The question, what must I do to be saved can beapplied to many different situations in the religiousworld. It can be asked not only by the pagan jailorat Philippi, but also by the lost child of God, the"do nothing member" of the church, and by thechurch itself. In this study let us apply it to thechurch and ask the question, what must the churchdo to be saved?

First, if the church is to be saved it must be true to its mission in the world. Paul writes to Timothy in I Timothy 3:15, "But if I tarry long, that thoumayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyselfin the house of God, which is the church of the livingGod, the pillar and ground of the truth." The term"Pillar" carries the idea of the undergirding or support, and the term "ground", translated many times"bulwark", meaning a strong wall of defense. Thusthe mission of the church is to support the truthand defend it. From the earliest days in the churchin Jerusalem there are those who would turn the church aside from these two great responsibilitiesand cause it to leave the "ministry of the word", to"serve tables". John cried out in the closing wordsof the Revelation and said, "the spirit and the bridesay come." The denominations around us have longbeen turned aside. The demands of the social order have triumphed over the call of the soul. On everyside churches of Christ are turning to the Fleshlyside of man. Entertainment is offered in place ofthe gospel of the son of God. Recreation is substituted for sound doctrine and the church is made attractive to the world, without a thought of itsdivine mission. In what other way can we explainsuch projects among us as "recreation hall", "youngpeoples churches", "basket ball teams", and a hostof other things? Yes, if the church is to be savedit must be true to its mission.

If the church is to be saved it must recognize theauthority of Christ. In Paul's great essay on thechurch in God's purpose in Ephesians 1:22,23 wehave these words. "And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of himthat filleth all in all." Churches need to learn that they do not have legislative power. All authoritybelongs to Christ who is "the Saviour of the body."This simple lesson would demand that the churchhave elders, deacons, evangelists and saints andnothing more. That it confine its efforts to scriptural procedures and to them alone. It is uselessto preach against human creeds attached to thechurch, and then divide the body over human institutions attached to the church. The Lord has given as much authority for one as he has for theother. Christ is LORD in every sense of the term.There is little purpose in calling him Lord, Lordand then going beyond what he has said.

Salvation for the church depends upon the abilityof the church to tell truth from error. In commending the church at Ephesus in Revelation 2:2 Christtells them, "thou has tried them which say they areapostles, and are not, and hast found them liars."Think about a church so well taught that it couldprove pretenders to the office of apostle false. Weare thrilled to even contemplate such a congregation.It is easy to understand when we read the 20thchapter of the book of Acts. Paul tells the Ephesianelders in verse 20, ... "I kept back nothing that wasprofitable unto you, but have shewed you, and havetaught you publicly, and from house to house." Thechurch at Ephesus did not have to call outside help. They worked from no approval list furnished bysome publishing house or college. They simply putthe pretender to the test. If churches were this welltaught today they would be safe. Any time any partof the truth is not preached "publicly and fromhouse to house", the church is defenseless in thisarea and can not be the "pillar and ground of thetruth." We have seen the storms of error demolish what should be the bulwarks of God. Churches fell to Premillennialism and now to Institutionalism f6r the simple reason that they could not tell truth from error. Think now how foolish it is to say that sincewe do not have any Premillennialism here we willdeny anyone the right to preach on the subject.Brethren all over this nation have said, Since weare not troubled over the support of human institutions and the Herald of Truth, we will not allowit to be preached or discussed.

What if the elders of the church at Ephesus hadsaid, "Since we have not had any false apostles comeour way, we will refuse our preachers the right to

Page 2

preach on how to test them"? Brethren by thethousands who read this paper, can you not see thatit is often too late to lock the barn after the horse is stolen? The time to teach is before error in anyform becomes a problem. I think that some of thisrefusal to permit an open pulpit stems from a loveof error itself and some of it comes from an over estimation of the power of elders. Some elders actuallv believe that they can prevent false teaching andpractice simply because they are elders. Historydenies this to be true. Elders have been set aside,meeting houses have been stolen and entire congregations have been lost simply because the churchdid not know the truth. The effort to teach came too late. Let no elder be deceived, although his right to rule comes from God, the instrument in his handsto enforce this right is the word. Only when theword is taught fully and completely and the churchis warned of every danger is the elder safe and thechurch safe.

For the church to be saved it must be pure. The charges against the church at Sardis were on thispoint. In Revelation 3:2 Christ tells them that "Ihave not found thy works perfect before God," thenin verse 4 he says, "Thou hast a few names even inSardis which have not defiled their garments: andthey shall walk with me in white: for they areworthy." It is a sad commentary on the church today, that while the WOMAN'S CHRISTIAN TEMPERANCE UNION is condemning Pat Boone forhis role in State Fair, under the heading, "Another Christian Has Fallen," the largest school among usis promoting the sale of a new album of spiritualsongs in which their chorus sings with Pat praisesto God Almighty. If our righteousness is to "exceedthe righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees", wehad better learn from the WCTU. If a group ofwomen who are not Christians in the true sense of the world can see a fallen Christian, and the churchmade up of Christians can-not, the body of Christ is in real danger.

If the church is to be saved it must maintain the unity for which Christ prayed. This is more than an agreement to disagree. It is a unity that consists ofONE MIND, ONE MOUTH, AND ONE HEART.In the 15th chapter of the Roman letter we havethese words, "Now the God of patience and consolation grant you to be like minded one toward anotheraccording to Christ Jesus; that ye may with onemind and one mouth glorify God, even the Fatherof our Lord Jesus Christ." The early church achieved this unity and we have examples of thempracticing it. They were united in doctrine in Acts

2:42. They were united and of one heart in seeingto the needy in Acts 4:32. They were of one mouthin Acts 4 :24. They knew that true Bible unity couldonly come from the word of God. The church todaymust learn this lesson. Many brethren have the idea that we can meet and agree to differ and this willplease God. Try the case of Peter at Antioch in the2nd Chapter of Galatians, Paul said, "I withstoodhim to his face because he was to be blamed." Here two great apostles differed. What if they had agreed to disagree and Peter had gone through life teaching that there was a difference in the Jew andGentiles and Paul had spent a lifetime saying,"There is no difference between Jews and Greeks"?

Page 3

This article is in review of one appearing elsewhere in this issue by Gene Dortch on "Social Activities In The Church Building." Please read hisarticle.

Since there has been an exchange of articles between us already on the use of the church building,I am hesitant to extend the discussion further, lestwe impose unduly upon our readers. However, realizing that more time, effort, and examination oftenserve to clarify an issue and to establish truth, Iyield to what I believe will be in the interest of thatobjective. The former articles appeared in the January, March, and May issues of this year.

While a review point by point would be of interest and profit, at least to some, I believe there is ashorter way to reach our objective. For that reasonI shall keep my references to his article to a minimum, proceed to emphasize the differences betweenus, affirm clearly my position once more, and thenleave it to the readers to determine truth for themselves in the light of the evidence appealed to andsubmitted.

The title and first paragraph of the article underreview implies something that is false. I made noeffort to justify "social activities" in the churchbuilding either by the church or anyone else. I amopposed to either and said so in my former articlesand gave the reason why. I deny that such followsas a consequence of my position. If Brother Dortchthinks so, that is his privilege, but the error of such thinking should be clear from what follows. Furthermore, the article makes light of my qualifying phrase"in this day." In Paul's day the matter of eatingmeats sacrificed to idols — even without conscience of the idol — was forbidden. The reason was because of the false impression such might make on others,and they thereby be emboldened to eat with conscience of the idol and sin. There is little if anychance of this being done today in our land. BrotherDortch, the day, place, and circumstances often arean important factor in determining truth, especially,when one's influence and expediencies are involved.

My former articles have clearly affirmed that "thechurch can use the building only for that whichcomes within the scope of its mission." I have alsoconceded that at times others (individuals, families,and institutions) may use the church building forpurposes other than the church's mission. However,I have shown that this can be done only under certain circumstances. It must not involve the church and it must not leave the impression that such is afunction of the church. Now, Brother Dortch holds,if I understand him correctly, that such is impossible.This, primarily, is the difference between us.

