say that; iit not another a umption?

In Genesis 12:11-14 Abram said unto Sarai: "I know that thou art a fair woman to look upon." (verse 14). "The Egyptians beheld the woman thatshe was very fair." (Gen. 26:7). Isaac feared tocall Rebeka his wife "lest, he, the men of the placshould kill me for Rebekah; because she was fair to look upon." I dare say that none will affirm that either Sarai or Rebekah dressed in any wayimmodestly ; yet men observed their beauty.

To reason that for Vashti to allow her beautyto be observed necessitated immodesty is to indictSarai for appearing immodest in Egypt where shewas observed to be very fair. This reasoning woulindict Rebekah for practicing immodesty because Isaac expected the Philistines to observe her fairness.

The Scripture does not tell us that Vashti refused to show her beauty. The Scripture says,"But the queen Vashti refused to COME at the king's command." T he Bible does not tell us whyshe refused to COME. To give a reason for her refusal is to assume something.

Why was she disposed of? Verse 17: "It shall be reported, the king Ahasuerus commanded Vashti the queen to be brought in befor e him, but she CAME not."

What is wrong with that? T he women of thekingdom would "despise their husbands." "T hus shall ther e ar ise too much contempt and wr ath."

I say these things with all due respect to anyholding the modesty view and especially to brother Sharp, whom I have never met. I agree thamodesty should be taught from the pulpits, in our homes, and in our personal edification ofeach other, but if this is a lesson on modesty, it must be learned by employing a umption. We can not assume a thing and refuse another the sameright. Assumptions are splitting the body oChrist and we who are contending for the faith once for all delivered can not afford the luxury ofassumption.

T her e is a lesson in E sther I and the idea is taught throughout the Scr iptures. "All the wives shall give to their husbands honour, but to great and small." It should be realized that a husband can only be honored by that which is honorable.

VASHTI'S MODESTY

A letter is in my possession that comes from bro. Phillips. T he author of the letter is bro. Shewmaker. Bro. Shewmaker has offered some constructive cr iticism and may I her e assur e the readers, I am grateful for this kind of criticism. It is my humble opinion still the short article on the book of Esther is correct. Brother Shewmaker does not believe that Vashti would have been immodest in appearing before a group of drunken men to show her beauty.

1. Mr. Adam Clarke is not an authority, I a ure the reader, and I must allow the reader to knowwhat I printed from his book, and gave him credit,I believe to be the tr uth. Her e ar e the r easons.

A. In the Targum, which is a translation or paraphrase of some of the old Testament books from the Hebrew to the Aramaic of Judea, the word shows naked is found. I do not know much about the Hebrew but those who translated the Hebrew to the Aramaic of Judea thought this was a translation or a par aphr ase of the language of the book oE sther.

B. Since receiving the letter I have searched several books in my library and all of themstate the same thing. In the Pulpit Commentary, in Vol. 7 this statement, "On the seventh day of the feast, to all in Shushan" (ver. 5) the king having excited himself withdrink, took it into his head to send a messageto Vashti, requiring her to make her appearance in the banquet of men, since hedesired to exhibit her beauty to the assembled guests, as "she was fair to look upon" (Vs 11). His design must have been to present her unveiled to the coar se admir ation of a multitude of semi-drunken revellers, in order that they might envy him the possession ofso lovely a wife. Such a proceeding was agross breach of Persian etiquette, and a cruel outrage upon one whom he above all men was bound to protect."

C. Again in the same book by another writer," Vashti's refusal was morally quitejustifiable. Neither a husband's nor a king's authority extends to the wanton r equir ement of acts that, if done, woulddisgrace the doer for life. Had Vashti complied, she would have lost the respect not only of the Persian nation, but of thking himself."

2. Now a question or two.

A. Bro. Shewmaker, "What would a drunken orsemi-drunken man have in mind in showinthe beauty of his wife before a group ofdrinkers— had been drinking for seven days?

B. I s not there a great difference in exposingto view a wife fully clothed before a grouof men under the influence of whiskey anthe case of Sarah and Rebekah to which yourefer ?

There is no statement that Isaac or Abraham wanted to show their wife. I do not see any similarity in the argumentmade regarding Sarah or Rebekah.There are many more statements from various sources but these will suffice.

KOINONIA, "FELLOWSHIP," AND COMMUNISM

No. 2

No ser ious student of the Bible will deny thathe early chapters of Acts present a "community ogoods" in the early church. But even a casual studyof the nature of this "communism" will reveal that it is parallel in no essential feature to the current Communist conspiracy. In this article, are presented additional contrasts between the community of goods of Acts, and modern Communism.

