JUDGMENT OR CONVICTION?

My faith in the word of God as the final, completeand infallible will of Christ will not allow me to take one step beyond its authority; neither will I assume to leave undone what is authorized. My judgment (opinion) does not constitute any part of God's law.Neither does yours! Some assume that their ipsedixits constitute the law of the Lord, and their arbitrary pronouncements are the last word in divineauthority. Let it be understood that this article mustnot be construed to charge another with any otherattitude toward the word of God than that which I hold. Each man's words and actions will tell what his attitude toward truth and error really is.

What I am about to say will no doubt bring thewrath of the gods upon me. But be that as it may, Icannot, in good conscience, remain silent any longerwith reference to a number of articles that have appeared in bulletins and in some papers that suggesta compromise on the divorce and adulterous remarriage issue to avoid division. When error is introduced among the people of God, scripturaldivision is inevitable as long as that error is believedand practiced.

In the April 1, 1978 issue of the Gospel Guardianthe esteemed editor carried the announcement of two debates, one of them involving me as one of the disputants. Because of health problems I was not even permitted to attend the debate in Fredericksburg, Virginia, much less participate in it.But brother James Adams had an "Editor's Note" immediately following the announcement of the debate in which he opined some things that are disturbing. I hold no animosity or ill will toward brother Adams. In fact, our relationship has been rather cordial as far as I know. However, I believe his "candid judgment" on what he calls "the so-called 'Marriage Issue'" and "over-zealous brethren" endangering the fellowship of the Lord's disciples bydebating an issue that involves fornication, broken homes, and adulterous marriages is morallydangerous in its implications and compromising in itsapplication.

Brother Adams charges that "over-zealous brethren on both sides" of the issue are pressing their opinions. Just when is one "over-zealous" in defending the truth? I know he considers this issue"some extreme position," but I consider it an issue between truth and error that opens the door to themoral decay of the home and the lives of thousands.

"Over-zealous" means too much zeal. Was the apostle Paul "over-zealous" when he was "set for the defense of the gospel?" (Phil. 1:17). Was brother Adams "over-zealous" when he moderated for brother Roy E. Cogdill in his debate with Guy N. Woods in Birmingham, Alabama in November, 1957? "Over-zealous" could as well be applied to brother Adams' Editorials and Editor's Note to stifle any public debates on the false teaching on divorce and remarriage. I predict that brother Adams will employ an "over-zealous" response of his opinions to this andother articles replying to his vague position on thedangers of the permissive attitude of the divorce andremarriage issue.

In the Editor's Note his classification of the marriage problem as a "so-called 'Marriage Issue'" implies that there is no real issue, just the "pressingtheir opinions" to the point of division. But the Marriage Issue is very real, and the advocates of the scripturalness of adulterous marriages are pressing their error wherever they can, both public and private. This is where the moral implication of hiseditorial note is dangerous. This is no more a "so-called" issue than instrumental music in worship, thechurch support of colleges, missionary societies, andthe social gospel as preached and practiced by many"liberal" churches. I know brother Adams will not approve or endorse any of these, and I doubt that he would consider any of them "so-called" issues. I am sure that he would debate any of these issues withfalse brethren with great zeal, and not consider himself "over-zealous" in doing so.

His language in recent issues of the GospelGuardian has been so ambiguous as to be understoodby the advocates of the no-fault divorce and adulterous marriages as to be in sympathy with theirposition because they have used quotations from hiseditorials and this "Editor's Note" in the April 1issue. In fact, I have a paper which was distributedat the debate in Virginia by Jack Gibbert and hismoderator, Bob Melear, to all present, containing thesame quotations to which I referred, and using themto prove that brother Adams endorses full fellowshipwith them while they hold their unscriptural views. Iknow that brother Adams will vehemently attacksuch a use of his name by any one, but he alone isresponsible by the language of his writings on the subject. I certainly am not responsible for it.

He charges that the pressing of opinions on thisissue will cause division among disciples of the Lord.I suppose nearly every forensic conflict contains somewhere the charge of pressing opinions instead ofthe word of God, but the charge does not make it so.Brother Adams thinks all these debates are just"opinions" on the Marriage Issue, but I believe thisis as much an issue of truth and error as is instrumental music in worship. I cannot accept his "candid judgment" (opinion) that "over-zealous" brethren on both sides are "pressing their opinions"instead of discussing the Bible doctrine that is ofeternal consequences.

Brother Adams appeals to the attitude and practiceof brethren 150 years ago as the proof of fellowshipwhile discussing the question of divorce and remarriage. If he did not intend that this should prove the position that he advocates, why appeal tothem? I have always understood that we establishwhat is authorized from Holy Scripture and not fromthe convictions and practice of brethren, either nowor in the past.

I am about the same age as brother Adams. I havelived and learned from life exactly as he has. He knows as well as I that fifty years ago a divorced—remarried person was avoided by society in general.It was almost unheard of in the church for a divorced—remarried person to remain in fellowshipwith the saints except in rare cases. We know full well that the comparison of the discussions and practice 150 years ago are not even close to the issuebeing discussed today. The arguments of the advocates of divorce and remarriage for any causeand then scripturalize it by adultery and "repentance" was never discussed 150 years ago by the Lord's people. The issue today is the permissiveindulgence of divorced persons and unscriptural marriages being retained and blessed in the fellowship of the saints. This is the same as unmarried couples living together and retaining fullfellowship with the people of God. This immoral conduct will deteriorate congregation after congregation until they completely rot away fromthe truth. And then we talk about divisions amongthe people of God? I can not and will not

Page 3

false doctrine and not oppose it with all my being, inorder to pretend that there is peace when there is nopeace. The word of God teaches that those who teachand practice false doctrines are not to enjoy the fellowship of the saints until and unless they repent(Rom. 16:17; Eph. 5:5-11; 2 John 9-11).

Division as the result of preaching the truth is notwrong! The Lord himself said, "Think not that I amcome to send peace on earth: I came not to sendpeace, but a sword" (Matt. 10:34). That sword is theword of God (Eph. 6:17), and all who believe and obey it will be divided from all those who do not believe and obey it. That is division that is producedby the Lord and it is right. "And have NO fellowshipwith the unfruitful! works of darkness, but ratherreprove them" (Eph. 5:11) and "what fellowship hathrighteousness with unrighteousness? . . . ." (2 Cor. 6:14).

I know that Jesus also said that "Every kingdomdivided against itself is brought to desolation; andevery city or house divided against itself shall notstand" (Matt. 12:25), but he said he came to bring asword, "And a man's foes shall be they of his own household" (Matt. 10:36).

In his Editorial of the January 15, 1978 issue ofGospel Guardian brother Adams states his opposition to the denominational practice of divorce and remarriage "for every cause", open marriage, and homosexuality. He says professed churches of Christhave not been immune to this influence. He chides those brethren who are agitating the more permissivepoint of view toward divorce and remarriage, andvery boldly warns them about using his name to endorse their positions.

Brother Adams here seems to say, I oppose thepermissive view of divorce and remarriage for anycause, open marriage, and homosexuality. He said,"I have never at any time or place taught in a class,from the pulpit, or in the press that the party guiltyof fornication in a broken marriage may scripturallymarry."

"I understand the stated principles of HolyScripture on divorce and remarriage and preach themunequivocally. However, I am not always absolutely certain how they may apply in complex marital difficulties involving divorce and remarriage."

With all this I fully agree. I know what the scriptures teach on divorce and remarriage, and willdefend the truth against false teaching and practicewith ZEAL. I do not attempt to apply the law ofChrist concerning this subject to situations of which Ihave no knowledge. If brother Adams thinks that I preach, write or debate propositions dealing with theapplication of what the scriptures teach on divorceand remarriage to individual situations, he is mistaken.

"In my teaching, I maintain unequivocally that marriage is for life—one man and one woman andthat divorce and remarriage are only permissible when there is violation of the marriage vows— fornication. In a class situation, I do not permit opendiscussion of the solution of either hypothetical orreal situations."

In the February 1, 1978 issue of the GospelGuardian brother Adams editorialized under the title: "Johnny-Come-Lately-Sommerites," in which he pointed out that B. C. Goodpasture hung the yellowtag of "quarantine" about our necks and classified those who opposed church support of human institutions and centralized control and oversight as "Johnny-Come-Lately-Sommerites." Division resulted! He concludes with this appeal: "Brethren of influence and ability can stop our progress toward oblivion on the road of 'partyism' if they have the courage to speak out against it boldlyand plainly."

Whatever my influence and ability may be, I shallspeak out against partyism among the disciples of Christ, but I shall also oppose false teachers andtheir works without compromise to the faith or of myown conscience. There have always been factions andfalse teachers to promote error. I cannot condone orembrace such in scriptural fellowship. HERE I STAND, SO HELP ME GOD!

"SOME EXTREME POSITION"

Elsewhere in this issue you will find an article by

H.E. Phillips in response to an editorial note writtenby James W. Adams in the April 1, 1978 GOSPELGUARDIAN. We feel that some comments from us are in order. James W. Adams and this editor are no relation in the flesh though we have been friends for anumber of years. We have learned much from his preaching, writing and from personal associations. It affords us no delight to have to take public exceptionto what he has said touching the "so-called MarriageIssue" as he put it. Though we have carried severalarticles in this paper on this subject and have otherson hand which have not appeared yet, this writer hashad little to say. But the time has come when we must speak out clearly and plainly.

In spite of the fact that brother Adams spoke outclearly against the permissive attitude toward divorceand remarriage for any cause in his January 15, 1978editorial in the GOSPEL GUARDIAN, yet his recenteditorial note will be (AND ALREADY HAS BEEN)used to create sympathy for the very advocates ofthis permissive approach.