The church can acquire property for its use bybuying, leasing, renting, borrowing, or even as a gift.This can be done temporarily or permanently. Thechurch can also relinquish that property temporarilyor permanently, and when it does so, the church isnot involved in any further use of it. There are many churches now that acquire property for use temporarily— sometimes involving only the hours forworship — after which it is relinquished for otheruses. The church is not involved in those other uses. However, when ownership of the property by thechurch is generally known caution must be exercised in relinquishing it to others, especially, on atemporary basis, because the release might not beknown. In that instance the use made of the buildingmight be understood as a church function, and thereby a false impression be made as to the church's mission.

Brother Dortch ignores the above possibility inhis reasoning. He affirms that when the church buyssomething and it is used for social or secular purposes that "it was either (1) used by the church forsocial purposes, (2) or used with the church's permission (II John 9-11), (3) or stolen from thechurch." His conclusion is in error because he arbitrarily binds only three alternatives. There is stillanother — the one I have submitted. Such is not a matter of the church giving permission in the sense

of bidding God speed. In fact, the church-is not in

volved! The use is by another to whom the church

has relinquished the property. This conclusion fol

lows necessarily, unless one denies that a church, can

make disposition of property, either temporarily or

permanently, once it has been acquired, or unless

one affirms responsibility on the part of the church

for all further use of the property regardless of what

disposition has been made of it. Thus, it should be

obvious that the scripture brother Dortch is asking

for is not needed, for the simple reason the church

is not involved in the use under consideration.

Since we have carried the matter this far, I wantto go further than was anticipated at the beginningand present other grounds upon which funerals andweddings in the church building can be justified.This simply means there are at least two ways ofjustifying such. The first grounds of justification hasbeen set forth above, namely, the church relinquishes the building to families or individuals so that thechurch is not involved in its use. Now, in presentingthe second grounds of justification, I affirm that thechurch can use its facilities on the. occasion of weddings and funerals, because such is in keeping withthe mission of the church.

While in my former articles there was no effort orintention of justifying either weddings or funeralsupon the grounds that such is within the scope ofthe church's mission, I will admit that my statement that such is "in keeping with the mission of thechurch" implies as much, especially, when consideredout of context, as brother Dortch used it. (See myreply to this in the May issue.) Thus far I havepointed out the grounds upon which the use of thebuilding by others may be justified. I am willing,however, to defend weddings and funerals in churchbuildings upon the grounds that such comes withinthe scope of the church's mission.

The object of the funeral occasion is to preach the

gospel of Christ. Those in sorrow need that part of

Page 4 __________________________________________________________________________

the gospel that comforts, encourages, strengthens,and gives hope. The aliens present, usually more thanon any other occasion, need to be impressed with thecertainty of death, judgment, heaven or hell, andwhat to do about it. Can anyone deny that these area part of the gospel? Can anyone deny that theobjective of the occasion is to preach these verythings? The presence of the casket, the deceasedbody, and sorrowing souls create the occasion, butthe occasion is one that can and often does involve the church in the discharge of her mission.

The same thing is true of the wedding in thechurch building. The objective of such an occasion is to impress all with the fact that marriage is ordained of God, is sacred, and should" be establishedand maintained according to God's will. If this werenot the objective in using the church building, thensome civil officer authorized to do so in compliancewith civil law would likely perform the ceremony.The presence of the couple getting married, the marriage license, and the exchanging of vows are thingsthat occasion the opportunity, but the objective of the whole affair at the church building is in keepingwith the mission of the church.

It is unfair to compare these occasions (funeralsand weddings) to "banquets and kindergartens, gyms,and all the social trappings of liberalism, not 'in keeping' with the church's mission," and to imply thatconsistency would demand acceptance of such, if"enough solemnity and Bible reading" were presenton such occasions. The objective of such occasions is not in keeping with the mission of the church, andwhat solemnity and Bible reading characterize theoccasion are incidental. Furthermore, church facilities used in carrying out the mission of the churchdo not accommodate such activities. Extra facilities must be provided. Indeed, there is a vast differencebetween such and funerals and weddings.

It is also a fact that varied incidental uses are often made of a building that must be justified uponthe grounds that they are purely incidental and notthe purpose or objective for which the building wasbuilt and is used. Brother Dortch's example of aCatholic Priest using the drive way in which to turn abound would be one among such. An injured personcould also use facilities available in emergency without a violation of truth being involved. We must beconcerned with what use the church makes of the building more than with what the building is used for. _______________

The problem of social activities in the churchbuilding has been solved by some in this way:

1. The church can't use her meeting house in thearea of the "social" . . .
2. So the church authorizes others to use the church's facilities on a "cost basis" for social activities.

(Either the church authorized it or someone has been picking the lock on the door) — However one limitation has been placed on this. It is "in this day".Because some might be confused "in this day" as to the work of the church, it would be best not tohave a "reception" in the building 'for now'.

I do not believe this to be the right solution. Noticethis:

1. The funds of the church, and the facilities bought with church money are to be used bythe church for church work.
2. That the church can turn over her funds, facilities, work, or organization to anybody or anything to do a work, that is not the work of thechurch, is a position without scriptural authority.

Let us say for a moment that the church buyssomething . . . anything.

1. The church was wrong to buy that "something"if it was not bought for the church's work,under the direction of the church.
2. But now that the church has bought that "something," let's say that the "something" isused for social or secular purposes.

Then what follows? Well, it was either:

1. Used by the church for social purpose
2. Or used with the church's permission (II John9-11)
3. Or stolen from the church.

(Of course the Catholic Priest will turn around inthe driveway, an incidental to the very nature ofowning property, and proves nothing in this matterunder consideration. It neither proves that the denominational church of Christ can sponsor a banquetin the building, nor does it prove that my brethrencan have the building turned over to them for a"wedding.")

In reviewing an article that I wrote about thematter of using the church building for weddings,etc., my dear friend wrote in Searching the Scriptures this:

"My former article very clearly affirmed 'thechurch can use the building only for that which comes within the scope of its mission.' I alsostated that, 'the issue involved is not so muchwhat may the church building be used for, butrather what may the church use the buildingfor?' I also pointed out that at times others (individuals, families, and institutions) may usethe church building for purposes other than

Page 5

that which is the mission of the church only,

if and when such use does not involve the church

and provided such use (because of close prox

imity to church activity) does not confuse the

minds of any as to the true mission of the

church.' In fact, I had quite a bit to say on these

two points and warned against any use that

would result in a perverted concept of the church

and its mission."

It was stated that I "ignored" and "assumed" certain things in my review, let's see if this was one ofthem. I said in my article:

"Now, the problem is, where is the scripture for the church authorizing other organizations and individuals using the meeting house for purposes other than the church's divine mission?" That is still my question. Didn't "ignore" that one did I?

My friend also said that I, "assumed that thechurch is involved in those instances under consideration."

Yet I had already stated this: "The article alsoseems to say (my friends' article) there is a vastdifference between the church actually using thebuilding for teaching secular subjects, (and) consenting or bidding Godspeed for others to use it(such as public schools). II John 9, 10 teaches we are partakers when we bid others Godspeed." Doyou think I assumed that, or that the Holy Spiritsaid that?

My friend also said I misrepresented him in saying that he said — that marriage ceremonies comewithin the scope of the church's divine mission.

— Yet, here is the statement made by my friend in his article. "The nature of the ceremony, its solemnity, and the teaching done is in keeping withthe church and its mission." How about that? Some questions would seem appropriate:

1. Have we found ourselves saying that anythingone might do as long as it is solemn in nature,and done with Bible reading, is "in keeping"with the church and its mission?
2. Are the banquets and kindergartens, gyms, andall the social trappings of liberalism, not "in keeping" with the church's mission simply because there is not enough solemnity and Biblereading?
3. If these things would not do "in this day" because of the practice of some, would they do inanother day for the church to turn over toindividuals and institutions" on a cost basis the church's facilities for the parties, gyms, etc.,etc. Is our objection4o these things on the basisof, "it's the wrong day"?
4. Would we not be on a sound basis if the church bought only that which she was going to usein the Lord's service, and then let the churchuse it in that way?
5. What do some others of you think about thisproblem? Not in any way to win an argument,but to find the truth. What do you say?

SIMON PETER... APOSTLE OR BISHOP OF ROME'?