ITS LACK OF INEVITABILITY

According to dialectic materialism (the under

girding philosophy of Communism) a communistic society is the inevitable result of the inevitable revolution of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie of capitalism. This inevitable revolution will giverise to the ruler-ship of the proletariat which, inturn, will give rise to the "dream world" of Corn-able, and irresistible.

It is quite apparent that the community of goods of the early church was not an inevitable situation, as far as the individual was concerned. The veryfact that the community of goods was voluntaryis proof positive that it lacked inevitability. Ananias and his wife Sapphire, two of those who sold possessions, were told that their goods were strictly their s to use as they saw fit, Acts 5:4. Furthermore, even after the goods or lands were sold, the disposal of the money was still left to theowners, according to Peter's statement to Ananias,Acts. 5:4.

It is evident, therefore, that the community ogoods of the early church was no part of an unseen, philosophical force at work.

ITS CLASSED SOCIETY

The "dream world" of Communism is viewed as an utterly classless society with the utter abolition of all private property and enterprise, (thoughCommunist countries today are not absolutelyclassless.

The community of goods of the early church was not an absolutely cla less society with no private ownership of property. We have already seen that Ananais and Sapphire were not denied private ownership and disposal of property, Acts 5:4. Furthermore, the aim of the community was not abolition of private property so that equalitcould prevail. On the contrary, the aim of thcommunity was to supply the needy Christians,Acts 2:45; 4:34, 35. This aim was accomplished when the needs were met; it did not demand aabsolute equality in ownership of goods.

(E ditor's Note: Due to a ver y busy schedulbrother Patton has not been able to prepare the answers to questions for this i ue. He has several very good and important questions to be answered. Be patient, your question will be answered in acoming i ue. We appreciate these questions andrequest the continued sending in of them to brother Patton. This fine article by brother Patton willsubstitute for questions and answer s this month.)

THE NEED FOR INDOCTRINATION

thoroughly indoctrinated. If the church is failingtoday in the accomplishment of its mission, it maybe accounted for upon the grounds of a lack ofindoctrination. If the church would be successful, teaching the "disciples" is imperative. (Matt. 28:19-20

Paul prayed that the Philippians "may approve things that are excellent;" (Phil. 1:10) The meaning is— try or test things that differ and approve only that which is r ight. Too manChristians today approve things thai are sinful. They are unable to discern between good and evil."For every one that useth milk is unskillful in theword of righteousness: for he is a babe. Butstong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by r eason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil." (Heb.5:13, 14) Again, "I have fed you with milk, annot with meat: for hitherto ye were not able tbear it, neither yet now are ye able." (I Cor. 3:2)There are things that differ which differences cannot always be seen by babes. T hey must beadmonished and nurtured by those who can digest strong meat. These babes must be thoroughlyindoctrinated that they may become skillful in theword of righteousness; that they may easily discern both good and evil, and that they may always approve only that which is right

Behold the consequences of the lack of indoctrination :

1. Destruction is inevitable. "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge," (Hosea 4:6)Such may practice evil without any sense of guilt.They may call evil good and good evil. Behold the Laodiceans: "Because thou sayest, I am rich, anincreased with goods, and have need of nothingAnd knowest not that thou art wretched, and miser able, and poor, and blind, and naked: I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich: And white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thynakedness do not appear; And anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see." ( Rev. 3:17,18)
2. It lowers our spirituality. It often causes Chr istians to imagine that their spir itual growtwill largely take care of itself. Such usually be come overconfident. Like Peter, however, they arnot as strong as they think. "And he said unto him, Lord, I am ready to go with thee, both into prison, and to death. And he said, I tell thee,Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me." (Lk. 22:33, 34)
3. It paralyzes the preacher. Allusions which would otherwise be clear fall on uncomprehending ears. The context in which the lesson is set theycannot supply. Hence, the force and appeal of thelesson and the fullness of his message is largelymissed. More and more the people are at the preacher's mercy

On the other hand a thoroughly indoctrinate church will result in a more efficient membership, more conversations, and greater ability to stem the tide of infidelity, digression, and all other forms of opposition. Success will then be in evidence. Victory will be inevitable.

BENEVOLENCE UNDER THE LAW

Steve Hudgins, Ocala, Fla.

