BE YOUR OWN MAN

"Belong to yourself before you belong to others." So said Bernard of Clairvaux to his pupil, Pope Engenius II. It is good advice. If every person would make his own examinations, weigh his own decisions,do his own thinking it seems to me that truth wouldnot suffer as it often does. There seemingly is a human tendency to allow someone we admire, someone of what we consider to be superiorintellectual prowess, even sometimes someone who isphysically stronger than are we to make our decisionsfor us.

It takes considerable strength of character to beyour own man. The forces which seek to control usare subtle as well as tenacious. The rewards with which they tantalize and allure are appealing and thecontemplation of their realization will becloud andconfuse our abilities to objectively consider a rightdecision if we are not careful. And following isusually much easier than going against the tide ofwhat is public opinion or generally accepted by our peers. However, in the final analysis we are responsible for ourselves and our servitude is an actof self-determination (Rom. 6:17; 2 Pet. 2:19).

To be your own man requires intellectual honesty.By that terminology I mean to show that we must behonest with ourselves, in our own minds. The greatest deterrent to self-honesty is rationalization. Rationalization is a poor use of the mind, simplybecause it expends valuable thought energies to invest some sort of explanation for poor behavior. In doing so, a person surrenders his mental faculties tothe accomplishing of ends that are much lower than God intended for the mind of man. God intends that a man's mind be used to determine what is right,make right choices, and resultantly rejoice when hehas the assurance that his conduct is approved. But aman must come to terms with himself before that will happen and that requires the putting aside of inclinations to excuse his own conduct rather than amend it.

A person who seeks to control his own affairs without outside interference must learn to analyze with truth and nothing else. In order to do so he must rid himself of his prejudices and biases, for theywill be a hindrance to him in such an effort. In fact,to prejudge in a matter or to judge a conclusion without sufficient information is to make a poordecision in almost every instance. Such action is nonetheless appealing, for it is extremely easy. One need not spend time gathering all the facts, he neednot expend the effort necessary — to be sure of the evidence when his decision is to be predicated on hisown preconceived notions. Can we not see that in such an instance that person has surrendered himself to his own prejudices and belongs to less than himself? Truth must be the criterion for judging allmatters if we are to be true to ourselves.

To employ the rules and systems of truth to determine worth and value is absolutely necessary forone to control his own person. Truth is not always obvious; it must be ascertained and most often its determination must be worked at. And any serious investigation is hard work and takes intense concentration. But truth is worth it. It is definitive, distinctive, discriminating simply because God intended it to be used! And any person who will live his life by choices made without due consideration for truth or on half-truths which cannot be shown conclusively to be from God submits to his own methods of interpretation and runs a course of ultimate ruination.

Contrary to the commonly accepted view, it doesnot take a genius to be an independent thinker. It only takes time, patience in investigation,perseverance, and an intense desire to be right if at allpossible. I sincerely believe it to be one of the great needs among Christians today. I implore you, do notcome to "think of men above that which is written" (1 Cor. 4:16). Every man is created a thinking man.

Page 2

Let him beware who allows this process to be usurpedby someone else! And please be advised that "be your own man" doesn't indicate an impenetrableheart, it merely means don't be unduly influenced.

INFLATION AND LIVING OF THE GOSPEL

"Even so hath the Lord ordained that they whichpreach the gospel should live of the gospel" (1 Cor. 9:14). Paul said he received "wages" to do service at Corinth (2 Cor. 11:8). These wages came from churches other than the one at Corinth. When a congregation provides for a man's needs while he preaches, then it has fellowship with him in the gospel (Phil. 1:5; 4:15-16). Paul said "For I have learned both how to be abased, and I know how toabound: everywhere and in all things I am instructedboth to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need." Notice that Paul was not always hungry; sometimes he was full. He did not alwayssuffer need; sometimes he abounded. Our runaway inflation has placed both preachers and churches which support them in a dilemma.What was adequate support a couple of years ago iscertainly not today. For the last several yearschurches have generally done much better by way ofsupport for preachers than they did before. Thosewho work in business and industry have receivedannual cost of living adjustments which have eased the problem for them, though many of them have had to make some changes in their living standards. Meanwhile, those on fixed incomes, includingpreachers, have had to struggle with gasoline at $1 agallon, food, clothing and other costs rising, whiletheir income remained static. Some churches have taken this into account and have done what they could to relieve the situation for the men theysupport. But many have not. We know a number ofgood men who are really in a bind because of this.

Those in Foreign Fields

The inflation which has hit the United States has been multiplied in other nations. While we complainabout gasoline at $1 a gallon, some in other countriesare paying $2, $2.50 or even $3 a gallon. Even in some of the industrially and economicallyunderdeveloped nations, the cost of essentials has gonebeyond reason. Brethren living in these countries,trying to provide for their families while preachingthe gospel, are having to struggle. It is hard for American brethren to fully realize what is happening.The wages a man must have to adequately supporthis family and do the work in such fields may seemway out of line to brethren here who measure thesituation by the cost of things in the United States,but unless something is done to alleviate the problem, some of these workers may have to leavethese needy fields and come home. I have heard brethren say, in response to the amount needed for a brother in a foreign field, "Why, we don't even pay our own preacher that much." It could be that they need to take a look at whether or not they aretreating their own man fairly. But even if they aredoing right by him, what does that have to do withsupplying what another man needs in a different fieldof labor where the circumstances are not the same? After all, the Lord did not say "Go ye into all theworld (except in inflationary times) and preach thegospel to every creature." The American dollar is taking a beating in the money marts of the world. Every time it is devalued in another nation, thoseliving on American income in that nation take anactual cut in pay in terms of buying power.

There are a number of good men on the field whocould use an increase. There are native men workingin their own lands among their own cultures whoneed an increase in support. There are some American men getting ready to go to other lands topreach who are getting very little response to theirappeals for support. Two such men are Gene Topeand Tom Bunting (see brother Bunting's news itemthis month). The Topes have already spent 18 yearsin South Africa. They are returning for several moreyears of work in that field. We saw brother Tope in August and he told us the response was slow in gathering the needed support for that work. Whyshould this be? Then there is Tom Bunting who plansto return to Norway in 1980 where he and his goodfamily have already spent several years. Though hehas written many letters and contacted many brethren, response has been extremely slow. Why? He is also an experienced and capable man. He knows the language and customs of the people. It is going to take much more to live there than when they were there before. Expenses in Scandinavia are among the highest in the world today. But does thatmean that all effort should be halted to spread the gospel there?

What hurts is the knowledge of the fact that there are sizable churches with huge bank accounts which won't even answer a letter from such men. Certainlychurches have a right to keep a reasonable cushion,especially in large industrial areas where strikes occurabout every three years and where regular commitments in gospel work would suffer from reduced contributions during such periods. But reasonable funds to sustain work in emergencyperiods and churches in the banking business are two different things.

Inflation and Meeting Support

Take it from one who knows — it costs a lot more to get there and back than it used to. Not only is the price of gasoline, automobile costs and upkeep,contributing to this, but especially noticeable is the increase in food costs while traveling. Overnightlodging expenses continue to rise. If it is necessary totravel by plane, those costs are rising too. Yet, in spite of all that, it has been our own experience thatsome congregations are paying the same amount for ameeting which they paid five or six years ago. Somechurches which are able to do better are not even paying for a meeting what would be a fair weeklywage for a local preacher, and that does not evenconsider the expenses incurred for travel. We have even had some places to provide less support for a meeting than they did five or six years ago. That isthe reason that no preacher who spends most of histime in meeting work can survive on what he receivesin meetings. He must have assistance from brethren somewhere to underwrite part of his time, or else hecannot support his family.

We believe it is scriptural for a man to receivesupport from one place to enable him to preachelsewhere (I cite the case of Paul at Corinth and alsoat Thessalonica). But there are churches which are abundantly able to support their own work which have not allowed for inflation and which force men to have to rely on assistance from elsewhere to do themservice. Brethren are not reluctant to ask men to come and assist them, sometimes persuading themwhen their schedule is already too full and when it isagainst their own health to go. Then for a man to goand do the best he can to help build up the work andreceive inadequate support in return, is grosslyunfair. Faithful servants of the Lord will go whereverthey are asked, if they have the time, whether thechurch who invites them can support them well ornot at all. But that does not change the fact thatthose which can support their own work should by allmeans do so.

Is it out of line to ask brethren to review what theyare paying preachers for local work and for gospelmeeting work and see whether or not they are keepingup with the rising cost of living? We have learnedfrom experience that speaking out on such mattersdoes not endear one to some of the brethren, but webelieve the admonition is needed whether it is appreciated by all, some or none. We seek to please theLord before whom we stand or fall.

— — o — —

THE PAPAL VISIT

This country has recently been visited by PopeJohn Paul. The news media has extended unusual coverage to this visit. The current Pope is a man ofpleasing appearance and undeniable personal charm.He is probably the best good-will ambassador theRoman Catholic Church has had in many years. Hisvisit will no doubt prop up the sagging CatholicChurch in this country. Among his comments weremany things which may even have a good impactmorally on some in this country.