"The Past 150 Years"

Brother Adams says that brethren have disagreed over marriage and divorce and re-marriage for 150 years without division. It has been within my lifetime(and I am not as old as either brethren Phillips orAdams) that divorce and remarriage has become a commonly accepted thing in society. It was certainlyrare in the church. Through the years it has been the practice of each local church to handle each situation On its own merits. For the most part brethren haveagreed (with some exceptions, of course) that Matthew 5:32.; 19:9 and Luke 16:18 taught that fornication was the only scriptural ground upon which one could put away a companion and marryanother without sinning. But men sometimes changetheir theology to fit their practices. There have beengospel preachers to fall into the trap of the worldwith its lusts. There have been preachers who havebeen so sympathetic with some of their own kin, orclose friends who have gotten into marital tangles,that they have modified their views to justify somewho were living in adultery. (If someone wants to argue that one cannot "live in" such a state, I willjust turn him over to Paul in Col. 3:5-7). E.C. Fuquacame out with his new twist several years ago which argued that an alien sinner is not under God's marriage law, and took a position, which in all essence said that baptism washes away wives. Thewhole meaning of repentance was nullified.

Much of the present noise being created over the marriage question traces to the view popularized byLloyd Moyer and subscribed to by a number of preaching companions on the west coast where his influence was greatest. He was an able man, did much good in his life, and we do not wish to detractfrom his work nor cast any reflection upon his character. The view that the act of adultery freeseverybody (guilty and innocent) so that even theguilty may remarry without sin was welcomed by many who were in questionable domestic circumstances. For several years the advocates of this view have taught it publicly and privately without much opposition. Gene Frost had a written discussion on the subject with Lloyd Moyer in theGOSPEL GUARDIAN several years ago. It was a good discussion, conducted on a high plane, set thetwo views in sharp focus and stark contrast, and thatdiscussion is still in print and available. Last year weprinted the SMITH—LOVELADY debate on this subject. That is still available.

We agree with James W. Adams that some "extreme position(s)" have been taken all right. When men are willing to affix their names to a proposition which says "The Scriptures teach that the guilty party (the one put away for fornication)has the Scriptural right to marry another" as three brethren in California have signed and defended inpublic debate with J.T. Smith, and as the brother had signed to debate with brother Phillips in Virginia (though ill health prevented Phillips from going to the debate in which J.T. Smith took his place), then we say that is "extreme" to be sure. Now, was it extreme for Phillips (or Smith) to denysuch a proposition? If so, then what is the truth between the extremes? Shall this doctrine, with all of its evil consequences go unchallenged?

A Spreading Problem

The changing moral climate of our times has affected more brethren than some realize. Our more liberal brethren are vexed with the same problems, perhaps to a greater degree than some of us. Ruel Lemmons, editor of the FIRM FOUNDATION, has spoken out within the past few months in two verystrong editorials against this evil in the churches. Hehas just carried an extended series of about ten articles by J.D, Thomas in which he forthrightlyaddressed this issue. The articles were well done and we commend them, as well as the courage it took topublish such material when such was not likely to bewell received by many. There have been two debatesthat we know of among liberal brethren over thisissue already in 1978, one between Andrew Connalyand Olan Hicks, former editor of the Christian CHRONICLE.

Congregational Autonomy

We have seen bulletin articles recently bemoaningthe discussion of this subject and calling attention tothe right of each congregation to handle such problems as they arise, without outside meddling. We

Page 5

have no quarrel with that. It has always been our disposition to teach the truth as plainly as possibleon this subject and then leave the application of it toany who need it. We have never favored (nor do wenow) some sort of witch hunt, nor FBI-like search oflegal records looking for incriminating evidence. But there are cases where there is no doubt that sin exists and the question has to be resolved as to whether a congregation shall clasp it to its bosom, or repudiatethose who refuse to "bring forth fruits meet for repentance."

While on the subject of autonomy, it needs to besaid that the church in Virginia which planned andannounced the debate which occasioned the remarks by James W. Adams, exercised its own autonomy indoing so. They had a local problem they were tryingto handle and thought a debate on the subject would help them. It did help them and many other brethrenwho were able to hear it. They did not have to askanyone if they could have a debate on the subject.

"Over-Zealous Brethren"

It is regrettable that men of the stature of H.E. Phillips should be classified as "over-zealous" for being willing to deny such a proposition. His goodwork and fidelity to the word of the Lord in life andteaching is a matter of history. His writings havealready blessed many and will live on to do good afterhe is gone. If brother Adams meant to exempt himfrom such a charge, then we hope he will clear upthat point. Right-thinking brethren likewise owe adebt of gratitude to such men as Gene Frost, J.T. Smith, Maurice Barnett and others, who have been willing to prepare themselves to meet and answer the advocates of such permissiveness. If the spread of such doctrine is not checked, then churches throughout the land will be filled with moral corruption. Concerning the unreproved fornicator at Corinth, Paul raised the question which we need toponder when he asked "Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump" (1 Cor. 5:6)? Nocompany was to be kept with any brother who was afornicator (v. 11) and they were charged to "put awayfrom among yourselves (themselves) that wicked person" (v. 13). 2 Corinthians 2:5-8 shows that the brother did repent and on that basis was to be forgiven.

An Appeal for Purity

We are in sympathy with warnings about fracturing over matters of no importance. We are alsoconcerned for the moral purity of the church for which Jesus died. Of the church, Paul wrote "That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing: but that is should be holyand without blemish" (Eph. 5:26-27). The grace of God appeared "Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly,righteously, and godly, in this present world" (Titus 2:11-12). Doctrinal and moral purity are bound uptogether. Compromise in one of these areas inevitablyleads to compromise in the other. Brethren, let us not bring the "royal law", "the perfect law of liberty","the law of the Spirit of life", down to the level ofthis present, untoward generation. No! A thousand times, No, my brethren! Rather let us with compassion reprove the sinner and lift him UP TO THE STANDARD. If that is being "over-zealous" and puts us in an "extreme position" then we plead guilty on both counts and stand ready to withstand whatever whetted arrows the scribes maychoose to fire in our direction. We are NOT FOR SALE and do not intend to be intimidated. When the Goliaths of error stand on yonder hill and shout "TheScriptures teach that the put away adulterer can remarry without committing sin" then just that long there will be David's and slingshots ready to meet them. When they decide to lower their voicesand cease perverting the right ways of the Lord, thenthe level of conflict will diminish accordingly.

Our August Special Issue

The Church-Live Issues Old and New

A 32 page special with the following subjectsand writers:

History of the Present Digression —H.E.Phillips A Plea For Honest Study —Connie W. Adams Bible Authority — What Kind?—Julian R. Snell Bible Authority — How It Is Established —Ken Green The Nature of the Church —Marshall E. Patton The Organization of the Church

— Universal and Local —Earl Kimbrough The Work of the Church —Weldon E. Warnock Individual and Collective Action —Ward Hogland Scriptural Cooperation vs. the Sponsoring Church —Dee Bowman Church Supported Human Institutions — Eugene Britnell What About Church Supported Recreation? —Thomas G. O'Neal The Silence

of the Scriptures—J. Wiley Adams Why

I Changed -J. T. Smith

An effort to help the older generation rememberthese basic issues, and to teach them to the newgeneration.

Place Your Order Now From:

Searching the Scriptures P. O.Box 68 Brooks, KY 40109

$50 per 100 copies — $30 per 50 copies less than 50 — 75 c each

THE IMPORTANCE OF RIGHTTHINKING

Thinking is the mental process reserved for the highest of God's creatures, man. While certain animals may engage in acts which vaguely resemblethinking and may even approximate it under certainconditions, only man can deliberate information,organize it into proper categories, relate it to certainsituations, finally determining a certain course of action as a direct result of the entire process.

Thinking presupposes a state of consciousness. Only a conscious mind is capable of dealing with information. In fact, consciousness, properly considered, is merely the mind in the act of knowing itself. It is the engaging of ones power to reason which results in a person's recognition of himself as a free, volitional being, capable of carrying on enterprise in the midst of other such conscious beings.

In Proverbs 23:7, Solomon advises concerning man that, "as he thinketh in his heart, so is he". This passage relates the true value of good thinking, forthe principle states that a person's actions are a direct result of his own deliberation. While some hasty actions are often dismissed with the affirmationthat, "I did it without thinking", the truth is thathasty actions are merely the result of hasty thinkingrather than no thinking at all. I can think of no case where it could be said that any rational, consciousbeing ever acted without first purposing in his mind to do so, regardless of how shallow was the deliberation.

Immorality is a problem. And immorality is thedirect result of poor thinking. And poor thinking iscaused by the selfish use of the mind, satisfying itsinherent need to ponder, deliberate and decide withends lower than God purposed when He designed it.For instance, the problem with pornography is notwith dirty pictures, but with the evil thinking whichsuch filth produces. Pornography is actually "mind pollution"! Again, all anger is not wrong nor sinful,but becomes so when the mind is allowed to dwell upon wrath, allowing the deliberation of ungodly actions to be surmised. In Ephesians 4:26-27, Paulwarns against such poor thinking by saying, "... let not the sun go down on thy wrath, neither give place to the devil". The point of the admonition is that undisciplined concentration on anger results in actually giving a dwelling place to the devil. And thatdwelling place is the mind! Immorality, you see, is not caused by our natural appetites and normal desires, but by our poor thinking regarding them. Itis for this very reason that Jesus says that a personwho looks on a woman to lust after her has alreadycommitted adultery with her "in his heart" (SeeMatt. 5:28). He has before conjured up such an act inhis mind and to consent to such action is the same mental process, whether or not the act itself evertakes place!