To the Romans Paul wrote, "For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for ourlearning, that we through patience and comfort othe scriptures might have hope." (Rom. 15:4). Is it not po ible that in our present studies and discu ions of benevolence we might profit by a consideration of this subject as practiced aforetime— under the law?

The Israelite had no reason to think that two or three percent nor even ten percent of his income or increase was sufficient for the supporting of thteaching of God's word and the supplying of albenevolent needs. The tithe commanded of the Israelite was for the support of the priests andLevites and there is no indication that any part of it went for benevolence, temple construction nor any other work (Num. 18:21-28; Neh. 12:44; Ezra 1:3, 4). In addition to the tithe the Israelite was also to give the firstlings of his beasts (Lev. 27:26, 27),the first fruits of his trees (Lev. 19:23-25), and offer burnt, meat, peace, sin, trespass and free will offerings (Lev. 1-7)

Because no part of the tithe was allotted to theneedy let us not think for a moment that Godoverlooked the needs of the poor and made no provision for them. He provided well for the poor—Israelites and strangers, fatherless and widows. Individuals were to provide these needs and this in addition to their supporting the teaching of theword. The Israelite was instructed to save the corners of his field, the gleanings of his harvest and his vineyard for the poor and the stranger, thfatherless and widow (Lev. 19:9,10; Deut. 24:1922). The land was to rest the seventh year and that which grew of itself was for the poor Israelites—what they left was for the beasts. The poor also were to have the fruit of the vineyard and the olive yard (Lev. 25:3-5; Ex. 23:10, 11)

In addition to this the Israelite was to lend generously to his poor brethren and the needy of his land (Deut. 15:7-11). He was not permitted to charge his brother interest (Ex. 22:25; Lev. 25:35-38) and was to release his brother and neighbor from any debt due him the seventh year (Deut. 15:1, 2). Every third year a tithe was to be laid up in his gates for the Levite, the stranger,and the fatherless and the widow (Deut. 14:28, 29;26:12). [Josephus said this was a third tithe (Book IV chapter 8:22).] As a matter of hospitality a man was allowed to eat his fill of his neighbor's vineyard and pluck the ears of his standing corn (Deut. 23:24, 25)

We can thus see that much emphasis was placedon the individual and much was required of himunder the law (evidently all benevolence). The faithful Israelite did not suffer for his liberalitybecause God promised to bless those who kept these commands (Deut. 14:29; 15:10). I n view of this and the plainness of such scriptures as I Tim. 5:4, 8,16; Js. 1:27; Gal. 6:10 does not God still emphasize individual action in helping those in need? SurelyHe is able and will bless His faithful children todaywho respect His word, support His cause and meet their own responsibilities (II Cor. 9:6-8).

". . . THEY REHEARSED ALL THAT COD HAD DONE WITH THEM . . ."— Acts 14:27

Ross Saunders, Lebanon, Ky. — We have justfinished a fine gospel meeting with brother Barney Keith of Florence, Alabama, doing the preaching (April 29-May 5). This was the best attended meeting conducted her e in many years, and thepreaching was simple, clear and sound. We are encouraged in ever y way by the meeting and thefuture looks very promising. The Lord willing, Iam to begin a meeting in Campbellsville, Ky., May 12 -19. Brother Dorris Radar is the good preacher there.

E. L. Flannery, Gainesville, Fla. — We had the highest attendance recently at Northeast. Three wer e baptized, and one placed member ship, andeight placed membership during the last four weeks. Hoyt Houchen is to be in a meeting atMelrose, Fla., June 9-15 and at Northeast here in Gainesville June 16 -23.

Jimmy Tuten, Jr., St. Louis, Mo. — Things are running smoothly and forward at Spring andBlaine. We ar e in a good meeting at the pr esent with brother C. D. Plum. Thus far, we have baptized five and the meeting is just a little more than half over.

James E. Gunn, Gardendale, Ala.— Our work here is still doing very nicely. We set new records in attendance at all of our services yesterday (April 14). Our contribution has incr eased and last monthwas the highest in the history of the congregation.

Irven Lee, Jasper, Ala.— I am to begin work withthe new North Jasper church in Jasper, Alabama, on June 2. I am to preach in a gospel meeting inthe new chur ch building ther e beginning June 23.My new address will be: Route 3, Box 302-B, Jasper, Alabama.

John A. Thurman, Perry, Fla.— Cecil B. Douthitt of High Springs, Fla., was the speaker in a gospel meeting at Perry recently. We meet at 714 NorthCalhoun St. in Perry, Fla.

