In Mark 10:32-40 there is recorded for us the account of the coming of the sons of Zebedee, Jamesand John, to our Lord with a request for place ofprominence in His future kingdom. It seems they (aswell as the others) still expected Christ to be theirpolitical champion, military hero, and warrior kingwho would lead them in a victorious onslaught againsttheir heathen oppressors, and in so doing would construct a physical, political kingdom of which Hewould be the ruling Messiah. Naturally they were concerned (along with their mother — see Matt. 20:23) about their place in such a kingdom and, as it seems,wanted to get their reservations in early for the chiefseats of preeminence, one on the right and the otheron the left of Christ. Suffice it to say that Jesuswould later show that His kingdom was "not of thisworld" (John 18:36). It would not be a physicalkingdom but a spiritual one. For now Jesus makesthis reply to their request:

"You do not know what you are asking for. Are

you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be

baptized with the baptism with which I am

baptized?"

And they said to Him, "We are able." And

Jesus said to them, "The cup that I drink you

shall drink, and you shall be baptized with the

baptism with which I am baptized. "But to sit on

My right or on My left, this is not mine to

give; but it is for those for whom it has been

prepared" (V. 38-40).There can be little doubt that Jesus is referring toHis coming sufferings and persecutions to which Hehad just afore-mentioned (V. 32-34). He so ablyreminds James and John that such a request forglory in His kingdom would also mean certain suffering for those who followed Jesus. Both would later come to realize the truthfulness of these words as

James would die a martyr's death (Acts 12:2) and

John would be exiled to the island of Patmos (Rev.

1:9).

Christ often referred to His sufferings in prospect

as a baptism (Lk, 12:50). By the synonymous use of

"cup" and "baptism," Jesus reveals that the time

will shortly come when He will be buried or immersed

in total suffering. Although He had given a brief

glimpse of such suffering back in verse 34 the

apostles still could not have imagined the suffering

that Jesus or they would undergo. And like the

apostles we, too, fail to fully comprehend all the

suffering and agony that our Lord went through on

our behalf. He truly received the baptism of suf

fering.

Try to imagine if you can the thoughts of Jesus asHe partook of the last passover meal with His blessed apostles realizing that He soon was to betaken from them. See the anguish in His face as Hereveals that it will be one of them who would be the betrayer. Feel the hurt as Judas replies, "Surely it isnot I, Rabbi?" Picture the blood flowing tears ofChrist as He pleads with the Father in the Garden ofGethsemane. See the hypocritical kiss that Judasplants on the blessed face of the Lord Jesus. One ofHis very own had now betrayed Him. Try to imaginethe feeling Christ had when He reached out for ahand, but none was there for His apostles were following "afar off." Then see His eyes meeting theeyes of Peter immediately after Peter had cursed andsworn saying, "I do not know the man!" Envision ifyou can the gruesome, repulsive, and illegal trial ofJesus as He was shoved here and there, being mocked and ridiculed by the very ones He had created. Conceive of the pain of that thorny crownand picture the hurt in the eyes of the Lord as thespit and the slaps landed on the face of the Son ofGod. Imagine the weight of that cross and hear thesnide remarks as He struggled toward Golgotha's rugged heights. Feel the pain of that first nail as it isdriven by glancing blows through His hand. See Hisanguish, distress, and agony as the cross is raisedand the Savior's weight pulls the torn and batteredflesh of His nailed hands. SEE IT ALL! Jesus trulyunderwent the baptism of suffering. He was immersed in total suffering. And for what reason? Dear Reader, HE DID IT FOR YOU! Are youwilling to suffer for Him?

I believe some of us have become a little warped asto what suffering for the Lord really involves. Why ithas gotten to the place that if the preacher goesovertime (meaning 30 minutes these days) and wemiss Battlestar Galactica — why that is suffering forthe Lord! Or if we get that 20% pay increase anddecide to "kick in" an extra dollar in the contribution — why we're suffering for the Lord! And such ought not to be.

Suffering involves standing up for what is right no matter what the cost. It cost Jesus His life as well as most of the apostles. No, our lives may never be puton the line but our convictions will be. Are we willingto be reviled, persecuted, and spoken against for thecause of Christ? Are we willing to run with the Lordinstead of with the crowd even though such a choicewill cause us to be ridiculed and laughed at? Are wewilling to put the kingdom first before anything else?Are we really willing to suffer for the Lord? Let usremember the pain and agony that Christ went through because He was willing to suffer for us. Someone had to pay the price and He was that someone. What a Savior! May the Lord help you andme to stand strong and to possess a willing attitudeto suffer for His cause when such occasions arise. Finally, may we all realize that it is not the way ofthe world but the way of the cross that will lead ushome.

Page 3

"For this reason we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift awayfrom it" (Heb. 2:1 — NASV). God has spoken to man.Through history he has 'spoken in diverse ways andthrough numerous messengers. God "hath in theselast days spoken unto us by his Son" (Heb. 1:2). What Jesus said and what the Holy Spiritempowered the apostles to speak and write was arevelation of the mind of God for our instruction and guidance. The Holy Spirit guided the apostles into"all truth" (Jno. 16:13-14). They had "the mind of Christ" (1 Cor. 2:16). John said "he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us.Hereby know we the spirit of truth and the spirit of error" (1 Jno. 4:6).

Some have so hardened their hearts against what God said that they have never stood in the truth.Others have received the word with joy only to driftaway from it in times of trial. The greater our familiarity with what God said, the greater should be our reverence for it. Unfortunately, with some, "familiarity breeds contempt." Some have preachedthe will of God to others with telling force only toconclude that they were exempted from the sametruth in their own lives.

What Causes Drifting?

1. Obviously, drifting occurs where their is no anchor. Hope is the anchor of the soul (Heb. 6:19).When that hope is dimmed or obscured, then we haveraised anchor and are set adrift to whatever port circumstances shall direct.
2. Drifting is hard to perceive at first. Little bylittle and step by step we move away from foundationtruths and principles. It is easy to rationalize sinuntil we awaken one day to realize how far we havedrifted from what we used to be.
3. Some drift from the truth because they neverdeveloped enough familiarity with it. "These have noroot . . . and in time of temptation, fall away" (Lk.8:13).
4. Some drift because of the pursuit of materialthings. Their hearts are thus divided and their valuesdistorted. Jesus said "But seek ye first the kingdomof God and his righteousness, and all these thingsshall be added unto you" (Mt. 6:33).
5. Some drift because of evil influences. Familyand social ties have strong influences on us all. Employment pressures cause some to weaken and drift. Peer pressure takes it toll on the young. The influence of the entertainment world is antagonisticto godliness. The Christian is not exempt from the

strong social pressures of the day. So many havecalled evil, good, for so long, that it is all too easyfor us to join in the chorus before we know what ishappening.

Congregations Drift

In just a few decades the Ephesian congregation

had drifted to the point that the Lord said he would

remove their candlestick if they did not repent (Rev.

2:5). Here was a work established by Paul who had

labored night and day with tears. He "kept back

nothing that was profitable" unto them and

"shunned not to declare all the counsel of God" to

them (Acts 20:17-27). What had happened in such a

short time? Had they become doctrinally unsound?

No, that was not it. They had left their first love.

They were drifting. Continued drifting would carry

them far enough away from the Lord that he would

remove their candlestick and claim them no longer.

Whenever a congregation settles down into a

simple house-keeping routine, content to drift from

week to week as long as everything runs smoothly,

ignores uncorrected sin, pays little attention to its

overall teaching effort within and without, then the

drift has already started.

Signs of Drifting

Many of us have pointed out often the signs ofdrifting among those of the institutional persuasion.For this no apology should be offered. Now, some ofthat persuasion are speaking out plainly along similar lines, up to a point, at least. But while we have beenbusy doing that, it does not seem to have occurred to some that among those of conservative attitudestoward scriptural authority, there are also signs ofdrift. We would be less than honest to ignore them orpretend they do not exist.

(1) There is drifting in the pulpit in many places.Too many preachers have become theological lecturers.Their preaching (if it may be called that) is on such a level that it misses the needs of ordinary people. Itlacks urgency. Novel and catchy approaches and "cute" phrases are being substituted for old fashioned gospel preaching. Fundamental truths are by-passed in favor of sensationalism. We have somany specialists that we are in dire need of dedicatedgeneral practitioners. Is this too strong an indictment? All right. How long has it been since you taught on the distinction in the covenants? How much preaching have you done (or heard) lately onBible authority, or the nature, work and organization of the church? A new generation is on the scene andthey have not been grounded in these truths. Haveyou preached definitive sermons on faith, or repentance or baptism lately? I don't mean a few hastily made remarks at the end of a lesson while theaudience has already turned you off and is fumbling with song books. What are you saying about the difference between the church of the Lord and denominationalism? Have you dealt with scripturalworship? How long has it been since you either heardor preached a sermon on instrumental music in worship? Have you said anything lately about theBible teaching on the Holy Spirit? Are you speakingout militantly against the works of the flesh, orclosing your eyes to known sin among the brethren?

Are you afraid or ashamed to name names when necessary to warn against error confronting thepeople of God? What are you preaching about theneed for corrective discipline in the case of the unfaithful and rebellious?

Is "soundness" to be measured only in terms ofwhat is not in the budget or the building? There arecongregations which have passed through the fire in years past in resisting the institutional and socialgospel promotions which have clasped to theirbosoms every form of ungodliness by their fellowshipwith unrepentant scoundrels. "Brethren, we are drifting" to quote the late J. D. Tant.