Almost the entire structure of Roman Catholic

tradition and doctrine stands or falls when the ac

curate answer to this question is determined: "Was

Peter ever in Rome?" Catholic historians (of course)

claim that he went there, and died there. Historians

without bias or prejudice on the subject, as well as

"Protestant" historians, deny that any evidence ex

ists in support of Peter's being in Rome. CATHOLIC CLAIMS QUOTED! "The Bishops of Rome, Supreme Pontiffs of the

Universal Church. St. Peter (Simon bar-Jona) after

A.D. 43; St. Linus c.67." (A Catholic Dictionary,

Edited by Donald Attwater.) In a note at the top of

the page, the author admits that the dates of the

Roman bishops for the first three centuries "are ex

tremely uncertain."A booklet entitled: "The Truth About Catholics"

carrying the IMPRIMATUR (Let it be printed.) of

John J. Cantwell, Archbishop of Los Angeles, lists

Peter as "Supreme Pontiff" or "Bishop of Rome"

from 33 A.D. until either 65 or 67 A.D.

Before we refer to the New Testament concerning

this subject, may we point out that IF the second

Page 6

Catholic source quoted above is correct, then Peter

was "Bishop of Rome" while he was still in Jeru

salem !

PETER'S POINTS OF ACTIVITY... NEW TESTAMENT QUOTED!

First, allow us to emphasize the fact that suchexpressions as "Supreme Pontifffi" "THE Bishop ofRome," "Pope," or "Holy See" cannot be found inHoly Scripture. Therefore, since they were not usedin the New Testament writings, it is completelyimproper for any Catholic priest, scholar or historian,to ascribe to the New Testament era, that which did not come to pass or come into practice until latercenturies.

The Confraternity Version (Roman Catholic) of theNew Testament gives the date of Paul's letter to thecongregation in Rome (the Roman Letter) as 57-58

A.D. Keeping this date in mind, we learn several interesting facts from a study of the Roman epistle.

(1) NO APOSTLE had visited Rome as late as58 A.D. . . . otherwise Paul would not have written: "For I long to see you, that I may impart unto yousome spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established" (Rom. 1:11). If Peter had become "Bishop of Rome"or "Supreme Pontiff of the Roan Catholic Church"as she asserts today . . . and if it had already happened (33 A.D. or 43 A.D.) as claimed in the twoRoman publications quoted above, then there would have been no need whatsoever for Paul to "IMPART unto you some SPIRITUAL GIFT, to the end ye maybe ESTABLISHED." The very fact, that such hadnot occurred, is evidence within itself, showing thatPeter HAD NOT BEEN TO ROME as late as 58 A.D.! (2) In the last chapter of Paul's epistle to theRomans, he sends personal greetings to twenty-six specific individuals, listing their names . . . BUT PETER IS NOT ONCE LISTED! IF PETER HAD BEEN IN ROME, when Paul wrote the letter, PAUL WOULD HAVE MENTIONED HIM ... otherwise Paul would have "snubbed" one of his brother Apostles. (3) During the time of Paul's imprisonment iRome, he wrote his well-known letters to Timothy,Titus, Philemon; and to the congregations in Philippi, Ephesus, and Colossae. Most scholars give the dateof these writings as about 63 A.D. If this be the case,then Paul wrote SEVEN LETTERS FROM ROME as late as the year 63 A.D., and not one time in anyof these letters does he mention the Apostle Peter . . . who according to Roman Catholic tradition andpresent day claim, was-the "Bishop of Rome" andthen living in Rome!

ACTS OF THE APOSTLES... AN HISTORICAL BOOK

Of all the books of the New Testament, only Actsof The Apostles can be properly called a "book ofhistory." Therein is given, by inspiration, the historyof the fulfillment of the many prophecies of theestablishment of Christ's church, His kingdom.Peter's first presentation to the world of the savinggospel of Christ on the day of Pentecost, A.D. 33, isrecorded in the second chapter. Also, Peter's firstsermon to Gentiles is recorded in the 10th chapter ofActs, as delivered in the city of Caesarea. In fact,Luke, the writer of Acts, lists Peter's activities inJERUSALEM, SAMARIA, LYDDA, JOPPA, AND CAESAREA . . . BUT NOT IN ROME! The Confraternity Version (Roman Catholic) gives the date of63 A.D. for the authorship of Acts of The Apostles. . . but fails to mention Peter's being in Rome.

The 15th chapter of Acts records Peter's presence in the group of "apostles and elders" at Jerusalemupon that occasion. A Roman Catholic priest, Raymond J. Neufeld, who conducts a question and answer column in THE TABLET, the official publication, ofthe Archdiocese of Brooklyn (N.Y.), gives the date of the "Jerusalem conference" as being 50 A.D. Ifthis date be correct, then Peter still was not "Bishopof Rome" at that time, according to their own admission.

THE APOSTLE PAUL'S FURTHER TESTIMONY

Paul wrote about his SOURCE of instruction as follows: "But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called be my his grace,to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach himamong the heathen (Gentiles. L.W.M.) ; immediatelyI conferred not with flesh and blood: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again untoDamascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother" (Gal. 1:15-19). Please note . . . Peter was NOT at Rome! The Douay Version (Roman Catholic) of the Bible gives this date (after three years) as 39 A.D.

Next, we copy from Paul's further statements:"Then fourteen years after I went up AGAIN (emphasis mine. L.W.M.) to Jerusalem with Barnabas,and took Titus with me also" (Gal. 2:1). Paul continues: "And when James, Cephas (Peter. L.W.M.),and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived thegrace that was given unto me, they gave to me andBarnabas the right hands of fellowship; that weshould go to the heathen (Gentiles. L.W.M.), andthey (James, Peter and John. L.W.M.) unto the circumcision (Jews. L.W.M.)" (Gal. 2:9). Notice, again . . . "fourteen years after" . . . Peter was still inJERUSALEM. Obviously, the responsibility committed unto Peter by the Holy Spirit, required that heREMAIN WITH THE JEWS. "For He who wroughtin Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision,wrought in me also among the Gentiles" (Gal. 2:8).

CONCLUSION

In this article, we have supplied dates rangingfrom 33 A.D. through 63 A.D., said dates being takenfrom approved Roman Catholic publications, whicheither specifically show Peter to have been in Jerusalem during these years, or by their context, showhim NOT TO HAVE BEEN IN ROME at any timeduring these years. The claims, assertions and allegations of the Roman Church, that Peter was"Bishop of Rome" and thus the first alleged "Roman Pope" are unsupported by evidence of fact.

If the honest and sincere student of the Bible is to accept its inspired evidence honorably, then theRoman Catholic traditions can only be REJECTED.

___________________________________________________________________________________________ Page 7

THE EXTREME RIGHT AND LEFT

In the realm of politics we hear a great deal aboutthe extreme right and the extreme left. Of course, what exists to a man's life or right depends on wherehe is standing! If I were to plant my feet on Louisville, Kentucky and face the North I would havemuch more land on my left than on my right. However, if I were to stand in Salt Lake City, Utah, and face the same direction, I would have much moreland on my right than on my left. So it just dependson where a man is standing. This has always beentrue in the church of our Lord. When one plants hisfeet firmly on the Bible he will always have people on his left and also on his right. While the greatapostle Paul was on earth he had the same problem.In Paul's day people on the extreme left thought itwas wrong to eat meat sacrificed to idols, under anycircumstances. Others, on the extreme right,thoughtthey could eat the same meat, even if it caused aweak brother to stumble. Paul makes it clear that both groups were wrong. To the ones on the left he said, "Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat,asking no questions for conscience' sake" (I Cor. 10: 25). To the one on the right he said, "But if thybrother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thounot charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat forwhom Christ died" (Rom. 14:15). Paul makes itcrystal clear that eating meat, at times, would have the divine approbation of God, whereas at other timesit would have his condemnation.

