XXIV OCTOBER, 1983 NUMBER 10

THE "JESUS ONLY" DOCTRINE NO. 2

Those people who believe and teach that Jesus is the one and only God: the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, all in one person, have many problems with passages theycannot explain with any sense at all. They must do morethan twist the normal use of words; they must ignore the many verses that speak of the relationship of Jesus Christ to the Father and the Holy Spirit. I want to present just a few of the arguments that cannot be answered by those who hold to the "Jesus Only"doctrine. If one has an explanation that he thinks will prove the position, I would like to hear from him.

First, the terms that express the relationship of Jesus to the Father clearly prove that they are two Beings of deity, but one in nature, purpose and work. The very terms "Father" and "Son" establish beyond question that two persons must be involved. In fact, either termis meaningless if there are not at least two personsunderstood.

I once heard a Holiness preacher in a debate explain the "Father-Son" relationship by saying that he wasboth a "father" and a "son" and yet he was just oneperson. He failed to see that as a "father" he had a relationship to another person. He certainly was not his own father! As a "son" he had a relationship to some one other than the one to whom he was related as a father. When he declared himself a "father" and a "son" at the same time, he necessarily spoke of three persons: himself, his son or daughter and his father. He could not escape that fact to save his life. No man can be his own father or son; another person must be involved.

That well known passage in John 3:16 does not make

sense if there is just one person in the Godhead. "For

God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten

Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish,

but have everlasting life." One Person loved and gave,

and another Person came and died for sins.

Jesus gave some differences between himself and his

Father. He said his Father was greater than he. "If ye

loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the

Father: for my Father is greater than I" (John 14:28b).

Of his second coming Jesus said, "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father" (Mark 13:32), Surely no one would say that Jesus is sayingthat he does not know, but he does know. Yet this is theway it would have to be if the "Jesus Only" doctrine be true. They have a real problem with passages such asthese.

The Pharisees denied the record that Jesus gave ofhimself and said it was not true. Now imagine Jesusbefore these unbelievers who had just rejected his word, and he is going to convince them by using proof that necessarily implies at least TWO persons, when in fact he is the only Person in the Godhead if this doctrine be true. He either had to lie about the matter, or these"Jesus Only" advocates are wrong. "Let God be true, and every man a liar" (Rom. 3:4). God cannot lie (Titus 1:2).

"The Pharisees therefore said unto him, Thou bearest record of thyself; thy record is not true. Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came,and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go. Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man. And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me" (John 8:13-16).

These unbelieving Jews said, Your testimony of yourself is not true. Jesus replied, My testimony is true. But what is his proof to these Jews? ".., for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me." "I am notalone" is the strongest affirmative that Jesus is not the only witness, and he says the other witness is the Father. But for further proof Jesus goes to the law ofMoses

(Deut. 17:6) where the death penalty must be administered only upon the testimony of TWO or THREE witnesses; not upon just one. In fact, "Onewitness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established" (Deut. 19:15).

I wonder if anyone would contend that the "two" or "three" witnesses of Deut. 17:6 and 19:15 could be the same person giving testimony upon different occasions? The "Jesus Only" advocates claim thatJesus was manifested as the Father upon one occasion, and as the Son upon another. This would have the samePerson testifying upon different occasions rather than two Persons bearing witness to the same fact.

In the New Testament Jesus gave the sameinstructions concerning differences between brethren. He said, "Moreover if thy brother trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and himalone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established" (Matt. 18:15,16).

Why did he say take one or two, that in the mouth oftwo or three witnesses every word may be established? This could not be true unless the person taking thewitnesses served as one witness. By taking one or two he could have two or three witnesses, including himself.

Now back to John 8. Jesus said, "I am not alone, but Iand the Father that sent me. It is also written in yourlaw, that the testimony of two men is true" (8:17). The testimony of TWO men would have to include more than ONE person! Now hear Jesus' application of this reference to the law: "I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me" (vs. 18). He is offering proof that his testimony is true by appealing to the law that said, "the testimony of two men is true." Then he said, "I am one that bear witness" and "the Father that sent me beareth witness" and that makes TWO witnesses, thus meeting therequirements of the law of Moses to establish a fact.

The "Jesus Only" folk cannot make sense of this argument of Jesus to the unbelieving Pharisees without admitting that Jesus and his Father are TWO Persons, thus TWO witnesses; otherwise Christ would be perverting this part of the law.

In John 5:31-37 Jesus again speaks of two witnesses. According to the law, "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true." Everything must be established in the mouth of two or three witnesses. "And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape."

Those who preach the "Jesus Only" doctrine cannotexplain these verses with sense and hold to their position. The very point made by Jesus is that TWOpersons must testify, and he said he was one and theFather the other. It follows that the Father and the Son are not the same Person. Each is a divine Being in theGodhead as is the Holy Spirit.

HUMANISM AND HUMAN LIFE

Humanism purports to "provide the purpose and inspiration that so many seek; it can give personalmeaning and significance to human life." (HUMANIST MANIFESTO II, p. 15). That soundsgood and leaves the impression that humanism promotes what is best for human life. Yet those who are in the vanguard of humanistic causes have promoted abortion on demand, set the stage for euthanasia (mercy killing) and contributed to the alarming increase in the suicide rate. Any such high sounding statement as that with which this articlebegan, must be considered in light of the following background principles all of which are quoted from HUMANIST MANIFESTO II:

"Ethics is autonomous and situational." (p. 17).

"Although science can account for the causes of

behaviour, the possibilities of individual freedom

of choice exist in human life and should be

increased." (p. 18).

"The right to ... abortion ... should be

recognized." (p. 18).

"To enhance freedom and dignity the individual

must experience a full range of civil liberties in all

societies... It also includes a recognition of an

individual's right to die with dignity, euthanasia,

and the right to suicide." (p. 19).

Now, place these statements against a backgroundof atheism, situation ethics, values clarification, with no divine standard to direct human life, and you havethe stage set for current practices of abortion on demand, euthanasia and suicide. Human life becomes not nearly so dear in the humanist program as theywould have us believe. Consider the contrast in Biblical teaching as opposed to humanism touching the subjects of abortion, euthanasia and suicide.

Abortion

The Bible teaches that human life begins at conception. "Let the day perish wherein I was born, and the night in which it was said, There is a manchild conceived" (Job 3:3). The mother of our Lord was found "with child" (not with fetus) and what was conceived in her was called a "child" before it was brought forth (Matt. 1:18, 23). When Elizabeth was told by Mary of the impending birth of Jesus, "the babe leaped in her womb" (Lk. 1:41). John the Baptist was a "babe" before his birth. Paul told the Athenians that God is the giver of "life and breath and all things"(Acts 17:25). Compare

that with the assurance of the Psalmist "For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in mymother's womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well" (Psa. 139:13-14). I charge that the practice of abortion on demand violates the very principle of "natural affection" and is "unmerciful" placing those guilty in the unpleasantcompany of those listed in Rom. 1:31 and 2 Tim. 3:3.

What is the present situation? Since the January 22, 1973 ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court, makingabortion on demand legal, there have now been over 9 million known legal abortions. It is one of the most common surgical "procedures" in America today. That phrase sound so much nicer than "the slaughterof the innocents" or "infanticide." And we all thoughtHerod was a heartless wretch in his ordering of thekilling of the babes in Bethlehem which left "Rachel weeping for her children!" The present practice is a far cry from the past dilemma of reputable physicians who agonized in cases where a mother's life was in danger. Therapeutic abortions now run something like one inevery 1,000 cases. That means that 999 times out of1,000 this "termination of pregnancy" results from a woman's choice not to bear her own child.

The defense for this has been that "a woman has a right to control her own body." That right of controlshould be extended to the practice of "fleeing fornication." That is the simple preventive for pregnancy out of wedlock. With very few exceptions where rape may have been involved, pregnancy resultsfrom personal choices of two individuals. The Humanist remedy is to provide more sex education. Just pour more gasoline on the fire! Nonsense! Let usteach the young to "flee fornication" (I Cor. 6:18-20),to "flee youthful lusts" (2 Tim. 2:22), and "Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man havehis own wife and let every woman have her own husband" (1 Cor. 7:2). For good measure let us teachthat "marriage is honorable in all and the bed undefiled; but whoremongers and adulterers God willjudge" (Heb. 13:4).