(2) Some elders are drifting. Instead of feeding theflock, they are confounding the flock with indecisiveleadership, weakness in the face of error, and timidityin handling the ungodly. Patience and longsuffering are in order with the weak, but even the patience andlongsuffering of God have a terminating point.Churches need men who truly watch for souls andprovide strong, aggressive direction. Many of thetroubles caused by preachers who have become weakin faith and therefore in preaching would have beenaverted had elders everywhere been alert to what wastaking place. (3) Many are drifting when it comes to personalinvolvement in the work of the church and especially in personal evangelism. The year-end reports of manychurches of considerable size reflects a pitiful rate ofconversions for the number of members. That spellsout the fact that either there is an absence of personal evangelism among the members (including thepreachers), or else it is not being properly done. (4) There is equivocation in the press. While we stand squarely opposed to irresponsible journalism and have no desire to fan into flame matters of personal judgment, it must be recognized that muchof what is written nowadays is pretty bland. Thereare important issues which need attention. Fear of upsetting "brother Somewhat", or of bringing down the wrath of influential brethren involved in various projects of great proportions should deter none of us"from speaking the truth in love" (Eph. 4:15).Human institutions have their place when properlyorganized and operated. They are out of their placewhen they solicit the funds of churches to build, maintain or defend them. But human enterprises have a tendency, as time passes, to forget the principles upon which they were founded and to closetheir ears to the warnings and criticisms of their own best friends. Schools and papers have often desertedtheir original ground in the second and third generations. Some have not taken that long. Let noneof us cry "Wolf' when there is no wolf except in ourown excited imaginations. But let none of us fail tospeak out when times and circumstances demand it.We detect a definite sensitivity to criticism fromsome of those related to some private enterprises,which enterprises are not reluctant to ask for helpfrom any and all when they need it.

Some of you may not see the drifting which thiswriter does. We would like to discover that we are simply mistaken. The future bears watching. In the meantime, the words of the Hebrew writer should be earnestly pondered. Indeed, let us "pay much closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift awayfrom it."

A STUDY OF I CORINTHIANS 7:1-15 — Part 3 —

This study considers the claim that I Cor. 7:11 gives conditional permission to leave a marriage partner. We have pointed out that the obligation toestablish authority for our action places the burden ofproof on those who make this claim. If interpretations that do not grant such permission areshown to be possible, then the claim fails. We considered two such possibilities in the previous article.

The Third Non-Permissive Possibility

PASSIVE, FUTURE

(If she is left sometime in the future, lether remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband.)

The verb translated "should she depart" is passive.

A. T. Robertson's Greek grammar says, "Significance of the Passive: the subject is represented as the recipient of the action. He is acted upon." (p. 815)

A number of impressive scholars affirm that this isthe proper view.

Cambridge Greek Testament, p. 111. "This contemplates a separation taking place in spite of the command, i.e., by the action ofthe husband. A case is put in which the husband, in violation of the Christian law, divorces his wife. A rule is then given for thedivorced wife."

Calvin, Commentary on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, p. 240."But if she has been expelled from her house,or has been put away, she must not think that even in that case she is set free from his power. ..."

Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. IV, p. 126. "If in spite of Christ's clear prohibition, she gets separated(ingressive passive subjective) let her remainunmarried. ..."

Gromacki, Called to Be Saints: An Exposition of I Corinthians, p. 90. "The verb 'depart' is an aorist passive imperative, 'choristhenai.' It implies that departure was forced upon her".

On the other hand, some interpret this as a "reflexive passive." The subject acts on itself. In this case, the woman would be acted upon by herself, by separating herself from her husband.

This is Lenski's position. "... regarding the wife's action, a passive: she is separated from her husbandby something, she leaves him. ..." Interpretation of I and II Corinthians, p. 287.

However, this is not the primary, natural use ofthe passive, but is possible when clearly indicated bythe context. It is a matter of interpretation, not grammar.

The context is in the direction of prohibition, notpermission. It involves a solemn charge, "departnot." Where is the contextual indication hinting at aninterpretation that would grant permission for her todepart? There is none. Rather, the context plainlyand authoritatively affirms the opposite.

The Passive Christian vs. 11-15

On the other hand, a consideration of the

obligations of the deserted Christian follows naturally

at this point. While telling the believing wife not to

leave and telling the believing husband not to leave,

it is reasonable that Paul would give instructions

should they find themselves left.

Furthermore, in the following verse (v. 12), Paul

considers the possibility that the unbelieving wife

might not be content to stay with the believer ("If

. . . content to dwell"). In other words, she might be

discontent and decide to leave the believer. In the

next verse (v. 13), he considers the possibility that

the unbelieving husband might not be content to

stay. Discontented, he might decide to leave her. Of

course, that would mean that the passive believing

wife would be left.

In fact, the point being emphasized is that theymust be sure that they are passive. The believer isnot to act. In verse 12, Paul says, if the brother hasan unbelieving wife content to stay, "let him not leave her." In verse 13, if the sister has an unbelieving husband content to stay, "let her not leave her husband."

Unbelievers determined whether to go or stay onthe basis of their own contentment. Obviously their decisions would not be made on the basis of the Lord's commands. When we consider the greatcontrast between the life of a Christian and the life of those in that grossly immoral society, we can understand why an unbeliever might become discontent. As a result of the radical change in thelife of their newly converted spouse, they mightdecide to leave. Paul was powerless to change such adecision.

However, that should not be the case with a believer. Paul's plain instruction to the believer married to an unbeliever was "Do not leave!" Under the circumstances just described, we can understand that the believers might well become discontent.They might piously say, "I just can't live in that environment and be a Christian." While that mayseem right to us, the wisdom of the Holy Spirit isvery different. The time for such considerations isbefore marriage. After one has been "joined" by God,having become one flesh, the believer is commandednot to leave. If discontentment should occur, anyactive leaving would have to be on the part of theunbeliever. The believer must remain passive.

We will point out later that the lack of conditions in verse 11 argues against the presumption thatconditional permission is granted. Feeling the weightof this problem, some have gone all the way to thelatter part of verse 15 to find their conditions. Theyargue that the clause, "God hath called us in peace"suggests that a lack of peace justifies a believerdeserting his marriage. This passage says nothingabout the believer departing, nor does it speak of

peace as a condition determining whether anyone

should depart.

Rather it deals with the obligations of believers whenthey are left. "Yet if the unbeliever departeth, let himdepart: the brother or sister is not under bondage insuch cases." In other words, the believer is not required to continue struggling to maintain their obligations in the relationship if the unbeliever determines to leave. Having emphasized the requirementto maintain the marriage even with the unbeliever ofthat day, Paul finds it necessary to tell them that acontinuing, hopeless struggle to keep up the obligations of their marriage is not necessary if theunbeliever departs. It is in contrast to that kind of strugglethat peace is urged.

The idea that believers are given conditional permission to act in deserting their spouse is completely foreign to this verse and the entire context. They are commanded to remain passive.

Summarizing; the idea of permission to actively leave one's spouse is opposite to the context, while the idea of the believer passively being left is aprimary subject of the context.

Therefore, the reasons for concluding that the woman of verse 11 does not act in leaving (rather, she is left, being acted upon) are as follows:

1. The verb is passive.
2. The primary sense of the passive involves thesubject being acted upon.
3. Exceptions to the primary sense of the passive require clear indication from the context.
4. The idea of actively departing is forbidden by the context. It is opposite to the context.
5. The idea of Christians being passively left isthe subject of the following verses. It fits perfectly with the context.

Of course, if the passage deals with a woman beingleft, it could not authorize future, purposeful action.Permission would not be granted. The plain, clear prohibition would stand.

The Fourth Non-Permissive Possibility PAST, PASSIVE

(If she has already been left, let her remain

unmarried or be reconciled to her husband.)

We have pointed out that if the action under consideration had taken place in the past, it would beimpossible for the passage to grant permission forfuture action. It was shown that if it is passive, itwould be impossible for the passage to authorizefuture action. We have presented good reasons forbelieving that both are correct; that the passageinvolves passive action that had already taken place.

However, if neither position is correct, (if it is bothactive and future) there are still at least five factors,presented earlier, which demonstrate that permission cannot be established.

In other words, if the passage is either passive or past action, permission is impossible. If it is neither, permission is still not established. Therefore, theChristian who would hope to authorize the desertionof his or her spouse is left in a hopeless condition.

RESULTS OF SEPARATION "DEFRAUD"

I Cor. 7:2 — "Because of fornication. . . . " I

Cor. 7:5 — "Defraud ye not . . .that Satan

tempt ye not. ..."

Thayer defines this term to mean, "to defraud, rob,

despoil," p. 60. This is the same word found in

James 5:4 — "Behold the hire of the laborers who

mowed your fields, which is of you kept back by

fraud, crieth out. . . . "

Paul says that when sexual privileges are withheld

(necessarily involved in separation), robbery, fraud

occurs. That which belongs to individuals by right is

taken from them.

"TEMPT YE" Furthermore, Paul indicates that one of the effectsof being defrauded is that temptation is forced uponthe deserted spouse.The seriousness of tempting one to sin is emphasized by Christ in Matt. 18:6,7."But whoso shall cause one of these little ones that believe on me to stumble, it is profitable for him that a great millstoneshould be hanged about his neck, and that heshould be sunk in the depths of the sea. Woe unto the world because of occasions of stumbling! For it must needs be that the occasions come; but woe to that man throughwhom the occasion cometh!" Departure by one party brings temptation to both.Experience teaches that, almost invariably, at least one will eventually succumb. Such tragedy emphasizes the wisdom of I Cor. 7:2,5.

MATT. 5:32

In this passage, Christ is concerned with such

temptation and pronounces everyone guilty who

"puts away" (with one exception).