Kenneth Scarborough of Crystal River, Fla., wasrecently in a gospel meeting in Brooksville, Fla.Larry E. King reported that his lessons were basicand forceful with the power of the gospel . . .Ed Grantham of Tampa was with Paul Brock atLakeshore in Jacksonville, Fla., May 5-11 ... E. L. Flannery was with Ed Nowlin at Glenwood Hillsin Atlanta, Ga., last month . . . Harold Dowdy of Jacksonville was with Marshall E . Patton and the Par Avenue church in Orlando which closed May 19 . . . Clinton Hamilton is with Frank James and the Wendell Avenue church in Louisville, Ky., June 2-9 . . . Bill Cavender will be at Orange Highway church in Port Arthur, Texas, June 24-30 where John Iverson preaches . . . Leslie Diestelkamp was in ameeting at Beaver Dam, Ky., May 20-28 . . . Earl Robertson was in Leitchfield, Ky., May 27 - June 2 . . . Grover Stevens was at Loveland Heights in Loveland, Ohio, June 2-9. Loveland Heights is asuburb of Cincinnati.

James P. Needham, regular preacher at the Expressway congregation in Louisville, Ky., was the

speaker in a series of meetings in the new building,located at 6th Str eet and Watter son E xpr essway, May 26-June 2 .. . Robert Welch will be at East-land June 19 - 28 in a gospel meeting . . . ConnieAdams will be in a series of meetings at West End church in Franklin, Tenn., June 23 -30. He will be in a meeting at Frostproof, Fla., July 22-30.

David Claypool of Nashville, T enn., was in ameeting at El Bethel, near Shelbyville, Tenn., May 27-June 2. He was in a meeting in North Birmingham, Ala., early in May . . . B. G. Hope of the 12th church in Bowling Green, Ky., recently had meetings at Danville, Ky., and Harrodsburg, Ky. . .. Robert Jackson was in a meeting at Central church in Charlotte, Tenn., in mid May. Olin Kern is the preacher there . . . Roy E. Cogdill was with

A. C. Grider at 7th Street in Meridian, Miss., June 2-9 . . . David Tant of Decatur, Ga., was in a gospel meeting at Vernon, Fla., in mid May . . .Cecil B. Douthitt of High Springs, Fla., was with the Trila-coochee church and Alton Elliott in a meetingMay 5-13 .. .

Bobby K. Thompson of North Miami church wasthe speaker in a meeting at Belmont Heights church in Tampa, May 13-21. J. T. Smith preaches atBelmont . . . War d Hogland was with theFranklin Drive church in Texarkana, Ark., June 3-9.

Ross Saunders, Lebanon, Ky. — The work at L ebanon continues well with attendance increasing. Two were baptized into Christ in the month of May. I just completed a week's meeting in Campbellsville, Kentucky, where brother Doris Radar is the preacher. We baptized one along withother evidences of good being accomplished. Brother Radar is doing a good job in this difficult area and the strength of some of the brethren indicates that good teaching has been done on current problems facing the church.

James R. Cope, Tampa, Fla. — We would be interested in corresponding with some faithful brother or sister qualified to teach math, physics or chemistry on junior college level. Contact James

R. Cope, Florida College, Temple Terrace. Fla. Kenneth E. Thomas, Jennings, Fla. — I began wor king with the Oak Gr ove chur ch in September and thus far we have been blessed with six baptisms. I will be in a meeting at Valdosta, Ga.,with the little Miami congregation, June 21-28. They are having a struggle with liberal brethren, but this small group is holding fast the one faith.E arl Fly, Orlando, Fla. — James R. Copepreached in the April meeting at Holden Heights with fine attendance and interest, resulting ineight baptisms. Since the meeting four more havebeen baptized. I have fully recovered from my successful surgery and have resumed full time work. The faithful churches in Orlando at Pine Hills, Par Avenue, Holden Heights and Azelea Park

are all growing, and a fine spirit of fellowship andcooperation exists between them..

William C. Sexton, Lowell, Ind. — The church in Lowell, Ind., had a good meeting, April 29 -May 5.Brother Lewis Willis did the preaching. The interest was good. We broke the record in attendance Friday night of the meeting. I moved here to work full time with the church on November 17, 1962. During the meeting the preaching was scriptural, plain, and forcefully preached in love.We believe much was done. I will be in a meetingwith the church that meets at 1350 River St. in Kankakee, Ill., May 27 -June 2. John Eldrige is the preacher there.