I have difficulty understanding the logic of the samehumanists protesting wars and capital punishmentwhile stridently advocating abortion on demand. In the last eleven years we have allowed the deaths of over 9 million defenseless victims, more than all the deaths from all the wars in which we have ever engaged. Theannual abortion rate is now one-fourth of total pregnancies. In our nation's capitol, abortions outnumber births.

Who has abortions? A few fear abnormal children. More than half are childless, with 2/3 of them between the ages of 15 and 24 and 3/4 of these are UNMARRIED. AND MOST OF THESE GROW OUT OF FORNICATION. The most basic form of birth control starts with the simple word "no." Yet our statesare spending $55,000,000 a year to subsidize abortions. A substance is now being tested for women to use to give themselves an abortion and some experts say it will be sold over the counter within ten years. But then, this is supposed to be the age of progress!

I certainly am glad my mother did not have an abortion and I am even happier that Mary, the motherof Jesus, did not decide to have one.

Euthanasia

This is the practice of killing the weak, the hopelesslysick or injured or the unproductive as an act of "mercy". Many families have agonized over whether to remove support systems which force heartbeats and recycle blood when all natural systems have failed and whenthe brain is already dead. But here we are talking about the right of others to decide to end a life for reasons of "mercy." School textbooks are already in place and being used in some parts of the country to lay the groundwork for this practice. In SONGS AND STORIES OF THE NETSILIK ESKIMOS (Student Edition, 44) and in NETSILIK ESKIMOS ON SEA ICE (Teacher's Manual, 21) students in grade 5Social Studies are taught about how to handle theproblem of old people. It is suggested that they roleplay what to do about them.

At this point we need to consider the standards of those who decide what is merciful. Is human life sacred? Is it a gift of God? Is it to be spared to the best of our knowledge and ability? Some have argued for abortion as a defense against a population explosion. Then why not euthanasia for the same reason? If evolution is true, and we only have the survival of the fittest, then why not just get rid of all the aged, the sickly, thehandicapped who cannot be productive so that the"quality of life" for all the rest will be improved? That is what some believe. One of the values clarification strategies is called "The Bomb Shelter" in which students must decide on who gets to live and who mustdie for the good of all the rest.

My father-in-law, who died in April of this year was a bedfast invalid for 18 years. He could not wait on himself and had to have someone with him always. This greatly restricted my mother-in-law who lovinglyand patiently cared for him at home all that time(with increasing help of my wife during the last few years). Never in those years did she considerobtaining a divorce so she might be free. Her attitude was "he is my husband." She had made promises and kept them until death parted them. Now what good came out of all that? His mind was badly impaired. Hiseyesight failed. He was totally dependent on her orothers for his care. Well, plenty of good came out of it. It proved that love is stronger than disease. It proved that marriage vows can be kept even under the most severe trials. It proved the nobility and resiliency of the human spirit in adjusting to meet the needs of one who needed care and, more than that, love. It proved thatlove is more than physical passion. It brought out the best in friends and neighbors who found delight instepping in to do things, both small and great, just tolend a hand. It set a wonderful precedent for the only daughter (my wife) and for all who knew of the situation. It showed the power of the truth of thegospel to conquer selfishness and to "esteem otherbetter" than self. I learned more of the practical side ofthe religion of our Lord from the 18 years of my father-in-law's total dependency than I did from my

years of acquaintance with him prior to that time. What good are all the aged, infirm and helpless? Why they provide the occasion for the upright to demonstrate what love, compassion, devotion and commitment areall about.

Mark it well, readers, you are going to hear more and more about euthanasia as time passes. The ground work is already laid. Humanist educators are already at work on it and we will be hearing more and more legal decisions touching the issue. Don't be asleep.

Suicide

If the Humanists are right in saying that freedom of choice gives women the right to end a life other than their own, and this same freedom of choice extends to ending the life of others out of "mercy", then it standsto reason that "power over one's own body" extends tothe right to suicide. Indeed, that is stated in HUMANIST MANIFESTO II as quoted at the first of this article. Suicide is now so common among high school and college aged youth that it is sometimescalled the "cap and gown disease." It is the numbertwo killer of young people and the number one killer of those in the 18-24 year group.

Death education is now part of the humanist packagebeing offered to more and more school children. "The Experience of Dying... the individual experiences acosmic consciousness, characterized by a sense of unity with other people, nature, and the universe; a feeling of being outside time and space; and extraordinary feelings of contentment and ecstasy." (Student'sEdition, p. 530 LIFE AND HEALTH, Random House,

C. 1980, Grades 9-10 Health). One of the values clarification strategies offered involves a discussion ofsuicide and the best methods.

There are seven cases of suicide in the Bible, all involving people caught up in sins which overpowered them. Nowhere was their action approved by God. The account of their deaths simply points up the tragedy ofsinful, rebellious lives. Suicide is murder and therefore comes under the ban of Rom. 13:9 and Matt. 19:18. People commit suicide for several reasons. Some do not believe in a hereafter and think dying is better than living. Some think it is heroic and want to be remembered as a martyr to some cause. Some see this as a means of escaping personal responsibility andobtaining the ultimate "freedom." The anxieties and cares of this world get the best of some. Some want to be united with a loved one. That involves two questions: Which way did he go? and Which way will I go after taking my own life? Some are deceived by false teachers. Remember the Jonestown, Guyana massacre?

There is no reason for a faithful child of God to even want to take his life. He has a reason for living. He has grace sufficient to all his needs. His life is of value to others as an example of godliness. He may not knowwhy some things happen, but he knows who rules the universe, knows his origin, purpose and destiny. Therewas a near case of suicide in Acts 16 when the Philip-pian jailer in despair was about to take his life, assuming that his prisoners had escaped. Paul stopped him, taught him the gospel and to all his house,converted

them to the Lord and changed their lives for good.

Humanists have much to say about the "quality ofhuman life" but when the facts are known, theirphilosophy leads to a gross disregard for life. Instead of enhancing life, it starts with no answers except evolutionary guesses, goes through life with no standard except what gratifies the individual and plunges into eternity with no hope and no preparation to meet the God they have denied all their lives. In contrast, the Christian views life as a creation from God having divine purpose. He sees it as a sacred trust forwhich he shall give account. He honors motherhood, reaches out in compassion to the innocent, the weak, sick, aged and infirm and lives with dignity and richness of meaning. Then he dies in hope of the resurrection.Humanism takes from us the true bread of life, robs usof the water of life, reduces life to a meaningless journey through a barren wasteland of dreary existence, and then tells us that when it gets to be toomuch for us, we can then just take our lives and end itall. And this is supposed to be the epitome of progress and intellectual advancement and to satisfythe yearnings of the human heart! Those who preachthis tomfoolery in the name of education demand the exclusive right to the minds of our children and havetheir legal arm to sue us in the courts before judgeswho have been brainwashed with the same mental poison. There is great power in both righteous livingand righteous indignation and we believe there is aplace for both expressions.

"WORKING FUNDS"—NO. 2

The reader is referred to last month's article under the above heading. The former article pointed out two primary issues involved in a study of this subject, namely, what is included in the "wages" or "living"provided a preacher and the matter of congregationalautonomy. This article deals with the latter.

Working Funds

Most preachers work out of a fund (the treasury) provided by the church where they labor. This they doas they prepare lesson materials, publish a bulletin, distribute tracts, preach on the radio, etc. They may even make use of a charge account of the church. In allsuch they are amenable to the church and act within the frame of authorization by the church. Surely, no onewould call this practice in question—at home or abroad.

Whether the preacher worked out of such a fundprovided by the church where he labors or by one far removed, would not alter the scripturalness of the practice. The preacher might even work out of more than one such fund as he worked with three or four churches in a given area, alternating pulpits from Sunday to Sunday. Such practice is not uncommon.

Unless this practice be called in question, it follows that a preacher overseas (or in any distant place) might work out of more than one "Working Fund" provided by more than one church, provided that he, like the preacher at home, worked within the frame of authorization of the respective churches.