Unfortunately, many are under the impression thatthis passage says the same thing as Matt. 19:9. While the construction is basically the same, the primary subject is different. Matt. 19:9 deals primarily with divorce and remarriage. Matt. 5:32 deals primarily with "putting away." Here, the one"putting away" does not remarry. He is guilty, but notof adultery. He is guilty of making his wife an adulteress.

Of course, the wife is not literally and necessarilyforced to be an adulteress. However, as a result ofbeing deserted, she is exposed to the very temptationthat marriage is supposed to combat (I Cor. 7:2,5).She is forced in the direction of, tempted to become, an adulteress. Because of this temptation, Paul forbids separation, "except by consent for a season."One who "puts away" indefinitely exposes their mateto temptation whether they remarry or not. This iswhy Paul forbids such action. It is why Jesus saysthat everyone putting away his wife is guilty.

There is one exception. Most brethren fullyunderstand the implications of the construction usedin this passage. It is the same construction used inMatt. 19:9 which speaks of divorce and remarriage.There is little doubt that the passage clearly and forcefully teaches that divorce and remarriage are absolutely wrong, with only one exception. In the same manner, Matt. 5:32 .teaches that "putting away" is absolutely wrong, with only one exception.

MATT. 19:9 MATT. 5:32

Whosoevershall put away hiswife Everyone that putteth awayhiswife (except forfornication) (saving for thecause of fornication)

and shall marry another committeth adulterymaketh her an adulteress

RULE: RULE:

DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE IS PUTTING AWAY MAKES ADULTERY ADULTERESS

'Whosoever except for fornication" "Everyone . .. saving... fornication:" MEANS ONLY ONE EXCEPTION MEANS ONLY ONE EXCEPTION

DIFFICULT CIRCUMSTANCES?? DIFFICULT CIRCUMSTANCES?? OTHER EXCEPTIONS?? OTHER EXCEPTIONS??

Consider the comments of John Murray on Matt.

5:32. ". . . it is not the exceptive clause that bearsthe weight of the emphasis in the text. It is rather that the husband may not put away for any othercause. It is the one exception that gives prominence tothe illegitimacy of any other reason. Preoccupationwith the one exception should never be permitted toobscure the force of the negation of all others." Divorce, p. 21.

We should realize that justifying separationnecessarily involves a justification of those things theBible says are involved: temptation to both partieswhich the Holy Spirit defines "defrauding"; and the guilt Jesus places on everyone "putting away" (with one exception).

In our concluding article we consider some of the pragmatic problems of both the permissive and non-permissive positions.

On 5 July 1979, I received the following overseas

cable: "Daddy three weeks seriously sick. Spent loan.

Died. Burial Friday. Please secure benevolence for us.

Inform supporters. Letter follows." It was signed by

Ruben Notarte's son. He left his widow and nine

dependent children. He was fifty when he passed from

this life. I read the message through tears. I was

unaware he was even ill. All who knew him have

sustained a deep personal loss, as has the work there.

Bro. Notarte was converted in 1972 out of the

denominations. Since, his determination to serve the

Lord has been a source of great inspiration to those

privileged to have contact with him. All Americans

who had opportunity to work with him recognized

this and valued him for it. He spent most of his work

preaching the gospel among the cultural minorities in

Calinan and Magsaysay, on the southern island of

Mindanao, in the area north of Davao City. With

several other preachers, he established at least

seventeen churches having a combined membership of

approximately 600. He was the "glue" that put and

held this work together. I endorsed him strongly and

encouraged him in this, as did other Americans who

worked with him among these cultural minorities.

Ruben was one of the most capable half dozen menthere, but he didn't boast of his ability, recognizing itcame from God and was to be used in His service. That is exactly what he did, pressing with a determination to do all the good he was capable of,no matter what the opposition. He did not seek theimportant, the rich and the socially prominent. Rather, he went into the highways and byways,working with a people as poor as any in that nation.They loved him for his concern for them. Ruben wasthe stimulus behind my appeal in the summer of1978, to provide benevolent assistance for these brethren who suffered the loss of what little they hadbecause of a drought. I was privileged to work closelywith him in the distribution to these needy saints. His love for them was obvious.

The kingdom will continue; God's work there willbe done, but that which he had been doing will behard-put because of his departure. God called him home, and the loss is very definitely ours. 2 Sam.3:38, 39 partially expresses my feeling: "And the king said unto his servants, Know ye not that thereis a prince and a great man fallen this day in Israel? and I am this day weak. ..." Ruben C. Notarte wastruly a great man and prince in Israel; we are madepoorer by his death.

DEVALUING DOCTRINE

A regrettable thing has happened to our way ofthinking in the United States. We began two hundredyears ago by affirming the liberty of all humanbeings and the freedom of each person to speak hismind. These liberties were held to be among the inalienable rights of persons equal before their Creator. In recent times, however, this noble belief inthe right of each individual to hold his own convictions has degenerated into the notion thatanybody's ideas are as true as anybody else's. And that shift in our thinking has already begun to leadto an even more perverse way of thought: one inwhich we cynically view every person's ideas as equally worthless.

To see how far we have drifted from the originalintent of freedom of thought and speech, we haveonly to study the lives of the men who made thosefreedoms possible for us. They were vigorous menwho maintained clear distinctions between the true and the false, the helpful and the harmful. Their conviction that humans are free to believe as theychoose did not sway them from an equally firm conviction that it really matters what humans actually DO choose to believe. No doubt the foundingfathers would agree with a statement this writerheard Jerry Clower, the Mississippi comedian, makenot long ago: "I hope you will always have the rightto do whatever you want to do in this country. And I hope you won't be fool enough to do some of thethings you have the right to do!"

Unlike our forefathers, we dislike dogmatism inany shape or form. Nothing is quite so offensive toour enlightened sensibilities as someone with the audacity to insist that he is right. For someone toargue that he is right implies someone else is wrong,and that makes us uncomfortable. At times we even catch ourselves feeling better about someone who ismanifestly wrong than about his opponent who isright and has had the effrontery to be dogmaticabout it. A case in point is the recent controversyover Anita Bryant's clear-cut stand on homosexuality. Not a few so-called Christians who themselves disapprove of homosexuality have beenheard to complain about Mrs. Bryant's forceful insistence that she is right. The attitude behind suchcomplaints is one which says, "Some of us opposehomosexuality and some of us don't. But it's a free country and, after all, who really cares one way orthe other?" The irony of it all is that we defend thisindifference to truth with an appeal to our American freedom, a freedom which our ancestors intended as ameans of aiding the discovery and defense of truth!

The effects of this re-interpretation of freedom havebecome more and more evident in the Lord's church. The ecumenical movement spearheaded by W. Carl Ketcherside is a good example. In theory brother Ketcherside has preached the freedom of each man inChrist to hold his own convictions. That sounds as patriotic and American as it does Biblical. In practice, however, this preaching has translated into a plea for freedom FROM any convictions at all!What appears on paper to be a war against intolerantfactionalism, which unfortunately often accompaniesdoctrinal controversy, is in reality a war against doctrinal controversy itself. The factionalists who deprive others of the right to think for themselves arenot the only objects of brother Ketcherside's fury. Anybody who values truth enough to spend time discussing doctrinal differences (no matter how courteously) and who presses his own case stronglyenough to leave the impression somebody else mightbe wrong is accused of legalism, bigotry, and repressiveness. It is precisely the same reaction oneso often gets these days in secular matters if he is sobackward as to believe it matters very much whatone believes. We are told that the worst sin againstfreedom is that of rocking the boat.

If nothing else, this devaluing of doctrinal truth isa form of laziness. When a person finds himself in themiddle of a welter of competing ideas, it is temptingto try to avoid the whole arduous business of searching for the truth by denying that truth canbe found or by convincing himself the entire questionhe has been pondering is no longer of any real consequence. Brother Ketcherside has adopted the latter posture. The drift of all his writings is that doctrinal discussions amount to much ado about nothing, and his sympathizers follow suit by superciliously pretending that disputes about all such petty matters have long since ceased to be ofany interest to them. If a choice is to be made, theyprefer to associate with brethren with whom theytheoretically disagree on numerous doctrinal issues, rather than waste any time on brethren with whomthey have many things in common but who still believe that doctrine matters enough to talk about!

These are sharp words, to be sure. But it is wellpast time for many of us to be standing up and pointing out that freedom of belief and speech,tolerant understanding of our adversaries, humility,and a reverent desire for the unity of god's people are ALL compatible with a determined emphasis on doctrinal truth. Devaluing doctrine disguises the problem of religious division and does nothing tosolve it. At best, the approach of a man like W. CarlKetcherside to our present doctrinal disunity is superficial. At worst, it is a serious departure fromthe responsibility we all share to sift truth from untruth. That work is often less than pleasant, but solong as any of us are accountable to our Lord for allour words and deeds, it will be necessary. Crawling into a theological cave and waiting for the end to come will benefit neither our Lord's church nor ourselves.

HAGGAI — GOD'S PREACHER:The Method — Part I

Because Haggai was one of the most successful preachers ever to present God's TRUTH we have taken time to observe the message and now we needto observe the method. His job was to motivate God's people to rebuild the .temple and this he does inChapter 1, Vs. 2-3, but by the time we read Verses14 and 15, only 23 days have gone by and the peoplehave responded to the urging of Haggai. This is almost beyond belief! After 16 years of neglect he isable to move the people in a 23-day period of time.Any kind of preaching that will conquer materialism,discouragement and procrastination deserves yourattention and mine. As a matter of fact, it deservesmore than attention. It deserves emulation. What then did he do to produce this great result? I. ReformBegins at The Top.

