PREACHERS AND PREACHING

In the interest of better relationship and understand-ing between preachers and congregations, even at the risk of being charged with grinding a personal axe,some things are herein offered which have needed say-ing a long time. The relationship formed betweenpreachers and congregations should be the most lofty ofthose established among men. In fact it should epito-mize the finest of human qualities such as trust, com-passion, concern, friendliness, love and all other suchadmirable and desirable aspects of wholesome human relationships. The degree to which these are presentwithin a given relationship lends itself to success orfailure, growth or decline. Only as each determines tomake the relationship of the best quality can it be so.

Let us look at this aspect. A preacher is invited tomove into a new community and do the work of evangel-ist. Superficial investigation is made of the necessaries,housing, schools, civic and social atmosphere, and thelike. Being acquainted with few, if any, it is likely thishas to be done via any available means and for the mostpart it is a stumbling blindly. The preacher then uprootshis life and the life of his family, ties are broken, familiarpatterns and comfortable life style is interrupted for thenew and untried. When viewed from this standpoint the only people likely to be affected are the preacher andhis. Members of the congregation have undergone noupheaval. They do not have to start over in giving someroot and stability to life at the material and physicallevel. Let us not forget the need for emotional re-establishment essential to the well being of children especially, but adults as well. In fact, the congregationhas to adjust to only one family, become acquaintedwith and accept them, befriend or remain aloof, whilefor the preacher and his there are many, all of which areexpecting immediate acceptance at face value. For them, one name to learn, the preacher and his have tolearn many and so, on and on and on.

Then there is the thinking on the part of some that thepreacher is not a permanent fixture, he will need to soonmove on and so we don't worry about his becoming toocomfortable and secure. Some even talk about a year toyear relationship between the church and the preacher.Borrowed that from the sectarians, I guess, their prac-tice being to assign a preacher for a year at a time to aplace. This results in a situation where the preacher isheld at arm's length, he is never allowed to becomereally close, be a part. Someone has said in the corporate field, "Its lonely at the top", a point well taken. But whydoes it have to be? Recognizing the possibility of faulton both sides, with the preacher and the congregation,either or both, surely is half the problem at least. Can't we work on it and make the relationship more stable?

There is no doubt that preachers will continue moving and congregations will basically remain the same. Yet there is continuing hope that better relationships can beestablished. Treatment of younger preachers will go along way toward encouraging them and stabilizingtheir decision to preach, making them glad they did. In some cases a re-evaluation of relationships will cer-tainly work for the better and enhance growth and pro-gress. Sadly, there are some congregations which do not deserve to have one laboring in word and deed amongthem due to their ungodly treatment of preachers andunsupportive attitude. To levy such an indictment ofnecessity, if we are to be honest, requires admittingthat some preachers do not deserve a congregation withwhom to live and labor. Presuming a work of truth,kindness one to another is the point we seek to estab-lish. In all, "Be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted,forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you" (Eph. 4:32).

I have found most younger preachers are reluctant toexpress themselves in these tender areas, there was atime when I was too. However, problems must be ad

(Continued from Page 1)dressed, shortcomings corrected that things of faith may become stronger. To acknowledge failure and dis-appointments in brethren, even expect treatment thatis not what it ought to be, is not necessarily cynical. It isto admit the strength of the fleshly and the need toovercome. Most preachers will not be discouraged tothe point of despair, even when brethren fail them somiserably. Why? They have determined to preach the unsearchable riches of Christ. Their trust is ultimatelyin God, he is faithful. Like the old preacher once said,admittedly unappreciated by me at the time, "I don'thave too much confidence in the brethren, but in theLord I trust implicitly". It is with that kind of trust oneis resolved to preach the word and we encourage allothers with any such inclination or aspiration to dolikewise. The end is not yet.

Please Renew Promptly

RECEPTION OF OUR AUGUST SPECIAL ISSUE

The reception given our August special issue on theNew International Version surpassed all expectations.To date, 9,500 copies have been sold. Our second print-ing of 2,500 copies was sold out before we received itfrom the printer. At present we have no plans to reprintit. Orders came from Alaska to Florida and from Vir-ginia to California and points all in between. The mate-rial was prepared and sent forth for the benefit of ordi-nary folks, and "the common people" heard us gladly.

As expected, we received some criticism in private letters and several articles were received reviewing the material. Most of these made about the same points asthose dealt with in the article in this issue by Dudley R.Spears. I decided that brother Spears had done as wellas any of the others and better than most in stating objections to the article by Dorris and Donnie Raderand that he had written in a good spirit. We think theresponse to his article from the Raders is gracious andreflects the attitude which Christians should manifest when they are under fire. Please read carefully whateach has to say in this issue. If brother Spears feels theneed to make an additional response he may do so. Thesame courtesy is offered to the Raders. Beyond that, wewill put the matter to rest and move on to other things.

I must comment on the nature of some of the reviews we received. Some were written from intellectual pinna-cles with the writers talking down to us. Some imputeddishonest motives to us. Some were scornful of our "ignorance." All of the reviews of this nature were alsovery hostile to the King James Version and the TextusReceptus and some were as critical of the AmericanStandard Version. Several writers vigorously defendedthe "dynamic equivalence" approach in translation.Some either stated or implied that the task of knowingexactly what was in the original is so difficult that nopresent text adequately does that. If that is so, then wereally do not have access to the mind of God in this age.I think we have struck a very sensitive nerve here andhave brought to light a dangerous spirit which bearswatching in the future.

* * * * * * * * * PRICE INCREASE IN JANUARY

We regret the necessity to increase our subscriptionrate to $9 a year effective January 1, 1985. The last

increase in the price of our subscription was in January,

1979. We meant to make an increase in rates in January,

1983 but held off because of the recession then upon us,

thinking it would impose a hardship on some of our

readers. Since the last subscription rate increase our

printing costs have increased by 28% and we have had

several increases in postal costs and face another postal

increase in 1985. Other monthly subscription papers

have been higher-priced than STS for quite some time.

While we regret the need for this decision, we also re

spect the realities that face us. We believe our readers

will clearly understand the problem and respond ac

cordingly.

Our new club rate will be $7.50 each in clubs of four or

more sent at one time. Our bundle rate will be 12 for $6

and 24 for $12. Group subscriptions will be 12 for $6 and 24

for $12.

**********

ON TEXTUAL VARIATIONS

The following is quoted from INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPEDIA, Volume V,page 2955: "Dr. Ezra Abbott was accustomed to re-mark that 'about nineteen-twentieths of the variations have so little support that, although there are variousreadings, no one would think of them as rival readings,and nineteenth-twentieths of the remainder are of so little importance that their adoption or rejection wouldcause no appreciable difference in the sense of the pas-sages in which they occur,' Dr. Hort's view was that'upon about one word in eight, various readings existsupported by sufficient evidence to bid us pause andlook at it; about one word in sixty has various readingsupon it supported by such evidence as to render ourdecision nice and difficult, but that so many variationsare trivial that only about one word in every thousandhas upon it substantial variation supported by suchevidence as to call out the efforts of the critic in decidingbetween the readings.' The oft-repeated dictum of Bentley is still valid that 'the real text of the sacred writings is competently exact, nor is one article of faithor moral precept either perverted or lost, choose asawkwardly as you will, choose the worst by design, outof the whole lump of readings.' "

Peter said the word of God is incorruptible seed,"which liveth and abideth forever." He further said "But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you" (1Pet. 1:23-25). It is by the word of the gospel that bothJew and Gentile are to be saved, if saved at all (Rom.1:16). We must all be very careful lest we make loosestatements which encourage doubt rather than faith inthe inspired word of God. The salvation of souls is atstake. Every issue of doctrine and practice, every moral precept, hinges upon having at hand in our languagetranslations which are reliable. Frankly, I am suspi-cious of the work of those who preface their translationswith the complaint that such translations as the KingJames Version and the American Version are "too me-chanically exact." If language means anything, thatmeans that those who so complain do not intend to be

"too mechanically exact" in their work. That does posea threat to doctrine and morals.