In the church of our Lord today we have the sameproblems, and it looks like, as the Lord said aboutthe "poor" we will always have them with us. It hasalways been easy for the ones on the extreme right,to point a finger, and call attention to the people onthe extreme left; and it is equally true that the oneson the extreme left desire to point a finger to theones on the extreme right! Actually, what we needto do is to stand on the Bible and not be moved. When this occurs, we have people on the extreme right whobelieve the church may support such things as youthcamps, missionary societies, colleges, holy hootenanies, boy scout troops, herald of truth, orphanasylums, recreational programs and a host of otherthings. On the extreme left, we have people who feelthat it is sinful to have simultaneous Bible classes, aplurality of communion containers, literature, baptisteries, invitation songs and other things. May I say in all seriousness that if (and this is a big little word)one can take the Bible and prove that the Herald ofTruth, orphan asylums, youth camps, colleges, etc.,may be supported out of the church treasury, thenhe is standing on the Bible and I am on the extreme Left! However, I have given scores of preachers thischance and not ONE has produced even one SCRIPTURE to justify their position. I am still waiting forthe scripture, and if it is given I will join forces withthem because the churches are bigger and the money flows freely! May I hasten also to say, that if I cannot take the Bible and prove that having simultaneous classes, cups (containers), literature, invitationsongs, etc., are authorized by the Bible, then I am onthe extreme right, and had better move over before it is too late. I have met, in public debate, on morethan one occasion these brethren and given Bibleauthority for these things and to this day the arguments have not been answered. So I shall continue to stand.

When Martin Luther was with the Catholics he was on the extreme right. He left them and startedback toward Jerusalem (the Bible) but on his wayhe got up so much speed he ran completely past Jerusalem and found himself butting the walls of Jericho!This was the extreme left. This is what Martin Luther did on the subject of WORKS. We havebrethren today who will badger and goad us withpeople who don't believe in Bible classes. This is doneto try to justify their extreme RIGHT position.Brethren, don't be moved until they produce somescripture. On the other hand we have some who willgoal us about instrumental music and the societies totry to get us to swing to the extreme left! Brethren,stand your ground as long as you have the Bible.

Gentle reader, we must always have the humility to change if error is pointed out, but on the otherhand we must fight to the end if we are standing onthe platform of God's word. In Paul's day the scriptures settled the question of meats, marriage and discipline. People then, as now, stood on the left and right. We can humbly settle all of our problems ifwe will just study our Bibles and stop listening topublic opinion, preachers and ungodly kinfolks!

Page 8 ___________________________________________________________________________________________________

PERSONAL WORK: SUCCESSFUL AND PRACTICAL

In the next several issues of Searching The Scriptures, there will appear under the general heading"Teaching To Teach," a series of articles which thewriter believes to be very timely and appropriate.The subject matter will deal with ways and means ofmeeting and fulfilling personal responsibilitiesthrough personal work. Since it is a known fact thatin some areas the cause of Christ has suffered due to failure to become satiated in the simplicity of theprinciples and methods of personal evangelism, it isobvious that this mode of teaching has been neglected. Where men and women are not engaged in thework of drawing others to Christ, there is, in thisrespect, a departure from the early church. Such failures are not due to a lack of faith in personal work,nor to a lack of zeal. It is due to a lack of know-how as to procedure. Most disciples of Jesus are eager toadvance the Kingdom of God, but they do not knowhow or what to do. There is no more stupendousblunder than the assumption that they are not willing, or that they know just how and where to begin. Some are too timid to express their willingness, butmore often than not, the greater majority check andfreeze the fountain of aspiration by minimizing theirpowers. When some individual maps out the work tobe done, people are put to doing, and this phase of the work of the church is better accomplished. A wellthought-out program of personal work not onlyshows the Christian what needs to be done, but whennecessary, it maps it out for him so that a wayfaringman cannot err therein.

The practical nature of personal evangelism is seennot only in the fact that Jesus choose twelve menfrom different walks of life, and through these mencaused the Word of the Lord to go forth from Jerusalem, to Judea, and to the uttermost parts of theworld (Acts 1:8; Col. 1:6,23). It is seen in the factthat when the disciples in Jerusalem "were scatteredabroad," they "went everywhere preaching the word"(Acts 8:4). his passage does not suggest continuous"meeting work," but the type of personal action that will bring people at all times to believe and obey theirSaviour. It shows the fulfillment of the principle involved in the command, "and the things that thouhas heard of me among any witnesses, the samecommit thou to faithful men, who shall be able toteach others also" (II Tim. 2:2). There is no succession of the apostolic office, nor what sectarians call"clergy succession." But there is a succession of theministry of the gospel! The apostolic doctrine is tobe deposited or trusted to faithful and competent brethren who in turn can teach others the changelessgospel of Jesus Christ. This work is not the privilegeof a few. It is the heritage of all of God's people. Weare fellows in a common cause, and are bonded together in Him in Whom our faith rests. Throughsuch action, we are brought back to the simplicity ofpersonal devotion and to the self-sacrifice of the early church; to the realization that the church is trulythe "pillar and ground of truth" (II Tim. 2:15). Personal work places no emphasis upon the use of gimmicks and high-powered procedures for the giving of oneself into the service of the Master.

UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES

Some of the underlying principles of personalevangelism are as follows:

Evangelism: By personal evangelism is meantthe function of saving souls and the edifying or building up of the body of Christ (II Tim. 4:1-2; I Thess.: 5:11). This type of work lays stress upon individualresponsibility in contrast to group activity, whoseultimate is to bring men to the knowledge, faith,obedience and service of the Redeemer. It causes one to be a "fisher of men" (Matt. 4:18-20), and makesthose who are caught in the net of the gospel, "Christians," no more and no less. It develops the Philipwho knows how to seek out the Nathanael. This type of work places upon the Christian the real test ofdiscipleship.

Consecration: A second cardinal principle of personal evangelism is consecration and devotion of theChristian — body, soul, and spirit — and all that he has to God. This is an everyday responsibility in aworld that is a hopeless wreck because of sin. Thepersonal worker, in keeping with the principle of N.

T. Evangelism, seeks to the extent of his or her ability to save the wreck itself. These fishers of men are not so foolish as to think that they can literally imitate Christ and His Apostles under modern, twenieth century conditions. They do, however, endeavorto fill themselves with the spirit of individual evangelism as taught in God's word. They seek to do this to the point that they become to the men of today whatthe Apostles and other inspired men were to the people of their time. It lays stress upon the fact that allChristians are ministers sent to do service for the Master.

Organization: Many churches are literally falling to pieces because of loose, haphazard, unbusinesslike ways of trying to reach the lost. Often timesthis takes place where there is infinite power in awilling people. This power needs to be utilized so thatthe people may be brought together in the right relation to one another and to God. Servants of Christ need to serve. When this type of work is organized,material environment provided through which systematic arrangement produces united and harmonious action. The curse of men being content to do for others by proxy is eliminated by activation of theprinciple: "the good of doing is reactive upon thedoer, and is not alone felt by the recipient." Just asa mob of brave men never make an army, so disciplesof Christ working in their local sphere of activitynever become lights upon a thousand hills, nor a moving power in the great work of the kingdom unlessthings are done systematically. This is true whetherone works individually, or in conjunction with others.

Adaptability! The final principle of personal work

_______________________________________________________________________________________________ Page

is that it provides the means of varying the features of the working groups within the framework of God's collectives. According to local needs,one plan or procedure may be substituted for another, until a workable plan is found for bringingpeople to Christ and keeping them there. It is a basicfact that a method of personal evangelism that workswell in one place, may not go over well in another.Those who fail to recognize this most important principle are sure to fail of truest success. Laborers inthe vineyard should not be afraid to revamp untilthey hit upon a workable plan that suits their needs.Evaluation is a must.

CONCLUSION

The aims of personal work is to make personalworkers of all converts to the cause of Christ byshowing them the how, the what and the where ofpersonal evangelism (John 1:40-42). The program issimple: i.e., FINDING, SAYING AND BRINGING!It is related that during the reign of Oliver Cromwellthe government ran out of silver with which to make the coinage of the realm. Cromwell therefore sent hismen everywhere to see if they could find more silver.They returned to report that the only precious metalthey could find was in the statues of the saints whichwere on display in the various cathedrals of the land."Gods," replied Cromwell, "we will melt down thesaints and put them into circulation." Certainly todaythe greatest need is that God's true saints be "melteddown" by personal devotion and service to God, and put into circulation winning the lost.