The issue arises when a plurality of churches pool their funds for such purposes. The issue then becomes one of centralized control or congregational autonomy. When a plurality of churches provide a preacher a "living" while he preaches (See article No. 1) such becomes his own and for its use he is amenable to no one. However, when churches provide a fund above "wages" or a "living" out of which a preacher works,such is not his own and for its use he is amenable to the churches. Furthermore, when a plurality of churches pool their money there is centralized control. There is involved the matter of arranging for the "Working Fund," formulating and making known itspurposes, soliciting funds for it, as well as oversight inseeing that it is used accordingly. This requires coordination of efforts and money. There simplycannot be coordination without a coordinator, hence,centralized control. And, brethren, such control hasnot been provided for in the Scriptures!

Autonomy

Furthermore, such control destroys congregational autonomy. There are many in the realm of religion— both in and out of the church—who affirm faith in congregational autonomy, but who deny it in practice. This is a clear indication that some do not understand fully what congregational autonomy means or involves.

The noun "autonomy" is defined by Webster to mean:"Quality or state of being autonomous; right of self-government; a self-governing state." The adjective "autonomous" is defined by the same authority:"Independent in government, self-governing; also, without outside control." "Congregational autonomy,"therefore, means that each church manages its ownaffairs under the authority of Christ; that each church is free of "outside control" in the whole of its activities.

When two or more churches pool their resources to

establish a "Working Fund" they thereby surrender

control. To see that this is true, one has only to answer

the question: Who has control of such funds? Is it one of

the churches involved? Would not this be the

"Sponsoring Church" arrangement? Would we not all

oppose such funds being under the control of a board, an

eldership, or even one man? Yet, what other kind of

control can there be when two or more churches pool their

funds for any purpose?

It does not meet the issue to say that each church involved voluntarily contributes into the working fundaccording to its own decision. Autonomy is still surrendered whether it be done voluntarily, bycoercion, or otherwise.

I recently heard a preacher on the radio of anIndependent Baptist Church oppose membership in theBaptist Association upon the grounds of such violating congregational autonomy. He was dealing with the argument of voluntary action and the freedom of eachchurch to make its own decision—Missionary Baptists to the contrary notwithstanding. Those of the Christian Church have long since denied that the American Christian Missionary Society violates congregational autonomy by making the same argument on voluntary action. Liberal brethren have also denied that the sponsoring church arrangement violates the autonomyof churches by making the very same argument. All need to learn that autonomy can be and often issurrendered voluntarily.

Again, it does not meet the issue to say that there is mutual understanding and agreement on the part of all involved concerning the use of such funds. There is still control of such funds—somewhere. It is folly to talk ofmutual control. In the "Sponsoring Church" arrangement, there is mutual understanding and agreement with respect to the funds involved. Nevertheless, there is one church in control. In the "Campaigns For Christ," there is mutual agreementconcerning the use of resources, nevertheless, onechurch controls the funds, efforts, and individuals ofthe different churches involved. I say, again, that no provision has been made for such centralized control inthe Scriptures!

When contributions were sent from Galatia,Macedonia, and Achaia for the "poor saints in Jerusalem"

(Rom. 15:25, 26; 1 Cor. 16:1, 2; 2 Cor. 8:1-4; 9:1-5) eachchurch selected its own messenger and maintained control over its own funds until the object of charity was reached, namely, the Jerusalem church (1 Cor. 16:3; 2 Cor. 8:16-23). In the New Testament thechurches in all of their work respected and maintained

congregational autonomy. Today

Today there are preachers overseas and in difficult fields who are limited in what they can do, because they do not have a fund provided by some church out of which they may work as do preachers at home workingwith a local church. Churches need to realize that there is more work to be done than just providing a preacher a "living." However, in providing for such work let each church behold the need, provide the funds, establish the frame of authority within which the preacher works, and then maintain control over its funds as it carries on its work autonomously. If more funds are needed thanone church can provide, let another church behold the field "white already to harvest" and do the same thing thereby maintaining its autonomy in accomplishing the work.

Remember, it is this principle of congregational autonomy that precludes centralized control, apostasy, or digression in the realm of church organization and work. It is our wall of protection.

CATHOLICS CAN'T SING

Mr. George W. Cornell, religion writer for theAssociated Press, wrote an article recently under the heading, "Catholic congregations are 'feeble' onsinging." He said:

"Congregational singing, once generally absent from Roman Catholic worship, now is a standard part of it, but a church music expert says it's 'sadly feeble' in most American parishes.

"To a large extent, it 'remains a dismal experience,' says Thomas Day, head of the music department at Salve Regina College in Newport, R. I. He adds that most congregations just don't put their hearts—and voices—into it.

"He says the unresponsive congregations create a'strangely surrealistic impression—the assembled worshippers, mostly silent and not participating, despite the amplified exertions of a 'song leader,' leading virtually no one.

"Such a scene doesn't belong 'in the liturgy but in the theater of the absurd,' Day writes in the nationalCatholic magazine, America, published by the Jesuit order. 'Over the years this surrealism will cause enormous damage.'

"He says the 'tepid congregational singing' has various causes, but the basic problem is an engrainedcultural streak, and it can't be resolved by artificially imposed techniques.

"A big push was given to active congregationalparticipation in the liturgy, including singing, in the reforms launched 20 years ago by the Second Vatican Council, but Day says 'solid singing' has not yet taken root.

"He says there are exceptions—parishes where 'singing thrives'—but that in most cases it remains hesitant and strained.

"It is endured like some 'foreign intrusion,' he writes. 'It is so sad to watch these parishes go through themotions.' He says they greatly want the 'benefits of liturgical renewal' but haven't managed to bring hearty singing into it.

"To. understand their reserve, he says it's important to remember that before the modern reforms, 'the silentMass, untouched by a note of music,' was the common feature of most American Catholic worship.

"This was the mark of their distinction,' Day says, and it's 'still deeply embedded in American Catholic culture.' He says the attitude was that 'any music dur

ing the liturgy, with the exotic exception of the High

Mass,' was considered 'dangerously close to

blasphemy.'

"He says that 'now, of course, most Catholics would

concede there should be a little music here and there in a

liturgy to brighten things up, but anyone with a child's

power of observation can see that this same music is

handled with tongs, as if it were radioactive.'

"For one thing, he says, congregations now offer a

'crazy quilt pattern of borrowed tunes and bland

melodies,' many of them taken from the Protestant

musical heritage and without roots in American

Catholic culture.

"In contrast, he says that in German and Austrian

Catholic churches, as in Protestant churches most

anywhere, hymns begin 'with a surge of power that

the people in the pews can almost feel'."

We don't have the solutions to all problems among

our Catholic friends, but we think we know the cause of

their problem in singing—a lack of practice.

History confirms that mechanical instruments of music were introduced into worship in the Catholic Church in about A.D. 670, but not in general use until some 600 years later. Thomas Aquinas, A.D. 1250, said, "Our Church does not use musical instruments, asharps and psalteries, to praise God withal, that shemay not seem to Judaize." But our point is: with the introduction of instrumental music Catholics began to rely more and more on all kinds of musical instruments and programs in their worship, and therefore there was little if any singing.

If Catholics are returning to vocal music as the New Testament authorizes (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16; Heb. 2:12), they are to be commended, but it will take time for themto learn to sing as Christians have been doing forhundreds of years.

But, as little as some may have thought about it, may we suggest that the Catholic people are out of practice on many other things.

They are out of practice in worshipping the unseenGod without some tangible object to see or hold, such as a statue, crucifix or beads.

They are out of practice in praying to God through Christ as the one mediator, for they have been taught to pray to Mary. Rather than praying "in the name of Christ," they have heard "Hail Mary."

They are out of practice in taking the Lord's supperfor themselves, because that (at least in part) has been done only by the clergy.

They are out of practice in submitting to baptism on their own initiative and conviction. It is highly possible that more than half of all Catholics in the world did not know when they were baptized (?). The decision was made for them by someone else while they were infantsor small children.

They are out of practice in thinking for themselves, for they have been taught to trust the pope'sinfallibility and follow their clergy and creeds.