Notice in 1:1 "The word of the Lord" came by theprophet, Haggai, to (1) Zerubbabel, THE GOVERNOR and (2) to Joshua, THE HIGH PRIEST." The important point here is that reform begins at the TOP because he begins his message ofrebuild, rebuild, rebuild, not with the man in thefield, or the merchant in the store, but with the twomost important men in Israel, the CIVIL Leader andthe RELIGIOUS Leader. This blazes the most important truth in moving God's people to do God's work. IT MUST BEGIN with the Leadership.

Thus, brethren, the first application is that tomove God's people to do God's work, it must beginwith the Eldership. The local congregation will live ordie based on the action or non-action of the Elders. Haggai's method of beginning at the top illustrates 5important points that we need so desperately to seetoday:

1. The Leadership Must Have Vision — "Where there is no vision the people perish" is a Divine decree as well as a picture of the every day life. Thesemen had no real vision as pertaining to the needs ofthose following them. They saw no real need to rebuild the temple because of the crush of materialistic pressure which they had to face every,day. God's true Shepherds or Leaders must not onlysee today and its needs, but they need to see tomorrow and the day after. Where are we going?What are our plans? What do we want to accomplish?We must have wisdom and foresight or the next generation will be lost! Haven't we seen enough ofour own children lost in past generations to know itwill happen again and again if we are not careful andif we do not plan? Brethren actually plan for FAILURE by neglecting to plan for success. Everygood teaching program or personal evangelismprogram must be planned if it is to ever come about.Good things will not happen by accident.

2. God's People In Failure Have Always Been Lead There. What kind of leader will yoube? One that leads others into failure or one that leads others into success. Every great indictment ofGod's people began with a scathing rebuke of theshepherds for scattering the flock. Ezek. 34 is a crystal clear example of the shepherd that scattered the flock. Matt. 23 is not an indictment of the people generally, but specifically the leaders. "Blind guides" so the Lord called them. We generally think of leaders who lead others into falsedoctrine as not accepting what God reveals, whichis Truth, but those that simply lead others in inactivity are just as bad. It is so much easier toask others to act rather than lead others into it. Consider: How many persons were baptized intoChrist by personal evangelism of the Elders whereyou attend? How many Elders are teachingeffective Bible classes where you attend? The sad truth is that in many places those in leadershipdo less than any other member of the body! 3. We Are No Better Than Our Leaders. With a condition as described above, what are the chancesof turning this organization around and convertingit into an active teaching and preaching congregation? ZERO is the general answer UNLESS THE LEADERS CHANGE FIRST! I have seen too many examples where Bible class teachers, because of their opportunity to be trained and properly motivated, have wanted to "turn overa new leaf" and begin again. To do so there is the need for approval and support of the eldership whoscheduled the training in the first place. Without suchsupport, they VETO the results to improve. Why, you ask? Simply because a need for a change automatically indicts the OLD methods and priorities which they were responsible for evolving.A local congregation in the grass roots of its membership lights a new fire, but unless the LEADERS are first committed, division will result.
1. Without The Approval Of The Eldership TheResult is Revolution, Not Reformation. Every member and every leader must be aware of this situation. Too often preachers have been guilty of bypassing the leadership and starting a new breath ofenthusiasm in another pew because maybe they weremore sympathetic. But, such is not God's order. Hisorder is from the TOP down. How difficult it is to move the elders, and they must be moved first or theeffort will end in revolt. Before one seeks to "fire up"anyone, he must begin with those in authority.
2. The Leaders Must See Today's Problems. There are cities today in which there is no faithful churchbut in times past had been good working bodies. Theproblem was that somewhere in the passing of timesomeone failed to see the problems of the future andthe future lost with the devil winning. It could andwill happen in your city if you are not the properleader or if where you attend does not have the proper leadership. When Paul told Titus to set in order the things that remained, he simply said that

until you have godly elders the picture is not

complete.

How desperately we need men who can scripturally

be appointed so that the needed things might be set

in order in congregations today. No local

congregation will be much stronger, much more

active, or much more zealous than its eldership. At

the root of dead churches is a dead eldership and at

the heart of thriving churches is an active and

vibrant eldership. In the human body, many parts

and some organs can be removed and while

handicapping the body, it can still function. Yet,

when the heart or the brain is impaired, the entire

body must suffer. Why? Simply because of the

centrality of influence that both the heart (all blood

and oxygen functions) and the brain (control of

voluntary and involuntary as well as reasoning)

command.

If the eldership is not alive, active and vibrant theright kind of programs (spiritual growth activities)will not be planned, carried out, or participated in.Because they hold the keys to what congregationalactivity is going to be engaged in and because theyknow they will be expected to lead the way in thatactivity, they are not going to initiate programs tocause them embarrassment. Elders who don't plan onknocking on doors themselves seldom call the otherChristians around a personal work program which involves that kind of activity. Elders who don't planon learning to develop better teaching methods areseldom going to rally a teacher development programto aid the members and other Bible class teachers. Elders who are not interested in an active, zealous, participating congregation are seldom going to hire apreacher known for his work and involvement with alocal congregation. Elders that don't believe in thePOWER of the gospel will seldom commit the kind ofmoney necessary to preach the gospel in foreignlands, on the radio, or in the local newspaper.

The overseeing of the flock involves all of thesetypes of decisions that must come from commitment,dedication, and zeal. So, when an eldership doesn't want to "roll up its sleeves" and get to work it is likethe body when the brain decides to take the day off.

A Monumental Work

The Present Truth

by Foy E. Wallace, Jr.

A collection of the author's articles and debates over 40 controversial years.

Covering current issues from 1930-1977

Includes editorials in the Gospel Advocate,

the Gospel Guardian, the Bible Banner and

Torch. 1,068 pages Hardback

Price $20.00

Order from Religious Supply Center Page 10

"WEIGHTIER MATTERS" REVIEWED

In the July issue of ENSIGN, the editor, R. L.

Kilpatrick wrote an editorial entitled "Weightier

Matters" in which he came to the conclusion

regarding baptism that I had thought for some time

that the "grace — fellowship" brethren were going

to be forced into. However I never thought it would

be put into print this soon or this emphatic.

On page two of the article, R. L. Makes the

following statement. "Let's face it, we have in times

past majored in minors and left the "weightier

matters" of the gospel unattended. We have placed

undue emphasis on the fundamentals, namely, our

obsession with baptism, until we have lost our

spiritual perspective. When someone said that

'baptism is an outward expression of an inward heart'

he spoke the truth. As to whether or not God

forgives sins at the point of heart obedience or at the

point of the literal act is, as far as I can see,

completely immaterial. That's God's business."

R. L. then gives examples that are supposed toshow that his statement is true. He says, "Theoutward act of obedience is merely the expression ofwhat is already present in the heart, whether ofsin, obedience, or worship. Let's look at several examples." He then gives the examples of Adam andEve, Abraham offering his son, David when he andhis men trespassed into the tabernacle's Holy Placeand ate the forbidden "shewbread," when Jesus andhis disciples were plucking ears of grain and eating on the Sabbath day, and in a reverse case R. L. says,"The rich young ruler kept all the commandmentsoutwardly, but broke all of them inwardly. . ."

One of the things that R. L. is getting at is tryingto show, you guessed it, death-bed salvation, andbeing saved like the thief on the cross. For, he continues his article by citing both of thesesituations. Lest I misquote him, I want to quote hisentire thought on these subjects.

"When does God forgive? At the point of obedience? or at the point of the physical act? Theexamples above should have .already answered thisquestion, since the outward act of baptism is an expression of what's in the heart. There is nothinghere that will likely cause us any problem, exceptpossibly in those 'death-bed-repentance' cases, i.e.,where the dying call upon the Lord at the last minutefor salvation — but are never baptized. Let not our brethren belittle death-bed-repentance. If the thief onthe cross is not a genuine case of it, then I don'tknow what is."

I have known all along that these brethren were

Calvinists to the core. They not only do not

understand the design of God in conversion, but

they fail miserably in their understanding of the

Scriptures that there are some things that God

chose not to know. Such is true in the case of

Abraham. Could God have known the heart of

Abraham before he went to offer his son Isaac on

the altar? Who is willing to deny that he could

have? But what does Genesis 22:11-12 show? It shows

that God said, when Abraham had placed Isaac on

the altar and was about to plunge the knife into

him, "Now I know that thou fearest God." Also,

when did God cast Adam and Eve out of the Garden

of Eden — before or after they had eaten of the

forbidden fruit?

James said, "But every man is tempted, when he

is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then

when lust hath conceived it bringeth forth sin: and

sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death"

(James 1:14-15). Being tempted is not sin. But when

we are tempted and drawn away of our own lust,

then that is what brings forth sin, James said.

Does He, or Doesn't He?

Paul said of Christ, ". . . he became the author ofeternal salvation unto all them that obey him" (Heb.5:9). Does He, or doesn't He? Neither I, nor any otherman, have a right to tell anyone that God will savehim on any terms other than those that God has revealed. If God decides to do it, that will be fine.But I have no right to tell him anything other thanthat which God has revealed. The only way I canknow the mind of God is by what is revealed in theBible. "For what man knoweth the things of man,save the spirit of man which is in him? Even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit ofGod. Now we have received, not the spirit of theworld, but the spirit which is of God; that we mightknow the things that are freely given to us of God"(I Cor. 3:11-12). So, I have no right, and neither does

R. L. Kilpatrick or any other man, to tell anyone, anything that the Spirit of God has not revealed.And nowhere in the Scriptures, that I know anythingabout, has the Spirit of God revealed that a man canbe saved on his deathbed without being baptized. Ifso, where is the passage?