In the Northwestern Missouri community of Louisiana, there is a building in which the first ChristianChurch meets. Part of this building is old and contains a cornerstone which reads:

CHURCH OF CHRIST

A. D. 1895

The remainder of the building has been constructedmore recently and contains a cornerstone whichreads:

EDUCATIONAL BUILDING

1959

Thus, the story told by the cornerstones. TheChurch of Christ was established in Louisiana sometime before 1895, and a new meetinghouse waserected in which to worship God, without the instrument, and in which to preach the Gospel, without themissionary society. But, something happened, and itis not difficult to surmise the events from the presentcondition of the group which meets in this building.Although I do not know the history of this particular congregation, I can readily imagine what took place. I imagine someone suggested that the instrument and missionary society should be adopted as a part of the work and worship of the church as "we do manythings for which we have no authority." An

other agreed and noted how pretty and soothing thesounds of the instrument were and after all "the Bible doesn't say we can't." One of the missionarysociety advocated chimed in to say "the Bible tells us to go preach the Gospel, but doesn't say how." "Nolocal congregation, alone, can fulfill the great commission, and we must cooperate." About this time,someone spoke up to add to the discussion the following bit of thought, "the Bible only commands us tosing with our voices and does not mention the instrument. I believe we should respect the silence of thescriptures." And another said, "God gave us the organization through which to preach the Gospel, thelocal church, and not once can we find Churches ofChrist pooling money to preach the Gospel, thus wedon't need the missionary society. Let the localchurch do its own work through the organizationGod gave it." After some more such discussion, avote was taken by the men as to what to do about this matter.

The next Lord's day, the following announcementwas made: "At the regular business meeting, withthe elders presiding, the men voted, by majority, thatthis congregation should send money to the missionary society, and adopt the organ as a part of our worship. There were a few of the men opposed to these,but they were in the minority. We must not listen tothese men, because they are seeking to bind lawswhere God has not bound, they are anti-preaching the Gospel, they do not believe in cooperation between churches, they are against progress, and .. ."Sound familiar? The story is being repeated today,and buildings are being lost today to those who wishto introduce societies, recreation, etc. Secret meetings and majority rule is the order of the day.Brethren refuse to discuss issues, and seek to discredit those who will not "go along" with their various schemes, by labeling them with distastefulnames and phrases. If one asks for scripture to support a practice, he is looked upon with suspicion. If you will not go along, then you must leave.

It is almost unbelievable to think that brethren today would allow teaching and practice, withoutscriptural authority, to be introduced into the church,when the denominational Christian Church stands as an example of the harvest of the same seed sownnot more than 50 or 100 years ago. Seldom do wehave the "handwriting on the wall" such as we cansee at Louisiana, Missouri. Our Savior warned us ofsuch when He spoke of the false prophets "in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves"(Matt. 7:15). The apostle John mentioned the samething, when he wrote: "Beloved believe not everyspirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God:because many false prophets are gone out into theworld" (I John 4:1).

It was necessary, then, to restore the Church ofChrist, in many places, because of the turning awayin apostasy, of the existing church. Today, in manyplaces, brethren are finding it necessary to repeatthis very same process. A congregation of the Lord's church now meets near Louisiana. This congregationis less than one year old. Words of encouragement,such as those written by brother L. D. Morgan inTorch (Vol. 1, No. 6, p. 32) to Brother Wallace, could well be directed to brethren who are involved in the restoration process, in such places: "Fight on,brother, fight on, till the battle is over and the victoryis won."

Page 10 __________________________________________________________________________________________________

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

DEBATE NOTICE

Guy N. Woods and James P. Miller will debate the current issues before the church in the city auditorium in Montgomery, Alabama, August 29-September 1. The first two nights, August 29 and 30 willbe on this question:

"It is in harmony with the Scriptures for

churches of Christ to build and maintain benevo

lent organizations for the care of the needy, such

as Boles Home, Tipton Home, Tennessee Orphan

Home, Childhaven, and other orphan homes and

homes for the aged that are among us."

Guy N. Woods, AffirmsJames P. Miller, Denies The second two nights August 31 and September1 will be on this proposition:

"Such an arrangement and cooperative effort

on the part of churches of Christ for the preach

ing of the gospel as the 'Herald of Truth' is with

out Scriptural authority."

Caroll Puckett, business man and gospel preacher,has made all arrangements for the sound brethren inMontgomery. His address is 3024 Vaughn Road,Montgomery, Alabama 36106. He will be glad toassist the brethren in every possible way. The cityauditorium will seat 3,000 people and it is expectedthat it will be filled every night. This debate will havea telling effect on the church in the years to come.Make your plans now to attend. The debate will berecorded and the tapes can be secured from PhillipsPublications, P. O. Box 17244, Tampa, Fla. 33612.

Vaughn Green, Route 10, Gainesville, Ga. — The Enota Drive church here in Gainesville, Georgia isin need of a good preacher. Roland Warren has been with us for one year now and is leaving for Cookeville, Tennessee. We are in need of a man that isreally interested in trying to reach as many peopleas possible rather than being a professional preacher.We are looking for a middle-aged man with experience in making personal contacts. The church here is rather small, about an average of 30 on Sunday mornings, with a contribution of around $100.00 per week.We have our building paid for and our preacher'shouse is almost paid for. We also have a liberal groupto contend with as most every one does. If you areinterested, please contact us.

Derrell Starling, 627 Glamis, San Antonio, Texas, 78223 — After two years' work with the Westsidechurch in Wichita Falls, I began work on July 1stwith the South Flores Street church in San Antonio. Would appreciate receiving your church bulletins.

LETTER FROM FLORIDA COLLEGE

Dear Elwood:

From time to time we might employ a retired person who has had elementary school experience in our Academy. If there is a person who is in your acquaintance who might be interested in the opportunitieshere, I would be glad for them to contact me at Florida College, Temple Terrace, Florida, 33617.

James R. Cope,President

Morris D. Norman, 877 E. Archwood Ave., Akron, Ohio 44306 — The work at Southeast in Akron goesfine. The brethren are at peace, sound, talented andworking. I was in a meeting at Hermiston, Oregonwhere Ben Shropshire labors, June 19-24. I will bewith the Riverview church where Thurston Kimbrell preaches in Pasco, Washington, June 26-July 3. Both places are struggling financially and against thepresent digression.

Franklin Williams,Columbia, Tenn. — The Jackson Heights church, Columbia, Tennessee, has justfinished its first gospel meeting in the new building.Brother Ward Hogland of Greenville, Texas did anoutstanding job preaching the gospel. Seven werebaptized, one restored, one identified and one cameout of liberalism. The church here continues to growboth numerically as well as spiritually."

L. L. Stout, Oxnard, Calif. — I am happy to announce that a loyal congregation will have its beginning in the city of Oxnard, California, on July 3rd,1966. This new congregation will be known as theNorthside church of Christ. It will be meeting in astore building at 1031 South Ventura Road, just off of Ninth Street. This work will start with a gospelmeeting, and I will do the preaching. This meetingwill continue through July 10th with services eachevening at 8:00 p.m., except on Lord's Day eveningwhen the services will begin at 6:00 p.m. I am beingfully supported in this endeavor by the Rose Avenuecongregation in Bellflower, California. If you knowof anyone in this area that might be interested in thetruth, and you would like for me to contact them,please send me their names and addresses.

Major Wallace H. Little,FV 804008, 6200 MaterielWing (PACAF), APO, San Francisco, Calif. 96274 — After nearly three and a half years of being stationedat Williams Air Force Base, Arizona, and preachingfor the South Mesa church of Christ, I received orders yesterday transferring me to Clark Air Base,Philippine Islands. I depart this country on 18 July,1966. Brother Bob Nichols will replace me here, arriving from Japan approximately 1 August, 1966.

The latest information I had concerning the church at Clark Air Base was that it was liberal concerningthe "present issues." For this reason, there is everychance I will not be welcomed by these brethrenwhen I arrive. I am seeking the names and addressesof any members of the Lord's body who are presently or will be stationed in or around Clark Air Base,Philippine Islands. If any of your readers can assistme in this, it would be greatly appreciated.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________ Page 11

Guthrie Dean, 1900 Jenny Lind Ave., Fort Smith,Ark. — I am now in my second year of work with the Park Hill church. Attendance and membership haveincreased by about thirty-nine; the weekly contribution has increased by $100.00. The work is going welland the brethren are working. Sunday we had 192present.