Leslie E. Sloan, Jasper, Ga. — The work here looks brighter. An elderly lady returned to thechurch two weeks ago who had been ensnared intothe Holiness group after she was baptized a few year s ago. I attended a meeting in a CommunityClub last night conducted by the Holiness and waspermitted to speak. The same group intends to meet at the same place each Friday night. I think that it is a real opportunity to teach them. Of course, some of them are so prejudiced that they will nolisten, but some seem to be open-minded.

Edsel Mikel, Bell, Fla. — skepticism has beenreported to me concerning my 1962 labors in the gospel at Williston, Florida, especially over disciplinary action there. I gave place in the way of subjection to such like, no, not for one hour, butstand prepared to defend my every effort there on God's word foursquare. If any desires further information, contact me. I have written records and witnesses. '

James P. Miller, Tampa, Fla. — There is a sound and aggressive church of the Lord in Owensboro,Kentucky. This congregation was formed when the Southside and the old Central churches resolved their differences and banded together in one sound group. Bobby Witherington is the preacher for this congregation, known as the South 231 church ofChrist. In a May meeting in which I did the preaching with this church, nine were baptized andtwo restored. I believe we will be hearing greater things from this new strong and sound congr egation. T homas Hickey who was the preacher for the Central congregation worked tobring the two groups together as did brother Witherington

I flew from Owensboro to Cleveland, Ohio, toassist the Lorain Avenue church in a short meeting.

E. A. Dicus is the preacher for the Lorain congregation and a successful executive in the business world. In many ways brother Dicus is an unusual man. He is a gr aduate engineer, vice president of a successful company, and yet a sound God fearing preacher of the gospel. Through theyears he has preached on the West side of Cleveland with telling effect. The cause of truth runs strong inthe Cleveland -Akron area. Paul Kelsey preaches for the church in Berea on the west side of greaterCleveland. Jack Ashworth is the preacher at E uclid, Ohio. David Koltenbaugh works at Barberton, Gene Guy at Baird Street in Akron, Cecil Willis at Brown Street, Thomas Hickey at Southeast,Guy Roberson at Thayer Street, Paul Casebolt at Kenmore, Owen Calvert at Bedford. A new congregation has been started at Brunswick, Ohio

Jack L. Holt will be in a meeting at Belmont inIndianapolis, Ind., June 16-23. Earl Robertson is now at Belmont.

James P. Miller, Tampa, Fla. — I am to be in a meeting with the Calmont Avenue church in Fort Worth, Texas, July 7-14. This church meets at 3600 Calmont Avenue. Robert L. Love is the preacher. July 21-28 I am to be with the Silver Street church in New Albany, Indiana which meets at Silver Street and Locust. John Gerard is the preacher and has been with this church for several years.

Carroll W. Puckett, Montgomery, Ala. — The Gay Meadows church of Christ in Montgomery,Alabama, is presently engaged in erecting a nechurch building. The building will be completedaround the middle of June, 1963. The church building is located in a new growing section of Montgomery. The church has never had a permanent place to meet and thus this will contribute to identifying this church as being permanent in Montgomery. This congregation is carrying on a good program of work in preachingthe gospel to this community as well as other places although small in membership. When you are through Montgomery you have an invitation tomeet and worship with this church.

There will be a public discu ion in Montgomery,Alabama, June 17-20, 1963, between Carroll W. Puckett and George H. Watts. The following propositions will be discussed.

PROPOSITION No. 1

It is scriptural for a local church when it comes to its place of meeting, to conduct simultaneous classes wherein the Bible is taught and some ofthese classes being taught by women.

Affirms: Carroll W. Puckett Denies: George H. Watts

PROPOSITION No. 2

When the church comes together for the purpose of teaching, the only way revealed in the NewTestament is for all to remain in one group and the teaching be done by men only, one speaking at a time to the assembly.

Affirms: George H. Watts

Denies: Carroll W. Puckett

E ach proposition will be discussed two nights each. There will be two 30 minute speeches by eacdebater each night. T he discussion will begin a

7:30 p.m. The first two nights will be conductedin the church building of the Westview Gardens Church of Christ and the last two nights will beconducted in the building of the Gay Meadows Church Of Christ.

COMMENTS TO EDITORS

"Keep up the good work because the truth that is being presented in the paper will do goowherever the paper is circulated. Your editorial about Pat Boone was extra."— Thomas G. O'Neal,Jasper, Ala

"I think that you are doing a fine job editingthe paper, and your articles are of the finest quality. Much good should be done throughSearching The Scriptures."— Earl Fly, Orlando,Fla.