CORRECTION

In the August, 1984 special issue of SearchingThe Scriptures, the last paragraph of section:"The Basis Of A Translation," I made the state-ment: "Their work is one of the most accurate and accepted standard Greek texts known. Not oneacceptable Greek text published since Westcottand Hort Text has materially differed from it."Westcott and Hort Greek Text does not enjoy such a position. This is not an accurate statement.I retract it completely.

I violated one of my own rules in writing. I did not check the source material before sending it tothe press. Thirty years ago I had done the researchfor some lessons on the origin of the Bible andsome modern translations. From these notes I made the above statement.

H.E. Phillips

This response is submitted in the interest of truth,correctness and fairness. It is prompted by an articleentitled, "The New International Version (or Pseudo-Version)" co-authored by Dorris and Donnie Rader. It isnot submitted with either personal feelings against theauthors or with wholesale endorsement of the New In-ternational Version Bible (NIV). There is simply toomuch misleading and erroneous information given toallow it to pass without notice. The end of the criticalarticle smacks of pleading for an imprimatur or nihilobstat to be placed on the King James Version (KJV)and the American Standard Version (ASV). I am sureneither the authors nor the editor of Searching the Scriptures intends for that to be the case, however.

The article to which this response is directed hadsome excellent observations regarding the translationof certain words that appear in the NIV. The objection to the bias that seems to lie beneath the translation of such terms as "sinful nature" is legitimate. Beyondthat, however, much that is offered by brethren Radersis simply untrue. Please consider a few of them in the spirit in which this response is submitted. My only interest is in truth, correctness and fairness.

A criticism is offered against the NIV's translation of Luke 1:3. The critics allege that the NIV casts doubt on Luke's inspiration because it is translated, "I myselfhave carefully investigated everything from the begin-ning." Elsewhere in the article the ASV is commendedas a translation that when read will assure the reader what was in the original text. (They quoted ClintonHamilton to this effect and endorsed his statement.)Look at the translation given in the ASV. It says, "hav-ing traced all things accurately from the first." What isthe difference in meaning? If the NIV casts doubt onLuke's inspiration, so does the ASV. They endorse the latter and reject the former and they both say the samething.

Objection is registered to the NIV's translation of a passage identifying Simon Peter. They claim that the NIV makes Peter the son of two fathers. True, the NIVsays in Matt. 16:17 that Peter was the "son of Jonah. InJohn 1:42 it says he was the son of John. But look at therecommended ASV. In Matt. 16:17 the ASV says,"Simon, Bar-Jonah" (Bar meaning "son") and in John1:42, the ASV says, "Simon son of John." If the NIVmakes Peter the son of two different fathers, why doesnot the ASV do the same? Why is one criticized in thispassage and the other recommended?

An even greater blunder was made in criticizing the NIV's rendition of Luke 2:22. They say that the NIV makes it appear as if Jesus needed purification, but thatthe KJV, the ASV and the New King James Version(NKJV) show it was only Mary who needed purification.They object because they say the NIV uses "their" andthe others use "her." Either my ASV Testament is amisprint or faulty, or they haven't done their work aswell as brother Adams thinks they have. My ASV says,"And when the days of their (my emp. DRS) purifica-tion ..." Again, the ASV has what the NIV has, but the NIV iscriticized and the ASV is endorsed.

The authors rightly warn about the serious conse-quence of tampering with the word of God. Yet, theirremarks about Acts 9:6 are not at all congruous withthat sentiment. They claim that the NIV perverts the truth on Acts 9:6 due to the omission of the part thatreads, "Lord what wilt thou have me to do." They con-clude someone tampers with the word of God by omit-ting this. The truth of the matter is that there is no Greek text which includes it. It is a translation from Latin back into Greek, likely added by Desiderius Eras-mus around 1515 A.D. Consult any textual manual andyou will see this. A book advertised on the back of Searching the Scriptures as "The most up-to-date infor-mation about newly discovered manuscripts of the NewTestament," says:

"Even in other parts of the New Testament Eras

mus occasionally introduced into his Greek text

material taken from the Latin Vulgate. Thus is

Acts ix. 6, the question which Paul asks at the time of

his conversion on the Damascus road, 'And he

trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt

thou have me to do?', was frankly interpolated by

Erasmus from the Latin Vulgate. This addition,

which is found in no Greek manuscript at this

passage (though it appears in the parallel account of

Acts xxii. 10), became part of the Textus Receptus,

from which the King James version was made in

1611."

(The Text of the New Testament, Metzer, B. p. 100) And there is even more, for the ASV also omits thequestion Saul is supposed to have asked. If the NIV is atfault, why is not the ASV? Here is a case where theevidence seems to show that the question is an addition tothe text rather than a deletion. Which version tam-perswith the word of God?

The translation of Acts 26:28 is criticized as "pervert-ingthe truth," Because the authors of the criticism think the passage teaches that Agrippa was "almost persuaded to be a Christian," and because the NIV says, "Do you think that in such a short time you canpersuade me to be a Christian? ", the NIV is in error. Again, they accuse the ASV of teaching something dif-ferent from the NIV, but read the ASV. "With but littlepersuasion thou wouldest fain make me a Christian."That could have as easily been a question, or an expres-sion of surprise, or even disgust, as it could have been asimple statement. There are no punctuation marks in theGreek texts available to us. If Agrippa were indeed on theverge of obeying the Gospel, why did Paul not proceedfurther to persuade him? (2 Cor. 5:11). Brother

J.W. McGarvey has the obvious truth on the matter.

He wrote: "The remark shows that Agrippa saw very clearly the aim of the apostle. It is to his credit, being a Herod, that he did not take offense at an obviousattempt of the kind. It was evidently embarrass-ing to him; but while he turned it off in this coolmanner, he evidently regarded Paul with a respectfar beyond that ever entertained for an apostle byany of his successors." (New Commentary on Acts,

p. 258). Brother McGarvey also noted in a footnote that thetranslation of "almost" in the KJV is in error. McGar-vey used the ASV as the standard translation in hiscommentary. If the NIV perverts the truth, so does theASV. But the NIV is rejected and the ASV recom-mended. Just about all the comments about the footnotes in the NIV can be made about the ASV and NKJV. These notes merely mention the presence or absence of certainwords, phrases or passages from certain manuscripts.The manuscripts we have are copies of other manu-scripts and some of them are translations of the LatinVulgate. The absence of a word or a passage from one ofthe available manuscripts does not argue its absence orpresence in the original autograph, the actual lettersand writings of inspired men. Please read again ConnieAdams' remarks about quotation from the patristicwriters, older versions and other textual materials. Allof this material must be considered in determining theGreek text of the New Testament. The charge is made that the NIV is based on a "faultytext" of the original language. One is made to wonder ifthe authors of the criticism know which Greek text is without fault. If they do, I (for one) would really like toknow about it. A blunder is made that indicates that more work needs to be done on textual matters. Theyequate the "Majority text" with the "Textus Receptus."(See their article, p. 182, 2nd par.) The Majority Text isnot the same as the Textus Receptus. The MajorityText is much more. It is also inaccurate to say that theKJV was translated out of the Textus Receptus. As amatter of historical record, the Textus Receptus came

to its current form in 1633. It got the title from thepreface of the text from the Latin expression,

"Texturn ergo habes nunc ab omnibus receptum."