Right thinking requires right information. No person is capable of doing his best thinking whileusing poor information. The very fact that man wascreated with the ability to reason demanded that Godequip him with the necessary good information foruse in such mental activity. This revelation of top quality material for use by the human mind is seen intwo areas. First of all, the conscious state of man andhis resultant mental intercourse with his surroundings gives him information concerning thelaws of necessity, or cause to effect relations. Suchinformation, properly considered, allows him to makebeneficial choices which result in his happiness (whichis, in itself, a mental state). However, such information as that which is available by natural means does not by itself satisfy man's inherent mentalquest for knowledge about himself and from whence heis derived. And no matter where he searches, suchinformation will not be forthcoming, for it is not available by natural means (Cf I Cor. 2:9). God has,however, slaked such a thirst for recognition by thecreature of his Creator by revealing Himself to mankind. As a result, I can openly affirm that suchrevelation makes it possible for every man to knowGod and offer to Him the praise and noteworthinessHe deserves. And I can also affirm that the human mind operates at its peak level of efficiency whenengaged in worship and devotion (again, a mental response) to God. Only by the proper use of such information, or through obedience, can man quiet hisconscience by knowing he has found favor with God (Heb. 5:8-9). After all, to "fear God and keep his commandments is the whole duty of man". And neither fear, or reverential awe, nor commandment keeping is possible without thinking—and that on right information (I Jno. 4:24).

Thinking is an individual affair. I am aware that we sometimes dismiss a person's actions by affirming that "someone else does his thinking forhim", but in the final analysis, no person thinks forany other person. The laws of God concerninghuman accountability demand such. If my thinkingcould affect your eternal destiny then individual responsibility would not be a fact and God could nothold every man responsible for his own actions. Suchan arrangement would be out of character for a God ofsystem and order. Every man will account for his own affairs (Rom. 14:11-12) and that necessarily means that each man will do his own thinking, resolving, planning and acting!

Thinking takes time. Meditation, the process of deliberating concerning accumulated and categorizedinformation, is probably the most neglected privateassignment of every mature Christian. And the mainreason given for such neglect is the lack of time.

Such is a foolish neglect, for sincere and determinedreflection is absolutely necessary to good mentalhygiene. Careful consideration of the goodness of Godis the very thing which leads us to deliberate new resolutions, even repentance (II Cor. 7:10; Rom. 2:4).Whatever time there is, a goodly portion of it shouldbe devoted to contemplative reflections concerning the goodness, grace, mercy, and inexhaustible benevolence of God! I affirm that any God-fearing individual who gives the necessary time to such careful consideration will very soon be engaged inprayerful thanksgivings to Almighty God! Whatevertime we choose to spend thinking on any subject, itshould not diminish from our regular thinking aboutGod. And such is best accomplished by that personwho has formed an intimate mental relationship withthe Word of God.

Every person seeking the favor of God would do well to take whatever time is necessary to unlearn thehabit of not meditating!

Do not underestimate the value of solitude. Time and time again the Scriptures show the value Christplaced on solitude by stating how he withdrew fromthe crowds and pondered alone. Although meditationis possible almost anywhere, the very best of it isdone when one is not under the duress of some pressing situation. For this reason, it is highlyadvisable that every person arrange to have certainregular periods of quietness and withdrawal. Introspection demands it, for no person is capable ofgenuine reflection when distracted by current obligations or demands by his associates. "Half-hearted" religion is due, in the main, to the failure togive single-minded attention to the things of God.And a mind given to a single consideration mostoften requires solitude.

Patience is necessary to right thinking. Rightthinking is not a natural tendency and consequentlymust be acquired. When a person does not plan (again, a mental action) to be a clear and pure thinker, he will not be. But when that individual decides that good, clean thinking is the most sublimated action of the human mind, and when he is willing to sacrifice the work, demands on his time,and all the other things necessary, he will become agood thinker. Peter says, (I Pet. 1:13), "wherefore, gird up the loins of your mind," an admonition implying endurance and work to bring ones mentalprocesses into rein. Paul says, "The weapons of ourwarfare are not carnal, but mighty through God tothe pulling down of strong holds. Casting down imaginations and every high thing that exhaltethitself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity, every thought to the obedience ofChrist (II Cor. 10:5-6), indicating that strenuous effort is required to discipline and control ones thinking.

Finally, the fodder for the mastication and assimilation involved in right thinking is set forth inPhilippians 4:8. "Whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things arejust, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever thingsare lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; ifthere be any virtue, if there be any praise, think on these things." True things, properly considered, make for integrity. Honorable things, thought upon,result in the elevation of human dignity. Thinking onjust things culminates in moral uprightness. The heart is naturally inclined to and embraces things ofbeauty. And time spent considering things of good report will logically result in a disciplined tongue, onewhich reports as much good as possible. The tuning of the human mind to those things assigned for itsgood is the highest form of right thinking and resultsin the most good being done for all concerned.

The excellence of the human character, the dignityof our standing in the creation, the future of oureternal destiny demand right thinking, DON'T YOUTHINK?

THE GRACE—FELLOWSHIP ISSUE — NO. 2 "GOSPEL AND DOCTRINE"

The NEW UNITY MOVEMENT (NUM) affirms adistinction between the terms "gospel" and doctrine." This effort is made with a view to extending fellowship to sincere brethren in error (See first paragraph in Article No. 1). The idea affirmed by the NUM is that while there must be unity in "gospel" there may be diversity in "doctrine." Some of this movement are more hazy in distinguishing between the two, but, nevertheless, end up with the same conclusion, namely, that sincerebrethren in error are worthy of fellowship.

Old and New Ketchersideism

This effort of trying to distinguish between "gospeland doctrine" is not new. Carl Ketcherside did so in his effort to justify his opposition to the "located preacher"—this is OLD KETCHERSIDEISM: "Now, the idea of preaching the gospel to the church,is one that is not held forth in the New Testament scriptures. . . My friends, there is a great differencebetween preaching and teaching. . . One preaches whenhe tells sinners about Christ and he teaches when he edifies the church" (Wallace-Ketcherside Debate, Paragould, Ark. 1952, pp 21, 22, 23). Again, his protege, Leroy Garrett, said: "Friends, it's ridiculous from the very import of the terms before us. So I must admit in the light of this chart that I do notbelieve that one may preach the gospel to the church.That is quite right. . . I want to know where the scriptures teach that elders ever reached out into thefield and brought a man into a congregation to preach the gospel to that church" (Humble-GarrettDebate, Kansas City, Mo., 1954, p 23). Throughout these debates both Ketcherside and Garrett affirm that one preaches the gospel to aliens and teaches doctrine to saints.

The NUM's affirmation may well be called the NEW KETCHERSIDEISM because it seeks to make the same distinction only with a different application:"Those who are acquainted with affairs within God's family well know of the divisions and heartaches brought about by these multiplied divisions. Theydon't go away by closing our eyes—they only getworse. I in no way claim to be an authority on theultimate cure, but, I do believe, with all my heart,that I recognize one of the most prolific reasons forthis division — and that is — an almost universal failure to distinguish between the gospel and the doctrinal instructions of the Bible. . . We have stretched the gospel as a blanket to cover every bit ofinstruction given in the New Testament. Therefore when disagreements arise as to points of that instruction someone is accused or perverting thegospel. . . My brethren — in searching for the causeand cure of such divisions, why have we not startedwith the root cause — Our misunderstandings of the meaning and scope of gospel in contrast with doctrinal instructions?" (Arnold Hardin, "What Is theGospel?", THE PERSUADER, Vol. XII, No. 4,Sept. 25, 1977). Again, "The 'spiritual seed or sperm' that produces children is the gospel (1 Cor. 4:14-15).Children then must be nourished with heaven's instructions — but these instructions or directives are not 'the gospel' (Arnold Hardin, "The Righteousness of God", THE PERSUADER, VolXII, No. 1, August 14, 1977).

Thus, the NUM reckons the "gospel" as the seed which produces the child and the "doctrine" as the food by which he is sustained. Furthermore, they say that it is impossible to produce a child with thewrong seed, but not all food (though unfortunate)kills. Thus, all must unite upon the "gospel" whiledivision may exist over "doctrinal" matters; aliensmust see and understand the "gospel" alike, whilesaints may differ over instructions directed to them.

In reply, let it be remembered that food essentialto life, if taken away, kills. Furthermore, poison infood will kill, and false doctrine is poison. Even a perverted gospel "removed" some of the Galatians from Christ (Gal. 1:6). The doctrine of the NUM implies that "doctrine" cannot be understood by saints. Yet, Paul said to saints "Wherefore be ye notunwise, but understanding what the will of the Lordis" (Eph. 5:17). Something must be wrong with one's faith when he concludes that he cannot do what God commands. It is strange indeed that aliens must understand what is directed to them, but saints can't understand what is directed to them. This is the old denominational cliche, "We can't see the Bible alike," with emphasis in a different place. It has been myexperience that it is just as difficult, if not more so,to get aliens to see what is directed to them as it is to get saints to see what is directed to them. Furthermore, our Lord's prayer for unity was in behalfof "believers" that they all may be one "as" the Father and Son are one (Jno. 17:21). The NUM'S "unity in diversity" is contrary to the oneness of this prayer.