"I recently came across a copy of Searching The Scriptures through another brother in Christ,Horace Royals, and I wish to begin receiving mypersonal copy."— Kenneth E. Thomas, Jennings, Fla

"The last i ue of Searching The Scriptures still maintained the high standard of teaching anpointed truth which has been characteristic of itall the way. You and brother Miller are doing fine job. Keep up the good work and may God bless your efforts for good and to His glory. I certainlyam glad to have a part in sending such a fine publication to some of my friends.— Leslie E. Sloan, Jasper, Georgia

"I am attaching my check to pay for one year's subscription to your paper which I saw advertised in the January i ue of The Sower, edited bybrother Eugene Britnell. In this i ue he had copied an article from your paper and suggested that brethren subscribe to your publication .. . I know that I will enjoy your paper if the article copied from one of the issues is the type articlwhich you carry."— J. G. Savage, Lewisville,Texas.

"Just want you to know I have put off wr itingyou too long already— Draw great courage from your paper— Look forward to a day when you canpr int it weekly— Glad to help in small way bysending to others in past. My heart goes out toGod's faithful servants— We will surely plow olmule again, if need be, ere we succumb to the foaming wave of man-made religion."— Edsel Mikell, Bell, Fla

"You are doing a fine job with Searching The Scriptures in exposing error and presenting thtruth in its purity and simplicity. I hope the timwill soon come when you can enlar ge the paper and bring the readers more Bible Truth which is so needful."— D. B. Whittle, Palmetto, Fla.

"I am thankful for the work you and brother Miller are doing. The wife and I look forward to the time when we will be in position to do even more for the paper."— Rufus R. Clifford,Nashville, Tenn.

"I am enjoying Searching The Scriptures verymuch. It is very fine and contains many wonderful articles." Arnold Hardin, Houston, Texas.

"I continue to enjoy Searching The Scriptures;keep up the good work,"— Jimmy Tuten, Jr., St.Louis, Mo

"Searching The Scriptures is 'on the ball'. I lookforward to receiving it each month. Continue thegood work."— Ross Saunders, Lebanon, Ky.

Charles Darwin was born on February 12, 1809.His father was a successful, well-to-do physician who had marr ied into a r ather , wealthy family.

Charles insured his financial status by marryinghis first cousin, from his mothers' side of thefamily. Though Darwin was considered a normal boy, his father and his teachers considered him alittle below normal in intelligence. His father wanted him to follow in his footsteps and become a physician. He was sent to Edinburgh for this purpose but soon dropped this course of study.His father then suggested he go to Cambridge tostudy for the clergy. In due course he received his degree without distinction and without very much effort on his part: His energies were expended iother activities and it is not surprising that his father hoped that the cloak of respectability of clergyman might keep his son from becoming wealthy ne'er-do-well.

Due to his friendship with the botanist Henslow,he was recommended for a position of naturalist on the ship Beagle that was to make a charting trip around the world. The trip lasted for five years. His activities on this trip started the chain of thoughts that ultimately lead to his theor y of evolutionWhen he returned to England in 1836 he began toorganize his collections made while on the Beagland write up the results of his travels. He borrowed heavily from many of the scientists who preceded him, brought their works together and in 1859 puforth his book, "Origin of Species." In his bookDarwin treated two subjects: the theory of evolution,, and a theory of the mechanism of evolution — that is, natural selection. ThoughDarwin is often cr edited with this theor y ofnatural selection, it was actually set forth earlier by Alfred Russell Wallace. As proof, so Darwin claimed, of natural selection two observations were noted: (1) though reproductive potential was tremendous, species population size was relatively constant in any given area, and (2) fluctuations occur from year to year but ordinarily there is no continuous increase. From these he concluded: (1)not all of the progeny produced by any generation reached maturity; (2) many died during the earlystages of life, and (3) that variations were of such a universal nature that no two individuals were exactly alike. T hus he declares that this would mean that only the best specimens would sur vive and in turn would pass on their characteristics to their progeny. T his he concluded, would changthe characteristics of a species and evolutiowould occur. You can see in his explanation and conclusion the theory of acquired characteristics which Cuvier had demonstrated to be false as well as impo ible. Here the entire theory of evolution as set forth by Charles Darwin is based upon a theorythat has been shown to be false and is even rejected today by those who contend for the theory oevolution. Men of all ages, even today, are not tooconcerned with truth, if it stands in the way otheir desires. The thinking seems to just refuse to believe the truth and it will either go away or change to make their errors truth!