This could go on and on, but we say in closing that werejoice to see people returning to any scriptural practice even if they have to learn the hard way that "practice makes perfect."

We must admit, in all honesty, that some among uscannot sing for the same reason many Catholics can't. They seem to think they can sit and look in the song book or stare at the leader and please the Lord. It isn'tenough that the congregation is singing or engaging in any other act of worship. While we are to worship together and in fellowship, we participate in every act individually. That's where the meaning, feeling and beauty of worship is realized and becomes acceptable to the Lord.

HEAVY ON THE CONSCIENCE

"When I kept silence, my bones waxed old through my roaring all the day long. For day and night thy hand was heavy upon me. My moisture is turned into thedrought of summer. Selah." (Psalm 32:3,4).

The horror of sin is made manifest in many ways. Butperhaps it is not done more dramatically than by observing the effects of sin upon the sinner. Sinweighs heavy upon the conscience unless one hastragically managed to stifle and strangle his conscience to death.

The Huntsville News, Dec. 4, 1982, carried the Associated Press release of a man whose conscience had not been silenced. Carl Johnson, a bank executive, disappeared in August, 1975. The next day, $614,851 was discovered missing from the Albany Park bank in Chicago where he was employed. Seven years passed by. The F.B.I, was unsuccessful in theirsearch. Mr. Johnson's ex-wife who had divorced him in 1975 to sidestep a lawsuit for the embezzled money had him declared legally dead in November, 1982. Thisenabled her to get a $22,500 insurance settlement to supplement a small income from three jobs. She hadthree teen-age sons to support.

A month later, after seven years on the lam and three new identifies, Carl Johnson turned himself in.

I've had enough," he declared.

There were likely other factors in addition to conscience that weighed heavy in Mr. Johnson's life. But conscience is something folks just don't count on. How often we hear of someone who gets away withsome crime, except for his conscience. He finds that he cannot live with himself.

A few days after the above incident was reported, welearned that a plane crash had taken the lives of CarlJohnson and the F.B.I, agents who were accompanying him back to Chicago. Truth is often more ironic than an

O' Henry short story.

David knew how to deal with a wounded conscience.

He wrote: "I acknowledged my sin unto thee, andmine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord: and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah." (Psalm 32:5).

There were a number of courses open to David when Nathan looked him in the eye and said: "Thou art the man."

He could have denied his guilt and claimed that Nathan was just trying to smear him. He could have said nothing and merely pointed his sceptre at Nathan.His attendants would have understood. Nathan would have been carried hence and executed posthaste. You just didn't point your finger at the king in that day.

Or he could have admitted guilt but pleaded extenuating circumstances. After all, Bathsheba had no business exposing herself at that time and place. Hewas only human. The pressures of the kingdom hasbeen great. His wife had not been very understanding. He had gone temporarily insane.

But David chose none of those routes.

Our generation knows the value of confession. Sometimes you spell relief, C—O—N—F—E—S—S. Psychology has taught us this. But David is speaking of something more than this. He said, "I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord."

Confession of sin and acknowledgement of repentanceshould also be made to others one has wronged. Butultimately sin is against the Lord.

Only He can forgive and restore.

I'M INTRIGUED

An interesting note in the local paper states that theMormons have published their own new edition of the King James Version of the Bible.

This work was seven years in preparation by scholarsand researchers and contains in addition to the Old and New Testaments, 842 pages of appendix materials, including maps, cross-reference and topical guides.

Boyd K. Packer, a member of the church's ruling Council of 12, said the extra data provides the"most comprehensive compilation of scriptural information" about Jesus ever assembled.

He said "the work affirms an acceptance of, a reverence for and a testimony to the Lord JesusChrist."

I find this intriguing for several reasons.First, because of the Mormon attitude toward the Bible. The Book of Mormon declares:

"And because my words shall hiss forth-many ofthe Gentiles shall say: A Bible! A Bible! We havegot a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible.But thus saith the Lord God: O Fools, they shallhave a Bible; and it shall proceed forth from the Jews, mine ancient covenant people .. . wherefore, because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose thatit contains all my words; neither need ye suppose that have not caused more to be written" (2 Nephi29:3,4,10).

And more to the point:

"... thou seest the foundation of a great and abominablechurch, which is most abominable above all other churches; for behold, they have taken away from the gospel of theLamb many parts which are plain and most precious; andalso many covenants of the Lord have they taken away" (INephi 13:26).

Orson Pratt, an "inspired Mormon apostle" and oneof the great names in the history of that body, wrote:

"Who knows that even one verse of the whole Bible has escaped pollution, so as to convey the same sensenow that it did in the original? Who knows how manyimportant doctrines and ordinances necessary to salvation may be buried in oblivion in some of the lost books? Who knows that even the ordinances and doctrines that seem to be set forth in the presentEnglish Bible, are anything like the original? The Catholics and Protestants do not know, because tradition is too imperfect to give this knowledge. There can be nocertainty as to the contents of the inspired writings untilGod shall inspire someone to rewrite all those booksover again..." ("The Divine Authenticity of the Book ofMormon, 1851, p. 47.)

Mr. Pratt's statement is quite strange in view of thefact that a large percentage (one writer said, "one-sixteenth") of the Book of Mormon is direct quotation from the King James Bible.

It appears odd that the Mormon Church would undertake the expense of publishing a new edition of a book so imperfect and polluted.

Another reason this intrigues me is in contemplationof the Mormon doctrine of inspiration. The Mormonsteach that God continues to lead them by directinspiration. They maintain that the inspiration of God is to all men and women in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and that God directs the wholechurch through revelations to the President of the church.

It appears that it would be a simple matter to restorethe "plain and most precious parts" of the Bible which were deleted and lost and give the present generation the pure and perfect Bible once again.

In fact, surely the opportune time for such would be in the publication of this new edition of the Kings James Version.

Yet another basis for befuddlement is the stedfast refusal of the Mormons to acknowledge that theirprophet and founder, Joseph Smith, completed what he called the inspired version of the Bible. While the Mormons have never admitted it as an official work, the "inspired" Bible was published by the Reorganized LDS Church in 1867 at Piano, Illinois.

Why have the Mormons not accepted it? Why wouldthey spend the necessary funds to produce a newedition of the "corrupt and perverted" King James Biblewhen their own prophet was provided an "inspired" Bible?

I don't know the answers to all this. It just sort of intrigues me. Whoever said, "Some folks will swallow anything" may well have been thinking of the Mormons.

As for me, I'll accept the declaration of our Lord:

“Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away” (Matt. 24:35).

ATTITUDE TOWARD PEOPLE

In this second of four articles from the Book of

Philippians, we continue the focus upon matters

pertinent to the theme "Attitude." Our initial lesson set

the stage with attention being directed to Paul's attitude

toward his circumstances. In this we explore the

proper attitude toward people as impressed in the

second chapter of this book. We must not lose sight of

the fact that there is an overriding tone to Philippians

of joy and rejoicing. From this we have suggested that

the attitude of the child of God is to be ordered toward

Jesus, others, and self. Only as such is the case is there

to be the joy and rejoicing experienced by the Christian.

Attitude is defined as "position or bearing as indicating action, feeling or mood." While the word is not in the King James, the idea is common. Perhaps itis nowhere so forcefully defined and illustrated than in Phil. 2:5. "Let this mind be in you, which was also inChrist Jesus." As we therefore speak of attitude, we are talking of the "mind within you." Emphasis in this epistle to the Philippians is on "the single mind," set and unwavering, with Christ as the seat and center, the single object.