Notwithstanding all the foregoing, let it never beforgotten that he is the head of an apostate religious movement which has beguiled and deceivedmultitudes through the centuries. He is treated like agod, and indeed claims to be the Vicar of Christ onearth. He claims to occupy the Chair of Peter. WhenPeter made a visit to the house of a man of another nation, and Cornelius fell down at his feet in adulation, Peter rebuked him and said "Stand up, I myself also am a man." But this visitor from Rome arrived everywhere with great pomp and ceremony,multitudes have bowed before him, dignitaries havepaid court, red carpets and papal thrones have beenin evidence, and all this contrary to what the word ofGod teaches.

One Irish crowd sang to him "He's got the whole world in his hands." In contrast the word of God teaches that the departure from the faith would reveal "the man of sin, the son of perdition; who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is calledGod, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sittethin the temple of God, shewing himself that he isGod" (2 Thes. 2:3-4). In verse 7 this departure was called "the mystery of iniquity", in verse 8 "that Wicked" and in verse 9, "the working of Satan." These are severe descriptions of the very kind ofmovement which John Paul represents before all theworld.

While the man has every right to visit those whorevere him and all he stands for in this country, theadulation and fawning of officials of our government over him far exceed the limits of the fundamental principle of separation of church and state to which this nation has been committed since it began. Whatever happened to those bold and courageoussermons gospel preachers used to preach against thisevil system? This might be a good time to do a littleresearch and present some lessons against this evilwork which has such world-wide influence.

In this article, and the one to follow, we will bereviewing brother James D. Bales' book, "Not Under Bondage." Perhaps I should say we will be considering the main thrust of his position on divorce and remarriage as it is stated in his book.

The Crux of Bales' Position

The gist of Bales' position is that Jesus, while on earth, never dealt with, generally or specifically,marriage between a believer and an unbeliever ormarriage between two unbelievers. What Jesus taught in Matt. 5:32; 19:9; Mk. 10:11-12; Lk. 16:18,according to Bales, applies only to the marriage of abeliever to a believer of covenant people.

Brother Bales contends that the new covenant, which includes God's marriage law, is not applicableto aliens or non-covenant people. Hence, everything said about marriage, divorce and remarriage onlyapplies to believers.

He maintains that Paul, by inspiration, allowsdesertion of a believer by an unbeliever to be justification for divorce and remarriage. The passagehe uses is I Cor. 7:12-15. Here Paul writes about mixed marriages. When Paul said, "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord" (v. 12), brother Bales declaresthat what the apostle says in vs. 12-15, the Lord saidnot one word about during his personal ministry.

He interprets, "yet not I, but the Lord" in v. 10 tomean the Lord did deal in the Gospels with marriage of a believer to a believer. But, in v. 12, when Paulsaid, "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord," theapostle was giving additional and supplementaryrevelation not given by Jesus. Therefore, I Cor. 7:1215 comes not within the scope of the passages in theGospels. Brother Bales concludes that "not under bondage" frees the believer from the marriage bondwhen the unbeliever departs.

Crucial Points

There are two points that are crucial to Bales' position: (1) I Cor. 7:12-15 must teach that abeliever is free to remarry if an unbeliever deserts ordivorces her/him. (2) That alien sinners are not subjects of the new covenant, and, therefore, thepassages in the Gospels on marriage do not apply tothem. If we take these two points away from brotherBales, his position falls. We will deal with point 1 inthis article and point 2 in the subsequent article.

Quoting the passage of controversy, Paul writes:"But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brotherhath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased todwell with him, let him not put her away. And thewoman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her notleave him..........But if the unbelieving depart, lethim depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us topeace" (I Cor. 7:12-15).

Analysis of the Passage

"BUT TO THE REST SPEAK I, NOT THE LORD." There is no difference between Bales and me as to the meaning of "the rest" and no disagreement that Paul is giving supplementary revelation. "The rest" would mean those married persons not spoken of in the preceding verses. Here,the class would be mixed marriages.

The supplementary revelation had to do with specifics and not general information. Paul is sayingthat the Lord never did deal with the particular issueof a Christian married to an unbeliever — that that question never was proposed to Jesus. Hodge wrote:"With regard to these mixed marriages our Lord hadgiven no specific command; therefore Paul says, I speak, not the Lord" (Com. on I Cor., p. 114).

Bales stated: "Paul made it clear that Christ legislated for two believers, but not for mixed marriages. (I Cor. 7:10-11, 12) Paul legislated for theChristian in the mixed marriage, but neither Christ inHis personal ministry nor Paul legislated for theworld" (p. 56). "It is still clear that Paul said that the Lord had not taught on mixed marriages. (I Cor. 7:12) This means that neither a reconciled nor unreconciled statement of Christ on marriage was legislation for mixed marriages" (p. 36; cf. pp. 2833).

In I Cor. 7:10, Paul said, "And unto the married Icommand, yet not I." He meant that Jesus, while on earth, addressed himself to the marriage of believers.When he did this, we are not told. Bales contendsthat Matt. 5:32; 19:9; Mk. 10:10-11; Lk. 16:18 arealluded to. But this is an ASSUMPTION. It is mere SUPPOSITION that the recorded passages in the Gospels are just applicable to Christians. Matthew 19:1-9 is a record of Jesus answering some Jewsabout divorce and remarriage. How does one get "believers only" in this discourse of Jesus to unbelieving Jews?

Sometime during the ministry of Jesus he dealt specifically, though not recorded, with the marriageof two believers (I Cor. 7:10), but no time did Jesusspecifically discuss the marriage of a believer to anunbeliever (I Cor. 7:12). Paul does this in the text weare studying. The situation in I Cor. 7:12-15 had notbeen presented to Jesus.

"BUT IF THE UNBELIEVING DEPART." The Greek work for "depart" is chorizo. It is the same word used in vs. 10-11 where Paul said, "Letnot the wife depart (chorizo) from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried."

Brother Bales maintains (pp. 52-55) that the wordchorizo means "divorce," and I am in agreement withhim on this point. Thayer states that the word means"To leave a husband or wife: of divorce" (p. 674). Arndt-Gingrich says to "separate (oneself), be separated of divorce" (p. 898). But the divorce of ICor. 7:15 no more looses the bond of matrimony thanthe divorce in I Cor. 7:10-11. Paul said: "For the

woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband" (Rom. 7:2). Because one departs or is divorced is no proof that the person is loosed fromthe law of her or his mate.

"IS NOT UNDER BONDAGE." Brother Bales claims that "bondage" in v. 15 is the marriage bond.He advocates that when Paul said, "is not under bondage," the apostle meant, "not under the bondageof marriage," and the believer is free to marry again.Bales says: "The only bondage this believer had everbeen in to this unbeliever was the bondage of marriage" (p. 62). " . . . the context proves that 'bondage' refers to marriage" (p. 68). ". . . the onlybondage discussed in I Cor. 7:12-15 was the marriagebondage" (p. 91).

The Greek word for "bondage" in the text is dedoulotai, 3 per. sing, perfect, ind. pass, of douloo. Thayer says it means "to make a slave of, reduce tobondage" (p. 158). Vine states "to make a slave of,to bring into bondage." Young's Concordance states,"to enslave." Arndt-Gingrich says to "Make someonea slave (doulos), enslave, subject" (p. 205). Kittel says: "The basic meaning is 'to make a slave,' 'to enslave'" (Vol. 2, p. 279).

It becomes apparent, after reading the preceding definitions, that Paul did not have the loosening ofnuptial vows in mind when he said, "not under bondage." When Paul spoke of being bound in marriage (I Cor. 7:27, 39), he used "deo," not "douloo." It is odd that he switched words in the same chapter if "bondage" (douloo) in v. 15 is speaking of marriage also. The work dedoulotai (bondage) suggests that the believer was not a bondservant to the unbeliever or a slave to man, even though the person was a marriage partner. Paul saidthe same thing in a general way in I Cor. 7:23. "Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants ofmen." This principle is specifically applied to the marriage relationship in v. 15.

Neander wrote, as quoted in Lange's Commentary:"The Apostle only means, that in matters of religiousconviction, one person cannot be the slave of another,(that a married Christian person cannot be forced toremain with a heathen consort, if the latter will not allow the exercise of his own religious views. Undersuch circumstances separation should be allowed; butconcerning liberty to marry again, nothing is said").

Grosheide wrote that "the members of the church of Christ are not subject to an unbeliever" (Com. on I Cor.). Barnes said: "Many have supposed that thismeans they would be at liberty to marry again whenthe unbelieving wife or husband had gone away . ... But this is contrary to the strain of theargument of the apostle" (Com. on I Cor.) Robertson and Plummer state that all is meant is "that he or she need not feel so bound by Christ's prohibition ofdivorce as to be afraid to depart when the heathenpartner insists on separation" (Com. on I Cor.).

Caverno, in the I.S.B.E., VoL 2, p. 866, said: "ButPaul has not said in that verse or anywhere elsethat a Christian partner deserted by a heathen maybe married to someone else. All he said is: 'If the unbelieving departeth, let him depart: the brother or the sister is not under bondage (dedoulotai) in such cases: but God hath called us in peace.' To say that deserted partner 'hath not been enslaved1 is not to say that he or she may be remarried.'1

None of the preceding commentators thought that"not under bondage" meant "loosed from the marriage bond with a right to remarry." To be fair, however, there are commentaries who agree withbrother Bales, but the evidence to me is too strongthat "bondage" is not talking about the marriagebond, but rather means a Christian is not a slave to man, even a marriage partner.