Teaching By Inference

As a consequence of this view, some have rejected"Necessary Inference" as a means of Bible teaching.They reason that the salvation of the saint cannot bemade to depend upon human inference. Some also reject "Approved Examples" as binding for the same reason. This reduces the means by which the Bible teaches to a "Direct Statement." In reply, I would remind everyone that the salvation of any soul depends upon human reasoning whether he be alien or saint. Where is the direct statement that says the gospel applies to John Doe today? This conclusion isreached only by human inference. "All have sinned" (Rom. 3:23). The gospel is God's power to save everyone, Jew and Gentile alike (Rom. 1:16). This includes John Doe, therefore, he needs the gospel inorder to be saved. No wonder Jesus said, "Everyman therefore that hath heard and learned. . . cometh unto me" (John 6:45). The salvation of both alien andsaint depends upon a learning process. Shall we be driven all the way back to Calvin's "irresistible grace"—salvation void of any human effort?

Hazy Use of Terms

While some make a clear and sharp distinction between "gospel" and "doctrine," others of the NUM are hazy and devious in their use of these terms. These hold that "gospel" includes "doctrine" in that faith in the facts of the gospel, an attitude ofrespect for the authority of Christ, and a sincereeffort to submit to Christ in every thing must continue on the part of the saint. In this sense they hold that the gospel applies to the saint. To sin wilfully (Heb. 10:26) would be to deny the "gospel." However, sins of ignorance and weakness of the flesh do not involve such an attitude, and,therefore, is not a denial of the "gospel." It followsfrom such reasoning that sincere brethren in errorare in no violation of the "gospel," but differ only in"doctrine," and are yet in fellowship with God andshould be with all saints. They see a problem in thefact that no one saint understands completely everything Jesus taught, yet, such may remain in fellowship with God. Therefore, they conclude thatany lack of understanding on the part of a sincerebrother will not result in a break of fellowship withGod. Hence, the arbitrary distinction and fuzzy viewsof "gospel" and "doctrine" are an effort to justifysuch conclusion. Brethren, this is not the answer! A later article will show the solution to this problem—and do so in harmony with all else revealed.

No Distinction

The Bible makes no distinction between "gospel"and "doctrine." The issue among the Galatian churches involved not only circumcision, but also thekeeping of days, months, times, years, and other ordinances of Judaism (Gal. 4:10; 5:4). Such was a perversion of the "gospel" and removed saints fromthe Lord (Gal. 1:6). Peter, Barnabas, and other brethren "walked not uprightly according to the truthof the gospel" (Gal. 2:11-14). Immorality was declared by Paul to be "contrary to sound doctrine. . . according to the glorious gospel ofthe blessed God, which was committed to my trust"(1 Tim. 1:10, 11). Furthermore, the gospel was preachedto saints (Rom. 1:7, 15), and doctrine was taught toaliens (Acts 5:19-25, 28; 13:12).

2 John 9

The NUM affirms that "doctrine of Christ" (2 John9) refers to doctrine about Christ (v. 7). They say thecontext demands it, and, thus, they exclude sincerebrethren in error from the condemnation of verse nine. However, a more careful examination of these verses shows that verse seven is the exception (aspecific of the whole) to the contextual theme (thewhole body of truth) which runs throughout thisshort chapter. The "truth" (singular)—the whole body of truth (vs. 1, 4); the "commandment" (singular)—inclusive of all commandments (v. 6), and"doctrine" (singular)—not one of the doctrines (v. 9)identify the theme of the context. Thus, the NUM's view is arbitrary, out of harmony with other passages(e.g., Rom. 16:17; Titus 3:10, 11; 2 Tim. 2:15-18),and at variance with scholarship in general. Considerthe following:

'"Of Christ' is the subjective genitive: the doctrine

of Christ taught and still teaches through his

apostles" (R.C.H. Lenski).

Thayer defines the word "doctrine" as "that which

is taught, one's teaching, i.e., what he teaches, 2

Jno. 9"

"the doctrine which, proceeding from Christ, was

proclaimed by the apostles. The doctrine of Christ

is the truth; he who has not the truth has not God"

(H.A.W. Meyer)."not the teaching about Christ, but that of Christwhich is the standard of Christian teachings thewalk of Christ is the standard for the Christian's walk (1 John 2:6)" (A.T. Robertson). Brethren, be not deceived by those who would make distinctions where God's word makes none, who place a restricted meaning on passages to accommodate their peculiar doctrine, especially when at variance with other passages and scholarship of the world in general. We must always speak that which becometh sound doctrine(Titus 2:1).

NEBUCHADNEZZAR'S FURNACE

It may be pure vanity, but I find a measure ofsatisfaction in being able to identify with respectedpreachers of bygone days, even though the points ofidentity usually run along rather insignificant lines.For instance, Alexander Campbell has become a littledearer to me since I learned of our mutual affliction from the climatic condition of meetinghouses. I've suffered enough dry throat, hoarseness, chills, feverand general discomfort to qualify as a first class complainer, if I could find anyone to listen. I've never been able to understand why some brethrenthink a building should be sixty degrees in July and ninety in January, nor why thermostats are placedunder the oversight of Eskimos in the summer and Ethiopians in the winter. But old brother Campbell would have sympathized with me. He had some problems of this nature on an extended tour of theSouth in the winter of 1838-1839. He wrote in particular about his troubles in the Old Dominion.

" Stoves are generally misplaced in places of worship," he noted. "They ought never to be near the speaker. I have got many a sore throat and heavycold from these life-destroying machines. Instead of being placed within a few feet of the stand, with theirpipes on each side of the speaker, as in the meetinghouse in Charlottsville, and then red as Nebuchadnezzar's furnace, they ought to be near thedoors to meet the cold air on its entrance, and alwaysheated one hour before the congregation assembles." (Millennial Harbinger, February, 1839, pp. 56-57.)

Campbell further felt that meetinghouse floors should be built on an inclined plane with the audiencerising above the speaker. "The speaker," he contended, "ought always to be the lowest man inthe house." (Of course, some brethren think he isanyhow, regardless of the elevation.) One reason hegave for this arrangement for the speaker is "that hemight have the best air, for he needs it most." "No man of science will ask me for an explanation of thismatter," he said. Maybe not, but men of science didn't fire the Charlottsville stoves "seven times more" than they were "wont to be heated," nor place their red hot pipes on each side of the speaker's stand. And it is not generally men of science who rideshotgun on our meetinghouse thermostats today.Those who do are often more considerate of their own comfort (or that of their wives, depending on theirstanding in the home) than that of the speaker.

Nebuchadnezzar's furnace may have set a precedent that will continue until the end of time.

And it is "scriptural"! So my advice to all sufferingpreachers who share Campbell's tribulation is just tobe patient and "sweat it out," or "shiver it out," asthe case may be. I am confident that the temperatureof heaven will be perfect and its worth waiting patiently for.

PRESENT TRUTH—ADVENTIST INFLUENCE THE DECALOGUE

Though the editor of Present Truth, Robert Brinsmead, is a Seventh Day Adventist, Sabbatarianism does not seem to be of vital significance to him. But this is not to say that Adventist doctrine doesn't have a subtle voice in some of his articles. I don't believe I'm hearingsomething that is actually not there, but the readermay decide for himself as we consider the followingevidence:

In an article entitled "Hermeneutics," Editor Brinsmead suggests five rules of Biblical interpretation, the first of which is to interpret theOld Testament by the New. In this connection, he tells us that the New Testament not only shows ushow to interpret Old Testament prophecies, but alsohow to interpret Old Testament laws. Following the typical Adventist reasoning, he claims that the Old Testament laws of ceremony met their spiritual reality in the person and work of Christand were there fulfilled. But the moral laws of the Old Testament "are perpetually binding."

What laws is he referring to? He does not leave usin doubt: "The Apostle Paul refers to a number ofthem as a rule of life for Christians. The Sermon on the Mount interprets the moral precepts of the Ten Commandments and, instead of lessening their binding force, strengthens their demand for holiness(see Matt. 5:17-28)."

He then goes on to teach that Jesus claimed theauthority to interpret the law, and as Lord of the Sabbath (Mark 2:28) He reveals the "proper observance of the Sabbath."1

The Adventist argument on the definition of sin isunmistakably expressed in another article by theeditor. He tells us that sin must be clearly defined,and in the Ten Commandments it is so clearly definedthat the ignorant as well as the learned may understand. I John 3:4 is quoted as follows: "Sin is the transgression of this law." Then the comment is made: "To transgress the Decalogue is an affrontto the awesome majesty of a sin-hating God."2

Some of the most enlightening statements are made in a couple of special issues entitled, "Covenant." It is claimed that Jeremiah's Promise of a new covenant with Israel is actually but a "grand covenant renewal." The editor says: "The conditions of the covenant remain unchanged, but God willforgive the sins of his people and put his laws in theirhearts (Jer. 31; Ezek. 36:26, 27). . . "

Isaiah 56:1-6 is then mentioned as another example of "the covenant renewal" and it is observed that this passage "mentions the Sabbath and the covenant interchangeably. Evidently Sabbath renewal and covenant renewal went hand in hand. . . "3

It is more to our purpose, in this review, to call thereaders' attention to these matters than to reply toall the arguments. Suffice it to say on the above thatif Jeremiah had merely prophesied a renewed covenant, then such would have been according tothe covenant the Lord made with the fathers when He led them forth from the land of Egypt. Yet, he specifically stated that it would not be according tothat covenant (31:31-40). Also, the Hebrew letter teaches that the first covenant was made old by theestablishment of the new (8:13).