Oh, but notice in the above quotation from onewho claims to be a Christian, a member of the body of Christ, he says that "the thief on the cross is a genuine example of it." However, he anticipates justwhat answer might be given to this "weighty"argument and says, "Our orthodox comeback to thisargument is that 'the thief lived under the law ofMoses and not under the law of Christ.' This point ofargument leads us into a much graver error. Whenwe say that the thief lived under the law of Mosesand therefore not subject to the provisions of theNew Testament concerning baptism, we make two fundamental mistakes. First, to say that the thief did not live under the NT law implies that salvation is by 'law', which is not the case. Secondly, it reverses theroles we normally assign to the 'old law' and 'new law'; that is, we assign justice to the law of Moses and mercy to the law of Christ, which is correct (John 1:17); but here it is reversed!"

R. L. is in grave error on his arguments on thethief. First of all, he could not prove to save his lifethat the thief was not baptized unto John's baptism.Secondly, he misses the point of the Law of Mosesand the Law of Christ. The reason this is stressed today is because today we are subject to Christ's baptism. The thief was not subject to Christ's baptism because when they were both on the cross,Christ had not commanded that men be baptized by his authority. That was after His death, burial, andresurrection (cf. Matt. 28:18-19). Paul said of thosewho are obedient to Christ, "There is therefore nowno condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus,who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath mademe free from the law of sin and death" (Romans 8:12). Thus Paul refers to that by which we are saved asbeing the "Law of the Spirit" of which baptism for the remission of sins is a part. If, as R. L. says, Godlooks on the heart and one is saved "at the point ofheart obedience," then Saul of Tarsus was saved before he was ever baptized. For the Scriptures teachthat Saul called Christ "Lord," and asked whatChrist wanted him to do. If he was saved at the pointof heart obedience, then he was saved in his sins. Forwhen Ananias came to him in Damascus three dayslater he told Saul, "And now why tarriest thou?Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord" (Acts 22:16). ThusSaul had not been forgiven of his sins at the point of"heart obedience" R. L. Kilpatrick notwithstanding.

R. L.'s doctrine of death-bed-salvation is as far from the truth as any denominational preacher that ever preached it. Neither He, nor any other man, hasthe right to presume what God will do for anyone — UNLESS God has stated it. And the fact ofthe matter is, Jesus said, "He that believeth and isbaptized shall be saved. . ." (Mark 16:16). Now inthese instructions, does baptism come before or aftersalvation? The fact of the matter is, brother Kilpatrick, the doctrine that one can be saved without being baptized is rotten to the core, and is,in fact, a flat denial of what Jesus said. It is a failureto believe what Jesus said. Thus the latter part ofMark 16:16 is applicable to you and all who fail tobelieve what Jesus said, ". . . he that believeth notshall be damned."

Help Us Circulate This Paper

How many of our readers have friends or relatives(what about your married children?) who receiveno good religious paper in their homes? One of thebest gifts you could give them and one of thegreatest favors you could show them would be tosubscribe to STS for them. Already many of ourreaders are sending in new subscriptions to help uswith our drive to reach 10,000 circulation by the end of 1979, our twentieth year of operation. Will youhelp also?

P.O. Box 68, Brooks, KY 40109

$7 a Year in Advance.

Introduction:

1. Visit to "Holy Rollers" meeting — high pitch ofexcitement, get religion, lose control of self, roll infloor, sometimes speak in "tongues." This religious experience was better felt than told, so theysaid (told!). The Holy Spirit had come into their lives and they would not trade what they felt in their hearts (erroneously located as the physicalblood pump) for all the Bibles in the world.
2. Ignorance of the Scriptures and dependence on emotions create a religion of excitement. Several formsof analysis are possible; let us note these:

I. GOD NEVER PUT THE OPERATION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT AND FEELINGS TOGETHER.

A. The Apostles on Pentecost. (Acts 2:1-4).

1. No reference to how the apostles felt.
2. What they did was rational - they spokein other languages -and it was un derstood by those who heard. They preached Jesus!

B. Philip preached at Samaria, many heardpreaching and were baptized. (Acts 8:12).

1. Peter and John came and laid their hands on them and they received theHoly Spirit.
2. Again - no reference to how one feels.(Acts 8:17).

C. The household of Cornelius. (Acts 10:44-46).

1. The Holy Spirit fell on them. The Jewswere amazed . . . "for they heard themspeak ..." This was a rational act.
2. How did they feel? No indication!

D. The Twelve Men at Ephesus. (Acts 19:1-7).

1. The Holy Spirit came on them "and theyspake and prophesied." (v. 6).
2. Again - a rational act and no mention offeeling.

E. The Prophets of the Church in N.T. Times. (1Cor. 14:32).

1. The spirits of the prophets are subject tothe prophets.

F. To assume that feelings were an evidence ofsalvation in the New Testament and then to make feelings, emotionalism and non-rational behavior the evidence of salvation today is both illogical and unscriptural.

II. IF FEELINGS, EMOTIONALISM AND NON-RATIONAL BEHAVIOR CAN NOT BE RELIED UPON AS AN EVIDENCE OF SALVATION NEITHER CAN IT BE AN EVIDENCE OF SPIRITUALITY OR AC CEPTABLE WORSHIP.

A. Dull, routine church services are being blamed for a lack of spirituality. 1. Americans are bored! We constantly seek some artificial means of

stimulation. We pay others to entertain usand keep us happy for a few minutes. It is no wonder that this "boredom" becomes evident even in our religion. 2. Many Christians have a yearning for amore meaningful, gratifying, religious orspiritual experience. Regular church services are often found to be dull, routine, lifeless, even boring.

1. Pat Boone, in his book; A New Song (Creation House, 1970), tells of his reception of the Holy Spirit, speaking intongues, and the general revitalizationthat has since taken place in his life. Patsays "Church services seem completelyout of context with the world we live in the other six days of the week." (p. 18)."Sure, we'd go to church, but mychildren would have to punch me to keepme awake." (p. 19). "When we sit down in a church service, we know somebodyis going to preach a sermon. We know we're going to sing songs we've sung many times before. We've done this so many years that we can predict what thenext move will be without opening oureyes." (p. 19). "I had many friends whosaid, 'I just don't get anything out ofchurch.'" (p. 19).
2. Even though Pat claims that the comingof the Holy Spirit caused him to feel differently about religion, to show emotion,and to sing "A New Song," his bookfails to admit that it was his own un faithfulness and unwillingness to apply the teaching of Christ to his life that caused church services to be so boring and unmeaningful. The bookalso fails to show the correlation between his un faithfulness and his acceptance of the doctrine of the direct operation of the Holy Spirit.Pat's life became empty. Yet he had a need, a longing for the spiritual thatwas going unfulfilled. This made his heart fertile ground for the emotionalism of these Pentecostal doc trines.
3. Earlier in the lesson we showed that there is no relation between the HolySpirit and feeling in the New Testament.The New Testament never tells how anyone felt when he received the HolySpirit. We emphasized that feelings,emotionalism, and non-rational behaviorcan not be the evidence of salvation or of a right relationship with God.

B. Dependence upon emotionalism as an evidence of spirituality is making its way intothe churches of Christ. 1. Leroy Garrett, (extremely to the left among churches of Christ), reports on what he likes to call TheUnderground Church of Christ, and of a Holy Spirit Retreat held in Dallas, Texas, Dec,

1969; also reprinted in The Gospel Guardian, March 20, 27, 1969. Notesome excerpts from his article:

"Much of it yet in its embryonic stage,taking the form of cell groups withinwell established congregations. It isin prayer and study groups that the underground is emerging. In many of thelarger congregations there is cellular activity, which forms more or less spontaneously, which becomes what may becalled a second church. It is usually a case of the more concerned, more spiritual ones being drawn together by their common interests. The minister himself is sometimes involved, being arather status quo preacher in the pulpit,but a deeper, freer, more daring individual within the cells. The underground members understand that hecan go only so far, and they excuse hismainline orthodoxy in the pulpit on thegrounds that if he went too far he wouldonly destroy his chances to liberate thecongregation.

"Underground elements are as

prevalent in some Sunday School

classes as anywhere. These are often

independent cells within a huge

congregation, enjoying a freedom that

enables them to do surprising things,

such as reading from Restoration

Review, and debating the issues raised

in Voices of Concern. There have been

denunciations of Church of Christism

and a call for renewal in these Sunday

School classes that would rival what any

of us have been saying. Occasionally the

preacher has a rather select group, an

underground element, in one of these

classes, at which time he is so different

from the man who occupies the pulpit

that people might suppose they have

two different ministers. Somehow he

gets by with saying unorthodox things

in the class that he could never say in

the pulpit and keep his job. Either the

cell doesn't tell on him or there is

something about a room in the

southeast corner of the basement that

allows for more equivocation than does

the sacred desk in the auditorium. If a

man is given to relatives, he knows to

forget them and to speak in absolutes

when he enters a Church of Christ

pulpit."

2. Garrett continues to tell of "consciousness of the Holy Spirit" thatover shadows all else; candle-lit rooms;spontaneous observance of the Lord's Supper by individuals; an observanceof Lord's Supper by entire group at atime other than the Lord's Day;

Page 13

tongue-speaking, casting out of demons, etc.

3. I do not object to proper attitude, disposition in our life and worship. Ourworship could not be acceptable without it. But when we begin to emphasizefeelings, emotionalism and non-rationalbehavior in our worship I become concerned. May I raise a Voice of Concern?