The tense of the word dedoulotai would not allow it to mean the marriage bond. The word is perfecttense. The perfect tense would mean the brother orsister had not been in bondage and is still not underbondage to the unbeliever. But the believer would certainly have been in bondage if the marriage bondis meant.

Monroe Tharp, teacher of Greek in the Bear ValleySchool of Preaching, Denver, Colorado, as quoted byRoy Lanier, Sr., said: "The Greek perfect tense isused here to show the meaning: 'The brother or sister has not been enslaved and is still not enslaved.' One could not be released from slavery who had neverbeen enslaved" (Your Marriage Can Be Great, p. 471).

Marshall's Interlinear translates "not under bondage" to mean "has not been enslaved." The Pulpit Commentary says: "has not been enslaved." Brother Bales quotes from R.L. Roberts of Abilene Christian University to try to prove that dedoulotai (bondage) means that the believer was once in bondage, but has not remained enslaved. This is an effort to make if refer to the marriage bond ratherthan slavery to man. Roberts says: "Dedoulotai is the perfect passive indicative form of douloo, to enslave, and with the negative means literally 'does not remain a slave.' This is perfect of existing condition indicating that the party 'has been enslaved'" (Not Under Bondage, p. 84). But to whomand when the party was enslaved, Roberts' definition does not say.

Since the word dedoulotai means "to make someone a slave, enslave, subject" (Arndt-Gingrich),the only kind of slavery that a believer had ever beenunder was before conversion. From the time of conversion, the Christian has not been enslaved. Keep in mind that Tharp, Marshall's Interlinear andPulpit Com. said the believer "has not been enslaved."

The perfect tense is a combination of punctiliaraction and durative action (Davis' Greek Grammar,

p. 152). Dedoulotai is perfect tense. Therefore, it has punctiliar (completed) action and durative (linear) action. The idea would be that at conversion the Christian becomes free from bondage (completed action) and continues free (durative action) frombondage. As a Christian, one has never been subjectto man, but to God, and one is not now subject toman, but to God. The marriage bond is not even implied in "not under bondage." The statement simply means that the believer is not to give upChristianity or compromise truth in order to save themarriage with an unbeliever.

"IN SUCH CASES." Brother Bales wrote: "It is

obvious that when it is not suck a case, the believer

ii in bondage and must dwell in the marriage bond

with the unbeliever" (p. 95). But if the believer "has

not been enslaved," as we have already shown, how

could the believer be in bondage if the believer did

not depart?

Paul is saying that a believer never was enslavedand is not now enslaved in such circumstances. Lenski has "circumstances" instead of "cases." The circumstances in the text was marriage to unbelievers. There are other circumstances or relationships that Christians may find themselves inwhich they are not under bondage.

"CALLED US TO PEACE." Regardless of whether the unbeliever is content to dwell with the believer or whether he departs, the Christian mustmaintain peace. There should be no hassle and argument if he leaves. Paul said, "Let him depart."But if the heathen partner remains, the believer is tobe peaceful and not furnish the unbeliever any causefor departing.

Conclusion

In conclusion of this first article, let us notice: (1)Brother Bales did not prove that the marriage bondis loosed or broken when the unbeliever departs. Hearbitrarily makes the word "bondage" to mean the marriage bond. There is no evidence that "bondage"means the marriage bond. (2) His position sanctionsthe remarriage of believers who have been_ desertedby unbelievers without proving that "bondage" means the marriage bond. This is dangerous business. (3) His position permits the deserted believer by an unbeliever to marry an unbeliever whohas deserted a dozen wives. The deserters are not married according to brother Bales. (4) Brother Bales' position has God showing more favor to Christiansdeserted by unbelievers than he does to Christiansdeserted by Christians. The former can remarry asmany times as he or she is deserted, but the latter cannot remarry unless the deserter is put away forfornication.

Brethren, if you want to increase your chances ofhaving a mate for life, and not having to live in celibacy, always marry an unbeliever. (Little ironyhere.) Anytime your mate leaves you, you may marryanother unbeliever and perpetuate this practice untilyou find one who will stay with you. This is a strange doctrine! I am sure brother Bales would not encourage this for Christians, but his position, nevertheless, allows it. (To Be Continued)

LEADERSHIP IN THE CHURCH AND FAMILY

Few questions vex congregations more than thosewhich concern leadership and decision-making. In theabsence of elders, decisions on even routine matterscan occasion lively, and sometimes bitter, debatesover how to go about choosing a course of action.Two undesirable extremes are common: either the congregation adopts majority rule, or it settles forminority rule in which no action can be taken without unanimous consent. With elders, problems frequentlypersist and, again, two extremes often emerge: eitherthe elders assume absolute authority and make alldecisions without even consulting the congregation,or they lead by example only and throw the decision-making responsibilities back to the congregation.

Our difficulty in this area may largely be the result of trying to use principles of leadership and decision-making which are not entirely appropriate for thework of the church, namely the principles used inbusiness and government. Unconsciously perhaps, wehave assumed that the process of deciding how toproceed in the church is more or less like the way it isdone in business and government, and we havetended to appoint men as overseers of congregationswho have demonstrated success in leadership in these fields, sometimes even though they lack importantScriptural requirements.

Leadership within a local congregation of Christians, however, is more nearly like the leadership in a good family than it is the leadershipin a good business enterprise. In fact, the onlyleadership quality required by the Lord of an overseerin the church is that he must be one who "manageshis own household well, keeping his children undercontrol with all dignity" (1 Tim. 3:4). The reasonought to be obvious: "If a man does not know how tomanage his own household, how will he take care ofthe church of God?" (v. 5).

Numerous parallels between the church and a family come to mind. Fellow Christians are "brothers" and "sisters" in the Lord (Jas. 2:15).Timothy was instructed to treat an older Christianman "as a father, the younger men as brothers, theolder women as mothers, and the younger women assisters, in all purity" (1 Tim. 5:1-2). And the churchis "the household of the faith" (Gal. 6:10).

In the practical matters of choosing how congregations are to be led and decisions made, wewould do well to reflect on the family-like nature ofthe Lord's body. There is obvious leadership in a well-ordered family, but it is leadership which exerts

itself in such a fashion that the wishes and needs of

each family member are taken into consideration.

There are few times when a father will call for a

"vote" among the members of his family to

determine a major decision. And, too, there are few

times when he will make such a decision without

consulting the family at all. If he is the sort of

fellow who "manages his own household well," he

will guide his family with' the firm hand of leadership

without ever neglecting to consider the wishes of his

family. To be sure, knowing how to accomplish this is

not always easy, even within a family. Yet the home

is where this kind of leadership is most readily

learned, and it will always be the man who has

demonstrated his ability to lead a family who will

know best how to lead a congregation.

It is equally true that the man who has demonstrated a LACK of ability to lead a family will NOT know how to lead a congregation, no matterwhat managerial skills he may have succeeded by inhis business or civic endeavors. Unfortunately, wehave not always been willing to accept this as reality.We happen to live in a culture where greatimportance is attached to career success, and little, ifany, is attached to family success. Men are often commended for success in their employment whenthey have achieved it at the EXPENSE of successin their homes. It is little wonder that congregationsbuy into this philosophy and seek out overseers who have become adept at the sort of leadership whichbuilds business and governmental empires but whosehomes are living testimony to their lack of the leadership which counts most!

Strictly speaking, the local congregation is neither a democracy nor an oligarchy. That is, it is "governed" neither by the many nor by the few. It isgoverned by Christ. And it is a body of humanbeings where appointed elders guide the making ofdecisions in the atmosphere of mutual cooperation,much as, in a family, the father leads and makesdecisions in behalf of (and with the help of) his wifeand children. A home must strike a golden meanbetween tyranny and leaderlessness to be successful,and so must churches.

For that to happen, we must appoint men as elderswho know what this kind of leadership is and whohave a history of success with it in their own families. As tempting as it may be to substitute proven leadership in other realms for the Biblical requirement of good management in the home, weinvite failure and, more important, the Lord's displeasure when we do so. As stable family lifebecomes more and more difficult to achieve and as good fathers become distressingly rare, there is allthe more need for congregations to be led by menwho possess Scriptural leadership abilities. The Lordknew what He wanted when He stipulated the kind ofmen to be granted the oversight of local churches,and it ill-behooves any of us to think that, becausetimes have changed, the Lord's wisdom no longer is sufficient here. It is!

THE HOLY SPIRIT'S VEIL

T. G. O'Neal Brethren have discussed the verses in the first part

of 1 Corinthians 11. It is my desire to provide lightand not heat with what I say here.Why Discussed?

I believe there are several reasons why brethrenhave discussed and often misunderstood this passage.