Later, in this same issue of Present Truth, we are told that our Covenant responsibility is spelled out inthe Ten Commandments: "God has but one covenant in mind—a covenant which He renews to different people at different stages of salvation—history."4

It is asserted that what the apostles inveighed against was "not the divine intent at Sinai but the way that the Jews had misunderstood and perverted what God gave to them . . . The stipulations (theTen Commandment law) were not set aside or abrogated by the work of Christ but were honoredand established (Isa. 42:21; Rom. 3:31). . . . 4

This is then tied in with the doctrine of imputationthrough the allegation that "the righteousness of Christ which is imputed to him is Christ's life of holyobedience to each commandment of the Decalogue."It is then asked: "In view of all this, how can thebeliever fail to reverence the holy commandments ofGod and ever walk before the Lord with fear and trembling?"6

Lest anyone think the first day of the week isinnocently being called "the Sabbath," let it be notedthat Brinsmead criticizes the seventeenth century Puritans who "introduced what they fondly called'the Christian Sabbath'. . . "5

The Soul

Another doctrine espoused by Adventists which has found its way into Present Truth is the materialistic denial of man's immortal soul. Editor Brinsmead labors to persuade readers that the doctrine of an immortal soul is based upon Greek philosophy and not Biblical teaching. In one place, Thorliff Bowan's book, Hebrew Thought Compared with Greek, is quoted: "In Greek thought man isseen as a duality, with an immortal soul imprisonedor confined in a mortal body; the two are only thought the 'soul' and 'flesh' are not separable, but temporarily or accidentally related. In Hebrew one is the outward and visible manifestation of the other," 6

The comment is then made: "It makes a lot of difference whether we think the body is a prison or a'temple of the Holy Ghost.' I Cor. 6:19. Socrates faced death calmly because of his faith in his own immortal soul. The apostles exhorted believers to puttheir faith in their life which was hidden in Christ (Col. 3:2-4), and they comforted the bereaved with thehope of the resurrection. Our anthropology and eschatology will not be Biblical if we read the Biblewith Greek glasses, "7

This reviewer believes the New Testament teaches

both the immortality of the soul (Eccl. 3:21; 12:7;

Luke 23:42, 43; Acts 7:59; 2 Cor. 4:16; 5:1-8; Matt.

17:3; 22:32; Luke 16: 19-31; Rev. 6:9-11; I Pet. 3:18

21) and the resurrection of the body (I Cor. 15).

Later in this same article, it is claimed that the concept of man being valuable because "he had within him a spark of divinity—an innate, death-proof entity called the immortal soul" is Greek inorigin. Present Truth claims that man is valuable "not because of some great value within, but by a great value without. He has been bought by the blood of Calvary's cross."8

This reviewer is convinced that the above

propositions are not mutually contradictory.

The Protestant Reformation

Last month we discussed the great emphasis which Present Truth places upon the Reformation and the Reformers. This also is a reflection of Seventh-Day Adventism. In the book. The Religions of America,9 Arthur S. Maxwell, editor of Signs of the Times, the leading journal of the Seventh-Day Adventists, wasasked: "Are Seventh-Day Adventists Protestants?"

His reply: "Yes. Like the reformers of the sixteenth century, Seventh-Day Adventists believe that every individual may have immediate access toGod by prayer. . . They believe that their Church constitutes the nucleus of a twentieth-centuryReformation , a world-wide revival of New Testament Christianity."

Compare this to these words on the inside frontcover of Present Truth: "Our vision is a new Reformation that will recover what the Reformers bequeathed us and complete the restoration they sonobly began. "

Even their central doctrine, the imputation of Christ's perfect obedience and righteousness to the believer's account, is but a further reflection of the editor's Adventist background. One Adventist brochure in my collection is entitled "We Don't HaveTo Be Good." (Following the traditional modus operandi of this group, it is not identified as an Adventist publication, but it was sent to me, along with a stack of material, by an irate member of theSeventh-Day Adventist Church.)

The brochure tells us that one of the three aspects of God's justification of a repentant sinner is: "Imputation of Christ's righteousness. On the basisof Christ's sinless life, God accounts to us the righteous character of His Son. (Rom. 4:3-6, 2 Cor. 5:21; I Cor. 1:30). Christ's perfect character stands inplace of our imperfect character. "

Finally, even the name, "Present Truth" was for years connected with a journal published by the Seventh-Day Adventist Church. These are but a fewmatters that may open a few eyes to the source ofsome current problems. Let us walk circumspectly.

Next month: Present Truth and the Doctrine of Imputation.

1. Present Truth, Vol. 3, No. 2, P. 10.
2. Ibid, S.I. Jus. by Faith & CM., P. 32.
3. Ibid, Vol. 5, No. 7, PP. 26. 27.

1. Ibid, PP. 30, 38, 39, 48, 51, 55; See also Vol. 3, No.3, PP. 41-43.
2. Ibid, Vol. 5, No. 8, P. 5.
3. SCM Press London, Published in 1954 in German and1960 in English.
4. Op. Cit., Vol. 3, No. 2, P. 42.
5. Ibid, P. 44 (see also PP. 45, 46; also Vol. 6, No. 1,an issue dealing with "Theology and Body," PP. 20,24, 25, 31f.).
6. Leo Rosten, editor; Heinemann Press, London, 1957,

P. 133.

TO THE SOUTH: A FOOTHOLD INCOLUMBIA

Last August, Wayne Partain and Royce Chandlerspent fifteen days in Manizales, Columbia with CarlosRestrepo, the only Christian they knew there. Carlos was converted in a US prison, and returned to Columbia in April 1977. He cannot come back to theUS, so efforts to help him must be in His country. At23, he is a babe in Christ, but with enormous talents, He has been diligent in study and work.Last October, he moved to Bogata, the capital city asthe best place to start the Lord's work among that nation's twenty-three million souls.

Bob Crawley and Royce Chandler with their wives were there during the Christmas holidays. Theycontinued teaching Carlos. They also leased a houseas a residence for him, and as a place of assembly.Its size permits any who go there to help to use it,avoiding hotel costs. Additionally, they secured furniture and study materials useful for a functioning church. The University Heights church in Lexington,Kentucky and the Danville, Kentucky church sharebro. Restrepo's support.

Wayne and Faye Partain returned to Bogata on 16January 1978. The Lord willing, they will work forthree months to help establish a congregation. Wayneand Carlos baptized two women on 4 February. Praythey continue reaping.

The kingdom's growth there rests on Carlos Restrepo. This great responsibility makes it imperative he get as much solid teaching as possibleas quickly as possible. He eagerly wants it. Chandler's family plans to go back for six weeks this summer forthis. Others may join them for one or two weeks, tohelp. As Restrepo is fluent in English, Spanish isunnecessary. Chandler asks: "Do you have something to contribute?" (Condensed from a report by RoyceChandler, of Danville, Kentucky.)

OTHER WORK IN SOUTH AMERICA

Two men, bro. Efrain F. Perez of Chili, and Carlos

A. Capelli, of Argentina are making good efforts tospread the gospel in their nations. Both men have been p reaching for some years, and have been working as long or longer than any other preachersthere.

Bro. Perez is presently in the US. He is studying in the Teacher Training Program in the Danville, Kentucky church, with brethren Kelly Ellis and RoyceChandler as teachers. He writes he is available to show slides and give talks on the work in Chili. For those interested, contact him at: Efrain F. Perez, 1222 W.Walnut Street, Danville, Kentucky, 40422. He expectsto be in the United States for a number of months yet.

Bro. Capelli reported several gospel meetings, inthe city of Jose C. Paz, and Derqui. He preached inone, and a bro. Arturo Cantu, who worships with theSpanish-speaking congregation in San Angelo, Texas,was down there to speak in the other. Several wereadded to Christ from these efforts. He also mentioned that he has been doing some radio work in Pilar.

Bro. Wayne Partain (see the summary of the reportby Royce Chandler, above) invited bro. Capelli tocome to Columbia and assist him (Partain) in his work there. Capelli will need assistance if he is to beable to do this. He may be contacted at: Carlos A.Capelli, Casila No. 12, 1635 Pte. Derqui, Buenos Aires, Argentina, South America.

INDIA REPORT

On 25 December 1977, bro. Wendel Wiser and Ray

F. Dively left for a preaching visit to India. It was Wiser's first and Dively's fifth. Their purpose was toencourage and edify saints and hold a training classfor preachers. They believe they were successful.

They worked with the approximately seventychurches in the Hyderabad area. These are young inthe faith. Most have been established since 1972. They need encouraging and strengthening. There is also a great need for printed materials to spread thegospel. To help fulfill this, they printed two tractsin a native dialect.

The churches in India also have troubles. Divelycited one, a US preacher who introduced a doctrinalproblem which set brother against brother. The man insisted women were not permitted to teach otherwomen or children. This has been resolved. Love has returned. The Americans had difficulties created by a dishonest brother who did their interpreting. He overcharged them on the cost of printing, hotel billsand food expenses for the preachers in the trainingclass. When confronted with evidence of his dishonesty, he promised to make restitution, But hedisappeared, and was not seen again. On future trips,bro. N.A. Lazarus, who was converted on Dively'sfirst trip, will do the interpreting.

Bro. Dively stressed the continuing need for suchtrips. Brethren in India are not yet able to carry onthe work by themselves without outside assistanceand encouragement. The visiting Americans do the same work Paul did on his revisits to churches he established, confirming them in the faith. Americanscannot get a permanent visa for preaching in India,so visits must fill this need. Wiser and Dively solicit the prayers of saints in the US that God's will in India might be fulfilled. (Condensed from a report byRay F. Dively, of Baden, Pa.)

SOME GENERAL COMMENTS AND NOTES

The similarity of the work in India and the Philippines is startling. There are a number of good and honest hearts who hear the gospel and respond toit; the need for training classes to prepare preachers;the continuing need for visits by American preachersto encourage, edify and stabilize the work; "growingpains" which disturb the work and create problems;and finally, occasional dishonest brethren, seeking tomake Godliness a way of gain (1 Tim 6:05). But noneof these things, nor all of them will keep God's peoplefrom growing numerically and spiritually, as long aswe seek God's will in all things.