That means, "You have, thus, a text now received byall." Some twenty years after the KJV was published,the Textus Receptus was finalized. For a full story, wemust con-sider this man named Erasmus a bit more.

In 1502, a Catholic Cardinal named Gonzalez Ximenes de Cisneros, later known simply as CardinalXimenes, prepared a polyglot (many tongued) Bible. Hehad the New Testament prepared in Latin and Greek. In1515 he had it all ready for publication but could not getendorsement from the Catholic Church. He died before endorsement and approval came. In the mean time,some scholars in Switzerland learned of his work. A publisher named Froben planned to publish it. He se-cured the services of Desiderius Erasmus of Rotter-dam, Holland. In seven months, Erasmus got a GreekText together of the New Testament. When he came toRevelation, he could find no Greek text that was com-plete. So, he went to the old Latin Vulgate, translatedthe missing text from Latin back to Greek (along withActs 9:6) and had his Greek text.

With the use of the Erasmus text, the Beza text, theLatin Vulgate, and other available manuscripts, theforty-eight translators of the KJV began their work.They selected the best possible textual materials andused them all in their translation. This was the eclectic method. The charge was made against the NIV that it isbased on an eclectic text. The same is true with the KJV and ASV. Incidentally, the Erasmus text was slightlymodified by two scholars named Stephanus and Elzivirto be part of the Textus Receptus. This became thebasis of the KJV and Martin Luther's German transla-tion. To criticize the NIV as having been translatedfrom a faulty text by the eclectic method and not saythe same about the KJV is unreasonable and wrong.

Eclectic means selecting the best from all available sources. That is what was done when the ASV was translated. It was done by the NKJV scholars. In fact,that is what the Majority Text is—an eclectic text. Thehaphazard way in which the KJV text was formulatedcannot happen today. Many more manuscripts havebeen located in the interim time period from 1607 to thepresent. There is not a better system of selecting a moreaccurate text. If anything is true, the Majority text,and the Westcott-Hort text are based on much more accurate research than was possible in the 1500-1600period of time. But again, which is the text that todayexists without faults?

Brother Clinton Hamilton is quoted as saying, "Al-ways read either the King James or American Standard so you know what was in the original." Brother Hamil-ton may have made that statement, but from the viewthis writer has had of him over thirty years, it suredoesn't sound like the Clinton Hamilton I know. But even if he said it, it is not true. I believe he would wantto define some things in that sentence. It is not possibleby reading any version to be sure of what was in theoriginal. We believe the truth, based on what informa-tion is available. In fact, it is a matter of faith. A Godpowerful enough to reveal Himself, is equally compe-tent to preserve what He reveals (1 Pet. 1:25). Our faithshould not be in some translation, some version of theBible, but in an infallible God (1 Cor. 2:5). There are toomany weaknesses in any work of fallible man to thinkotherwise.

If one can read the KJV and realize that when Luke

reports the intention of Herod to keep Peter in jail until

"after Easter," and recognize here an obvious error—

yet endorse the KJV—surely the same thing could be

done with any translation. The fact is, that even though

there are variations in many translations, the same

message of truth prevails. This is not to endorse the

wide use of the NIV. These few comments have been

made solely in the interest in correcting some errors. If

there are errors in this response, like the Raders, I would also appreciating hearing from the readers of this paper.

Elsewhere in this issue you will find an article byDudley Ross Spears in response to our material on theNew International Version which appeared in the August special issue. Please read his article before read-ing this one.

We certainly cannot object to someone criticizing ourmaterial, since we recognize that we are subject to mak-ing mistakes as well as anyone else. This gives us anopportunity to reconsider some points and recognizeour weaknesses. We have no disposition to simply win apoint or justify a stand simply because we have taken it.

Let it be understood that we were not trying to speakfor the brotherhood. Nor were we speaking for Search-ing The Scriptures. We were simply speaking for our-selves. Each reader has the responsibility to weigh the evidence and accept or reject the points accordingly.

Don't Overlook The Main Point

Let us appeal to the readers of this paper that you notoverlook the main thrust of our article. It was to alert readers to some real dangers in the NIV. Even withsome legitimate objections made by brother Spears(and he does have some), our material as a whole stillstands. Where we believe that brother Spears is right,we do not hesitate to say so. Where we believe he iswrong, we will do the same. Even if our brother shouldbe right in every criticism that he made, the readershould not conclude that the NIV is then a good transla-tion. The reader will recall that we exposed the NIV onoriginal sin, Premillennialism, "sinful nature" and otherfundamental points. Brother Spears' article is surely not to be taken to justify these.

We Were Not Reviewing The ASV

Brother Spears repeatedly asked why we criticizedthe NIV and recommended the ASV when the latter has some of the same renderings as the former. The articlewas not reviewing the ASV. The translation under ex-amination was the NIV. Although the influence ofWestcott and Hort is seen in the ASV, it is not flavoredwith Calvinism, Premillennialism and other sectarianbiases as is the NIV.

Spears Has Recommended The NIV

Though our brother says, "It is not submitted ....with wholesale endorsement of the New International Version Bible (NIV)" and "This is not to endorse thewide use of the NIV", this does not mean that he hasn't recommended it as a good translation. It seems that he

places the NIV equal with the ASV and equal with orabove the KJV.

Brother Spears has given the NIV his approval intime past. In the January 31,1980 issue of Truth Maga-zine he listed the NIV as one of the translations that he recommended "because they are reliable in translation(as far as my limited knowledge of the original lan-guages go)." He further said that one could read these without fearing they are "some ridiculous perversion ofGod's word." He classifies some translations as "com-pletely unreliable and need exposure as outright error."He does not put the NIV in this class. However, in allfairness to brother Spears, he does object to the NIV's rendering of "sinful nature" in the same article.

Imprimatur Or Nihil Obstat Placed OnThe KJV And ASV?

Brother Spears claimed that "The end of the criticalarticle smacks of pleading for an imprimatur or nihilobstat to be placed on the King James Version (KJV) and the American Standard Version (ASV)." That issimply not true. We in fact urged brethren to use other translations for comparative study. We said, "Neitherare we saying that it is wrong to use modern transla-tions for comparative study" (Special Edition, p. 175). We did say that "the NIV and many others should notbe used as one's main study Bible" (ibid. pp. 175,182).

Was brother Spears seeking to put an "imprimatur ornihil obstat" on the NKJV, NASB, TBV and the NIVwhen he recommended them as reliable translations (Truth Magazine, January 31,1980)?

Then he says, "I am sure neither the authors nor theeditor of Searching the Scriptures intends for that to bethe case, however." Well, if brother Spears could seethat, why does he not give others the credit for seeing italso? We feel that the average reader could see that aswell as he did.

Errors, Deletions And Footnotes

With further study of Luke 1:3 we realize that our useof it against the NIV was weak and invalid. ConcerningPeter having two fathers there appears to be a differ-ence in the Greek texts as noted in the New King JamesVersion footnote on John 1:42. The ASV does footnote an explanation of the apparent difficulty here. On nei-ther of these alone would we have built a case againstthe NIV. Brother Spears is right in saying that this isnot a legitimate argument against the NIV.