C. The use of artificial means to try to create an "atmosphere" for worship concerns me.

1. Turning lights low or out. Candle-lit rooms. One | group even tried to makesecret worship places like those theyassume the early Christians met in.
2. Leave building and get out under thestars or by the lake, river, etc. The building is not sacred; it is the approachhere that is of concern. Others have used the same reasoning for building elaborate cathedrals.
3. Touching prayer; holding hands. Touchand tell. We may be closer to one another — but not necessarily closer to God. (Some are simply adaptingthe questionable practice of sensitivity or encounter groups.)
4. Spontaneous, unstructured worship becomes a structure — a ritual. A group may become known for its ritualuse of the unstructured.
5. This has a show of wisdom in will-worship (Col. 2:23). Vine defines "willworship" as "voluntarily adopted worship, whether unbidden or forbidden, not that which is imposed by others, butwhich one affects."

D. Some dangers in these new trends.

1. Danger: Presuming that one has attained a superior spiritual status andrelegating others who are more "orthodox" to a place of second-class citizenship in the kingdom. Students who derive a great benefit from the "devotions" conducted at college tendto think of the worship back home asdull, etc. Brethren are not unspiritualbecause they happen to sing three songs, have a prayer, another song, andthen the sermon!
2. Danger: This "spiritual attitude" often adopts an ecumenical spirit which saysit loves everyone, even those whom theybelieve to be in error. But it soon embraces the error and becomes sectarian to the point that it can not tolerate thosewho question its liberal attitude.

Conclusion: Note these warnings to Christians. Let noman deceive you through persuasive speech; let no onemake spoil of you through vain deceit; let no one robyou of your prize through his voluntary (mock) humility. (Col. 2:4, 8,18).(To Be Continued)

Page 14

WHEN GOD HAS NOT SPOKEN

In a publication called The Banner of Truth,

January, 1979, pages 2-3, editor Fred O. Blakely has

an article, "The Blade Cuts Best the Other Way" in

which he seeks to uphold the practice of having

instruments of music in the worship of God today.

He says if we have "banned musical instruments

from the worship of God" we have made a

"misapplication" of the New Testament. He argues in

the article that the silence of the New Testament is

"in their defense."

In response to this article, Professor Dwaine E.Dunning of Dakota Bible College writes a note of appreciation for his article in The Banner of Truth,March, 1979, page 12. Dunning claims to "have donea great deal of study over the years on the musicalinstrument issue" and his conclusion is that those who do not use instrumental music in the worship ofGod have borrowed "the old Anabaptist principle offorbidding the uncommanded."

Two Attitudes There are at least two attitudes toward the word of God that people have. (1) The first is man must doonly what is authorized in the New Testament.

(2) The second is when the New Testament is silent,man is then at liberty to act as he pleases and dowhatever he wants to do in service to God.

Editor Blakely admits that in New Testament days"the apostolic writings have nothing to say whichwould indicate that mechanical instruments were used in Divine worship." Professor Dunning's "great deal of study over the years" did not produce (1) anycommand of God for its use in worship, (2) any record of a New Testament church using such, (3)any evidence that a New Testament Church shoulduse it, or [4) any evidence that anyone knows of aNew Testament church using it.

The argument of these men is this: since God hasnot spoken on the subject of instruments of music inworship, one way or the other, then man is at libertyto use instrumental music in the worship of the NewTestament church. Thus, their argument, if theyhave one, is on the silence of God, not on what God has said. Will they consistently accept their argument?

(1) Angels Are Superior To Jesus. In Hebrews one, Paul makes the argument that Jesus is superior toangels on the basis that God did not say to any angel but did say to Jesus "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee" (Heb. 1:5; Psm. 2:7) and "Iwill be to him a Father and he shall be to me a Son" (Heb. 1:5). If either editor Blakely or Professor Dunning had been present, they would have reasoned onthe silence of God and concluded that angels were superior to Jesus.

(2) Priests of the Tribe of Judah. In Heb. 7:14 Paul is showing that Jesus could not be a priest of the law ofMoses even if he were on earth today for Jesus was of the tribe of Judah "of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning the priesthood." Now if our friends, Blakely and Dunning, were present, theywould have made priests of the tribe of Judah upon thebasis of "nothing" being said.

Finding instrumental music used in the Old Testament is not authority for it in the New Testament church. Incense, circumcision, animalsacrifice was found under the law of Moses. Will our friends bring these into the New Testament church? Ifnot, why? If their argument will permit the instrument,it will also permit animal sacrifice.

Because God said to Christ "Thou art my Son, thisday have I begotten thee," Jesus is superior to angels.Because God said priests were to be of the tribe of Levi(Dt. 10:8) only Levites could be priests. Because Godsaid "sing" in the New Testament, only singing isauthorized (Mt. 26:30; Mk. 14:26; Acts 16:25; I Cor.

14:15: Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16; Heb. 2:12; James 5:13).

Jesus Christ never authorized his church to use instrumental music, no apostle ever taught it, noNew Testament church ever used it, no historian eversaid New Testament churches used it, and no oneevery heard of a New Testament church using it.Read the New Testament all you want and all you will find is "sing."

Can either the editor or the professor be persuadedto discuss these propositions; (I) "New Testamentteaches the church to sing" or (2) "The New Testament teaches the church to use instruments of music." I will affirm the first and deny the second. What will the editor and professor do?

---------------------PREACHERS NEEDED--------------------------FLINT, MICHIGAN — We are in need of a preacher to work with asmall congregation to replace Joel Wilsford who goes to England themiddle of September to work with Phil Morr. We own our own building and can provide partial support with the rest having to beraised elsewhere. Those interested may write or call: Frank Raisin,8412 Birch Run Rd., Millington, Michigan 48746, or call (517) 8714667. BUTLER, ALABAMA — The church in Butler, located in southwest Alabama, is in need of a preacher. The congregation hasan average attendance of 20-25 and is able to fully support a manfor several years. Our twelve year old building is debt free and isvery adequate. Interested individuals should contact either: Don Green. Rt. 1, Butler, AL 36904 (459-3393) or C. Q. Smith, P.O.Box 671, Butler, AL 36904 (459-2122).SPENCER, INDIANA — The church in Spencer needs a full time preacher. Steve Mosely who has been with us has moved to Indianapolis. The church is self-supporting and has elders. Thoseinterested may write the church at P.O. Box 64, Spencer, Indiana orcall Bernard Bucklew at 812-3207. PENSACOLA, FLORIDA — The Myrtle Grove congregation in Pensacola needs a preacher. There are 80-90 members and the church is self-supporting and has elders. If interested contact: KenDavis, 1625 N. Austin, Foley, AL 36535 (205) 943-5754; or, Jardine McKerlie, 16 Fountain Abbey, Pensacola, FL 32506 (904) 455-0508.CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA — The church located at 5327 York Rd., Charlotte, NC 28210, is seeking a preacher to come andwork with us. Those interested may write to the above address.

Definition of Terms Employed

In a meaningful discussion of any controversialsubject, it is essential that the terms used are welldefined. The attention of the reader is thus directed to two words.

1. Paradox: The work, paradox, may be defined as,

1. A statement that is seemingly contradictory. AnExample would be Paul's words to the Corinthians,". . .for when I am weak, then am I strong" (2 Cor.12:10). 2. A person who makes contradictorystatements, or who can be quoted on both sides of acontroverted issue. 3. A position, or a philosophyheld by some one that involves him or her in aninconsistency. An example would be, rejecting a proposition or an explanation of some phenomenon asincredible, and then adopting one that is even lesscredible.
2. Unbelief: The word, unbelief, may be defined asthe rejection of a stated proposition, or of an explanation that is offered for any fact or occurrence.Unbelief parades in many forms, and appears in varying hues and shades. Jesus equated disobediencewith unbelief. "He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life: but he that obeyeth not the Son shall notsee life" (John 3:36). In rebuking the Corinthians forunseemly conduct, Paul said, "But brother goeth tolaw with brother, and that before unbelievers" (1 Cor.6:6). Thus Paul regarded those who are not Christians as unbelievers.

In the famous treatise on faith in the eleventh chapter of Hebrews, the writer said, "And withoutfaith it is impossible to be well pleasing unto him: forhe that cometh to God must believe that he is, andthat he is a rewarder of them that seek after him" (Heb. 11:6). Here is an implied unbelief that rejectsthe existence of God. It is this type of unbelief that Ipropose to discuss in this article and some others tofollow. So when I speak of the paradox of unbelief, I mean justthis, that the unbeliever rejects as incredible the wellsubstantiated position held by the theist that Godis, and that he created all things, and in its placewill adopt an explanation for the beginning of thingsthat is not only without any evidence to prove it, butin spite of evidence to the contrary.

Different Schools of Thought

Among those who refuse to believe in God as thecreator of the universe, there is no completeagreement. About the only thing that they agree onis that God does not exist. On many details they arein obvious disagreement.

One form of unbelief is agnosticism. The agnostic accepts as having existence only such things as are perceptible to the physical senses of seeing, hearing,tasting, smelling, and touching. Since it is obvious,and is admitted, that God cannot be discerned by thenatural senses, the agnostic refuses to accept the factof his existence. He does not go so far as to say thathe knows that there is no God. He merely says thathe does not know there is a God, therefore does notbelieve he exists.

A more aggressive form of unbelief is atheism.Some defining of terms is needed here. The word,theism, is used to designate the philosophy that God exists and is the creator of all things. The word,theist, is used to identify one who believes that Godis. But with the addition of the prefix "a" which is negative in its effect, we have the word, atheism,which designates the school of thought that deniesthe existence of God, and the word, atheist, thatidentifies a person as one who denies the existence ofGod.