Jim Puterbaugh recently returned from nearly ayear of teaching preachers in the Philippines. I have received hundreds of letters, commending his workand expressing deep appreciation to him for doing it.I hope he will consent to write a report on it, that wecan include in a future issue.

It is interesting to note that more and more workis being done or assisted by conservative brethren.The liberals have repeatedly charged us with doing nothing overseas. For a time, it seemed they werecorrect. That is no longer so. I continue to hear of the gospel being spread in new places, and thank Godfor this. A point of particular interest is the way workoverseas is being done by us. Either we are sendingthe men to do it (as with Bob Nichols, in Japan) orwe are sending men for shorter periods, to encourageand edify and train native preachers. This stands outin sharp contrast to much of the liberals' efforts, where they have spent enormous sums building colleges, establishing medical clinics and so on, wherepreaching the gospel among peoples hungry for God's Word almost seems as an after-thought. Just which method is closer to that given in the New Testament?

In this, the final article in this series. I shall pointout that one of the bulwarks of Zion that is designed to fortify the church against apostasy is...........

The Autonomy of The Local Church

Up to this time, I have been speaking of thechurch in the universal sense. This is the sense in which it is spoken of when Jesus said, "Upon thisrock I will build my church" (Matt. 16:18). Also when Paul said, "And he is the head of the body,which is the church" (Col. 1:18). In these passages, and in others, the word, church, is used in a universal sense, to included all the saved, where ever they may be.

But the word, church, is also sometimes used in alocal sense. When thus used it includes the saved in a particular city or area. When Paul said, "All the churches of Christ salute you" (Rom. 16:16), he wasnot speaking of denominations with different faithsand practices, but of the local congregations. This isobvious from the fact that the book of Revelation was addressed to "the seven churches that are in Asia", but later they were identified as seven local congregations (Rev.1:4,11). This is further seen in thefact that Paul addressed two epistles to "the churchof God which is at Corinth." (1 Cor. 1:2, 2 Cor. 1:2).

So then, the word, church, is sometimes used inthe universal sense to designate God's peoplethroughout the world. Then it is sometimes spoken ofin the local sense to designate God's people in a given city or area. The context usually determines the sensein which the word is used.

Bearing that thought in mind, I want us to noticethat in its universal sense the church has no local government. No, I did not say that it has no government. I said that it has no local government.It has no elders. In its universal sense Christ is head over all things to the church (Eph. 1:22). His word isour law (Col. 3:16). In its universal sense the churchwas never given any mission. The only function ofthe church is on the congregational, or the local level.Thus any local government is congregational in its scope.

There are reasons for confining such government tothe local congregation that will appear obvious to thethoughtful student of the Bible and of history.

(1) There are often day to day decisions that mustbe made in the local congregation that could not bemade by a universal, or even a regional governing body, which might be hundreds, or even thousands ofmiles away. There are sometimes disciplinary problems that can be dealt with only on the locallevel, and by men who are in touch with the circumstances surrounding them.

(2) What is more important is the fact that local government protects the church against widespread apostasy. An unwise decision, or false teaching byuniversal elders would involve the universal church in that error and in eventual apostasy.

Elders, Local in Function

The government of the congregation is thus local,and is vested in a plurality of elders. In writing toTitus, Paul said, "For this cause left I thee in Crete,that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and appoint elders in every city as I gavethee charge" (Titus 1:5). Not only did Paul give thisas a charge to Titus, but he also set an example ofthe same, in that on the return portion of his first missionary journey, "They appointed elders in everychurch" (Acts 14:23).

Passing over the qualifications and the responsibilities of elders, I want to point out next thatthe jurisdiction of elders is confined to the localcongregation. In a parting charge to the elders of thechurch at Ephesus, Paul said, "Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the HolySpirit hath made you bishops, to feed the church ofthe Lord which he purchased with his own blood"(Acts 20:28). The Holy Spirit had made them eldersover the church at Ephesus, therefore that was the flock to which they were to take heed, and it was theextent of their jurisdiction. They had no authorityover other congregations, even in the immediate area.

In a similar charge to elders the apostle Peter said,"The elders therefore among you I exhort, who amalso a fellow elder, and a witness of the sufferings ofChrist,. . . . tend the flock which is among you, exercising the oversight, not of constraint, but willingly, according to the will of God; nor yet forfilthy lucre, but of a ready mind; neither as lording itover the charge allotted to you, but making yourselvesexamples to the flock" (1 Peter 5:1-3).

Here again, it is elders that are addressed, and it isnoted that the field of their oversight is limited to theflock that is among them — the local church.

That is what is meant by the autonomy of the local church. The word, autonomy is defined by Webster'sdictionary as, the power or right of self government.As it relates to states and provinces, each is independently governed, and the laws of one state orprovince cannot be imposed on another state or province. As it relates to local churches, it means that each congregation is governed by its own elders,and that the decision of no other eldership or congregation is binding on it, and the decisions of itselders are not binding on any other congregation.This applies in every phase of the work of the church,whether it be in evangelism, edification, benevolence, or discipline. Each congregation functions as an independent unit just as the church at Jerusalem functioned in those days before other local congregations were established, and while it was theonly local congregation on earth.

Independent local government of the local congregation is a divine provision to safeguard thechurch from universal apostasy. Men are fallible. They make mistakes. They sometimes become unfaithful and teach error, and introduce human innovations. As long as the jurisdiction of such elders is confined to the local church, the resultant apostasy will be confined to that one congregation.Other congregations can remain faithful. But when men become universal or brotherhood elders, the resultant apostasy is as wide as their jurisdiction.

Great departures often originate with small beginnings. In New Testament times the terms, elderand bishop, were used with reference to the sameoffice (Acts 20:17, 28). But there came a time when a distinction was made, and a man claiming to be a bishop assumed jurisdiction over the elders. It was asmall step. I am sure that no one, even in the wildestflights of imagination, ever dreamed that it was thebeginning of an apostasy that would culminate in therise of one claiming to be a universal bishop, whichclaim is made by the pope of Rome. Yes, the office ofthe pope is just that of an overly ambitious elder.

What About Cooperation?

Since the jurisdiction of elders is confined to the local congregation, the work of the church must therefore be carried out on the local congregationallevel without the building of super-organizations to centralize such work under one governing body,whether it be a benevolent society, or a missionarysociety, or its counterpart, a sponsoring church. At this point I hear some one say, "O, he is one of thosewho doesn't believe in church cooperation."

The charge made against some brethren of beinganti-cooperation is a red herring that has been dragged across the trail for far too long. And like allred herrings, having got so old, it stinks, and shouldhave been buried long ago. It is the same charge that was made against Jacob Creath, David Lipscomb, Benjamin Franklin, and others who opposed the missionary society which was but the invention of men who were not satisfied with God's plan of cooperation among churches, and thought they couldimprove upon it.

Let me say for the record that I believe that congregations can and may cooperate. I don't knowof anyone who does not believe that churches may cooperate. I believe that New Testament churches cooperated. But it was a cooperation that recognizedthe independence of each congregation. They worked toward the same end, yet each worked in its own congregational capacity. Two examples are herewith given.

(1) A number of churches supported Paul while helabored at Corinth (2 Cor. 11:8). This support wasnot sent through any society. It was not even sent tothe church at Corinth. But was obviously sent directly to Paul by the hand of brethren acting as messengers of the contributing churches (2 Cor. 11:9). (2) During the latter part of Paul's third missionary journey he stirred up churches to make acontribution for impoverished brethren at Jerusalem(1 Cor. 16:1). Some years earlier a similar con

tribution had been made by the church at Antioch forthe relief of poor saints in Judea (Acts 11:29). In neither case was the relief sent to some central organization. Nor was it sent to some central churchto be administered. But it was sent, again by the hands of chosen messengers, directly to those forwhom its was intended (Acts 11:30. 1 Cor. 16:3. 2Cor. 8:23). Does anyone deny that this was cooperation between those churches?

Under such cooperation the success was phenomenal. One third of a century after Pentecost,Paul was able to say that the gospel had beenpreached in all creation under heaven (Col. 23). Asfor helping the poor, the response to Paul's appeal tothe churches was so generous as to constitute aliberal contribution (2 Cor. 9:13).

Conclusion

The things that we have discussed in this series, —the fact that the church was designed by a divinearchitect; built by Christ; upon a divine foundation;ruled by a divine head who makes no mistakes; subscribing to a divine creed, written by men whowere guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit; andfinally in its local sense, ruled by elders whose jurisdiction is limited to but one local congregation —these things, I say, constitute mighty bulwarks thatsafeguard the church in matters of doctrine, in organization, in work and in worship. Let us mark them well. Let us pray that they may be faithfullypreached to the generations following.

REINCARNATION

Reincarnation is basically a theory of Moham-mendanism. It says that the soul of one is reborn inanother body or form. The idea that demons are spirits of departed wicked men come back to life inthe body of another seems to me to be a form of reincarnation. The reason why a cow is so well treated in countries like India is because the 'cow' just might be grandmother or some other relative reincarnated.

Jean Dixon

In the National Enquirer, Dec. 10, 1974, Jean Dixon said, "We're on the Brink of Discovering theAmazing Secrets of Reincarnation. . . All of us havelived before. And all the knowledge from our previouslives will surface with tremendous and wonderful consequences. . . Telepathy will become the everyday of communication. . . Age-old remedies will be rediscovered and applied to modern medical know-how, eliminating all killer diseases. . . In earlier livessome of us were great scientists like da Vince, Galileoand Copernicus. We'll reach into the deepest recesses of our minds and draw out these great thoughts, theories, and ideas of centuries ago."