Now with these brief introductory observations, definition being established for our study, we focus upon attitude toward people, more specifically brethren. In the first four verses of this chapter 2 our study is framed. Thrust continues upon the singlemind, centered in Christ and devoted to the doing ofHis will. Such will produce a special attitude withinthose so dedicated, an attitude of likemindedness. Our text says, "If there be therefore any consolation ofChrist, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any bowels and mercies, Fulfill ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of oneaccord, of one mind." The obvious emphasis is uponagreement and agreeableness. "If" reflects not doubt;rather these are things proven by experience. They are not just theory but real. The beauty of Paul'srelationship with these brethren shows through the expression, "fulfill ye my joy. that ye be likeminded,"complete my joy by living in unity, in singleness ofmind. "Likeminded" is to be "of one mind" and includes agreement as to doc

trine. But, I submit it includes more than this, including also agreement as to methods and aims. The agreementresults from working along lines of a common love. Love is the "bond of perfectness' (Col. 3:14). We mightobserve that just as hatred separates man from man, love produces harmony of feeling and interest that leads to unity. Let us not lose sight of the basis of loveas here viewed, "For this is the love of God, that we keephis commandments; and his commandments are not grievous" (1 Jn. 5:3). The Philippians needed this reminder as disagreement existed. Specifically two women were at variance and their attitude had a detrimental effect on the whole church. They are identified as Euodias and Syntyche (4:2).

After this admonition to likemindness and unity there is the setting forth of certain deterrents to unity. "Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves. Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others" (v. 3). Unity among brethren is deterred by strife, faction or contention (cf. 1:16). Party spirit continues to be one of the greatest dangers among brethren. Such identifiesas a work of the flesh (Gal. 5:20) and we are to remember the indictment levied against these things, "they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God."

The party spirit, fruit of strife and a factious attitude, arrays men against one another. The party becomesmore important than Christ and the gospel and the free course of the same is deterred. This problem prevailed atCorinth. "There are contentions among you. Now thisI say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul and Iof Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ" (1 Cor. 1:11-12). This attitude and the fruit it produced is indicated and rebuked. Faction carries beyond discretionand rends the unity of brethren and the church. The writerof Proverbs 17:14 says, "The beginning of strife is as theletting out of water." How graphic, as water leaks out ahole in its container until empty, so strife is the letting of every admirable and commendable attribute and quality that is produced by the love that is to characterize thechild of God. The end result is an emptiness, void of thespirit of Christ. Such is here identified with "vainglory,"pride and self-conceit. Here is a projecting of self ratherthan Christ and the gospel.

Moving from this negative consideration, there is an offering of guarantee to unity, some positives,exhortations to cultivate certain qualities. "Lowliness of mind" or humility is initially offered. Actually, unityimplies humility and is essential to it. Human ambitionof necessity must be relegated to pleasing God, Then he says, "esteem other better than themselves." Hard to do? Certainly, but essential to the unity which mustprevail among brethren. The best of us must admit tobeing sinners and the nearer one draws to the Sun of righteousness, the more he sees his own guilt and un-worthiness. Such being the case, what makes any one ofus any better than the other, since each is recipient ofthe same grace of God? We, perhaps, are tempted tomagnify our own virtues and the faults of others. True wisdom reverses this, bringing an attitude which pro-duces a looking on our own faults to correct and the good in others that we might imitate. True humility implies unselfishness. Christianity is intolerant of self projection.

Let not these conclusions within our consideration of "lowliness of mind" be seen inconsistent with duty to self. Proper attitude toward self cannot be attainedunless and until one has proper concept of himself inrelation to others. Acquiescence is the basis for unity and singleness of mind among brethren and is certainly consistent with "desire one another's good" (1 Tim. 2:1) and numerous other admonitions. Possibly a false estimate of themselves was the dividing element of Philippi. It is possible we may have the same problem.

Let us be aware that controversy may be carried on in the spirit of fairness and that parties may benecessitated by fidelity to principle. Separationsamong professed followers of Christ may be justified. Paul so instructed, "Come ye out from among them,and be ye separate, saith the Lord" (2 Cor. 6:17). Suchwould seemingly envision a severance from theungodly, a persistent attitude and disposition out of harmony with truth resulting in sin from which no repentance can be effected. Where such is the case,those with mind centered in Christ must disassociate themselves from that which deters and preventsexpression in truth. Admitting certain justifications for separation, let us be impressed nevertheless that self assertion is a prolific source of controversy, party and division. When our own opinions, ways, group, becomes more important than the cause of Christ, such is factious and sinful.

Problem stated, positive and negative considerations offered, we are then treated to the cure for this kind of situation. "Wherein does the cure lie? Quickly tell us," isthe plea of brethren who have the right attitude toward the Lord, themselves and others. "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus" is the response of the spirit via Paul (2:5). He then proceeds to exemplify that mind as Jesus Christ is projected as the supreme example of humility. (Please read through verse 16). Hebecame a man, "emptied himself." The suggestion is notthat he ceased to be what he was, rather emptied in becoming another, became man while God, servantwhile Lord of all. Took the form of servant, being madein likeness of men, "being found in fashion as a man."He was perfect God and he became perfect man. As manhe "became obedient unto death, even the death of thecross" (v. 8). The abasement of Jesus Christ is expressed in obedience. Not an obedience by natural obligation to himself but solely for others. His wasvoluntary obedience, an abasement involving thelowest of death, the cross. What an example to those claiming to be His, here is the cure to those problemsreflecting lack of humility.

Exaltation (v. 9). "given him a name which is aboveevery name." I do not perceive this to refer to the nameJesus, but the name Lord, Jehovah (v. 11) His namebefore incarnation and now returned to him. Not a new name, connoting first used but name and designation complementing his restoration to heaven on high, in keeping with his elevation to be the "blessed and only

Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords" (1 Tim.6:15). Right attitude toward brethren, presuming theproper basis, "mind of Christ," will result in the sameexaltation.

People problems, attitude toward people, specificallybrethren, as we consider this chapter, have always plagued Christians. In the majority of instances, as strife, dissension, and the party spirit become evident today it is because we do not have the right attitude, first of all toward the Lord and then toward each other. May God help me to grow out of this and my prayer isthat the study of these verses will help you too.

Upon seeing those words ones immediate reactionmight be "What a paradox! Those words don't gotogether. Who ever heard of militant unity?"

Matthew Henry had the proper order when he said

Peace is such a precious jewel that I would give anything for it but truth." Paul commanded, "If it be possible . . . be at peace with all men" (Rom. 12:18).Only truth can make us free. Therefore it is of the utmost importance. BUT, does this relegate unity to the bottom of the barrel—a place of little significance?No, unity runs close second place! The Biblecommands militant unity.

Our Attitude Toward Unity

1. Unity Is Not Optional. We are to "endeavor (Give diligence, ASV; Make every effort, NIV; Continue witheager earnestness, Williams; Make it your aim, Phillips) to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (Eph. 4:3). The Hebrew writer commanded: "Follow af- ter (pursue, NASV) peace with all men... (12:14). Peace must be pursued as a hunter would seek prey. The Romans were told to "follow after things which makefor peace and things whereby we may edify one an other" (14:19). Peace is necessary to edification! A closelook at a concordance at the number of exhortations to peace can be quite revealing. It tells us that the unityGod desires is not a multiple choice item in a category of options, nor is it of minimal importance. Unity of the brethren is a subject of great significance in the Bible.Reacting to false teaching on a subject (such as unity)causes us to oppose error, but we must also teach posi-tively on behalf of the truth on that subject. Are wegiving unity its rightful place? Do we diligently seek it? The Bible teaches militant unity!
2. Unity Is Not Accidental. The Christian cannot take a passive attitude toward unity—"if it happens, it happens. Whatever will be, will be." We cannot enjoy"the peace of God" until we obey "the God of peace" (Phil. 4:7,9). Paul said "I beseech Euodia and I beseechSyntyche that they be of the same mind. And I entreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women..." (Phil.4:2,3a). Beseech and entreat mean "to urge" or "to beg" (NASV, Williams). It must have been possible or Paulwould not have urged them. You can't obey an accident!
3. Unity Is Not A Mere Byproduct Of Christianity. Some things come as a byproduct of being a Christian.My social and recreational life is enhanced by myassociation with Christians. But unity is not an after thought or a byproduct of anything. To imply such is tominimize its importance. The exhortations to seekpeace, avoid division, to be of the same mind, same

judgment, one heart, one soul, and one accord are toonumerous to list. Most of all, the significance of having the proper attitude toward each other is seen in Jn. 13:35—"By this shall all men know that ye are mydisciples, if ye have love one to another." Take note thatJesus did not say the world would know we are hisdisciples if we teach baptism and opposeinstrumental music. Should we do these? Certainly. I would not be a member of a congregation which did not do them. However, people often argue over those issues. Jesus presented a means by which ALL MENwould know we are his disciples—one that nobody can argue with! That means is genuine and wholesome lovefor one another. We should be sure that we present thisstrong argument for Christianity. Otherwise we become a spectacle to all men and are working against the Great Commission. Jesus implied the world would not believe if we are divided (Jn. 17:20,21). What atremendous responsibility we have!