Concerning Luke 2:22 the question was whether thisshould be rendered "her" or "their" purification. Wewere in error in listing the ASV as agreeing with theKJV and NKJV in rendering this "her." One possible explanation of this problem offered by some brethrenhas been that this passage could have reference to "cer-emonial cleansing" and not any moral cleansing. In thisthey may be correct.

We merely listed Acts 9:6 among several deletions inthe NIV. This involved Saul's question, "Lord, whatwilt thou have me to do? " Brother Spears quotes BruceMetzger as saying that the question in the verse wasnot found in any Greek manuscript "at this passage."

This may be true. However, there is no disputing thatthe question was asked at this point in the narrative asa parallel passage shows (Acts 22:10). if indeed it isn't in any Greek manuscript at this verse, then there is noproblem with it being omitted at this verse.

We respectfully disagree with brother Spears con-cerning Acts 26:28. He suggested that there is no differ-ence in the NIV and the ASV regarding this verse. Hequoted the NIV, "Do you think that in such a short timeyou can persuade me to be a Christian? " Then he quotesthe ASV, "With but little persuasion thou wouldest fainmake me a Christian." Surely he can see the differencein a statement and a question. We ask you to go backand consider our argument based on the context itself.

Brother Spears observed that he feels that J.W.McGarvey "has the obvious truth on the matter." Thenhe quotes brother, McGarvey to support his view. How-ever, we contend that nothing can make the truth more"obvious" than the context in this case.

The reviewer of this material apparently missed ourpoint with regard to the footnoting. We were not object-ing merely to a footnote. What we do object to is theway the NIV seeks to evaluate the manuscripts as itdoes in the footnote of Mark 16:9-20, "The two mostreliable early manuscripts do not have Mark 16:9-20."Please read again our section on footnotes.

Greek Text

Our brother says that "The Majority Text is not thesame as the Textus Receptus." We are well aware thatthere are some differences in these texts. However theyare the same type of texts. The Textus Receptus was themajority text at the time of the KJV.

Brother Spears said, "It is also inaccurate to say thatthe KJV was translated out of the Textus Receptus."He has already quoted Bruce Metzger as saying, "... Textus Receptus, from which the King James versionwas made in 1611." Not only that, but brother Spearssaid himself that the Textus Receptus was behind theKJV and the NKJV. Hear him, "The same Greek textfrom which the King James Version of 1611 was trans-lated was used for the NKJV. Thus, the continuingdebate over the 'Textus Receptus' and the Westcott-Hort Text, will be preserved, at least in part, by thepresence of the NKJV" (Truth Magazine, January 31,1980). To get technical about it, it could be said that theKJV was translated from the same family of manu-scripts out of which the Textus Receptus was finalized.

When we mentioned that the NIV was based upon an"eclectic text" we had reference to the fact that the underlying text was based primarily upon two manu-scripts as opposed to the majority of manuscripts be-hind the KJV and NKJV. Notice our quotations fromWilbur Pickering and Neil R. Lightfoot. In this sense itis certainly incorrect to say that the KJV was based onan eclectic text.

Brother Spears also observed that "The haphazardway in which the KJV text was formulated cannot hap-pen today." We think that this is another example of acareless statement. No explanation or examples weregiven.

He asked us if we knew what text was without fault. We never claimed that there was any text without fault.We gave this quote, "This is not to blindly endorse theReceived Text in the event that it does contain error. But I do suggest that the Westcott and Hort Textcontains far more erroneous renderings than does theTextus Receptus" (Luther W. Martin, Truth Magazine,Vol. VVIV, p. 293). One may or may not agree with hisappraisal of the matter, but that is what we had refer-ence to by "a faulty Greek text."

His Closing Remarks

In his last two paragraphs, brother Spears makessome very interesting statements. Concerning our quo-tations from brother Clinton Hamilton, brother Spearsraises some doubts as to our accuracy in this matter.We feel that rather than raise such doubts in the minds of the readers brother Spears should have availed him-self of tapes of the Open Forum. In this way he couldhave been sure. Let it be understood that we did not quote either brother Hamilton or brother Curry as anindication of their endorsement of our article, but ratherof our endorsement of statements we used from them. If he doesn't endorse their statement, let him take that upwith them.

A rather shocking statement of his is that, "It is notpossible by reading any version to be sure of what wasin the original." This is truly a disturbing situation to bein, if this indeed be the case. We are left to flounder in a sea of doubt! Brother Spears goes on to observe that itis a matter "of faith" and that a God powerful enough toreveal himself, is equally competent to preserve what hereveals (1 Pet. 1:25). We agree with this last statement.But if we can't be sure about any version, just where ishis word preserved? This is going to make a lot ofpeople wonder, brother Spears! We understand thatfaith comes by hearing the word of God, but if it is notpossible to be sure by reading any version that we havethe original, we wonder how we could have faith? Truly,some of these statements give an uncertain sound.What about a person that doesn't know the Greek lan-guage? Can we be sure about the plan of salvation,worship of the church from the versions we have?

We read and reread with amazement his statement in the last paragraph concerning "Easter" which is an obvious error in the KJV. He says that if anyone canendorse the KJV with this error "surely the same thingcould be done with any translation." We find it hard tobelieve that he thought that statement through. Wouldthis work with the New World Translation?

He affirms that the same message of truth prevailsdespite the many variations in many translations. Yethe says, "This is not to endorse the wide use of theNIV." We wonder why not, if the same message of truth is there? Does he think that a translation conveys thesame message of truth when the translators (to quoteSpears on the NIV) "flavored their translation withtheir Calvinistic backgrounds" (Guardian of Truth, June 17,1982)?

Again we appeal to the readers to consider that ourmain objective was to simply alert the readers to some dangers and problems with the NIV. We have had noreluctance to acknowledge points wherein we feltbrother Spears had just criticism of our original article.At the same time we felt that in his response that hemade some careless and misleading statements. It wasour duty to point these out as it was his duty regardingours. As he has indicated, this is not a matter of per-sonal victory for anyone.

SIGNPOSTS AND YARDSTICKS

Several years ago the Louisville and JeffersonCounty (Kentucky) Youth Commission published thematerial below Our Youth and their Parents. For fa-thers and mothers of developing children, I considerthese two sections of that publication as timely as any I have seen anywhere outside the Bible. Most heartily I commend it to readers of this column.

These signposts present the gruesomely dangerousline "that separates normal teen frustrations from a set course pointing directly to a wasted future."

Signposts of Delinquency (Watch for these in your family)

A. Extreme faddist appearance and dress.

B. Constant rudeness and disobedience

C. Habitual lying.

D. Cruelty to animals.

E. Persistent truancy.

F. Continual unexplained hours of activity.

G. Repeated vandalism.

H. Theft.

I. Possession of illegal weapons. J.Use of intoxicants or drugs.

Family Understanding Yardstick

A. The National Association of Mental Health has listed ten basic needs of youth—criteria necessaryto support the healthy growth of a young personthrough his transition years between childhood and manhood.

1. ACCEPTANCE—Every young person needs tobelieve his parents like him for himself; thatthey like him all the time and not only when heacts according to their ideals of the way a childshould act; that they always accept him, thoughthey may not always approve of the things hedoes.
2. CONTROL—Youth needs to know that there are limits to what he is permitted to do and thathis parents will hold him to those limits; hemust be taught self-control to avoid hurting himself and others when he feels jealous or an-gry.
3. FAITH—Youth needs a set of moral standards to live by, a belief in human values, kindness,courage, honesty, generosity and justice.
4. GUIDANCE—Youth needs to have friendly

help in learning how to behave toward personsand things; grown-ups around him should showby example how to get along with others.