Maurice W. Jackson, Jr., Huntsville, Ala. — We enjoyed a fine meeting May 16-22 with brother Ferrell Jenkins of Indianapolis, Indiana. Brother Jenkinsdid a fine job of preaching the gospel. The church wasstrengthened in the faith and one was baptized intoChrist. We feel that much and lasting good wasaccomplished.

Thomas A. Thornhill, Tampa, Fla. — From July25-29 MacDill Avenue church is having a series ofgospel meetings with a different speaker each night.The services will be 7:30 p.m. nightly Mondaythrough Friday. We believe this series to be a veryimportant one and the topics to be discussed willbe primarily for members of the church. Its purposeis to inspire the members to greater zeal and workin the Lord's church. It will be directed to the central theme: Seeking The Lord, and all in this area are invited to attend each night. All the men are dedicatedgospel preachers and even though each has a different style, they all speak the same truth. The subjectsand speakers are as follows:

Monday — "The Tragedy of Being Lost." Melvin

Curry, Dunedin church, is the speaker. Tuesday

— "Showing Concern For The Lord." Thomas Butler, Lakewire church in Lakeland, Florida.Wednesday — "The Church's Responsibility to The

Lord." C. L. Overturf, Nebraska Avenue church,

Tampa, Florida.

Thursday — "The Individual's Responsibility to

The Lord." Fred Liggin, 9th Avenue church, St.

Petersburg, Florida.

Friday — "Keeping The Saved Saved." Paul Andrews, North Street congregation, Tampa, Florida.

J. T. Smith, Oklahoma City, Okla. — I am havinga debate in the fall with Mr. Carol Christian (Baptist) . Anyone having met Mr. Christian in a debate,would you please send me the tapes if you have themavailable. Send them to J. T. Smith, 920 North Rock-well Avenue, Oklahoma City, Okla. 73127.

"Searching the Scriptures continues to be a finepublication. We appreciate the effort of all who contribute to the publication of the paper, and look forward to each issue." — Maurice W. Jackson, Jr.,Huntsville, Ala.

"Searching the Scriptures is a very effective way of teaching the truth and I might add you are doinga wonderful job in doing just that. I shall be lookingforward to another year of this fine paper. May manysouls be saved as a result of your efforts is our prayer." — Ramey C. Vetter, Tigrett, Tenn.

"We know that your efforts and that of brotherPhillips in publishing Search the Scriptures havedone much and lasting good .. . May God's richestblessings continue to be with both of you." — Mr. and Mrs. T. O. Smith.. Miami, Fla.

"Keep up the good work." — Wm. T. Vickers, Jr.,Owensboro, Ky."We really enjoy reading the wonderful articles inyour paper."— Bill McJunkins, Texarkana, Arkansas.

"Mr. Eckols passed from this life in '63 ... We always enjoyed this paper very much." — Mrs. Geneva Eckols, Webster Groves, Mo.

"We continue to enjoy your very excellent magazine and derive much good from it. Good health andlong life to both of you so you may continue to bringus things good for the soul." — Charles and June Lloyd, Melbourne, Fla.

"I continue to be appreciative of the paper. Thematerial presented is of highest quality and fills anever present need. Your dealing with the 'Hall position' has been capable and thorough. May the Lordcontinue to bless the efforts." — J. R. Snell, Grenada, Miss.

"We enjoy reading the paper and feel that muchgood has been done through your efforts and we trustthat much more can and will be done in the future."

— Wayne Sullivan, Port Elizabeth, South Africa.

"I enjoy Searching the Scriptures very much." — Dorval L. McClister, Middathian, Ill.

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE STEWART AVENUE CHURCH OF CHRIST - SEDAUA, MO.

June 12, 1966 707Salem Avenue Rolla, Mo. 65401

Your letter headed — "Missouri For Christ. . . Through The State Fair 1966" was received by a congregation in this area. Since this church does notendorse nor participate in un-scriptural arrangements in order to underwrite the costs of such projects, your letter was loaned to me, in order that Imight give it further study.

From its contents, I conclude that your goal is to move the WORLD'S FAIR EXHIBIT OF THE CHURCH to Missouri. This, I gather, includes anelectronic Bible answering device, a special motionpicture in color . . . and also that you plan to build asmall theater in which to show this film.

You further state that eight Missouri preacherswill be specially dressed in black trousers and goldjackets; and, twelve young ladies will serve as hostesses, in blue satin-like smocks. All of the personnel will possess a knowledge of the Bible, etc., and have the ability to "meet-and-teach."

You then beg for "ONE HUNDRED DOLLARSNOW?" You describe it as "The greatest campaignin the history of the Lord's church in Missouri!"Signed by Ray Mooney, whoever he may be.

REMARKS CONCERNING THE ABOVE!!

Several questions are in order: (1) Where is yourBible authority for ONE congregation deliberatelyundertaking a project which is totally beyond thatchurch's financial ability? Give me ONE passage of

Page 12 __________________________________________________________________________________________________

scripture, wherein a New Testament congregationcreated an artificial emergency where it was thenfaced with begging from numerous other churchesfor monetary help?

(2) Where is your Scriptural authorization forspecifying that the preachers are to wear BLACKTROUSERS and GOLD JACKETS? Why not specifybackward collars? And, by the way, how do you oppose Catholicism with its special costumes for priestsand nuns? (3) Do your young lady hostesses in blue smock(satin-like), teach only younger women and children,or will they be engaged in teaching men also? If so,do you consider this public spectacle 'private teaching" or "public teaching?" Where is your BIBLE,book, chapter and verse, for the church to employ"hostesses?" (4) To the elders of which congregation are thesepreachers and hostesses answerable? Or, do you look upon this extravaganza as having activated the "church provincial" or "church universal?" (5) You assert that 4,000 will hear John AllenClark on August 26th, and that this will "be thelargest number to hear a gospel preacher in one service in the history of Missouri." So, what does thatprophecy prove, even if it comes to pass? This reminds me of .. . 'Many there be which go in thereat"(Matt. 7:13-14).

May I humbly suggest that you brethren give allfrom whom you are begging funds, BOOK, CHAPTER and VERSE, which authorizes your project,practice and procedure? Further, will you be willingto supply a debater, and underwrite one-half of thecosts, of a two-night or four-night debate in Sedalia,Jefferson City, or elsewhere in Missouri, to meet apreacher of the gospel, in honorable public discussionof propositions involving your project and similarmatters? I await your reply.

A servant of Christ,Luther H. Martin

CAN THE DEAD ACT? -No. 4

It is contended by Mr. Cayce in his debate withBro. Srygley that those dead in sin can no more hearthe voice of the gospel preacher than the dead intheir graves can hear the gospel preacher. Keepingthis in mind, let us view the teaching of the scriptures.

"Ye will not come to me, that ye may have life"(John 5:40). "He that cometh to God must believethat he is" (Heb. 11:6). One can't come before hebelieves. One must come before he can have life. Therefore believing is necessary to life. Believingand coming are both before life. Can the dead act?

Acts 13:45-46, "But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with jealousy, and contradicted the things which were spoken by Paul, andblasphemed. And Paul and Barnabas spake outboldly, and said, It was necessary that the word ofGod should first be spoken to you. Seeing ye thrustit from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles." They were filledwith jealousy, contradicted the things spoken byPaul, they blasphemed, thrust the word of God fromthem, judged themselves unworthy of eternal life.My friend, did these folk have eternal life or is thisa case of dead people acting? Can the dead act?

John 5:25, "The dead shall hear the voice of theSon of God." It is insisted that the dead can hear the voice of the Son of God, but that they cannot hearthe voice of man. Jesus said, "He that receiveth youreceiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth himthat sent me" (Matt. 10:40). "He that receivethwhomsoever I send receiveth me" (John 13:20). "Hethat heareth you heareth me" (Luke 10:16). Therefore when one hears a faithful preacher he hearsChrist. Can the dead hear?

Acts 13:27, "For they that dwell in Jerusalem, andtheir rulers, because they knew him not, nor thevoices of the prophets which are read every Sabbath."

1. God says the "voice" of the prophets was readevery Sabbath. Is there anyone who does not knowthat it was the word of the prophets that was read?
2. To hear the words of the prophets is to hear the"voices" of the prophets.
3. If to hear the "word" of the prophets is to hearthe 'voices" of the prophets then to hear the wordof God is to hear the "voice" of Jesus.
4. Since the word of the prophets is the "voice"of the prophets today, it follows that the word ofJesus is the voice of Jesus today; and as the dead two thousand years ago could and did hear his word whenspoken, so, if you speak his word today the dead canhear it — for it is the "voice of Jesus."