4. Unity Is Not Perpetually Guaranteed. The uniting of a man and a woman in a wedding ceremony does not forever guarantee that a divorce will never occur. Paul said "keep the unity (guard it, Amplified NT, Preserve it, NASV; Maintain it, Goodspeed)" (Eph. 4:3). Just as a marriage must be maintained daily so must the unity of brethren be fostered, nurtured, and kept intact. Christians must be continually conscious of thevalue of unity and the curse of division.

THINGS THAT HINDER UNITY

1. Idleness. When brethren cease working they areprone to devote their time examining each other with a magnifying glass. Finding some fault, it usually grows until a full-fledged battle is underway. The activity of the fight substitutes in the minds of the warriors for doings the Lord's work. Idleness has always been the devil's workshop. It is an evil in itself and the parent ofalmost every kind of sin. In scripture it is connected with busybodies, tattlers, and those who speak thingswhich they ought not (2 Thes. 3:11; 1 Tim. 5:13).
2. Strife About Words To No Profit. Paul warned that this would subvert the hearers (2 Tim. 2:14). Jamessaid it causes confusion and every evil work (Js. 3:16). Sowers of discord are an abomination (hateful and dis- gusting) to God (Prov. 6:16-19). When brethren speak orwrite in innuendoes, insinuations, or implications, theystir up suspicion and are asking for trouble. They must share much of the blame for the results, for violating Eph. 4:1-3. "But if ye bite and devour one another, takeheed that ye be not consumed..." (Gal. 5:15).
3. Opinions. Every brother should closely examine(hard and long!) any controversial view he may take to make sure that it is a matter of faith rather than a strongly held opinion (Rom. 14).

How Is Unity Maintained?

The answer precedes the exhortation—"With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love, give diligence to keep the unity . . ." (Eph. 4:2,3a). Humility, patience and self-restraint are often the most lacking yet most essential tocarrying out this duty. These exhortations are in the same Bible

which commands baptism. When these attitudes are absent, unity is impossible.

"Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren todwell together in unity!" (Ps. 133:1). "It is a wonder seldom seen, therefore behold it! ... Such sights ought often to be seen among those who are near of kin, forthey are brethren Shall brethren fall out for trifles, like infidels?," (Spurgeon, THE TREASURY OF DAVID). Are we militant in promoting unity? Jesussaid "A house divided against itself shall not stand" (Mt.12:25).

MOTHERS IN THE MARKETPLACE

In our last article we promised to deal with the question:"What Happens When Mother Swaps Motherhood forDollars in the Marketplace?" Implied in this, of course, isthe assumption that the mother will small children eitherplaces them in a day-care center or hires a substitute whooccupies the mother's domicile in her absence. Herein wealso assume that the mother under consideration is not a widow or divorcee with reasonable child support at hand. While the ultimate effects of mother's absence from her children may be the same or similar as if she were married,there is a God-provided way for Christian mothers toavoid that particular absentee problem (James 1:27 covers that period for individual Christians and Acts 6:1-6 forwhatever church responsibility may exist).

The mother who leaves her children behind for public work except in dire necessity is the woman in focus in thistreatise. The mother who is convinced that the dollars she earns away from her children is of more value to her children, her husband and herself is the target before us.So—what happens when mama leaves her little childrenfor the marketplace?

1. If mama spends every cent she makes on her children's physical, mental, social and spiritual needs shesoberly declares to everybody that the money she earns is of more value to her children and to herself than her own presence and the tender, loving care she can give them. If her youngsters can be reasonably fed, clothed, sheltered, and mentally, morally and spiritually trained without their own fleshly mother's presence, such a woman deliberately declares her own children motherless to whatever degree and in whatever respects these training values are a part of a mother's direct responsi

Page 13

bility before God. If not, why not? From the child's viewpoint if she is not declaring them "orphans of the living," what is a proper description of her attitude asreflected by her actions? To be more specific, let themother who hires a substitute for herself subtract her substitute's total wages from her own net pay and shecan figure her own dollar net worth to her entire family for the time she is absent from it. Let her further ask herself: Can the money I make while away from the children I bore ever compensate for the greatestpersonal gift I could ever bestow upon them, specifically, myself? Young mother, God did not bless you with children that you might deny their God-givenright to you by staying away from them during their mostneedful and meaningful years! Think again beforeselling their birthright for your mess of pottage!

1. If mother is going to be constantly and continually away from her children she must obtain a substitute for herself in one way or another or the civil court will puther in jail, fine her, or do both because of child neglect. Unless some person becomes her substitute there is no way the natural mother can escape her legal, much less her God-given duties. It is either perform personally or obtain somebody else unless, perchance, she can per-suade her husband to take her place and permit her to be the chief breadwinner.
2. When mother moves from motherhood to the mar- ketplace she necessarily spends less time with her chil- dren. This is axiomatic. Few, however, put a pencil to the clock to figure how much time they are away fromthem and how little time they truly spend in direct contact with their children.

Consider these figures. In the great population centersof America it is estimated that the average time consumed by the marketplace woman is two hours daily travel to-and-from work and not less than two hours personally "getting ready" before leaving for work and as one fellow said, "another hour for getting 'unready' after she's back home from work!" She spends eighthours on the job. These figures total 12 hours. Add another eight hours that small children must sleep ifthey are not to be ill at home or in a doctor's office or hospital. Two plus two plus eight plus eight equals 20hours. Twenty-four hours less these 20 hours leavesonly four hours per day five days each week that the mother spends with her own children even if she spent every moment with them! Every marketplace mother knows that enough things go undone around the house in her absence that Saturdays are "fix-up and clean-up"days. Part of Saturday and the same for Sunday may yield time enough for some play and some religious "goings out" as a family. There is a gruesome fact that remains, however, as only those who are or have been in the "grind" described here know. The problem of rearing religiously minded, morally clean youngsters does notoccur accidentally or incidentally. When mothers arehabitually away from home over long hour stretches their impressionable children are the losers. They needand deserve their own mother's care. The very hours of five days each week that small children most need their mother, she is not available! She is not whereshe can

intimately observe the child when such observations and proper reactions are mostneeded. How can she "train up a child in the way heshould go" (Prov. 22:6) when her absence deprives her child of the "going" which is taking some direction for weal or woe? Don't forget: the child is "going" somewhere! Isn't "guiding the house" (I Tim. 5:14)the very role the Holy Spirit assigned young mothers?How can a young woman "guide" or "rule" little children when she is unexposed to them most of their waking hours?

1. The young mother who is away from her small children deprives herself of and therefore necessarily shares with a "rented mother" much of the love God intended for a child's own mother to be hers. A thousand-and-one little things enjoyed by a full-time mother from the growing child becomes largely the treasures of another woman! None knows or can enjoy and remember the rich experiences with the fruit of her own womb as can the young mother alone with her children. The little girl who once fancied herself as a make-believe mother when she played with her dolls comes to know the realities of her dreams only as sheexperiences them with her own children.
2. As the child develops and begins to tell its first mother about its happy experiences with the "hired" mother, the blood mother may, and often does, develop a resentment toward the woman she has hired to take her place in the life of her own child. This resentmentmay produce a jealousy toward the very woman for whose presence in the child's life the blood mother is wholly responsible. At this point the blood mother begins to develop serious emotional problems. Conscious of her child's growing attachment to the substitute mother, she looks for a way to recapture the relationship she strongly desires for herself alone. Financialcommitments demand that she work to pay the billswhile motherly instincts demand that she be acknowl-edged as the only mother of the child whose natural affections are gravitating toward the "other woman" inher child's life. What weapon does she use to win back what she is losing? The answer: she begins to purchase increasingly expensive gifts for the child! She would never admit it but realistically she is attempting to buy her own child's love! She is probably unconsciouslybribing her own offspring! The child, of course, is notmotivated by the value of material things at this early age. Giving anything except her wholehearted self to her child will never accomplish her desires for owner ship of her own child's true affection. Only the supremesacrifice of giving self can do this.