1. INDEPENDENCE—Youth needs to know his parents have confidence in him and will helphim develop his ability to do good things forhimself and others.
2. LOVE—Youth needs to know his parents lovehim, and enjoy him; that he matters to someoneand that there are people around him who carewhat happens to him.
3. PRAISE—Every young person needs ap-proval. Youth, like adults, need a "pat on theback" for something good they have accom-plished. It is not small; it is important to youth.
4. PROTECTION—Youth needs to know his par-ents want him safe from harm; that they will help him when he feels a strange or frighteningsituation.
5. RECOGNITION—Every young person needsto be recognized for what he is inside and out-side the home. Consider him in planning a newhome, buying furniture, a new car, or going on avacation.
6. SECURITY—Youth needs to know his home is a place of safety; that his parents will bearound in time of need, and that he does belong to, and is an important member of thefamily.

B. How do you measure up?

1. Does he know that he has a special place as animportant member of your family which no oneelse could ever fill; can he rely on your alwaysliking him for himself even when you don't like some of the things he does?
2. Does he understand the necessity of disciplineand that you will hold him to certain deter-mined limits; has he been helped to develop self-control in all of his personal relationships?
3. Have you shown him by example the impor- tance of honesty, kindness, courage, generosityand justice; does he understand the value ofmoral standards and their significance in hiseveryday life?
4. Has he been given guidance for making somechoices of responsible action outside the homeunder conflicting pressures; does he respect therights of others in normal daily relationships?
5. Have you helped him understand that in- creased independence carries with it increasedresponsibility; does he believe that you trusthim to do right within the limits of his experi-ence?
6. Does your child know that you love and wanthim; does he believe in his heart that he trulymatters to you and that you care what happensto him?
7. Do you praise his efforts so that he enjoys thechallenge of new projects that prove his worthi- ness to his family and community; do you helphim accept his failures as well as his successesand encourage him to investigate new experi-

ences within the boundaries of good judgment?

1. Does he know that your concern for his safetycomes from your love for him; that you will helphim always as he takes new steps?
2. Do you always consider him in planning activi-ties and making important decisions that willaffect the family; does he feel free to express hisideas and contribute to discussions?

10. Is he sure that you are concerned for his safetyand understand the many influences that can affecthim outside your home? Does he know you will always protect him in time of crisis? Most parentscannot answer an unqualified "yes" to all of these yardstick questions, but all parents should be aware ofthe great responsibility inherent in these questions.

SIMPLICITY IN CHRIST

The apostle Paul did not think that the gospel systemwas so complicated that only the wise, the mighty, andthe noble could understand it (1 Cor. 1:26). His mainconcern was that people would not be satisfied with"the simplicity that is in Christ" (2 Cor. 11:3). Subtlety,subversion, and semantics are not needed to tell thegospel story.

Some may avoid the characteristic of simplicity,thinking there is no beauty to be found in it; that no wisdom can be attributed to those who employ it. Onthe contrary, true beauty is not enhanced by superflu-ous trimmings, and wisdom is not found in a multitudeof words (Pr. 10:19). Consider the wisdom of Solomonexpressed in Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. Notice the sim-ple language of the New Testament in general, and theplain teaching of Christ in particular. The nearer westay to the oracles of God in our writing and in ourspeaking, the better off we will be, along with our read-ers and hearers.

From time to time I may be writing under this head-ing in order to help some out of the maze of humanphilosophy into the light of the glorious gospel ofChrist. And, at the same time, encourage those who are in that light to be content with "the simplicity that is inChrist," and "be not moved away from the hope of thegospel" (Col. 1:23).

What Must I Do ... To Sin?

The question often encountered by preachers in the first century was "What must I do to be saved?" Thosewho asked the question realized their lost condition, and those who answered the question had a ready an-swer (Acts 2:37, 38; 16:30, 31). Every gospel preachermust consider the possibility that such a question maybe asked, and be ready with the right answer.

It has almost gotten to the place where we not onlyhave to supply the answer to this thought-provokingquestion, but we also have to supply the question! Notmany seem to be asking it these days, but maybe thereis a reason.

Someone, somewhere, has tried to excuse or justifyevery sin listed under the "works, of the flesh" (Gal. 5:19-21). Satan has been successful with his subtlety inhaving sin classified as a "sickness," so that those whopractice such things are not responsible for theiractions. The moral standards of the Bible have been lowered to fit the standards of a community, or of anation. "Split personalities" are the excuses offered bysome lawyers and psychiatrists to explain the lawlessconduct of their clients or patients. (I have often won-dered what would happen if someone walked into thecourtroom, shot one of these "split personality" freaks,and then defended himself on the grounds that he didn't shoot the "personality" that died, but one of the othernine?)

Anyway, it appears to me that we are going to have toconvince people that there is still such a thing as sin,before we can tell them about salvation. The way somehave it fixed now, it is almost impossible to sin, even ifwe try.

MORE ON RELIGIOUS CONFLICT

A previous article on this theme dealt with the causeand only remedy for religious conflict. Because of reli-gious political and military clashes (Middle East, Ire-land, Iraq-Iran War, and past history) some have con-cluded that all organized religion is evil: is bread ofdestruction rather than "bread of Life".

This fall, there is to be a "Spiritual Summit" of reli-gion leaders in New York and before the United Na-tions, at which time Robert Miller, Assistant SecretaryGeneral of the United Nations, will present a 10 pointDeclaration which he hopes will be a basis for peacefulcoexistence of differing world religions.

This article examines this 10 point Declaration, withsome observations.

Muller's Ten Principles

1. "The oneness of the human family, irrespective ofcolor, sex, creed, nation."
2. This has ever been a fact of divinely revealed religion,clearly recognized and set forth in Christianity. (Acts17:24-31; Isa. 2:2; Mark 16:15-16). Converting peopleto Christ (Christianity) will lessen the number who arenot impressed with this fact.
1. "The harmonious place of the individual personin the total order of things, as a unique entity of divineorigin, with physical, mental, moral and spiritual aspi-rations, and with a basic relationship to the universeand eternity."

When people accept and believe the Word of Truth(Bible), they will realize the value and worth of eachindividual and that God plans for and deals with each.(Acts 17:26-28; Jno. 3:16; 1 Cor. 12:12-26; Rev. 20:12-13). Teaching the New Testament will produce this con-viction.

3. "The importance of spiritual exercises, medita-tion, prayer, contemplation and the inner search aslinks between human life and the universe."

What is said here seems to be a matter of human beings on this universe crying out for, and to, a higherbeing. These spiritual exercises do not link human be-ings to the universe, crying out for, and to, a higherbeing. These spiritual exercises do not link human be-ings to the universe, but shows that all human beingson the universe are linked to a common need . . . some one higher than man. Christianity not only reveals thissupreme being, but points the way to a relationship with him that remains meaningful and rewardingthrough the above mentioned spiritual exercises. (Col.3:16; Eph. 5:19; Heb. 10:23-25; 1 Thes. 5:17; Phil. 4:6-7;2 Cor. 13:5). To impress hearts with the need for this,"preach the word".

1. "The existence of an incipient conscience andheart of humanity, which speaks for what is good andagainst what is bad for the human family; which advo-cates and fosters understanding, cooperation and altru-ism instead of division, struggle and indifference."
2. This is simply a matter of seeking the good of othersrather than self. Jesus exemplified this (Rom. 15:3; Phil.2:5-8) and taught that all should so act. (Rom. 12:16; 1Cor. 8:9,11-13; 10:24; Phil. 2:3). If this characteristic isgood for the human family, then the human familyneeds Christianity, for this is where it is learned andpracticed.
1. "The value of dedicated service to others, with acompassionate response to human suffering, with spe-cial attention to the oppressed and the poor, the handi-capped and the elderly, the rejected and the lonely."