The atheist, in denying the existence of God, mustaccount for the existence of the universe and all living creatures on the earth on some other basis,since there can be no denying the fact that theyexist. He may therefore adopt the extreme and illogical hypothesis that all things are the result ofblind chance. That was, in fact, the position adoptedby Mr. Wolsley Teller in his debate with James D.Bales. The proposition affirmed by Mr. Teller was,"Resolved: The Universe is the Product of Non-intelligent Causes." (Bales-Teller debate, Page 5). Mr. Teller was at that time the president of the American Association for the Advancement of Atheism, therefore should have been a capable representative of that school of thought.

There is another brand of atheism that attempts toaccount for the existence of all things by what theycall evolution. But this ascribes to the word evolution a meaning that involves much more than the basicmeaning of the word allows. Basically the wordevolution means development or improvement thattakes place within something, or in a species of livingthings. It does not account for the origin of thatthing, nor does it ever result in one species being transformed into another species.

But the atheist, when he speaks of evolution, thinks of a hypothetical process in which, over billions of years, the universe, without any guiding intelligence, developed from the simple to the complex, and that lower forms of life evolved intohigher and more complex forms. Many think of evolution as the theory that man sprang from the monkey or ape. But that is actually an oversimplification of the theory. For the theory actually begins man's upward climb with the amoebadown in the bed of the sea, and the smallest of allliving creatures. But over billions of years, we are told,this tiny amoeba evolved upward through successive stages of fish, reptile, bird, animal, andape, to finally emerge as man, the highest of allliving creatures. While this theory is more logical thanthat advocated by many atheists, in that it alwayshas things coming from something that existed before, it

Page 16

is nevertheless beset by grave difficulties, as will be pointed out in a later article.

A Defensive Position Not Sufficient

In many cases our approach to the subject of

unbelief has been from the defensive standpoint. In

other words it has been a matter of answering the

arguments of unbelievers, where and when they have

made their attacks on Christianity and the basis on

which it rests. For centuries unbelievers have scoffed

at and sneered at what they call the blind faith of the

theist. They would leave the impression that it

indicates a lack of intelligence. And since the theist

believes that God is a spirit (John 4:24), unbelief has

held Christianity up to ridicule as a superstition

predicated on belief in ghosts which they say

intelligent people have outgrown.

We are grateful that in every generation there have

been capable and fearless men who have successfully

met the attacks of unbelief, wherever and whenever

they have been made. In every such encounter the

evidence on which we base our faith that God is, has

stood the test, and has emerged to shine with even

greater brilliance.But I am persuaded that a defensive posturetoward the attacks of unbelief is not sufficient. No country could prosper very long if it did no morethan defend itself against the attacks of enemies.Many of my readers will remember the last war, andhow it was not until after D day and the invasion of enemy-held territory that the tide of battle turned,and victory for the Allies was finally achieved. In the battle with unbelief it is not sufficient that we be satisfied with a defensive posture, regardless of howbrilliant the defense. If there is to be a real victoryfor Christianity it must come through an offensiveassault against the strongholds of unbelief.

Atheism, Also A System Of Belief

I said earlier that atheism holds Christianity up toridicule because it is admittedly a system of faith.The atheist will ask, can you prove that there is aGod? If by proof, he means something that can bediscerned by the physical senses, then I will have toadmit that I cannot prove God's existence to his satisfaction. And certainly no well-informed believerin God will deny that his conviction is a matter offaith (Heb. 11:1-6). But he is convinced that theevidence on which his conviction that God is, is sufficient to justify such a faith.

But since the atheist ridicules theism because it is essentially a faith, let us ask him this question, Can you prove that there is no God? Whatever his explanation of the beginning of the universe is, he will have to admit that it is not a matter of first hand observation, or that can be demonstrated to the physical senses. If he ascribes the beginning of thingsto spontaneous combustion, he will have to admitthat he was not there to witness the giganticexplosion. If he ascribes the origin of things as theynow are to a process of evolution, he can come no nearer to proving that, for he has not lived themillions and billions of years that he tells us wererequired for things to evolve to their present state. Infact there is nothing that the evolutionist can produce that even begins to prove his theory. On the otherhand there is abundance of evidence that deals a death blow to his speculation. Thus any explanationthat the atheist offers for the origin of the universe,and of life on this earth is in the field of philosophy, and therefore a matter of faith. Seeing then that the Christian accepts the existence of God and that he is the creator of the universe on the basis of faith, and the atheist's explanation is also a matter of faith, the differencebetween the two philosophies boils down to a simplequestion, Which faith is the more reasonable? Which is the easier for the honest mind to accept?

Difficulties In Theism Admitted

Atheist are wont to gloat over difficulties — real, orimaginary — that are encountered by those whoprofess to believe in God. That there are difficultiesno one denies. They are to be expected when men offinite minds endeavor to comprehend the infinite. NoChristian who is well informed will profess to have aperfect understanding of God, nor to explain all thatGod does, and why he does it. To make such a claimwould be extreme presumptuousness. Our contentionis this, that difficulties are not all on the side of Christianity. There are much more serious difficultiesthat face the atheist when he endeavors to account for things without God. His explanation — whether itis that of spontaneous combustion or evolution — involves him in a tangled web of absurdities that no rational mind can accept, andwhich he, himself, would not accept in regard to anyother proposition.

Herein, then, is the paradox of unbelief. It holdstheism up to ridicule because it is a system of faith,albeit a faith that is based on the most convincingevidence. Yet it espouses a philosophy that is essentially faith, yet a faith that has no supportingevidence and persists in spite of evidence to the contrary. Unbelief rejects theism because of difficulties — which are admitted by the believer. Yetit adopts a hypothesis that is fraught with difficulties far greater than any faced by the onewho believes that God is and that he is the creator of all things.

In some articles to follow I propose to deal withsome of the difficulties encountered in the atheist's philosophy as to the beginning of things, which willreveal that it is a tangled web of absurdities andinconsistencies that expose its paradoxical nature.

The New Testament Book by Book

By Roy E. Cogdill. A preacher of over fiftyyears, Brother Cogdill has tried to give anintroduction to each book of the New Testament, covering, author, date, addressees,purposes of writing and outlining each book.For home or class use. Paper $3.00, cloth $4.50.

Order From: Religious Supply Center

____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Page 17

JADY W. COPELAND, 2510 Lakeland Hills Blvd., Lakeland, Florida 33801 — I seldom report to papers, but since I have moved to Florida, I will at least give my change of address and report briefly on the work in Fayetteville, Arkansas. We spent five years in Fayetteville, Arkansas after 15 years in California. Fayetteville is where the main campus of University of Arkansasis located, and progress was made in contacting students coming to the University and providing for them a class and spiritualguidance while there. Most of the young people who are"Christians" coming to the University drop away, but we had afine group there the past two years. Steve Cawthon of Murfreesboro, Tennessee is now working with the Old Wire Roadchurch there and will be a great asset to the work. A goodly number of young married couples came to Fayetteville the lasttwo years we were there, and attendance is now approaching 100,with an average of about 80 the last six months we were there. Weare now enjoying the work with the Lakeland Hills church whereFerrell Jenkins did such a fine work for 10 years. Come by and seeus when in central Florida. MICHAEL HARDIN, 3433 Studebaker Road, Long Beach,California 90808 — After five prosperous and successful years withthe Greencastle, Indiana congregation, we have moved to work with the Studebaker Road congregation in Long Beach, California.The brethren in Greencastle have been very cooperative and enthusiastic for the work of the Lord. We have conducted a dailyradio program and a weekly newspaper article from which we haveseen growth in both the congregation and the community. The church also conducted an active group visiting program fromwhich we have seen good participation and spiritual growth. Thecongregation has continued to grow spiritually, numerically andfinancially during the last five years. They are a powerful influence for the cause of Christ in central Indiana. They are at present the only sound church in Putnam County. I commend them to you for their love for the truth and their service to God.They have recently selected two outstanding men to serve as elders. John McCort of Indianapolis, Indiana has moved to work with them. TRUMAN SMITH, 901 Kilgore Dr., Henderson, Texas 75652 — Ihave resigned my work with the Greens Bayou congregation inHouston, Texas after seven years of service with them. I beganwork with the Highway 79 church in Henderson, Texas on August5, 1979. Bulletin exchanges please take note of the new addressabove. My old address was 12402 Mylla, Houston, TX 77015.LARRY R. DEVORE, 1839 Burbank Rd., Wooster, Ohio 44691

— Ken Cooper of Medina, Ohio held a gospel meeting here April 29-May 4. One was baptized and two restored since the meeting.Our VBS was conducted June 25-29. We are praying that thehealth of Jesse and Mary Wiseman will be such that brotherWiseman can conduct a gospel meeting for us this fall.FRANK JAMERSON, 111 Guilford St., Dothan, Alabama 36301 — After seven years in Dothan Joe Corley is moving to Chances Crossroads in Cullman, Alabama. I moved to Dothan after six and a half years at Rose Hill in Columbus, Georgia.Jerry Accettura, who spent five years with Rivermont church,near Hopewell, Virginia, has moved to Rose Hill.

TV COMMERCIALS EFFECTIVE GREG LITMER, 419 W. Wyoming Avenue, Cincinnati, Ohio 45215 — We want to inform the brethren about a project we areinvolved with at the Lockland congregation which others might also find useful. In May of this year we produced a 30 secondtelevision commercial offering a free Bible Correspondence Course.The commercial ran six days a week throughout the month ofMay at random times from 10 A.M. to 3 P.M. We purchasedrandom time because it was cheaper. The six spots cost $150 aweek, while the actual production of the commercial cost us $60.00using the television station's studios. So we were able to make the commercial, which we now own, and purchase 24 spots for $660.00.