"Foremost Authority"

The National Enquirer of Feb. 14, 1978, page 37,says Dr. Ian Stevenson of the University of Virginiais "the world's foremost authority on reincarnation."He claims to have "new evidence that after people diethey can be born again." He gives "evidence" (?) ofan Indian born again as his own nephew; a boy who was in an earlier life his own uncle, and woman born again as the daughter of a good friend. One psychicresearcher said, "I feel it is strong evidence of possible reincarnation."There needs to be kept in mind the big difference inthe Biblical doctrine of life after death and in reincarnation; they are not the same.

Old Testament

(1) Of such Old Testament characters as Adam,Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah and Lamech the Bible says "and all the days of" giving their name "were" giving their ages(Gen. 5:5, 8, 11, 14, 17, 20, 23, 27, 31). If all their days were a certain number, then they did not have any more. If Methuselah had some days after 969 years, then 969 years were not "all the days of him; they were just part of his days. (2) 2 Sam. 12:23—Of the child born to David and Bathsheba, David said when he died, "can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall notreturn to me." (3) 2 Sam. 14:14 says "we must needs die, and are as water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again, neither doth God respect any person." (4) Job 14:l-2—"Man that is born of woman is a few days, and full of trouble. He cometh forth like a flower, and is cut down." Man has a "few days" not a"few days" and then a "few days" again. (5) Dan. 12:2—of those that "sleep in the dustof the earth" Daniel said they shall "awake, some toeverlasting life, and some to shame and everlastingcontempt." Those that sleep will not awake to be reincarnated. (6) Eccl. 3:2 says there is a "time to be born, anda time to die;" not times to be born and times to die. (7) 2 Kings 4:35-36—when the son of the Shunammite woman died, Elisha raised him, the same boy, back to life. He came back to life as himself, not as his uncle or some friend.

New Testament

There are not only the above Old Testament passages that disprove reincarnation, but some NewTestament passages bear on the matter.

(1) Mk. 5:35-43—When Jesus raised this damsel from the dead, it was the dead damsel that arose inthe same body she had when Jesus took her by thehand. She did not come back from the dead in another body.

(2) Luke 7:11-18—Jesus raised a young man from the dead. He sat up with the same body. It wasnot the young man as a relative that was resurrected. (3) John ll:43-44—Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead and he came forth with his grave-clotheson, thus the same body. (4) Acts 9:36-43—When Peter raised Dorcas from the dead, she came forth in the same body shehad. She was not reincarnated in another body. (5) Acts 20:9-12—Eutychus was "taken updead" and Paul said "his life is in him" and he was "alive." After his death he did not come back in another body of either man or beast. (6) 2 Cor. 5:l-10—Paul said we have "our earthlyhouse" not houses and judgment will be according to what we have done "in this body," not in "thesebodies." If man is reincarnated, he will not be judgedfor what he does in all of his bodies, just one. (7) 2 Cor. 5:6-8—Paul contrasts the choice "we" have as being "at home in the body" as "absentfrom the Lord" and "absent from the body" and "present with the Lord." In Phil. 1:21-24 he shows to be "in the flesh" is the opposite of being "with Christ." When absent from the body, Paul was not looking to be reincarnated in another body in a future life back here on earth. (8) Heb. 9:27—In this plain passage we read "asit is appointed unto men once to die, but after thisthe judgment." One death and then judgment;not several deaths and more lives of reincarnation. (9) 2 Tim. 4:l-8—Paul said when his departuretook place he had a crown of righteousness waitinghim, not another life in another body by reincarnation. (10) John 16:13-15—Jesus said the HolySpirit would guide the apostles into "all truth." They were not guided by the Spirit into teaching thedoctrine of reincarnation. Therefore, reincarnation isnot any part of "all truth." (11) 2 Peter 1:3—Peter said "his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain to life and godliness." Reincarnation was not that which his divine power gave, thus, it does not pertain to lifeor godliness. (12) 2 Cor. 5:7—Paul said we walk by faith and Rom. 10:17 teaches faith comes by hearing the word of God. If there is no word of God for the doctrine of reincarnation, and there is not, then itcan not be taught or believed by faith.

Paul warns "beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, and after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ" (Col. 2:8). The doctrine is oneof those which did not originate with Christ and maybe classified as "philosophy," "vain deceits,""rudiments of the world" and "traditions of men."

PRACTICAL PREACHING

We sing a song in our assemblies about Christ receiving sinful men in which we urge the preacher tomake the message clear and plain. Unless the message of truth is clear and plain, most of us willnot understand it. God intended that His Word be presented in such a way that ordinary people, as wellas intellectuals, could comprehend it.

The prophet Jeremiah foretold of the days of thegospel and the kingdom of God. He said, "And an highway shall be there, and a way, and it shall becalled The way of holiness; the unclean shall not passover it; but it shall be for those: the wayfaring men,though fools, should not err therein." (Isa. 35:8). If man cannot understand truth it is of no value to him. To present truth so that man cannot grasp it is tonullify the purpose of truth. Isaiah indicated that even a wayfaring man, even a fool, could walk inthe way of holiness. This is a strong argument for plain preaching.

Paul declared that we have an obligation to adaptourselves to the situation at hand in order to teach the truth to the lost. He said, "... I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means savesome." (I Cor. 9:22b). He then added "and this I dofor the gospel's sake. . ." (v. 23).

It has been the observation of this writer that the preaching of so many preachers today is above the heads of the common people. There may be a timeand place for a sophisticated, intellectual discoursebut it is not ordinarily so. Such would be understandable to some audiences but not to most.

Preachers need to use some good judgment aboutthis. Good common sense might be a better term forit. Brethren, keep it on the ground! After all, that iswhere we are standing. Jesus brought his lessons alive by the use of every day illustrations known asparables in which he used the language of the people.His lessons were profound because they were simple, plain and practical. He related his teachingto the day and time and showed the people how itwould work for them in everyday affairs. He did not relate it to this life only but projected it to the lifeafter death and heaven.

Compare this with those who flaunt their education and show off their academic ability today. What do they really teach the people? Their words and phrasesare out of reach of the man in the pew. This is not anindictment of education. It is to say that we should learn how to use education so as to communicate with all whom we seek to teach. To do otherwise is to make

Page 17

one's motives suspicious.

It must be discouraging for a man to work hard allday at a secular job, rush home, eat, dress and go tothe services or to a gospel meeting only to come homewith nothing. Some may say "climb up" or "bring abucket to put it in.' This may sound funny at first butit is not humorous at all to the one who has put forth somuch effort and has gained so little in his spiritual understanding. He listens in vain to words and materialso complex and complicated that he can fathom butlittle of it. A teacher is not successful unless he can be understood.

On the other hand it may be true that there are those who get nothing from most any type of lesson simply because they do not try. But if such a one diddecide to try should not the teaching be within hisreach? That is the point we are making.

We need to give people practical instruction so thatthey can relate it to the situations of life which theyface day by day. It is only in this way folks can copewith life and its many problems. They must be caused to see that serving the Lord is not just somehigh-sounding, theological theory but that it worksboth for now and eternity. It gives meaning andpurpose to life here and hereafter. The Christian lifeis real, not theoretical. It is practical because it works!

We fear that there is something called "intellectual snobbery" among some who preach. A preacher isnot really educated unless he can use his tools of thetrade to help men to understand. Education should never become a wall between teacher and student. It should in reality be a bridge over which to transferthoughts. Accompanied with practicality and humility it can be a valuable tool in the hands of thewise.

Brethren, let us strive to make the message plain.Let it not be said when a sermon is done that the people could not understand what was said for thereason that it was over their heads.

Conditions of Membership

The church must be kept pure in conditions of membership. God has given the plan and it is not thejob of the church to set up its own terms of membership. The conditions of membership are simple:

(1) Hearing the word (Matt. 17:5); (2) Believing inChrist (John 8:24); (3) Repentance (Acts 17:30); (4)Confession of faith (Matt, 10:32); and (5) Immersion(Romans 6:3-4; Mark 16:16). These conditions of membership must not be changed if the church is tobe kept pure.

Sometimes people will fall away after meeting theprimary steps of membership and the church has the problem of receiving the unfaithful. Sometimes the unfaithful will want 'to slip back in' without acknowledging their sin. The church must be keptpure in this respect.

Receiving all immersed folks into the membershipis an area in which the church must be kept pure. Itis true that Bible baptism is immersion (Rom. 6: 3-4)but not all immersion is Bible baptism! Bible baptism must have the subject — the taught (Matt. 28:19); theright element — water (Acts 10:47); the right action

— a burial (Col. 2:12); the right purpose — remission ofsins (Acts 2:38); to get into Christ (Gal. 3:27); to get into the church (1 Cor. 12:13) and in order to be saved(1 Pet. 3:21; Mark 16:16).

In Organization

If the church is to be pure in God's sight, it mustbe kept pure in organization. There is no universal organization through which the church is to function.The organization of the church is on a local scale. Inwriting to the Philippians, Paul states that the organization of the local church is composed of elders,deacons, and saints (Phil. 1:1). The only organizationthrough which the church can scripturally function isthe local congregation. The authority of the oversightinvested in the elders begins and ends in the local congregation where they are elders (1 Pet. 5:1-2).Thus, it becomes unscriptural for an eldership tobecome involved in sponsoring activities for other congregations in any realm!