No one who has ever lived exemplified more compas-sionate service to others, particularly to the poor, re-jected, and down-trodden, than Jesus, (Matt. 9:36;15:32; Lk. 10:33-37; Heb. 4:15; 5:2), "leaving us an ex-ample that we should follow his steps" (1 Pet. 2:21). Hedemands such service on the part of those who are his(Jas. 1:27; 2:14-16; Gal. 6:9-10). Sowing the seed of Christianity (gospel), when rooted in honest and goodhearts, will result in this characteristic among men.

1. "The duty to give thanks and express gratitudefor the abundance of life". This is something that Chris-tianity enjoins. (Eph. 5:20; Acts 17:24-25). Preachingthe gospel of Christ is the way to promote this among men.
2. "The need for ecumenical agencies and world reli-gious organizations to foster dialogue and collaborativearrangements, and to bring the resources and inspira-tions of the religions to bear upon the solution of worldproblems."

I do not believe this is a need, or even good, but would simply be an exercise in futility. It would be bringinginto existence a force to exercise pressure on politicalsystems. I believe in the separation of church and state.

One reason for much of the conflict and violence is religion's effort to put civil powers under their feet. Theonly way religion can be a force in calming religiouspolitical conflicts is for the gospel of Christ (Christian-ity) to be planted in the hearts of the people so that thistruth is not only accepted but practiced.

An agency or organization such as is suggested would only be another human instrument that causes conflict.The problem these 10 principles deal with can never besolved by human ecumenical agencies and their actions.There is only one thing that can be effective—thespread of Christianity__ "Preach the Word."

8. "A rejection of violence as contrary to the sanc-tity and uniqueness of the and a total acceptance of theprecept: 'Thou shall not kill' " ('do not murder(H.P.))

This is a demand of Christianity, the acceptance of which will even exterminate the hate, jealousy of ill-will that results in physical violence. The spread of Chris-tianity among all nations is the thing that will be effec-tive in lessening religious political strife, not the actionof ecumenical agencies and organizations of men.

1. "An affirmation of the law of love and compas-sion as the great transcending force which alone can break the nemesis of war and establish a planet ofpeace."
2. Christianity is a manifestation of such love, and fol-lowing it's principles will lead to peace. In fact, Christ,the very embodiment of truth, came as the divine rem-edy for man's inhumanity to man: to provide "peace onearth, good will toward men."
1. "The evolutionary task of human life and societyto move through the eternal stream of time towardsinterdependence, communion, and an ever-expandingrealization of Divinity."

This principle seems to affirm the need for men, dur-ing time on earth, realizing they are dependent upon each other and must, therefore, commune and cooper-ate, for such is the plan and aim of Divinity (God). Nodeclaration of man, some "Spiritual Summit", or hu-man conference can ever affect this principle: only trueChristianity can... preaching the gospel of Christ.

Conclusion

There is no way that men, by compromise and coer-cion, can unite the various religions, true and false, sothat peaceful coexistence will result. It is not in man todevise and affect such.

God has devised and presented the only system thatwill result in peace. It is Christianity. It involves theeradication of all that is human and false, "pulling downstrong holds; casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge ofGod," not with "carnal weapons", but by capturing thethoughts of men, "bringing them to the obedience ofChrist" (2 Cor. 10:4-5).

Human religions are believed to be divine by the es-tablishers and adherents of them, and they will fightcarnally to defend and establish their faith. This hasalways been, and always will be, a characteristic of what is human in its origin and nature.

Christianity, which is divine in origin and nature, onthe other hand, will zealously press for the establish-ment of truth in the hearts of men through preachingand teaching, suffering various persecutions-evendeath-from those who love and zealously pursue humanways, without retaliation in kind.

What is needed to solve the problem is not "SpiritualSummits", dialogue, compromise, and national organi-zations, but a zealous evangelization of the world forChrist. The "victory that overcomes the world" is faith... in Christ (1 Jno. 5:4). Nine of Muller's principles areprinciples of Christianity. If leaders of world religionscan agree on these, it simply shows that Christianity isobvious truth. Only principle No. 7 is a human principleand, if followed, would result in one more organizedreligious force that would foster pride, resentment, and violence.

In May of 1974 my family and I returned to Detroit after preaching in Sydney, Australia for five years. OnApril 16, 1984 my wife Pat and I flew from Detroit toSan Francisco in time to catch our 9:00 p.m. flight toMelbourne via Honolulu and Sydney arriving at 11:00Wednesday morning, Melbourne time. That very eve-ning we met with the brethren in Boronia for their mid-week Bible study. It was a good feeling to be back inAustralia after so many years.

Two days after our arrival in Australia I had opportu-nity to speak on an annual lectureship along with nineAustralian brethren of exceptional ability in the Scrip-tures. Brethren from eight congregations were presentfor the four days of preaching. Time was allowed fordiscussing the use of the 'Jesus the Way' correspon-dence course which is geared for mass distribution. TheAustralian brethren are accustomed to 'letter-boxing' from house to house, therefore the course was well re-ceived. To date I know of three congregations now dis-tributing the course. In Sydney the Merrylands and Miranda congregations are putting out 50,000 each andthe Bundaberg congregation in Queensland is puttingout 15,000. This same course has proven to be effectivein London and Detroit and hopefully Australia will beequally fruitful.

The weekend after the lectureship I preached at Hei-delberg in Melbourne and also Geelong before going onto Launceston, Tasmania for one week. The Launcestoncongregation is very active and continues to bear goodfruit while 'growing in grace and knowledge.' Plans are being made for extensive distribution of the course forthe entire city of Launceston with a population over100,000 within the next year.

Upon our return to Melbourne, Pat and I drove toSydney via Wagga Wagga, which amounts to a 600 miletrip. The brethren in Wagga continue to do well and I am happy to report that Harold Blyth was able to comethru a two year drought with all of his animals and 3,000 acre farm doing reasonably well, but he says hewas thrilled to hear the rain on his 'tin roof in the middle of the night. In Sydney the Miranda and Merry-lands congregations are doing well with some newyoung families along with the older ones. Two men whoare retired, Harry Henderson and Stan Holyoak aregiven to 'bringing the lesson' and also personal evange-lism. They both understand what it is all about.

One of the highlights in Sydney was being able tocarry on a conversation in English with Jaime andMaria Ducaud of Santiago, Chile and Mariana (Jaku)Newton of Catania, Sicily. They arrived one year before our departure speaking only Spanish and Italian andour conversations were mostly sign language. I nearlyjumped thru the phone when I first heard them speak in an 'intelligent language!' Jaime is now leading singingand doing some preaching in English. What a thrill.

We then flew to Auckland, New Zealand where wespent two days with the Kirkham family whom we hadknown while living in London, England. We were able toget a closer look at the work on hand and it appears that an 'open door' exists. Is there a family or two who wouldbe willing to make a commitment to move there in the near future? May I insert a plea for each of us to givepersonal consideration concerning the command to 'Go into ALL the world,' preaching the gospel to every crea-ture. Why not stop by the international travel agentnear you and check on application for temporary orpermanent visas rather than 'tourist?' There is much to be done in the rest of the world—souls are groping indarkness.