Brent Lewis

It was the happy privilege of this writer to hearbrother Ed Harrell speak a few years ago in his extraordinarily fine lecture at Florida College on "TheSocial Gospel." This lecture was of such import andstature that it was put in written form immediatelyand subsequently printed in some of the religiousperiodicals published by our brethren (see GospelGuardian, Vol. 12, p. 225; The Preceptor, Vol. 9, p.115, 132).

For some time I have been aware that brother Harrell has been preparing a book on the social history of the Disciples of Christ (the fruit of workdone for his doctor's degree dissertation), and I havelooked forward with eager anticipation to the completion of it. QUEST FOR A CHRISTIAN AMERICA: The Disciples of Christ and AmericanSocietyto 1866 (Vol. 1) by David Edwin Harrell, Jr., was

Page 13

published in May, 1966, by the Disciples of ChristHistorical Society, 1101 Nineteenth Ave., South,Nashville, Tennessee. The price of the book is $5.95,and it contains 224 pages.

For those who are students of American religioushistory, and in particular those who are interested in Restoration Movement literature — this book is a must. For those who are interested in understandingthe roots of the social gospel philosophy of today, thisfine work sheds much light upon this phase ofinterest.

It might be explained that brother Harrell usesthe term "Disciples of Christ" in a broad sense torefer simply to those disciples of that time who weredeeply concerned about the restoration of New Testament Christianity. He explains that this group "hasnever had an exclusive name; Alexander Campbellpreferred 'Disciples of Christ,' Barton Stone's followers preserved the popularity of the name 'Christian,' while in many localities the name 'Church ofChrist' was most widely used" (p. 5).

In the "Preface" to the book, brother Harrell states: The proclivity of the 'restoration movement' to proliferate has not weakened since the separation of the Disciples of Christ and the Churches of Christ around the turn of the century. Two distinct religious bodies have grown out of the Disciplesof Christ by mid-twentieth century — one ecumenical in outlook and theologically sophisticated; the other largely sectarian. In theChurches of Christ the same pattern has been followed. The more cultured element of the group is well on its way to denominationalism (or at least to a position much nearer to the mainstream of American Protestantism), while asmaller segment of the church remains committed to the most legalistic implications of the restoration plea (p. vii). The fundamental approach of the book, as has been stated, is a social one.Brother Harrell shows how that sociologicalfactors, to a great extent, shaped the thinking of the Disciples; yet, on the other hand, the thinking ofthe Disciples many times had a great effect onsociety. To state this in brother Harrell's words:

But the most intriguing facet of this study involves interpretations of impact and motivation. Thehard facts which tell the story of what men did and thought on a specific social issue are coherent andmeaningful in terms of Disciples history andAmerican history only if they are put into thecontext of people being molded by a vital, creative Christian message and in turn being shaped by theturbulent society of nineteenth-century America. Inshort, the problem of interpretation is two-fold: astudy of the contribution of Disciples to the socialconsciousness of the nation and an analysis of thesociological impact on the church's social thought (p. 21). This work has been limited to cover the timeperiod of 1800-1865. A second volume is already inpreparation, covering the period 1866-1900.

Fully discussed are the attitudes of the early disciples toward premillenialism, slavery, war, liquor,tobacco, worldly allurements, the. "Christian Sabbath," marriage and divorce, capital punishment, etc.

To sum up, it is an excellent work, thoroughlydocumented, yet vibrantly alive with the story of thenineteenth-century pioneers of Christianity and what made them do what they did.

Page 14

Every Orphanage that is supported by churches ofChrist that is west of the Mississippi River claimsto be under the direction and oversight of elders ofa local church. It is affirmed that the operation ofthe Orphanage is simply a function of the localchurch in that city and that the elders of that localchurch are overseers of the Orphanage in the sameway they are overseers of the Bible classes conductedby that congregation. East of the Mississippi Riverall the Orphanages supported by churches of Christclaim they are under a board of Directors and notunder elders. If they happen to be elders of somelocal church and are on the board, they serve asdirectors only and not as elders. The position takenby Gospel Advocate writers is that it would be unscriptural for the elders of a congregation to be theones directing the affairs of the Orphanage "as elders" for that would make them elders over two institutions, which they admit would be unscriptural.However, Firm Foundation writers generally wouldnot admit that the elders of such an Orphanage asTipton Home are over another institution. They donot believe it would be scriptural for churches tomanage and support separate organizations for benevolent purposes. Neither position is right, but theyare divided over how the Orphanages should be managed and supported.

Concerning the Firm Foundation view, it shouldbe noted that if the elders of the Tipton church ofChrist oversee the operation of Tipton Home (anOrphanage) in the same way they oversee Bibleclasses, then they oversee every function of thatHome for dependent children. The Tipton Home hasa large farm, they provide schooling for the inmatesof the Home, they rear children and even bodily punish the children by whipping them. Is this a functionGod has authorized His church to perform? If so,what scripture would be cited as proof? However, ifthey are not serving as directors of the Orphanage,they are operating the Tipton Home illegally. Justrecently I debated a brother who claimed that "thelaw regards them (men who serve as elders of Tiptonchurch) as directors, we regard them as elders." Thelaw does regard them as directors because in thecharter granted to them by the State of Oklahomathere is this statement: "To Secretary of State ofthe State of Oklahoma: We, the undersigned trusteesor directors, Earl Todd, Tipton, Oklahoma, LeeOwens, Tipton, Oklahoma, W. E. Lemmons, Tipton,Oklahoma, S. D. Jackson, Tipton, Oklahoma beingpersons legally competent to enter into contracts, forthe purpose of forming a corporation under the lawsof the State of Oklahoma, do hereby adopt the following Articles of Incorporation . . ." These men appealed to the State as directors or trustees over anOrphanage, not as elders over a local church. If, then, they serve as elders over the Orphanage, they haveinvolved the church in farming, schooling, raisingchildren and beating of children. If, on the other hand, they serve as directors, they serve over twoinstitutions, a local church and a benevolent organization.

The Gospel Advocate position is likewise an unscriptural position because they admit to having aseparate benevolent organization which does thework of a home and not the church. They claim thatcaring for children is a work of the home, "as ahome" and not the work of the church, "as thechurch." This being true, there could be no scripturalway that local churches could make donations tothese benevolent organizations when they admit andclaim that they are not doing the work of the churchat all. What scriptural precedent or principle wouldbe cited to justify the local churches sending theirmoney to something that is not doing the work of thechurch at all? Can the money collected into thechurch treasury be spent to further anything but the work of the church? P so what? But on the other hand, if the Orphanages under directors, not elders"as elders," are doing the work of the churches, thisimpeaches and denies the all-sufficiency of the organization of local churches of Christ, for if benevolentorganizations, separate and apart from the churchare needed to care for the needy, of what use (otherthan raising and contributing money) is the localchurch?

The truth is always between extremes and it is inthis case. The truth of the matter is that God has assigned benevolent obligations to local churches.Such words as "parted to" (Acts 2:44-45), "distributed to" (Acts 4:34,35), "serve tables" (Acts 6:1-4), "sent relief" (Acts 11:27-30), or "ministered to"(II Cor. 9:1), describe congregational action in benevolence. The local congregation is the only organization ever authorized to control and do the work of the local church. To affirm that churches may buildand maintain separate benevolent organizationsdenies the truth of God's word and constitutes a "going beyond" the doctrine of Christ (II John 9).It also involves those who so affirm in such dilemmas as are noted in the first three paragraphs of thisarticle.

Several years ago when the "college-in-the-budget" issue was hot, some affirmed churches could and should scripturally contribute to colleges on the basisof their being parallel to orphanages. Lately, thesame argument (?) is being made. While they "standor fall together" there is no scriptural authority that can be produced from the Bible justifying either ofthem being supported financially by churches ofChrist. But in this area, there is a spot we could alloccupy in unity and harmony. Put the colleges andorphanages on an individual basis as far as financial support is concerned and the church would be thechurch and the orphanages and colleges would bewell supported. I believe such would work. It didwith the colleges — why not with orphanages? Thisis one area that has not been explored as fervently as it should have been. Churches have been splitasunder and more are in the process of being split.Brethren are dividing further and further apart andI believe this is a possible solution to the question.