(1) Most of the material that has been written on thispassage by brethren has been on one side of thequestion. (2) Brethren have consulted "scholars" instead of the Holy Spirit. The first tract I read onthis passage quoted a number of men, some of whomwere admitted to be "denominational preachers" and "Commentators." If brethren had listened to "the cream of the scholarship of the religious world" and not to the teaching of the Holy Spirit on such subjects as baptism, music and the Lord's Supper,we would not now know the truth. A computation ofdenominational commentators does not establish divine truth; only the voice of the Holy Spirit will dothis. (3) Some preachers are responsible for the confusion on this subject that exists in the minds ofbrethren. Their extreme views are well known to brethren and to mention their names is to bring upthe subject of the covering. They preach doubt andnot assurance with the result being congregations aretroubled over this question. They are unreasonable intheir treatment of the subject. They hinder their owncause on this subject; yet, there will be some goodbrethren that will follow these few men. Brethren in general usually will have little difficulty on this matter, but let a few extreme preachers have theirway and confusion results. (4) Romans 14 sometimeshas not been observed. This chapter deals with "the faith" (verse 1), and the attitude those who are strong in the faith should have toward "him that is weak in the faith." This chapter deals with matterswherein "to his own master he standeth or falleth" (verse 4). In verse 4, Paul shows one has no right tojudge another man's servant. One man regards someday as special and one does not (verse 5). One brother eats only herbs while another eats both meatand herbs (verse 2, 6 and 15). Each will account toGod for his own action (verse 12). Concerning suchmatters in which one stands or falls to his own master, Paul said "hast thou faith? have it to thyselfbefore God" (Verse 22). As long as brethren openlyand freely discuss this passage, they will likely worship together with ladies sitting side by sidehaving different convictions about this question. Thisis as it should be. Trouble comes when there is a

pressing of ones convictions upon another. One has

not abandoned the "doctrine of Christ" if he does not

have the same convictions that you do. I believe this

matter should be left on an individual basis and

should not be made a test of fellowship. If there are

those who would make a "sect" within the body of

Christ over the matter, I would oppose it just like I

would any other sectarianism.

While some ladies wear "something" on their head,

no woman today wears the veil of the chapter. I see

no point in a problem existing today over that which

people talk, but which no one I know is practicing.

In this material I do not intend to answer every

question someone might ask. I do not need to answer

every extreme position on baptism to teach what the

Holy Spirit says about it; neither do I on this

question.

What Is The Subject?

What is the subject of 1 Cor. 11:2-16? Contrary tothe thinking of some, it is not "the covering." In verse 3, Paul said "the head of every man is Christ;and the head of the woman is the man, and the headof Christ is God." The subject is that of authority. The covering indicated whether in Corinth women recognized their place of authority by whether theywore the veil or not.

What Is The Covering?

If one were to take the time to read most of what brethren have written on the question of "what is thecovering?" one would learn a different answer from almost every brother. Brethren have said the covering could be a "hat," "something," "a scarf," a "mantilla," a "kerchief," a "veil," "shawls" and a "snood." That is entirely too many answers to oneBible question. If these same preachers were writingon "what is baptism?" I wonder if I could quote overa half dozen different answers to the same question?A few preachers are agreed that a covering should beworn, but they do not agree what the covering is. Dothese same few men agree on what baptism is? Yes,and the reason is they all accept what the Holy Spiritsays. They would all agree on what the covering is ifthey would just take what the Holy Spirit says.

Veil

In Ex. 34:29-35, Moses tells about how he obtainedthe covenant God made with Israel. When Moses came down from the mountain "the skin of his face shone" and Aaron and Israel "were afraid to come nigh him." Until Moses had finished speaking "heput a veil on his face." "When Moses went in beforethe Lord to speak with him, he took the veil off untilhe came out." When Moses came out the "children of Israel saw the face of Moses, that the skin of Moses face shone and Moses put the veil upon his face again, until he went in to speak with him." Three times the text says Moses put the "veil"(kalumma) upon his face.

In 2 Cor. 3:7-16, Paul makes reference to this event in the life of Moses. Four times Paul makes specific reference to the "veil" which Moses put upon hisface. Paul said Moses "put a veil over his face, thatthe children of Israel could not steadfastly look to theend of that which is abolished." Paul in 2 Cor. 3:7-16 uses the same word "veil", (kalumma), that Moses used. When Moses put the "veil" "over his face" he "veiled" or "covered" his face. Do you think Moses could have "veiled" his face with what a few preachers call a covering? Some of the things that a few preachers call a covering today would not havecovered the nose of Moses, to say nothing of his face.While Moses in Ex. 34 and Paul in 2 Cor. 3 used the noun form in 1 Corinthians 11 when he says "every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered . . . if the woman be not covered ... let her be covered" (verse 5-6). The King James Version says "uncovered" and the American Standard Version says "unveiled." The covering was the "veil." It was to cover.

What size was it to be? I am told by some itdoesn't say and by others it doesn't matter. Does God say what baptism is? Does it matter? I can tellyou specifically and exactly what size it is to be — itis to cover or veil. If the head is not covered, the veil is not large enough. If one doesn't have enough waterto bury one in baptism, he doesn't have enough water.

Most people know I am a country boy withouttelling them. I know how to cover a load of hay tokeep it from getting wet from the rain. The larger the load of hay, the larger the covering needed to coverit. A rope over the middle of the load does not coverthe load; neither would a fish net cover the load. When something half the size of a man's hand orless, and open enough that large, dry butter beanswould fall through and then a ribbon or two the sizeof a broken green bean is attached to the net and thisis called the "covering" or "veil" of 1 Corinthians 11, a bikini will cover and a few drops of water is baptism ! When I asked one preacher why women didnot know with what to cover when he preached onthe subject, yet they know what baptism was whenhe preached on it, he said he did not know. He will insist that women wear something on their headsin "worship life" but he has not preached what they are to wear. In fact, he said, "If I were to hire some people to cover my house, and they did not do any better job of it than some women do in covering their heads, I would not feel like I owed them a dime." If a preacher feels women are doingsuch a poor job of covering their heads, then the thing for him to do would be to preach what theHoly Spirit said about the "veil" and when the ladiesobeyed the teaching of the Holy Spirit their heads would be covered. If one can change the words of theHoly Spirit from "cover" or "veil" to anything else, why can not one change the word "baptize" to "sprinkle" or "for the remission of sins" in Acts

2:38 to "because of the remission of sins?" Preachers have no more answered this argument than ChristianChurch preachers have answered the argument that when God specified "sing" it can not be changed to"play." Convince me the "veil" is binding today and I will preach the Holy Spirit's "veil" and not man's something.

Praying or Prophesying

1 Corinthians 11 says the woman is to not be uncovered when she "prayeth or prophesieth." The Holy Spirit defines prophets when He says "holy menof God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit"(2 Peter 1:21). A few preachers try to make

"prophets" as being just teachers and since we haveteachers today, women should cover their heads today. One preacher said "all of our preaching isinspired, if it is the truth." In Eph. 4:11, Paul showsthere were apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors andteachers. While all of these men instructed people inthe word of God, not all were inspired. Prophets ofGod were always inspired, while teachers were not. Prophesying is teaching or instruction, but teachingis not prophesying.

In 1 Corinthians 13:8 we read, "whether there beprophecies, they shall fail." Prophecy was a gift ofthe Spirit (1 Cor. 12:8-10). Do we believe spiritualgifts have ceased? If so, then we can forget about thewomen being covered when "prophesying" for thereare none today.

This leaves only "praying." So the only time a woman would have to be veiled, if this were lawtoday, would be when she was "praying." She wouldnot have to be covered when (1) teaching, (2) giving,

(3) singing, or (4) eating the Lord's Supper. "Praying does not include these.

If the Bible says a woman must be "veiled" now when praying and one can add when teaching, giving, singing and eating the Lord's Supper, then when theBible says "sing" one can add the instrument. If when the text says "praying" and one can add to theword of God and make it mean when teaching,singing, giving and eating the Lord's Supper, theyshould have no objection when someone adds to "baptize" the word "sprinkle." Everybody had betterbe careful when they add to the word of God (1 Cor.4:6; Gal. 1:6-9; Rev. 22:18-19).

When?

When should a woman cover her head? One says"this passage discusses "worship-life, not everydaylife." Others say in the assembly, or in private, likegiving thanks for meals at home or at bed time. Some think it applies at weddings and funerals andothers do not. I have observed that often at weddingsand funerals those who believe they should covertheir heads sit side by side, one with something onher head and the other without anything on her head.The truth is the few preachers who advocate this do not know themselves.

Now, let me tell you what the Holy Spirit saysabout when women are to "cover" or "veil" their heads today, if it is law today and also since prophecy has failed. The Holy Spirit says when she "prayeth" (verse 5). When it is admitted "all we know about the subject ... is found in these sixteenverses" and then one says it means "worship-life" where is "worship-life" "in these sixteen verses?" "Prayeth" is in verse 5; what verse is "worship-life"in?

Custom or Law?

Is the "covering" or "veil" divine law to be observed in all the world throughout all generations?

I think it is interesting that no passage calls the"holy kiss" or "foot-washing" a custom, yet mostgospel preachers so regard it. The Holy Spirit callsthe veil a "custom" (1 Cor. 11:16) and some want tomake it a law now.

The Greek word "sunetheia" is translated "custom" in two verses in the New Testament, John

18:30 and 1 Cor. 11:16, by both the King James and American Standard translators, who number togetherabout 150 of the ripest Greek scholars. To the Jews,Pilate said "but ye have a custom, that I should release unto you one at the passover: will ye therefore that I release unto you the King of the Jews?" Did the Jews have a law from God that one should be released at the passover? If so, where is the passagethat states the law? No, the Jews had no such law,only a custom. To the Corinthians Paul said "if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God" (1 Cor. 11:16).Paul said "we" and "the churches of God" "have no such custom."