On to Bundaberg, Queensland to be met by RoilyMcDowell and also Harry Wyer who work together inthe preaching for a substantial congregation in thattown snuggled in the midst of sugarcane. Doorknock-ing is a synonym with assembling in that place!

Time went quickly and on May 31st., our anniversary,Pat and I left Syndney on our return to Detroit to begreeted by our family at 9:00 in the morning after cross-ing the 'international date line' which gave us a 48 hour anniversary. How's that for stretching it out? After traveling 25,000 air miles in 6 weeks, it was good to behome.

Some Observations: Being in touch with the work in Australia since 19691can see many positive signs of growth in some congre-gations, however the major source of encouragementrests in the growth and development in some of the menas while most of them hold down full time jobs to pro-vide for their families along with carrying on the workof the gospel. There is some incredible talent there andthey are to be commended for their diligent and hardwork for the Lord. There are 15 to 20 men with real strength who are giving loyal service to the 'King of kings' throughout the country.The congregations in Australia seem to understandevangelism and many are continually going out to 'ring out the message,' as we so often sing about in our wor-ship services.May I add my appreciation to the brethren at 77th St. in Birmingham, AL for their willingness to share in thistrip by providing my travel expenses making this trippossible. This good congregation, along with manyother congregations, continues to support the preach-ing of the gospel throughout the whole world. May theirexample stir other congregations on to even more sup-port for 'foreign evangelism.' I am thankful to God that I could "Go back and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached theword of the Lord, and see how they are doing" (Acts16:36). Some disappointments were found, but thesewere offset by the obvious signs of many being "Strong

in the grace .. . men able to teach others . . . enduringhardships... that they may obtain the salvation whichis in Christ Jesus with eternal glory" (2 Tim. 2:1-10).

DOES GOD LOOSE BOTH THE

INNOCENT AND THE GUILTY?

The question of whether God looses the innocent per-son who "puts away" his spouse for fornication, wasdiscussed in our last lesson. It appears to me that Christwas very explicit in showing that the "exception" given in Matthew 5:32; 19:9 looses the innocent party andthat he/she is free to remarry.

One of the pitfalls I want to warn about early in thislesson is confusion of terms. Many make the mistake ofequating:

Married = Bound

Divorced — Loosed

Neither of the above is equal.

Let's define these terms again. The original word for"bound" is deo and is defined by Mr. Thayer, whenreferring to the relationship that can exist between peo-ple as in Romans 7:2, "To bind, i.e. put under obligationsc. of law, duty, etc... to be bound to one... of a wife"(Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon, Pae 131, # 2b). Oth-ers want to use another definition given by Thayer asused in Mark 15:7; "To bind, to fasten with chains, tothrow into chains" (Ibid. P. 131). The reason for wanting to use this definition instead of the first, will becomeobvious.

Since, as some reason, the word "bound" can mean"fasten with chains," (the latter definition in the aboveparagraph) when an innocent party "puts away" an adulterous spouse for fornication, thus severing the"bond" for the innocent mate who does the putting away, the "bond" is also broken for the "guilty party,"They reason that when the chain is broken, both arereleased. However, as we have already observed fromthe above definitions, the word "bound," does not mean" to fasten with chains when it refers to people relation-ships. It means to "put under obligation, namely, towit, of law."

It should be obvious that one can be "married" and not" bound," or "bound" and not "married." For exam-ple in Matthew 19:9, the innocent party (the one doingthe "putting away") is loosed from any obligation to theguilty party, if he so desires; but it is obvious that the guilty party is still under obligation (bound to the law ofher husband, Romans 7:2-3; I Corinthians 7:39). This isobvious because whosoever marries the guilty party isan adulterer.

As we observe Mark 6:17-18, in the case of Herod andHerodias, we see two people who are "married," for thatis what the text says, but they are not "bound." John the Baptist told Herod that it was an unlawful marriagefor she was still his brother Phillip's wife.

Some have tried to show that the reason for John's indictment of their marriage was that Herod had vio-lated the Law of Moses by having his brother Phillip's wife. However, neither Herod, Herodias, nor Phillipwere Jews; hence, they were not subject to the Law ofMoses. They were in violation of the law that Jesus saidGod put in effect in the beginning—one man for onewoman for life (Matthew 19:4-6). Thus the word "mar-ried" refers to relationship, and "bound" refers to obli-gation; "marriage" does not equal "bond."

From the chart above I want us to look at four posi-tions in the Scriptures on the word "bound." First, thereis one who is "bound" in a scriptural marriage (Matthew19:5). Second, there is one who is "bound" but separated(I Corinthians 7:10-11). Third, one mate may be"bound" while being unscripturally married to another(Mark 6:17-18; Romans 7:2-3). Fourth, one mate may be"bound" though unmarried while the other mate is free(Matthew 19:9).

God's law has always imposed both obligations and restraints on those who are capable of doing His Will.Man is obligated to do all that God requires and is alsorestrained from going beyond what God has authorized. This is clearly shown from the passages listed on the next chart. These two requirements also apply to mar-riage. God "joins" (the word translated "joins" literally means, "yoked together," see Nestle's Interlinear) aman and woman (Matthew 19:4-6), they are obligated toleave father and mother and cleave to one another,God's law also restrains them from sexual relations with another, cf. Romans 7:2-3.

Position # 1: Tom "puts away" Mary for fornication.According to the above position (that the guilty party isalso free to remarry) Mary could remarry without sinbecause Tom has been "loosed" by God. Position # 2:Again, Tom puts Mary away for burning the bread.According to the above position, Mary could not remarry. Hence if position # 1 is true, a premiumwould be placed on sin, because the one who tore up his/her home by sin (fornication) would be able to remarrywithout sin, whereas the one who has "put away" be-cause of something not sinful could not remarry. As Ihave shown on the following chart, this position is ab-surd.

Send all News Items to: Connie W. Adams, P.O. Box 69, Brooks, KY 40109

FRY ROAD LECTURES

The Fry Road church of Christ, 2510 Fry Road, Houston, Items willconduct a lectureship November 11-14, 1984. The morning theme will be:"Ancient Enemies in Modern Dress." The evening theme will be: "VictoryOver the World Through Faith." Jerry Fite, Robert Turner and RobertHarkrider will each speak three times. There will be sing-ing from 7-7:30nightly. We extend to all a cordial invitation to come and study with usthese vital themes. Should you need a place to stay let us know and wewill try to make provisions for you.

DALE AND JUDY HENDRICKS, P.O. Box 472, Nederland, TX77627—Seven months ago, over $10,000 in medical bills before us, we sat wondering and praying. Praying for help, strength, and guidance andwondering how we could ever meet such obligations. A bankrupt insurance company, threatening phone calls, collection agencies, and attorneys had become discouraging realities in our life. Today, August 31,1984 all medical bills have been paid in full and again we sit wondering and praying. Prayers of thanksgiving unto our God for hiswonderful, caring family of which we are a part; and wondering how toadequately express the heartfelt appreciation and love that we feeltoward you all. We received almost $10,000 in less than five monthsalong with encouraging cards, letters and phone calls from all over the country.

In an age of such prosperity, when individual Christians (for the most part) enjoy a degree of self-sufficiency in relation to brethren; the beautifulconcepts of loving liberality among brethren as witnessed in 2 Cor. 8 and 9are seldom experienced first hand. Judy and I have truly been strengthenedand are better Christians today for having experi-enced the activemanifestation of your love and concern. We thank each of you! Specialthanks to Dee Bowman for making available to you the details of our situation and to the editors of each periodical through which the information was dispersed.