Suppose you believe churches could support Orphanages from the treasury. Many do not so believe.They would not oppose you as an individual supporting the institution of your choice, but when it is putin the budget of the local church and regular contri

Page 15

butions are sent to the Orphanage from the church, a person who opposes such on scriptural grounds isforced to either not give or violate his conscience.Why not keep the financial support of such organizations on an individual basis and have unity? Why nottry it? Why not discuss the possibilities involved in it? Why not?

901 NW 10th

Oklahoma City, Okla. 73106

1 wrote an article with the above title, a copy ofwhich I sent to "Searching the Scriptures" on September 19, 1965 and a copy of which I sent to bro.William H. Lewis concerning an article he had written and to which he refers in the April 1966 "Searching the Scriptures." Bro. Lewis teaches that personscan divorce and remarry (THE ONE EXCEPTIONOF MATT. 19:9) and stand justified before God. Ido not teach such. I am one of those who teach that persons having two or more living mates (and ispresently cohabiting with one of them) is in an adulterous marriage.

If the supposed "exception" of which bro. Lewisspeaks in Matt. 19:9 is supposed to be law for thechurch, why can we not find it in the apostles doctrine (Acts 2:42)? Why is it that all of the writersof the New Testament fail to teach an "exception"to the principle "till death do us part?" Why does ourbrother Paul teach in Rom. 7:1-4 that having twoliving mates constitutes adultery? Why does he teach in I Cor. 7:1-11 that each person is to have his/herown wife/husband that if the wife depart, let herremain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband? Why does he teach that the husband is not to putaway his wife?

Why did not Paul teach the "one exception" tothose elders from Ephesus in Acts 20:27? He toldthem that he had declared unto them the whole council of God. In the Ephesian letter, chapter 5, verses22-33, Paul shows that the wife is to submit herselfunto the husband as unto the Lord. Is that wife at liberty to divorce the Lord, and get a new Lord, andstill stand guiltless before God? The husband holdsthe same position with the wife as Christ does withthe church. They are one in each other. The bodyof Christ and the church are one. The husband the wife are one. "For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and shall be joined unto his wife,and they shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery:but I speak concerning Christ and the church." The only way the church and Christ will ever be put awayone from the other is for one or the other to die. The same goes for the husband and wife. A man orwoman is entitled to just as many living mates asChrist is churches. Any reader who feels that Christ sanctions more than one church has failed to studyhis New Testament.

No, brethren, you cannot find in the New Testament the doctrine of the "one exception" (divorceand remarriage for the cause of adultery or fornication) wherein God sanctions a person to have two or more living mates. That doctrine comes from a misunderstanding or a misuse and abuse of what Jesuswas saying to those Pharisees in Matt. 19:9.

The length of time that a marriage is to last, asGod would have it, is till the death of one of the marriage partners. It was from the beginning. The deceptive teaching that man can divorce and remarry andstand justified before God is of man and not of God.Please give this (and my article when it is printed)your conscientious consideration.

The majority of people claim that married peoplecommit adultery and others commit fornication, theysay most commentaries and dictionaries state it thatway. Yes, they do, but every one of them contradictthe word of Christ. He said, "But I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, saving forthe cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery : and whosoever shall marry her that is divorcedcommitteth adultery" (Matt. 5:32).

Again, "And I say unto you, Whosoever shall putaway his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whosomarrieth her that is put away doth commit adultery"(Matt. 19:9).

Jesus is talking about people who are legally andScripturally married, a marriage that God recognizes ; they can and sometimes do commit fornication. If one does I suppose the innocent party can geta- divorce and marry again and God will recognizethat marriage, if so they too can commit fornication(Matt. 5:32, 19:9).

But if they separate for any reason except fornication, and marry again they may be legally marriedaccording to the law of the state, but they are notScripturally married and God does not recognize thatmarriage, and Jesus said they are living in adultery

— not fornication — adultery.

The apostle Paul knew there was a difference inadultery and fornication. In Gal. 5:19 he said, "Nowthe works of the flesh are manifest, -which are these: adultery, fornication." If there were no differencePaul would never have used both terms side by side in the same verse.

Why not just forget the commentaries and dictionaries and accept Jesus as our authority? He saysmarried people commit fornication and others commit adultery. Selah.

ROMAN CATHOLICISM AGAINST ITSELF

C. LAMBERT

GOOD BOOKS FOR YOUR LIBRARY

Boswell-Hardeman Debate (Instrumental Music) 3.50 Porter-Tingley Debate (Direct operation of the Holy Spirit, Necessity of Baptism and Salvation by Faith Only) ................................................................3.50 The Genesis Flood (Henry M. Morris & John C.

Whitcomb) ..............................................................6.95 The Search For The Ancient Order, Vol. I & II, each 4.00 Alexander Campbell's Tour In Scotland (Chalmers) ......................................................................................2.00 The Harding-Nichols Debate (Salvation & Baptism:

The Subject, Action and Design) ..........................2.50The Campbell-Rice Debate on Baptism ................6.00Larimore And His Boys (Srygley) .............................3.50Biography of J. T. Johnson (John Rogers) ............3.50Biography of N. B. Hardeman ................................3.75New Commentary On Romans (Grubbs) ..............2.50

A Unique, Astounding, Appalling, and Often Entertaining Analysis of Basic Catholic Belief on Questions 'of ItsAuthority — on Papal, Sacramental, Biblical (Really Anti-Biblical), and Sacerdotal (Priestly) Authority and Practices

— Analyzed Almost Entirely through a Study of OfficialCurrent Catholic Literature (Really the Only Way To Handlea Religion Which Gives Itself the Right of EvolutionaryChange in Its Doctrinal Positions) — A Monumental Job of Research — But for All That as Fascinating Reading as You Are Likely to Come Across — Full of Alternately Naiveand Cynical Self-Contradictions, Breathtaking Absurdities,and Chilling Liberalism and Modernism — A Veritable Encyclopedia of Up-to-date, Authoritative Information Unavailable Elsewhere — A Companion Volume to CATHOLICISM AGAINST ITSELF. Volume I, a Similarly DocumentedGeneral Survey of Catholicism, an Enormously PopularBook, which has gone through eight editions.

Volume I — $4.50 Volume II — $4.50 Both Volumes — $8.00

Order from:

PHILLIPS PUBLICATIONS

P. O. Box 17244 Tampa, Florida 33612

BOOK-MILLER DEBATE

"Instrumental Music In Worship"

Morris Butler Book of the Christian Church and James Parker Miller of the church of Christ discussed the question of instrumental music in the worship in the Howard High School auditorium in Orlando, Florida, March 15, 16, 17, 1955. Large crowds heard every session of this debate. It is one of the finest in print. This book is the debate exactly as it was presented by Book and Miller.

Cloth bound - $2.50

The Witness Of The Spirits (Zachary) ...............3.00

The Nashville Debate: Moody-Harding (Baptism

and Work of the Holy Spirit)...............................5.00 History Of Reformatory Movements (Rowe) ........5.00 Biblical Criticism (J . W. McGarvey) .........................3.50 The Kingdom Of Promise And Prophecy (R . L.

Whiteside ) ..............................................................................2.50 The Christian Baptist (Campbell) Vols. 1 through 7, each.........................................................................3.50 Communism, Its Faith and Fallacies (James D.

Bales).......................................................................3.00Churches of Today (L . G. Tomlinson) ..................2.50Fox's Book of Martyrs ...............................................3.00Mormonism Exposed (Hancock) ............................2.25

Order From:

PHILLIPS PUBLICATIONS

P.O. Box 17244 Tampa, Florida 33612

BOOKS BY W. CURTIS PORTER

Quibbles That Backfired— Contains three sermons at Florida College several years ago. These are outstanding denominational arguments that Porter turned on his opponent. Hehad a large number of debates with all sorts of falseteachers.

Price — $1.00

Sermon Outlines, Volumes I & II — Sermon outlines W. Curtis Porter used through the years of his preaching.

Price — $2.00 Set of 2 vols. — $3.75

Order from: PHILLIPS PUBLICATIONS

P. O. Box 17244 Tampa, Florida 33612