In an effort to make divine law out of that which Paul by the Holy Spirit said was "custom" some have said there is very little difference in the Greekword for "custom" and the Greek word for "law". However, there is a difference and it is that littledifference that makes the difference between law and custom. There is very little difference between holyand unholy, godly and ungodly, righteous and unrighteous, but there is a difference in these wordsand their meaning. There is little difference in the statements "baptism doth also now save us" (1 Peter3:21) and "baptism doth also not save us" but that little difference is the difference between truth and error.

Another effort made to make what the Holy Spiritcalled "custom" to be divine law for today is to quotefrom what is admitted an unreliable translation, theRevised Standard Version. (l)Berry's Greek Interlinear says, "we have not such custom nor the assemblies of God." (2) The King James Versionsays, "we have no such custom neither the churchesof God." (3) The American Standard Version says,"We have no such custom neither the churches of God." The admitted unreliable Revised Standard Version, that several have quoted in their writings onthis matter, says, "we recognize no other practice,nor do the churches of God." The Revised Standard Version leaves out of the text three words: (1) "have," (2) "such" and (3) "custom" and adds three words to the text (1) "recognize," (2) "other" and (3)"practice." Brethren, such handling of the word of God is sinful and is what the denominations have done for years. (1) Would brethren be willing for adenominational preacher to leave out "for" and add "because of in Acts 2:38? (2) Could a denominational preacher add to the statement of Jesus the word "not" and make it read, "he that believeth and is not baptized shall be saved" (Mk. 16:16)? (3) Or could Peter's statement by the HolySpirit be changed by leaving out the letter "w" andadding the letter "t" to the word "now" in the statement "baptism doth also now save us" (1 Peter 3:21) making it read "baptism doth also not saveus"? If it is wrong and sinful for a denominationalpreacher to change the sacred, inspired text, why is itnot also wrong for gospel preachers to change thesacred, inspired text by using a translation that doesjust that? Brethren who have a theory that drivesthem to make any change in the sacred, inspiredtext, had better read such passages as 1 Cor. 4:6; Gal. 1:6-9 and Rev. 22:18-19 and give up their theoryfor what God's word says.

ANOTHER TRIP TO NIGERIA

Robert H. West During the dates of December 27th, 1978 to February 3rd, 1979 Brother Lowell Blasingame and Iwere in the West African country of Nigeria. Thiswas the second such trip for both of us. I had beenthere in 1973 with Brother Billy W. Moore. Lowellhad also been there with Brother Moore in 1976. It may be of some interest to relate some of the eventsand observations of this trip.As in the previous trips, our purpose was toconduct classes with as many Nigerian preachers aspossible in several different locations. We conductedclasses with around 170 Nigerian preachers in Uyo,Calabar, Aba, Umuahia, Owerri, Ife, and Lagos. Wealso visited and spoke before many congregations aswell as opportunities for "street preaching".The country itself has progressed considerablysince my 1973 visit. There are better highways, atremendous amount of construction going on in mostareas and other evidence of technological progress.This kind of progress is reflected, to some extent,among the Nigerian churches. More of them have adequate buildings, some with electric lights and inbetter locations. There are more churches with elders now. Numerical growth is evident in most areas withmany new congregations having begun in the last fewyears. However, this numerical growth seems to haveslowed some, probably due to the march of affluence(progress?) in the country. For example, it is farmore difficult now to draw large crowds in the streetpreaching, as compared with the situation in 1973.The upswinging economy of the country appears tobe having a reverse effect on the poorer masses,which includes the majority of brethren there. Inflation has hit the country, especially the poorerfolks, with a vengeance. There is such a disparitybetween the income of most brethren and the cost of necessities, that it is difficult for us Americans tounderstand how they survive. Many of the preachersare making incredible sacrifices to continue preaching.We were again impressed with the quality of menamong the Nigerian preachers. In spite of their lackof income and limited opportunities for education,many of them are knowledgeable and effective intheir work. We found most of them to be eager tolearn — almost to the point of being desperate! Sofew of them have access to good reference worksand

other books. In fact, in many cases, a preacher theremay own only a well-worn hard-back Bible. These brethren have made great progress in the face ofstrong opposition by liberal brethren. The liberals maintain their "Christian Hospital" and "Bible Training Schools" as effective centers of influence over the churches. They seem to have a considerableamount of funds which constitutes a tempting "argument" for some to embrace their position. Theyhave also been diligent in selecting promising young preachers and bringing them to the United States forschooling. When these "favored" preachers return,they seem to be able to influence some brethren farmore than their ability and experience would dictate.But, in spite of these factors, conservative brethrencontinue to make significant strides in holding theline against apostasy. There are on-going discussionsand contacts with liberal brethren which can onlyresult in good.

Of course, there continue to be problems among thebrethren. One of the objects of our classes was toassist in some of these problem areas. Brother Blasingame presented an excellent series of lessonson "The Holy Spirit". As in our own country, someNigerians are confused and divided on various aspects of this subject. I presented a series on "Bringing The Church To Maturity". I tried to emphasize the importance of appointing elders, anddeveloping men to be effective preachers of the word.I also exhorted preachers to work toward the end ofNigerian congregations supporting fully their own preachers and not be forever dependent uponAmerican support. These subjects provoked many questions from the preachers and considerable interest.

There remain many needs among the brethren there.There are a large number of men, already proven tobe qualified and capable preachers, who are workingwith inadequate support or no support at all. I believe American churches would be putting funds toa fruitful use in supporting such men. However, Iwould like to encourage churches undertaking suchsupport to make it crystal clear to the man they aresupporting that such support is not meant to be permanent, and that he should work toward building up the local church so they can assume his support.We observed more than one situation in which a Nigerian preacher was being fully supported by U.S.funds, while the local church for which he preachesmakes no attempt to support him. In some instances we learned that these same local churches were sending support to yet other Nigerian preachersinstead of assuming at least a part of their own preacher's support. We hope this practice will change. In fact, some have already initiated achange. While we were in Uyo, the Township churchthere assumed full support of Brother Ufot who, formany years, had been supported by a U.S. church.We believe a growing number of Nigerian brethrenare aware of this problem and are working as rapidlyas human nature and the economy will allow them tosolve it. In the meantime, such support is badlyneeded.

As already mentioned, most of the preachers aredesperately in need of books. Such things as dic

tionaries, concordances, sermon outlines, and class

material, would be a great help to them in their work.

Few, if any, of these books can be purchased in

Nigeria.

During my 1973 trip, I noticed that the mostcommon mode of transportation among the preachers was a bicycle, or in many cases, just a pair of sandals. Now, many of the preachers have motorcycleswhich, in most cases, have been furnished byAmerican brethren. It seems strange to us to hear ofa preacher asking a church to buy him his means oftransportation. However, it is very unusual for a Nigerian preacher to make enough money to enablehim to meet his living expenses and save enough topurchase a motorcycle. With such means of transportation, these men are able to meet appointments 'with six, eight or more congregationseach week at distances of up to 50 miles or more fromtheir home, over extremely rough roads. Their onlyother alternatives are either not to meet those appointments, or to take expensive and unreliablepublic transportation. These facts have been deemedsufficient by many American churches and individuals to furnish funds for some Nigerian preachers for their motorcycles.

Of course, should any brethren be interested inassisting a Nigerian preacher in any way, they shouldby all means obtain a recommendation from someone who knows the man, as there have been some instances of unworthy men receiving support.

We are glad we were able to visit these brethrenagain. The church of the Lord is indeed alive and wellin Nigeria!NOTE: In spite of the derision of liberal brethren("I'd rather be wrong about what we're doing than wrong about what you're not doing.") and the inadequacy of the information about it, more work overseas is being done all the time. This article bybro. West is one example. Such efforts are commendable. But let us not conclude that since the liberals' judgment was wrong, that we can nowstop and rest. What is being done is good, but it isfar, far less than that which needs to be done, and agreat deal LESS THAN WHAT WE ARE CAPABLEOF DOING! We ought to find more discomfort fromthat latter fact than satisfaction in the former. Think about it. (WHL)

GET YOUR NAME IN THE BOOK

May 27, 1979. That was the day that PeterSnyman of South Africa left the glass room where hespent a record-shattering 50 days with 24 deadlysnakes.

During his stay in the snake den, Snymanremained nearly motionless, to avoid provoking hiscell-mates. He said that some of the more anxious moments were brought about by snakes trying tocrawl up his nostrils during the nights.

A fellow must have a pretty good reason toundergo an ordeal like that. Right? Well, a good oneto him anyway. Snyman did it to get his name in TheGuinness Book of World Records. In fact, he spent anextra two weeks and six hours beyond the old recordof 36 days, to ensure that no one would displace him in that book. He'd better not rest too easily about that, however. There's always someone a little whackier than you.

Isn't it something what folks will go through to get their names in The Guinness Book of World Records? And the most amazing thing is that they do not givea thought to knowing that their names are recordedin the Lamb's book of life. Yet John vividly describesthe situation upon the last day: "And whosoever was not found in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire" (Rev. 20:15).