Time passes. The blood mother loses ground to the hired help. She cannot allow an open break with hersubstitute lest she lose her. What shall she do? The mother attempts to make the child's emotions her ownas she pleads with the constantly developing child to recognize her as its only mother. The child, in turn, paysverbal respect to its blood mother but he has developed a dependence upon the surrogate mother which belies any verbal expressions of attachment to the ears of its own mother. The pressure continues from the increasingly distraught blood mother upon the child until the

child develops emotional problems which in turn calls for professional help. The blood mother goes to thepediatrician who immediately diagnoses the cause of the child's problem as the very woman who brought itinto the world but walked out on her God-assigned responsibility. Professional medical help is quiteexpensive and becomes the climax of the money bills mama never anticipated when she went to the marketplace to give her children the "better things of life."

Lest some reader think the above conclusion extreme and unwarranted I suggest that you check with a pediatrician and see if he doesn't trace most emotional disturbances of children to the erratic emotionalism and resulting pressures of their own mothers. Many years ago I illustrated the step-by-step pressure development described herein before a congregation and used a row of dominoes to show how one's fall cause the entire string to fall. Following the service a very popular pediatrician came to me and said, "You hitthe nail on the head. I deal with such problems everyday. My experience says that the greater portion ofchildren's emotional problems grow out of just such away-from-home and mother-substitute problems as you have described." He further stated, "If anything, the overall picture is worse than as you have presented it!"

In all candor, beloved reader, if the little child could vote its choice on who would care for it, how do you think the child would cast its ballot—for its own blood mother or the surrogate mother? When mothers go tothe marketplace the little child gets "the short end of the stick!" In this world of "keeping up with theJoneses" to have "more-and-better" material things, has not the time long passed for professed Christian parents to think more as little children think and feel instinctively about life's true values? Jesus said,"Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall in no wise enter therein" (Lk. 18:17). One quality of the little child is its desire to learn.Another is to trust its parents. Still another is to be perfectly frank when it speaks. If all of us who areparents would be completely honest with ourselves and "become as little children," would we not say weshould learn what God's word teaches about the role and scope of Christian mothers, (I Tim. 2:15) trust our heavenly Father to supply our material needs as the physical father "provides for his own" (I Tim. 5:8) and be frank to say with David, "I have been young,and now am old; yet have I not seen the righteousforsaken, nor his seed begging bread" (Ps. 37:25)?

Suppose that you were to enter a shopping mall. And just as soon as you get inside, you see a lady who is greatly disturbed because she has lost her little boy. She needs your help. You need to find her little boy. Now, how would you go about doing that? You probablywouldn't just take off looking for any boy. Were you to do so, the lady would respond saying, "That's not myboy!" Would you tell her that one boy is as good asanother? Obviously not. Though the world may be filled with little boys, there is but one that will please her. Neither would you set out to find a boy that you Eked. You wouldn't look for a boy with the color hair, the age, the height or the name that you liked. Though that might please you, that wouldn't please the lady.

What you obviously would do would be to find out some identifying marks and characteristics about the boy so you could easily recognize him when you see him.Suppose then that the lady tells you that her boy's name is John. He is about four foot in height, has black hair, was wearing a red shirt, blue pants and tennis shoes. With description in hand you seek to find herboy. Suppose you find a boy that looks about like theboy that she has described, but his name is Tom. Would you rush back and tell her that this one will do? Would you be bold enough to tell her that names don't make any difference? If you did, she would strongly disagree and say, "That's not my boy!" Again, suppose that you find a boy that has the name John and in fact meets all the characteristics but one. That being his hair is red. You could easily see that one thing isenough to tell you that this isn't the boy you're looking for.

When have you found her boy? Only when you find the one meeting every single identifying mark that his mother has described.

The Bible teaches that there is one body (Eph. 4:4). The body is the church (Col. 1:18). It is plain to see that when Paul says there is one body he means there is onechurch. Within that we see that there is only one body.Just as when he says there is "one God" he means there is only one God. We all should desire to be members of that one church, which is the Lord's.

How would you go about finding the church that we read about in the New Testament? Would you go about it in a way that appeared to be silly when it concerned looking for the little boy? Would you look for any church and be satisfied with it saying, "one church is asgood as another?" Would you set out to find the onethat pleased you? It is evident that you need first to

Page 15

find out some identifying marks and characteristics sothat you will know the one true church when you see it.And now as you seek to find it, you surely wouldn'tthink a church would be all right and pleasing to God if it merely met most of the characteristics found in the Bible. Surely you wouldn't think that names don'tmake any difference. Just one identifying mark that isn't there or is different is enough to show that it is not the one church. Just as there may be a lot of boys namedJohn who aren't the right boy, so there may be many churches wearing a name that is authorized but are not the church of the New Testament. You have not found the church until you find one that meets all the identifying marks laid down in the pages of God's word. Let's consider briefly some of those marks.

1. ORIGIN. In this we ask the questions, by whom,when and where. Jesus Christ said, "upon this rock Iwill build my church" (Matt. 16:18). He established Hischurch in the year 33 A.D. (Acts 2:47). The kingdom (church) was to come with power (Mark 9:1). The powercame with the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:8) which came on theday of Pentecost (Acts 2:47). The kingdom (church) wasto come with power (Mark 9:1). The power came withthe Holy Spirit (Acts 1:8) which came on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4). These events took place in 33A.D.. It was established in Jerusalem as the prophetIsaiah had foretold (Isa. 2:1-4).
2. NAME. I sometimes hear people say that thechurch doesn't have a name. And that is true as far as it having one name to the exclusion of all others. Yet it does have a name. A name simple means that by which athing is called. So whatever the New Testamentchurch is called in the Bible, we could say that is a name. Iread of a number of local congregations being referred to as "churches of Christ" (Rom. 16:16). What would you call one of those local congregations? Would it not be a "church of Christ?" The church at Corinth was called the "church of God" (1 Cor. 1:2). Paul also used the expression "church of the firstborn" (Heb. 12:23). Can the name of the church of which you are a member be found in the pages of the New Testament?
3. ORGANIZATION. The term church is used in more than one way. Sometimes it is used to refer to the church universal. In this sense the church has no or-ganization. Yet in the local sense it does. Paul said that the church at Phillipi had bishops (elders — Tit. 1:5,7), deacons and saints (Phil. 1:1). The elders are to oversee,feed (spiritually) and watch for the souls of the flock among them (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:2; Heb. 13:17). Each congregation is to have its own plurality of elders (Acts 14:23). The word "deacon" simply means servant. So their function is to serve under the oversight of the elders. When we find churches that have some kind of universal organization or a local group that is overseenby deacons we can easily see that we haven't found the church of the New Testament.
4. WORSHIP. The members of the N.T. church will be found worshipping God by (1) Singing—Eph. 5:19,

(2) Praying—Acts 2:42, (3) Bible Study—Acts 20:7, (4) Partaking of the Lord's supper—Acts 20:7 and (5) Giving—1 Cor. 16:1-2. The last two are limited to the first day of the week (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:1-2). Alsothese passages imply that they must take place every first day (1 Cor. 16:1-2 NASV). Compare these with "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy" (Exo. 20:8). When other items are added, that will not be the

N.T. church.

5. WORK. Each local congregation has work to do. It is to (1) preach the gospel (1 Tim. 3:15), (2) edify itself(Eph. 4:16) and (3) relieve needy saints (1 Tim. 5:16; Rom. 15:25-31). In each of these, the church is all suffic-ient to do the work God gave it to do. There is no need for additional organizations to do the work of thechurch. When additional work is found in the budget ofthe church (i.e. recreation, entertainment, etc.) we haveenough evidence that that isn't the N.T. church.