Since whatever God provides for the church is complete (2 Tim. 3:16-17), the organization iscomplete and it becomes a violation of the authorityof the Bible when an eldership turns the funds of thelocal church over to any other organization to do itswork.

In Work

There are three realms in which the local church may engage. First, the church has the responsibilityof preaching the gospel to saints and sinners according to its ability (1 Tim. 3:15; 1 Thess. 1:8; 2 Cor. 11:8, Phil. 4:16-17). Second, the church has authority to conduct worship services (Acts 2:42; Heb. 2:12; Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2; 1 Cor. 11).Thirdly, the church has benevolent responsibility toneedy saints (Acts 6:1-6; Acts 11:27-30; 1 Cor.16:1-4; Rom. 15:26). This work must be done withinthe framework of the organization of the local church.When the church respects Bible authority and doesjust the work authorized in the scriptures, the church will have no church sponsored ball teams, banquethalls, area wide meetings and campaigns, church camps, colleges in the budget and any other unauthorized activities.

Attitude Toward Error

Many in the church are afraid to expose error, lestit cause trouble. We must earnestly contend for the faith (Jude 3) and not be afraid to preach all thetruth on any subject. If the church is to be kept purethe word must be preached "in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine" (2 Tim. 4:2).

In Speech

Paul said, "Hold fast the form of sound words. . . ." (2 Tim. 1:13), and speak thou the things which become sound doctrine" (Titus 2:1). Peter said, "if any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God." Departures from God's word are always reflected in thespeech of those who depart. Here is a list of things wehear said which reflect a departure from the old paths."I am a Church of Christ;" "Join the church;" "the Christian sabbath;" "our fellowship hall for socials;" "the sponsoring church;" "the head elder;" "church sponsored recreation;" "college in our budget;" "Christian camps," etc.

May God help us to work, Eve and pray to the endthat the church be kept PURE.

THE LORD'S WORK IN NORTH DAKOTA GARY HARGIS, Grand Forks, N.D. and DON BONNER, Jamestown, N.D. — North Dakota has two congregations atpresent adhering to sound Bible principles. Jamestown is the olderof the two and Is located in the south-central region of the state,midway between Fargo and Bismarck on I-94. Emerado, or theGrand Forks Air Force Base church exists because of the diligenceof brother and sister Charles Dick who established the Jamestown work and kept it alive through a number of lean years. Thoughboth are asleep in Jesus at this time, a trust left by sister Sarahcontinues to support faithful gospel preachers in Minnesota, NorthDakota, Montana and Texas.

Through the labors of some of the preachers supported by thetrust, the Emerado work was established. Now the support to thelocal preacher comes from all over the country. The preacher fromJamestown preached and taught for both congregations for over ayear even though they are 140 miles apart. He was, at the time,the only male member in the state. The diligence of brethren all over the country who gave of their means allowed the work tocontinue. The trust left by Sarah Dick is bearing its maximum burden at this time and is unable to help further in the support ofadditional men.

A unique opportunity has afforded itself in that three men haveoffered to come and labor in this area. Support is needed for thethree. All three are coming out of secular work. They havepreached and taught with various congregations over a number ofyears. All are mature Christians with wives and families. They arededicated to seeing a pure gospel preached in North Dakota. Because of the difficulty of the tabor here and its inherent discouragements it is deemed wisest that these men start bylaboring with the help of the preachers now working here. One will labor in Emerado with Gary Hargis where the burden of rapidgrowth has left many babes to be taught and contacts to be firmed. Another will labor with Don Bonner in Jamestown where the work is small. The third will labor with a faithful family in Valley City, 35 miles from Jamestown. It is hoped that a greatdeal of mutual assistance in personal work will generate the samegrowth we enjoy in Emerado.

As the works in these areas grow we hope to take advantage ofopportunities that are opening in North Dakota. There are yetcities of 10-20,000 who have never heard the pure gospel. The liberal congregations are moaning under the burden of their follyas two Joy Bus programs were scrapped recently. In Minot the church allowed Dave Moyer to teach and preach for a number ofyears while he was stationed there with the Air Force and is yet open to study. The Grand Forks liberal group has recently invitedbrother Hargis to come bi-weekly to address them on the differences dividing the two groups. It is our prayer and hopethat good will come from the lessons. An opportunity to teach hasalso opened in Bismarck. Not only have we been invited to teachthem, but they have invited Albert Wanous and Steve Wolfgang to preach gospel meetings for them this summer. The opportunitiesare abounding as the Lord has opened an effectual door for us. Weneed laborers. We urge brethren to carefully consider the requestsfrom these men and join us in this work with both material andspiritual support. Some who are familiar with the work here include: James R. Cope, Leslie Diestelkamp, Paul Earnhart, AlbertWanous, Ron Howes, Connie W. Adams, Luther Martin, "Paul C. Keller and many more we can furnish if so desired.

STEVE GOFF, P.O. Box 427, Centerville, Texas 75833 — Atthe first of July we will move from Centerville, Texas to workwith the church in Kaysville, Utah. At this time, the brethren in Kaysville comprise the only sound work in the entire state. Ifany readers know of contacts we can make in Utah, please write usin care of the Church of Christ, P.O. Box 261, Kaysville, Utah 84037. We welcome Christians to worship with us when traveling through Utah.

MACKEY W. HARDEN, 118 W. Brandywine Circle,Wilmington, NC 28405 — The church here in Wilmington has justconcluded a gospel meeting with Jerry Accettura of Chester,Virginia preaching. During the meeting we had 17 visitors whowere not members of the Lord's church, many of them attendingseveral nights of the meeting. From these we were able to set up 3home Bible studies and think there will be one or two more. On the last night of the meeting a young man made the good confession and was baptized into Christ. I have been working with this congregation about a year now. During this time therehave been 4 baptisms, two restorations, two identified with us,and several have come forward confessing wrong doings. We ask brethren to remember us in their prayers as well as all otherswho are working in hard areas.

DAVID L. COOPER, 217 Parkdale, Pontiac, MI 48055 — Please mention in your NEWSLETTER REPORTS that the church at Gingellville is alive and sound in Christ and that we have had arestoration which brings the total to 5 recently. There is a great need for a full-time gospel preacher here. I work 54 hours a week,or more, at a secular job. If anyone could see fit to support me or if there is a gospel preacher who is able to get support, I think hislabor would be rewarded. A 1970 census reports 907,000 souls inthis county, with 85,000 in Pontiac alone.

RICHARD MERSKIN, 122 4th Ave., Cheyenne, WY 82001 — On April 2, 1978 the church here began meeting at a differentlocation. We now meet at the local YMCA building, for both worship services on Sunday. Our midweek Bible study is held onThursday evenings at our home until we can find a reasonableplace to meet. Johnnie Horton and Frank Driver from the Downtown church in Fort Collins, Dave Swenson from Davenport,Iowa and myself preached in a short meeting here in April. We

Page 19

urge summer travelers through Cheyenne to stop and worshipwith us. Call (307) 634-6845 for information.

DELBERT J. NEDDO. SSgt, Mid-Island Church of Christ, PSCNo. 2 Box 13168, APO S.P. 96367 — The Mid-Island Church of Christ located in Okinawa has a list of eight Filipino preachers inneed of additional support. We have been supporting all of these but have had to cut back because of reduced membership due tomilitary transfers. We have known all these men for several years.Some of our members have visited them and have seen their work first-hand. We highly recommend them and will be glad to sendyou a list of their names, addresses, and any other information you may need.

PREACHERS NEEDED OKEECHOBEE, FLORIDA — The Westside church in Okeechobee needs a full-time preacher. This is a fast growing areawith good potential. If interested contact Franklin Varson, Rt. 2,Box 175, Okeechobee, FL 33472. Phone (813) 763-3462.

BRADLEY, ARKANSAS — A small but active congregation needs a full-time preacher. Andrew Whisenhunt and his son,Warren, presently share the preaching but both are farmers andthe work needs a full-time man. The town is small but the people are friendly and prospects are good. Contact AndrewWhisenhunt, Rt. 1, Bradley, Arkansas 71826. Phone (501) 894-3472, or (501) 894-3947).

ROANOKE, VIRGINIA — Our present preacher, Elmo Hazelwood, is leaving the work here in June. We will then need aman to replace him. We are constructing a building in which towork and worship and expect to have it completed in May.Roanoke is a busy and growing city. Our potential for growth hereis very good. Anyone interested may call Lewis Sturm collect at

362-6226, or write to the church at P.O. Box 12685, Roanoke, VA24027.

GREENEVILLE, TENNESSEE . The Raven's Branch church needs a preacher by October 1, 1978, if possible. This is inthe mountains of East Tennessee. Attendance runs 70-90. These are very good people. Partial support can be provided. If interestedcontact Olie Williamson, P.O. Box 29, Greenville, TN 37743.

PEORIA, ILLINOIS In March, 1968, the church in Peoria, Illinois divided. One decade later, in April, 1978, the Paris Avenue and Westlake congregations were re-united. The Peoria church will meet at 3004 W. Lake Avenue until that property is sold, at which time they will move to the older, but larger facilities at 1509 E. Paris Avenue. A decision will be made later after further study whether to remain there or build elsewhere. Preachers from both congregations are presently working with the merged group. Al Diestelkamp has worked with the Paris Avenue church for four years, and will continue with the Paris Avenue church until June when he plans to begin work with the church in Davenport, Iowa. William B. Murrell has preached at West Lake for one and one-half years and will stay on with the church in Peoria. About 150 people worship with the congregation

Al Diestelkamp William B. Murrell

IN THE NEWS THIS MONTH

BAPTISMS 453

RESTORATIONS 101

(Taken from bulletins and papers received by the editor)