God doesn't ask that we spend 50 days in a roomwith deadly snakes to get our name recorded in hisbook. The conditions are such that any one of us canmeet them. Neither need we worry lest another displace us in that book. God requires only faithfulness on our part (I Cor. 4:2).

Friend, is your name written there?

— — — o — — — BREAKING UP A BIBLE STUDY

When I lived in Louisville a few years ago, a groupof "Jesus People" was meeting in an empty store onNew Cut Road. I attended one of their study periodsone Friday evening in the company of a youngChristian who, a few years previously, had beenshooting dope with many of the same group. Anelderly lady who went by the name "Mother Earth"was the leader and teacher.

The study that evening was in Matt. 21. It fellupon my friend to read verse 43: "Therefore say Iunto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken fromyou, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruitsthereof."

He said, "Hey! Doesn't this show that Israel is nolonger a special people to God, and that due to herrejection of God, God has rejected her?"

That threw a little life into the discussion. They alldeclared that the Jews were still God's special people.I asked where the Bible taught that. One fellow toldme to read the book of Romans. I asked where in the book of Romans. Not that I'm against reading thewhole book, but I felt that it might speed things up abit if we were more specific.

He said, "All through there."So I asked if such would not make God a respecterof persons, the very thing Paul affirmed in Romans

2:11 that He is not. Mother Earth said, "No!"I said, "Oh."Another fellow said he was glad he was saved and

that we couldn't be sure the Bible was really accurate anyway.I asked why we had been studying it for thirtyminutes, in that case.

Mother Earth thought it was time to pray.

My young friend and I concluded that the fastest

way to break up a Bible study in some groups is toask where the Bible teaches something.

IF ANY WOULD NOT WORK . . .

Have you heard about Bordentown, New Jersey?Well, they had this welfare program. It wasn't a bigprogram. Bordentown is not a big town. About 25 to30 people received welfare each month. The city's share of the payments was $10,000 a year.

Then, one day in 1978, the state informed Bordentown that their program needed to be upgraded. They were to hire a full-time director, add a case worker, and provide a waiting room for clients. In dollars and cents, that meant Bordentown's overhead would be increased from $2,500 to $30,000. It just didn't seem very wise to the city commissioners (being unaccustomed to big government), to spend $30,000 in city funds to dispense $10,000 in welfare payments.

So, they decided to drop out of the state's "generalassistance" program and set up one of their own. Butthis group of fellows hit on a plan that is justunheard of in the history of government dole-outs.They passed a ruling that any able-bodied applicant would have to repay the money through some servicefor the community. They could clean windows andgovernment buildings, paint, supervise recreational areas, and other such jobs.

You know what?

Nobody complained.

Nobody went hungry.

Nobody suffered any hardship, so far as they couldascertain.

In the first four months of the Bordentown experiment, the number of applications dropped froma normal 120-150 to 12.

Able-bodied people who had been living off thetaxpayers apparently decided that if they had towork for a living, they would be better off workingfor more than minimum wage. So they found jobs... or moved to greener pastures.

Do you think the State or Federal governmentlooked upon this innovative approach as a possiblebreak-through in cutting the nation's $15-$20 billion welfare budget? If so, you probably believe in SantaClaus and the Jolly Green Giant as well.

Actually, State officials sued Bordentown, chargingthat its citizens were unjustly denied a benefit accorded other New Jersey residents, namely, freewelfare benefits. Bordentown has now gotten backinto line. And the welfare lines are again growing.

And the word of God still reads: "... this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neithershould he eat" (2 Thess. 3:10).

In keeping with the above title, it has been pointedout in previous articles that unbelief constitutes aparadox inasmuch as it rejects the concept of a supreme intelligent being — which the Bible reveals asGod — as the great Cause behind the universe and itsharmony and order — a concept that is supported bythe strongest evidence — and in its place adopts ahypothesis that is supported by no evidence, butwhich persists in spite of evidence to the contrary.

Having discussed the inconsistencies of agnosticism, and the difficulties that inhere in the hypothesis that unintelligent forces by mere happenstance produced the universe, I propose tonow point out some of the difficulties that inhere inthe theory of materialistic evolution.

A Prevalent Theory.

While there were various isolated theories of evolution through the preceding centuries, there wasno widespread acceptance of it until Charles Darwinpublished his famous (?) book entitled, The Origin Of The Species. In that book he boldly affirmed thatevolution had actually occurred, and he undertook toexplain the process involved on the principle ofnatural selection, which included his much publicizedtheory of the survival of the fittest.

Notwithstanding the fact that many fallacies havebeen pointed out in Darwin's so-called explanation,the theory of evolution has gained wide acceptance,and is taught with much fervor in colleges and universities, and even in some grade schools. It permeates much of what is offered to the public inthe way of reading material and entertainment. Theresult is that many uninformed minds have acceptedevolution as an established fact, assuming that it hasbeen "proved by science," and that those who teachit know what they are talking about.

Let us now consider some of the difficulties encountered when one tries to prove that the universe in its present state with all livingcreatures of the earth is the result of a process hecalls evolution.

Evolution — A Misnomer

In the first place, the word evolution, as used by

adherents of the theory, and even as thought of by non-

evolutionists, is a misapplied term. For it is used to

designate a process in which, over millions of

years, the universe progressed from an inorganic

state to its present organized form, and simple forms

of life developed through various stages of fish,

reptile, bird, animal, and various anthropoid forms,

to finally emerge as man, the highest creature in the

scale of living things. So while non-evolutionists

usually think of evolution as the theory that man

sprang from the ape, it can be seen that the

transition from ape to man would be only the final

step in a long and complicated process.

But such a concept ascribes to the word evolution ameaning that involves much more than the actual meaning of the word allows. For strictly speaking,the word evolution means development or improvement that takes place within an object, or,as the case may be, within various species of livingthings. For example, the Ford Thunderbird of todayis a highly developed (evolved) machine when compared with its predecessor, the model T of sixtyyears ago. The dial telephone of today has evolvedfar from the original telephone invented by AlexanderGraham Bell over a hundred years ago. Likewise, through careful selection and cross-breeding, menhave been able to develop better strains of horses,cattle, and hogs. But in all this progressivedevelopment it will be observed that no new speciesemerged. The automobile remained an automobile,the telephone remained a telephone, horses continued to be horses, hogs remained hogs, and cattleremained cattle. It must be further observed that this development was not the result of "natural selection"but was initiated by, and under the control of intelligent force — the mind of man.

But the word, evolution, as used by the adherentsof the theory, involves a long and complicatedprocess in which, in spite of evidence to the contrary, simple forms of life merged into higher forms, andlower species of living things merged into higherspecies, to finally emerge as man, all under thecontrol of an unintelligent, impersonal force they call nature. We cannot help wondering why naturestopped with man. Why has he not evolved into somehigher being?

The word, evolution, when used to designate the process envisioned by its adherents, is thus inadequate. For the theory calls for much more thandevelopment within various species of living things.It envisions a transition from a lower species to ahigher one.

Must Eventually Acknowledge A First Cause.

Another difficulty encountered by the evolutionistlies in the fact that while his theory deals, for the most part, with things already in existence, sooner orlater, when pressed, he is forced to acknowledge afirst cause or creator.

For it is axiomatic that out of nothing, nothing comes. But since something is, therefore somethingalways was. When asked what that something is, the theist's reply is that God is the creator of all that is.But when he is asked, as he sometimes is, Who made God? his answer is, Nobody made God, for God

always was.

But since the evolutionist will object that it is not

natural nor "scientific" to argue that no one made

God, we beg his permission to ask him where the

universe came from. Since he will reply that it was

evolved, we are then forced to ask another question,

From what was it evolved? Assuming that his reply

is that the universe evolved from a mass of gaseous

vapor, he will still have to account for the origin of

that mass of vapor. If he admits, as he eventually

must, that originally something was created, he must

then tell us who or what that creator was. Since his

reply will probably be that nature was the creator, we

then beg leave to ask, Who made nature? And he will

look at you in a pitying sort of way as if amazed at

your stupidity, and will reply, Why, nobody made

nature. Nature always was.

Thus, regardless of how far back into the distant

past the evolutionist goes, sooner or later he has to

admit a first cause or a creator, whether it be of a

mass of vapor, large or small, or whether it be the

most minute and simplest form of life. However he

presents a strange paradox in that he rejects the

concept of an intelligent personal God as the

uncaused Cause behind the universe, and contends

for an unintelligent, impersonal force he calls

nature, which he says had no maker, but always was.

Alleged "Proofs" Have Failed To Prove.

While evolutionists have been vociferous in their claim that evolution has been proved by this or thatbranch of science, the facts of true science haverather disproved the theory as a few examples willreveal.

1. Biology: This is the science of life. The greatand central fact of biology is stated in the words, "Everything after its kind." (Gen. 1:21). Evolutionists have relied much on mutations as proofthat what they call evolution has occurred.

A mutation is a sudden alteration that caused some visible change within a certain species, and whichwas then allegedly passed on to its offspring and withadded changes in still later progeny gave rise to anew species.