6. TEACHING. The teaching that the church of the

N.T. endorses can be found in the pages of the N.T. Peter said, "If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God" (1 Pet. 4:11). The church of the N.T. can put a finger on the book, chapter and verse for the teaching it endorses.

7. PRACTICE. The things that the Lord's churchengages in can be found in the book of God Almighty. The people of God seek to do all things in the name of(by the authority of) Jesus Christ (Col. 3:17). They seek to do just what is found in the doctrine of Christ (2 Jno. 9). Thus they not only can, but will be happy to show anyone the verses that authorize what they do. If I finda church that will engage in things I cannot find in theBible, I have found a church that is not the church of the Bible.

Let's think back about the little boy once again. If I find a boy with different hair, a different name, height, shirt, pants, etc. I haven't found the boy I want. I mustfind a boy just like the description I have in hand. Likewise I must find a church just like the one describedin the Bible. If I find a church with a different origin, name, organization, worship, work, teaching or practice, I haven't found the church of the N.T.

THE SERPENTS BITE

Twas in the beautiful garden of Eden,That Satan came to Eve.His visit was not a social one,He meant but to deceive.The serpent said to Eve that day,Ye shall not surely die.It wasn't what the Lord had said,But temptation filled her eye.

Now God was speaking of a spiritual death,Hence the Devils attempt to confuse,And if we heed his words we stand,Our very soul to lose.God cursed the serpent from that day forward,And no man can deny,That the venom God placed beneath his tongue,Can cause a man to die.

Perhaps it's wisdom Divinely wise,Forever this reminder make,That the words of the Devil more deadly still,Than the bite of a_poisonous snake.For tho that bite might cost our life,We learn from words of old,That the venomous words from the mouth of Satan,Are fatal to our soul. —Dody Gibson

Send all News Items to: Wilson Adams, 6334 Auburn Ave., Riverdale, MD 20737

FIELD REPORTS pulpit. The church has a comfortable building, paid for in a city ofGEORGE C. GARRISON, 1541 Marsha Ave., Modesto, CA 95350. 115,000. The attendance ranges from 30 to 45 and we are self-After eight years in Grants Pass, Oregon my family and I recentlysupporting. We have recently baptized one and have three new homemoved to Modesto. Jim Hoff is the new preacher in Grants Pass. Theystudies started. The congregation is made up of mostly elderly people now have a building that is paid for and during our stay some 40with some younger ones. Olen Holderby of Fresno, California held a people were baptized and elders were appointed. However, brothermeeting here in April and Bobby Witherington will hold our fallJohn Gravlee who had served as an elder in San Bernardino, California, meeting. We would be happy to have any visitors traveling throughand also served in Grants Pass the last six years of his life, died thisthe area worship with us. The church meets at 3105 Carver Road inpast year. Brother Larry Whaley and I served until I left for Modesto. Our services are: Lord's Day for Bible Study at 10 A.M. andModesto, California. The work here looks encouraging. Brother L.L.Worship at 10:45 A.M. and 6 P.M. We are about three minutes fromFreeman who passed away last November at the age of 78 preached highway 99, Phone (209) 578-3300. here for the last 19 years. The last 18 months different ones filled the

Page 17

CHARLES F. HOUSE, P.O. Box 1031 Douglas, AZ 85607. One was baptized recently in Las Palomas on the Mexican border between Douglas, Arizona and El Paso, Texas. Also one baptized in Beaumont, Texas on June 7,1983. We continue to be in need of a full-time preacher here at Douglas-Pirtleville. If interested please contactme. We are also in need of some financial help from individuals tohelp reinforce the foundation in front of the building washed away byrecent rains. . We have received a bid to have it fixed at $1,200.

STEVE WALLACE, Auf Der Hoell 12, 6791 Schrollbach, Nieder-mohr, Pfalz, Federal Republic of Germany. I have safely arrived here in West Germany and have gotten settled in very well. I have launched into the work here and many good things are happening, both at the church at Ramstein where my main work is, and at the churches inStuttgart and Heilbronn, each of which I preach for once a month.Please come see us if vacationing in West Germany. Also, if you have afriend who is moving here we want to offer whatever help possible infinding a sound congregation with which to worship.

PREACHER NEEDED EXTON, PENNSYLVANIA—The congregation here (about 35 miles west of Philadelphia) desires to contact a sound preacher who is willing to work in an area where the membership is widespread andthe congregations are scarce. Attendance is between 35-40 and partial support will be required from other places. Please contact A. Wallace Hayes at 1413 Gypsy Hill Road, Gynedd Valley, PA 19437,or Everitt F. Wood at 1207 Farmington Lane, West Chester, PA19380.

FROM THE ILLINOIS ATTORNEY GENERAL

SPRINGFIELD, IL: March 24, 1982, Illinois Attorney General Ty Fanner today issued what has become an annual advisory to the public stating that reports that an Illinois firm is making an offensive filmrelating to the "love life" of Jesus are absolutely false. Fahner said, "I understand the outrage that this report causes, but, fortunately, the story of such a movie is totally false. I wish I could respond to eachperson individually, but it's impossible. This kind of hoax causes atremendous waste of energy and resources for everyone involved."

EDITOR'S NOTE: The story of this movie has made the rounds in

some of the church bulletins. We appreciate the Illinois Attorney

General's attempt to clear up any confusion that might exist.

FROM THE I.R.S. MINISTERS: HOME INTEREST AND TAXES—In Tax News 267 we discussed the deducibility of home interest and taxes for a minister who receives a housing allowance. These rules were to applystarting no later than June 30,1983. The IRS recently announced that, for ministers who owned and occupied their home before January3,1983 (or had a contract to purchase a home before January 3,1983,and later owned and occupied that home), this ruling will not be applied before the earlier date on which the minister no longer ownsthat home or January 1, 1985. Therefore, for 1983 and 1984 these rules will apply only to ministers who (1) owned and occupied theirhome before January 3,1983 or 1984, or (2) owned and occupied their home on or after January 3,1983.

DEBATE

KEITH HAMILTON, 117 Moore Circle, Columbia, Tennessee 38401. There will be a debate here in Columbia during October (24-25 and 27-28), Brother Tom Oglesby will be representing the College-Vue church of Christ while Steve Hancock, a Pentecostal preacher, will be representing the Calvary Jesus Name Tabernacle in this discussion. The propositions will center around whether or not there are three distinct persons in the Godhead. If anyone needs a place to stay, please contact me before the discussion. Phone (615) 381-4567 or 381-5709.

FROM ITALY VINCENZO RUGGIERO, Via Pendino, 16, 84010 S. Marzano Sul Sarno, Italy—The work at Poggiomarino is progressing and during the last year our meeting house is always crowded. More than a monthago I was given opportunity to speak to a denominational group of 500in North Caserta. Two have recently been baptized here. We areenlarging the work as we are able.

FROM CHILE EFRAIN F. PEREZ, Casilla 1317, Valparaiso, Chile—On June 27 three were baptized into Christ. It is winter here and the water was very cold, but we are not concerned with health at such a time. I have 8 home Bible classes underway, one with a family of 7. I am personally publishing a small paper ("Valor Y Fe") to teach and to carry news of our work. I have also prepared a "Slide Rule For Personal Workers"with 57 subjects giving appropriate passages.

FIRM FOUNDATION CHANGES HANDS Buster Dobbs has bought the FIRM FOUNDATION and WilliamCline will now be the editor. Now that the change has taken place, many brethren in the liberal camp are bold to speak out against the drift toward the left which this paper has demonstrated for a numberof years. It is interesting to observe that the same bulletin editors which praise the new owner and editor and lament the drift of the previous editor had little to say that amounted to anything while Reuel Lemmons was editor. While we expect to see the FIRM FOUNDATION take a more conservative stance under the editorship of William Cline, the fact remains that both Cline and Dobbs are fully committed to the defense of the sponsoring church and church support of private institutions. They are in fellowship withbrethren who still think churches can supply facilities for recreationalpurposes. Buster Dobbs has just had a debate with Dale Smelser in Fort Wayne, Indiana on the benevolent work of the church. Whilethese brethren may prune a few dead or diseased branches, they haveleft the root of the trouble untouched. We will watch the future with interest.—Editor.

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

339

112