The results were fantastic. A total of 205 requested the Correspondence Course out of which about 60 have remainedactively involved. Of those who did not remain actively involvedfive have consented to in-the-home Bible studies conducted bymyself or one of the other men in the congregation. We still haveover 90 of these left to visit. Not only has Lockland receivedmany contacts from these commercials but so have other congregations in the Tri-State area. Classes have been set up asfar away as Dayton, Ohio as a result of these commercials.

In the past Lockland has mailed out as many as 20,000 piecesof literature at one time offering a free Correspondence Course butthe results were never 1/4 what they have been with the television commercials and the commercials were far leas expensive. Since we own the commercial, we can use it againany time we so desire. May I suggest that if you live in a community that has an independently owned and operated station,one that is not a network affiliate, this would be the station todeal with. That is what we did and the difference in cost was tremendous. For further information contact me at the above address. DARREL HAUB, 903 Clarkdale Drive, Muncie, Indiana 47304

— After nearly five years with the Memorial Drive church inNew Castle, Indiana, I have moved to Muncie to work with theNorth Broadway church. We leave the New Castle church at peace and self supporting with a very good potential for thefuture. The North Broadway church in Muncie has recently sold their meeting house and has purchased a commodious church building near the Ball State University campus. The address ofthis meeting place is at the corner of Gilbert and Calvert Streets,two blocks east of the Ball State Student Center. We occupiedthis building August 1. Since many students come to Ball Statewithout knowing of this sound church in the area, we hope all who read this will help to spread the word. Please contact us about those in the area we might be able to help concerning theirSouls. My phone number is (317) 288-5617.RALPH BROUSSARD, 217 S. First Ave., Paden City, WestVirginia 26159 — Our work here is off to an encouraging start.Four have been restored and 3 baptized the first month. Thechurch is at peace and has a mind to work. Enthusiasm is runninghigh and we look forward to a very rewarding work here. A few weeks ago, six other young preachers and myself went to Haiti topreach the gospel. The fields were white and our work rewarding.Not only were we able to help others, but we learned quite a lotourselves. W. P. RISENER, Route 1. Box 285F-1, Alto, Texas 75925 — About September 1, I am to begin work in the furtherance of thegospel with the friendly and faithful Christians in Sheldon,Missouri. Brethren, please pray for us as we work together for theLord.

THAYER STREET SPEAKERS

The lectures at Thayer Street in Akron, Ohio will be conducted September 17-20 with the following speakers and subjects: 1st Morning period, "Imputed Righteousness, Gospel and Doctrine —

H. E. Phillips, Tampa, Florida; 2nd Morning Period, "Mothers of the Bible" — Steve Kearney, Dublin, Ireland; 1st Afternoon Period, Congregational Singing — Jay Guyer, Massachusetts; 2ndAfternoon Period, "Prophecies and Their Fulfillment in Christ" — Ray Ferris, Rockford, Illinois; 1st Evening Period, "Man's Work"

—Leslie Diestelkamp, Palatine, Illinois; 2nd Evening Period, "Divorce and Remarriage" — Weldon E. Warnock, Akron, Ohio.

CRESCENT PARK LECTURESHIP

The 4th annual Crescent Park Lectureship in Odessa, Texas willbe conducted November 4-8, 1979. The church meets at 1415 Royalty Ave., Odessa, Texas 79761. Robert L. McDonald is thepreacher. Speakers and subjects are as follows:

Sunday, November 4

9:00 A.M. — Bible Study; 10:00 A.M. — "Preaching Christ"

— Harold Fite, Lubbock, Texas; 7:30 P.M., Congregational Singing;

Page 18

8:00 P.M., "Preaching Christ: The Son of God" — Robert A. Bolton, Dallas, Texas.

Monday, November 5

7:30 P.M. — Congregational Singing; 8:00 P.M., "Preaching Christ: As King" — Connie W. Adams, Louisville, Kentucky.

Tuesday, November 6

9:30 A.M., "Cultism: Influence and Damnation" — J. M. Gilpatrick, Hereford, Texas; 10:20 A.M., "Divorce and Remarriage: Moyer Position" — Robert A. Bolton, Dallas, Texas;

11:10 A.M., "Cultism: Scientology" — Leon Odom, Midland, Texas; 2:30 P.M., "Highlights of 1, 2, 3, John" — Robert L. Craig, Killeen, Texas; 7:30 P.M., Congregational Singing; 8:00 P.M., "Preaching Christ: As High Priest" — Harold Fite, Lubbock, Texas.

Wednesday, November 7

9:30 A.M., "Cultism: Astrology" — Tom Roberts, Fort Worth,Texas; 10:20 A.M., "Divorce and Remarriage: Fuqua Position" — Connie W. Adams, Louisville, Kentucky; 11:00 A.M., "Cultism: Influence and Damnation" — J. M. Gillpatrick, Hereford, Texas; 2:30P.M., "Highlights of 1, 2, 3, John" — Robert L. Craig, Killeen, Texas; 7:30 P.M., Congregational Singing; 8:30 P.M., "Preaching Christ: Saviour, The Lamb of God" — Robert A. Bolton, Dallas, Texas.

Thursday, November 8

9:30 A.M., "Cultism: Scientology" — Leon Odom, Midland, Texas;

10:20 A.M., "Divorce and Remarriage: As Approved by God" — Harold Fite, Lubbock, Texas; 11:10 A.M., "Cultism: Astrology" — Tom Roberts, Fort Worth, Texas; 2:30 P.M., "Highlights of 1, 2, 3, John" — Robert L. Craig, Killeen, Texas; 7:30 P.M., Congregational Singing; 8: P.M., "Preaching Christ: His SecondComing" — Connie W. Adams, Louisville, Kentucky.

CONNIE W. ADAMS, P.O. Box 68, Brooks, KY 40109 —Through August of this year it has been my privilege to preachthe gospel in meetings in the following places: In March, I waswith the good Chapman Acres church in Huntsville, Alabama where A.C. Grider is local preacher. One was restored and goodinterest and attendance prevailed. A. C. Grider has published a book called "A. C. Grider's Reminiscences." It sells for $3 and contains a few radio sermons, debate notes and numerous incidents (many of which are humorous) from the life and work ofthis unique preacher of the gospel. I wouldn't be without it. Howabout you? You may order it from him at 2137 Penhall Dr., N.E.,Huntsville, AL 35811 . . . Also in March I spoke 15 times for theDouglas Hills church in Louisville where Jamie Sloan has donesuch a good work. One was restored and good interest prevailed.

In April I was with Lexington Road church in Danville, Kentucky where Royce Chandler has done a very effective workfor the past 7 years. He has now moved to Franklin Rd. in Nashville,Tennessee and is followed in Danville by Steve Wolfgang, with whom we have enjoyed such a pleasant working relationship at Expressway in Louisville. Three were baptized in the Danville meeting. It was a privilege to spend about 8 hours of study with the 12 young men who are studying in the preacher trainingprogram there............Also, in April I was with the Pine Hillschurch in Orlando, Florida where we had spent three good yearsfrom 1962-1965. One was restored during the meeting and there

were several baptisms and restorations right afterward. Jere Frost has

been with this congregation since 1965. Vic McCormick has now

moved to Orlando to work at Pine Hills.

In May, I was in my second meeting at Hazelwood, Missouri

where Ben Shropshire is the preacher. Here I spoke 13 times. T h r ee

were res tored . . . . The las t of May found me atJamestown, Kentucky

in a good meeting where Edgar C. Walker is now the preacher. This

congregation took a stand for the truth several years ago and is

making good progress. There is excellent potential there. Many

vacation in that area on or near Lake Cumberland and some have

been under the impression that the church there is yet liberal. I

assure you it is not. Ed Walker is doing a good work there. One was

baptized in the meeting and two restored.

In June, I conducted my second meeting at 46th St. in ForthSmith, Arkansas. Harold Hancock is the respected preacher there.Good attendance prevailed and two were restored . . . Also in June I worked with the church at Etna (south of Ozark), Arkansaswhere Charles Morton is the preacher. One was baptized. We sat outchairs the last three nights to accommodate overflow crowds, Etna is an unusually fine rural congregation. If you think rural churchesare all dead, you ought to visit Etna.

July found me in my second meeting at MacDale, West Virginia. This is just west of Morgantown. Again, I made my home with the Kelly Wilsons. These godly folks have kept countless preachers in their home over the years. It is always a great delight to be with them. . . . Later in July I was with the church at Greencastle, Indiana where Mike Hardin did excellent work for the last five years. John McCort has now moved to workwith them. The church is served by two good elders. Advance work for the meeting brought out a number of community visitors.

In August I was in my third meeting at Martinsville, Virginiawhere Mike Johnson is the preacher.

In September I am to be at Westvue in Murfreesboro,Tennessee and at Evendale in Cincinnati, Ohio. In October meetingsare set at Brooksville and Palmetto in Florida. In November I am to speak three times on the lectures at Odessa, Texas and am to conduct meetings in Las Vegas, Nevada (N. Charleston Heights)and at Bald Knob, Arkansas.

Several health problems forced me to cancel 7 meetings I hadset for this year. The same will probably have to be done for thenext year or so. This has been difficult for me to do since I havenot been in the habit of canceling meetings once they are set. Wehope all those involved will be understanding.

Health problems have continued to plague H. E. and PollyPhillips. In June Polly Phillips had a malignant tumor successfullyremoved. She is now making good recovery. Because of the press offamily sickness plus his own health problems brother Phillips has notbeen able to have his regular column in the paper for the past two orthree months. His material for the August special issue was prepared under great stress. We ask our readers to keep them in your prayers.

IN THE NEWS THIS MONTH BAPTISMS 248 RESTORATIONS 85 (Taken from bulletins and papers received by the editor)