That mutations can, and sometimes do occur is notdenied. When the atomic bomb was dropped onHiroshima in Japan, the radiation from it acted uponthe fetus in expectant mothers and produced mutations that resulted in children born sadlydeformed. Of even more recent occurrence is the fact that about twenty years ago a number of childrenwere born either blind, or lacking arms or legsbecause their mothers during pregnancy had takenthe drug Thalidomide. However it should be notedthat these children, in spite of their deformities are in every respect still human beings. Moreover those deformities will not be passed on to their offspring.Already I have read of one of the victims, a girl, whohas given birth to a child which the doctor has declared to be perfectly normal. This disproves theclaim of evolutionists that acquired characteristicsare passed on to offspring.

2. Paleontology: This is the science that deals withfossilized remains of creatures that have lived in past ages. If there is any proof that species have

developed into other higher species, certainly itshould be found in this science. That evolutionists have relied strongly on it can be seen from a statement made by Julian Huxley, a prominent evolutionist. Mr. Huxley said: "Primary and direct evidence of evolution can be furnished only bypaleontology."

Since the theory of evolution is postulated on theassumption that living creatures evolved through thevarious classes of fish, reptile, bird, and animal, tofinally emerge as man, it is a matter of simple logicthat paleontological evidence should provide us withspecimens of once living creatures in a transitionalstate between the various classes — if evolution has indeed taken place. Evolutionists have had much tosay about the supposed "missing link" between manand the ape. But when one views the theory as awhole, it becomes obvious that it calls for not just one, but millions of missing links. Taking theestimate of some evolutionists that the transition from one species to a higher species would requireabout seventeen hundred transitional stages, and multiply that by the number of species between theamoeba and man, and the figure reaches astronomicalproportions.

That paleontology has failed as a proof of thetheory of evolution is nowhere more clearly seen thanin the admissions of some of its strongest adherents.

Charles Darwin, himself said: "Long before thereader has arrived at this part of work, a crowd ofdifficulties will have occurred to him . . . Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not see everywhere innumerable transition forms? Why is not all nature in confusion,instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?"

Dr. A. H. Clark, of the Smithsonian Institute,Washington, D.C., and himself an evolutionist, madethis significant admission: "No matter how far backwe go in the fossil records of previous animal lifeupon the earth, we find no trace of any animal formsthat are intermediate between the various major groups of the phyla . . . The greatest groups ofanimal life do not merge into one another. They areand have been fixed from the beginning . . . "

And again from the same man comes this astounding admission: "So we see that the fossil record, the actual history of the animal life on the earth, bears out the assumption that at its very firstappearance, animal life in its broader features was essentially the same as that in which we now knowit ... THUS, SO FAR AS CONCERNS THE MAJOR GROUPS OF ANIMALS, THE CREATIONISTS SEEM TO HAVE THE BETTER OF THE ARGUMENT. THERE IS NOT THE SLIGHTEST EVIDENCE THAT ANY OF THE MAJOR GROUPS AROSE FROM ANY OTHER." (emphasis mine. M.B.).

Conclusion.

We close this series of articles with the prayer thatnone of the readers will be ever disposed to exchangea well-grounded faith in God as the creator, for thetheories of unbelief that having no adequate evidence to support them, are held only by those who refuse tohave God in their knowledge (Rom. 1:28).

In a recent discussion with a Mormon "elder," the young man sought to explain the contradiction between the Bible (Lk. 2:4, Jesus was born at thecity of David which is Bethlehem) and the Book ofMormon (Alma 7:10, Jesus was to be born at Jerusalem). His explanation was that the Bible itselfsays Jesus was to be born in Jerusalem in as much asthe Bible calls Jerusalem the city of David (2 Kgs.14:20). To him Bethlehem was a suburb of Jerusalem,and when the Bible speaks of "Jerusalem the city of David," it means the general area of Jerusalem, specifically the city of Bethlehem.

There are several immediate problems; his passagedoes not say Jesus was born in Jerusalem the city ofDavid, but rather that Amaziah was buried at Jerusalem the city of David. Neither does the Book of Mormon say Jesus was born at "Jerusalem the city of David," but rather it simply says"Jerusalem." How are we to know when "Jerusalem" in the Book of Mormon means Jerusalem and when it means the general area of Jerusalem including the city of Bethlehem? The Bible does not speak of "suburbs." Jerusalem was a city with a wall about it. Bethlehem was 4 1/2 to 6 miles south of Jerusalem. They are different cities. Maps clearly show them to be distinct cities.

In the Old Testament the city of David was Jerusalem, not Bethlehem. David was buried in the city of David (I Kgs. 2:10). Nehemiah in describingthe rebuilding of Jerusalem spoke of some who worked "over against the sepulchers of David" (Neh. 3:16). Nehemiah also spoke of the "stairs that godown from the city of David" while describing the rebuilding of Jerusalem (Neh. 3:15). Was David buried in Bethlehem even though his sepulcher was inJerusalem? Did Nehemiah describe the rebuilding ofJerusalem by telling of the stairs in Bethlehem? Surely not! The truth is evident. The city of David inthe Old Testament is the city of Jerusalem.

Let the Bible speak further for itself. Why was Jerusalem called the city of David in the Old Testament while the New Testament says Bethlehemis the city of David (Lk. 2:4)? The Old Testamentplainly says Jerusalem was called the city of Davidbecause David captured the city and then dwelt in it(2 Sam. 5:7,9; I Chr. 11:4-7). By comparing Lk. 2:4 and Jn. 7:42, one finds Bethlehem was called the cityof David because it was the city David was from.You will recall that Samuel went to Bethlehem to anoint David as king ( I Sam. 16:4). I might refer tomy home state as Arkansas because that is the statein which I live. I might also refer to my home stateas being Georgia meaning it is the state in which Iwas born.

There is no contradiction in the Bible. The Old

Page 16

Testament speaks of Jerusalem as being the city ofDavid because he lived and reigned from there thirty-three years. The New Testament calls Bethlehem thecity of David because David was born there and livedthere before becoming king. The only contradiction isbetween the Book of Mormon and the Bible. Jesus was born in Bethlehem, not Jerusalem, and the "elder's" explanation of the city of David is false.

"And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three;

but the greatest of these is charity" (1 Corinthians

13:13). No one will deny that love is the supreme

virtue in the Christian religion. But, faith and hope

are not far behind. Faith directed toward the future."

Hope is a vital part of the life of any Christian.Hope is that desire, expectation, and trust which combines to help us forge ahead "in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation." So essential is hopethat Paul writes, "For ye are saved byhope "(Romans 8:24). No hope is a product of the oldself, the life in sin. "Wherefore remember. . . that at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and withoutGod in the world"(Ephesians 2:11, 12).

THE BASIS OF HOPE

The basis of hope for the Christian centers aroundChrist, i.e., his death, burial, and resurrection. Paul wrote to Timothy, "Paul an apostle of Jesus Christby the commandment of God our Saviour, and LordJesus Christ which is our hope"(l Timothy 1:1). Theoutspoken apostle writes, "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ which according tohis abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto alively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from thedead"(l Peter 1:3).

To deny the resurrection of Christ is to denymankind any hope and leave only a suicidal void withwhich to handle the perplexities of daily life. "And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless,you are still in your sins. Then those also who havefallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have onlyhoped in Christ in this life, we are of all men most tobe pitied" (NAS 1 Corinthians 15:17-19). Indeed, the life without hope or based on a false hope is a life tobe pitied.

WHAT THE CHRISTIAN HOPES FOR

Generally speaking the Christian hopes for the promises made by "the God that cannot lie" contained in the gospel. Paul wrote, "If ye continue in

the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved

away from the hope of the gospel"(Colossians 1:23). I

wonder if our preaching and teaching really portrays

the true hope of the gospel, to a lost world?

The Bible not only deals with hope in a general

way (the promise contained in the gospel), but in a

specific way as well. Following are some things the

Christian should hope for:

1. GLORY — Glory is a common quest bymankind. All of us want praise, honor, or distinction among our peers. Who has not dreamedof being the star quarterback, the singing sensation, the battlefield hero?

That which has glory is that which is an exhibition of excellence. For the Christian, our hope of glory culminates when our bodies are changed in the likeness of the glorified Saviour. Notice several passages, "... .Christ in you, the hope of glory"(Colossians 1:27). "We look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall change our vilebody, that it may be fashioned like unto his gloriousbody"(Philippians 3:20, 21). John writes, "Beloved,now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yetappear what we shall be: but we know that, when heshall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is"(l John 3:2).

How marvelous is that hope which expects glorylike the Son of God and to see him as he is.

3. LIFE AND IMMORTALITY — The Christian has the hope of living, not just existing but enjoying the fullness of life in eternity. Those with no hope have mocked the Christian's hope as an eternal monotony of hymn singing and harp playing. Eternalboredom! Perhaps one would prefer an eternal barbecue?

I do not know what Heaven will be like. But, I do know that life with God is preferable to death, andjoy to sorrow. So the Christian hopes for the life ofglory which surpasses the comprehension of man. Paul wrote, "Our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel"(2 Timothy1:10). The book of Titus begins, "Paul, a servant ofGod . . . in hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began"(Titus1:1, 2).

It is this hope of life, immortality, and eternal salvation which is promised through the gospel whichmoves the Christian along the difficult path of life.

WHAT HOPE DOES FOR THE CHRISTIAN

A proper understanding and appreciation of hopewill be a vital part of day to day living. When it becomes a part of our daily life, then we will realizeits great value.

1. HOPE CREATES PATIENCE AND ENDURANCE — Paul remembered the, "work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in ourLord Jesus Christ" in the church of the Thessalonians(1 Thessalonians 1:3). Writing to the Romans Paul said, "tribulation worketh patience; and patience, experience; and experience,hope"(Romans 5:3, 4). None is immune to heartache,temptation, or trial. Hope sustains us in stormy times.

Page 17

1. HOPE CREATES STABILITY 'Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast" Hebrews 6:19). When you find stability and maturity in an individual or a congregation youwill find those who have their hope anchored firmlyat the throne of grace.
2. HOPE GIVES COMFORT IN THE HOUR OF DEATH — One of my most difficult tasks as a gospel preacher is participation in funerals. No amount of words can erase the unutterable griefshared at such a gathering. Only for the Christian isthere any real comfort. That comfort comes becausethe Christian has hope. Paul wrote, "That ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope"(2 Thessalonians 4:13).
3. HOPE CAUSES US TO PURIFY OUR-SELVES — For the Christian that loses his hope, there is no other course but to fall back into the world engulfed in sin and unconcern. However the Christian with hope strives to walkin newness of life. John writes, "And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, evenas he is pure"(l John 3:3).
4. HOPE GIVES US THE RIGHT OUTLOOK ON LIFE - Indeed our outlook would be dismal if it were not for hope. The Christian realizes thingsare not the best but trusts that God will work thingsout for the good of his people. Hope requires this positive outlook on life. "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God"(Romans 8:28). "Our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory"(2 Corinthians 4:17). Get some hope, and see howyour attitude about yourself and life will improve.The Bible says, "Rejoicing in hope"(Romans 12:12).

In conclusion, as Christians let us not forget thevalue and strength that can be found in a living hope. "O love the Lord, all ye his saints: for the Lordpreserveth the faithful, and plentifully rewardeth the proud doer. Be of good courage, and he shall strengthen your heart, all ye that hope in the Lord"(Psalms 31:23, 24).

Reference Books

Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary Price: $17.95 Smith's Bible Dictionary Price: 7.95 Young's Analytical Concordance to the Bible Price: 15.95 Cruden's Unabridged Concordance Price: 9.95 New Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia

of the Bible (5 Volumes) Price: 99.98 International Standard Bible Encyclopedia Price: 57.50 Order From: Religious Supply Center

We often sing a song in. worship, "no tears in

heaven." Apparently we ought to rewrite that song

and sing, "no beers in heaven."

I thought I'd heard about all the ungodly things

one could say on radio and television until country

music singer Larry Gatlin (on Nashville Salutes

America, NBC, 9-5-79) sang, "Will they have Mogan

David in heaven. . . .If they don't, who in the h —

wants to go?" Just how far are things going to go? I

am beginning to learn not to be surprised at

anything. How could anyone have the audacity to

make such a statement as that?

Though disappointing as it may be to Larry Gatlinand others (who seemed to enjoy the song) there willbe no beer or Mogan David wine in heaven. Those that would drink such beverages shall not inherit thekingdom of heaven. (Gal. 5:19-21; 1 Pet. 4:3"banqueting" is "a drinking, . . .a drinking bout . . ." W. E. Vine, Vol. I, p. 170) If Gatlin wereto be so lucky as to be in heaven, I don't think he'dbe happy. However I don't think we have anything to worry about there.

Since Gatlin apparently doesn't want to go toheaven because of no Mogan David, I wonder if heknows what hell is really like? Hell is described asbeing: (1) Everlasting (Matt. 25:41, 46); (2) Eternal Fire (Matt. 25:41; Mk. 9:43); (3) Destruction (2Thess. 1:7-9); (4) Darkness (blackness) (Matt. 8:12; Jude 13); (5) Separation from God (2 Thess. 1:7-9; (6)Sorer punishment (Heb. 10:28-29); (7) Second death (Rev. 21:8; 20:14); (8) Wailing (Matt. 13:42). Now doyou think anybody realizing the above had reallyrather go to hell than give up their Mogan David? Ifthey had I might inform them that there will be nonethere either!

Paul warned Timothy saying, "But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived" (2 Tim. 3:13).

IN THE NEWS THIS MONTH

BAPTISMS 183

RESTORATIONS 92

(Taken from bulletins and papers received by the editor)

Page 18

PREACHER AVAILABLE

B.G. ECHOLS, 7 Ridgewood Ave., Glen Ridge, NJ 07028 — CHARLES DAVIS, a young black evangelist, worked with thechurch in East Orange during the summer. He would like to devote full time to preaching the word. Any interested churchesshould contact him: Charles Davis, 203 Main St., Apt. 79, So. Bound Brook, NJ 08880 or call (201) 356-2402.

SPANISH SPEAKING WORK IN LANSING, MICHIGAN LUPE ALVAREZ, JR., 3227 Weisenberger Dr., Dallas, TX 75212 — I was recently in Lansing, Michigan for a meeting amongSpanish speaking people, Brother Almanza and wife moved thereand were the only members we knew to begin with. But theyworked hard for the meeting and attendance reached 45. Four were baptized and one family restored. We had the meeting in acommunity center. We found about six families meeting with liberal churches. One liberal church offered the use of their building until we told them our conviction towards church supported institutions, fellowship halls, bus ministries and such. After that, they withdrew their offer.

HELP NEEDED FOR WORK IN NORWAY

THOMAS BUNTING, 1327 Clifton Rd., Savannah, TN 38372 — Idespise begging! I wouldn't ask for one dime if there were any other way, but for over 8 years (to my knowledge) there has notbeen a gospel preacher working in Norway. No country of the world should be without a gospel preacher. Nine months have passed since I first announced my plans to return to Norway topreach the gospel. I have written many, many personal letters tochurches. At the time of this writing I have only $700 promisedfor my travel fund and $50 a month support (and that from anindividual). As I said, I despise begging. But knowing of the needfor the proclamation of the gospel of Christ in that part of the world, I am compelled to ask. Can you help? Write me at the

above address. (Editor's note: Tom Bunting is an experienced and capablepreacher. He has already spent several years in Norway and knows the language and culture. What better man could be sentto such a field? The editor and his wife were the first couple to tryand plant the gospel in that country in 1957. We arrived with noknowledge of the language, very little understanding of the peopleand culture and no contacts or leads. Since then, good and faithfulmen have labored there, though the efforts have largely beenconfined to three larger cities. There are other areas which need tobe worked. It is far better to send men with families which already know the language and people. It is scandalous for suchexperienced men to receive such meager response. We urgebrethren to get behind this good man and his family and helpthem go back to Norway with the gospel. Would some of you rather equip yourselves and go in his place?)

NEW BUILDING IN WENDELL, IDAHO

FRANK THOMPSON, Box 25, Wendell, Idaho 83355 — The church in Wendell had its beginning in November, 1977 when fourfamilies began meeting in the American Legion Hall. Later othersjoined them. I came here from Long Beach, CA to work withthem in June, 1978. We now have 25 members. The work in Idaho is slow and difficult, but progress is being made. We recentlymoved into a new building which will seat 125. This was made possible by the interest of many good brethren in California andIdaho. Our thanks to each one who helped in any way. Wendell ison I 80N about 20 miles northwest of Twin Falls, and 105 miles southeast of Boise. Our building is located at 801 E. Main. The mailing address is: Church of Christ, Box 301, Wendell, Idaho 83355. We are near the Thousand Springs area of the Snake Riverand only about 80 miles from the resort area of Sun Valley. Comevisit with us.

HELP NEEDED IN VIRGINIA DOVER STACEY, JR., Rt. 2, Box 358-C, Cedar Bluff, VA24609 — On August 5, 1974, I began full time work with the Wardell church in southwestern part of Virginia with preachingappointments in West Virginia and Kentucky. While working withthe Wardell church we baptized 48 people. But the church split over the located preacher question. Those who opposed the locatedpreacher established their own congregation. Then to compoundour problems, the Highway Department took our building forcingus to buy another meeting house located on Rt. 19 in Belfast, Virginia. Because of these and other problems the church is notable to fully support me. I am presently receiving $50 a month from the 5th Ave. church in Bessemer, Alabama. I need additional support to live and work here with this congregation inBelfast. The potential is great. If any individual or congregationis willing and able to help, I would appreciate it. For reference you may contact Thomas G. O'Neal, 1729 5th Ave., Bessemer,AL 35020 (Phone 425-9733); or Arthur M. Ogden, P.O. Box 502,Burnside, KY 42519 (phone 606-678-8005).

PREACHER NEEDED HARTFORD, TENNESSEE — The Raven's Branch church at Hartford, Tennessee is in need of a preacher. This church is about35 miles from Gatlinburg. Anyone interested in working with mountain people should write to: Olie Williamson, P.O. Box 29,Greeneville, Tennessee 37743.

A. C. Moore Killed in Accident

We are saddened to report the death of A, C.Moore, age 61. He was returning to Birmingham the night of October 12 when he was involved ina head-on collision in Walker County, Alabama and was killed instantly. He was a beloved andwell known preacher in Alabama for many years, and was working with the Sun Valleychurch at the time of his death. A large crowd attended the funeral in Birmingham on October 15. Our sympathy to sister Moore and all the family. He will be missed.