WAYNE S. WALKER, 5170 Chippewa Rd., Medina, OH 44256—Thework in Medina is doing well. We have baptized 6 so far this year andhave had a family of 4 place membership. Average Sunday morning attendance is over 50 and average contribution is near $400. We are atpeace and are beginning a buildingprogram. We had a spring meeting withLewis Willis, a summer lectureship with different speakers with subjectsaimed at our young people, and a fall meeting with Fred Shewmaker.Our present building is located at 6205 Wadsworth Rd., on state Hwy. 57a mile south of town. Stop and visit with us.

RICHARD C. SIMS, P.O. Box 539, Gatesville, TX 76528—On June 25 my family and I moved to work with the new sound church inGatesville, Texas, In July I held a gospel meeting here and spoke on authority and the organization and work of the church. We had visitorsfrom the community at every service. On Sunday following the meetingan older couple came out of the liberal church in town and identifiedwith us. We continue to have visitors and are encouraged. Since the church is small, I must raise my support to work here. We moved here with only $500 promised monthly support and some of that may be short lived. Thanks to several onetime contributions from churches and individuals, we were able to make ends meet through July and August. Ihave a temporary job through September 22. In October we will be $1700 short on monthly support. In 11 years of

preaching in 4 states, I have never preached anywhere where people are as willing to discuss the Bible and attend gospel meetings as in Gatesville. If you are able to help support gospel preaching, won't youplease consider helping us in the work in Gatesville? My phone num-ber is (817) 865-6965.

JON QUINN, 2616 Macklin Rd., Flint, MI 48504—The church at Flint has asked Ronald Killebrew to come and work with us and he has agreed tocome as soon as he can raise the needed support. Ron will enable us towork more effectively in the black community. 60% of our contacts through"Dial A Bible Moment" are black. Other doors of opportunity are openingfor us in the black community. Brother Killebrew is ready to leave hissecular job and begin full-time preaching here. Since we moved to Flint we have had 9 baptisms, 4 to repent and place membership and 5 to placemembership besides. Seven have come from institutional backgrounds.We have withdrawn from some, and some have moved away. We are soonlosing a mature family. But we are setting up about 20 correspondencecourses each month as well as several face-to-face studies. When he comes he will be the seventh faithful full time preacher in our state. The localchurch can help him with $150 a month and he will need help for therest.Please give brother Killebrew your consideration.

DEBATE IN JOHNSON CITY, TENNESSEE

EVERETT HARDIN, 2428 Lakeview Dr., Johnson City. TN 37601—Larry Hafley will meet Hulon Myre of the United Pentecostal Church indebate Nov. 12,14,15,16 in Johnson City, Tennessee. Sessions will be at

7:30 each evening. Propositions involve the baptism of the Holy Spiritand miracles. The debate will be conducted in the Seeger Chapel on the campus of Milligan College, located on State Highway 67.

A PREACHER'S WIFE AND 30 YEARS IN AFRICA (Editor's note: the following is lifted from a report from Ray Votaw, whowith his wife, Thena, has spent 30 years now in South Africa preaching. It says much about the spirit that motivates such godlypeople to carry the gospel to distant lands and about the quality of amarriage which serves as a worthy example in a time when so manymarriages are in so much trouble. CWA)

RAY VOTAW, Box 801, Springs 1560, South Africa—She was barely inher twenties—this strong yet gentle country girl—when she bundled upour two babies to accompany me half way around the world so I couldpreach Christ. So many times through the years I have been asked,"What did Thena think of going to South Africa?" Shamefully I have had to confess—"I don't know because I don't recall asking." But you see, it's always been that way with us. She has so completely given herself over to being one with my plans that contrary notions have never surfaced.(Let me hasten to say, however, that this quiet confidence, love and trusthave guided me out of much "wrongheaded-ness".) So what fitting tributecan I possibly pay to such selfless devotion? Truly she loved and lovesthe Lord. Thank God she also loved and loves me. Now, back to the cubic zirconium necklace. We remember at our house two anniversaries—our wedding and our ar-rival in South Africa. August 2 marks our 30th year in South Africa. That little necklace was just a verytoken way of saying to her "I remember." Though the stone in thisnecklace is an imitation—my Thena is the genuine article.

Page 17

RODY GUMPAD, Tanza, Tuguegarao, Cagayan 1101, Philippines—I amhappy to inform you of our 17 days of preaching in Cagayan Valley(northern Luzon) with Diosdado Menor. Brother Menor and I spoke at each service. In spite of the strong Typhoon "Maring", God blessed our efforts and 38 were baptized into Christ. Pentecostal leaders at one place tried topersuade the Mayor to revoke our permit to preach. He refused to yield totheir pressure and five were baptized there, including one elder from thatPentecostal group. We were at Aparri, Cagayan when typhoon "Maring"arrived. In two days, rain showered the inside of the small house where we were accommodated, but we kept preaching to those who came. Five werebaptized there, one a 72 year old man who was an elder in a Pentecostal group. Typhoon "Maring" was followed by typhoon "Nitang".Thousands are homeless and many are reported dead. Farm animals and crops are destroyed. Water was one meter deep in the kitchen of the housewe are renting. The work in northeast Luzon is growing wider and widerwith new congre-gations being established. Please pray for us. We willhave a lecture-ship October 15-20 with Diosdado P. Menor, Gady Castres, VictorioTibayan,Sr. and Isabelo Macusi, Jr.

REID BRASWELL, 417 Clayton St., Brundidge, AL 36010—We arescheduled to leave January 11,1985 to resume our work in Manizales,Columbia. The Columbian consulate assures me that the visa will be granted provided I can show proof of support. Since my wifeisColumbian Iam eligible for a resident visa. I need to have $1,500 a month supportand still lack much of that. Can you help? For references contact Royce Chandler (who has much personal knowledge of the Columbian work),3891 Bunnel Rd., Lebanon, OH 45036, phone (513) 398-1768; or JimmyTuten, 7911 Country Dr., Mobile, AL, phone (205) 633-6769.

JAMES SHEAR TO REVIVE WORK INMILLEGEVILLE, GEORGIA

J. WILEY ADAMS, 103 Ridgeland Dr., Warner Robins, GA 31093—James Shear, who presently preaches for the Hardies Chapel church nearGordon, Georgia, is planning to revive the work in Millegeville, Georgiawhich was started many years ago by the late Jack Frost, Sr. They have anadequate building on highway 49 as you enter town from Macon. Thebuilding needs a new roof and some classroom repairs. It is brick construction and seats 175-200. The work has dwindled due to a lack of teaching and a full time program of work. Millegeville is the past capitolof Georgia, is the home of Georgia College, a military academy, a women's prison, a major state mental hospital, and a resort area nearLake Sinclair. Baldwin County has about 40,000 residents. The wholestate of Georgia is a vast mission field. It is the largest state east of theMississippi. Brother Shear already knows the area and many people inMillegeville. He has a personality for meeting people which just won't stop. He is enthusiastic about this work and eager to work with this group of about a dozen people. He needs to raise adequate support for thiswork. You may contact him at P.O. Box 409, Gordon, GA 31031. Pleasehelp if you can. He would like to begin there in January, 1985.

PREACHERS NEEDED RICHLANDS, VIRGINIA—The church here needs a preacher to workwith us in this southwestern part of Virginia. The church is small but we cansupply partial support. Contact Billy Sword, Box 190, Richlands, VA24641. Phone (703) 963-9687.

WILDERSVILLE, TENNESSEE—The Expressway church in Wildersville is looking for a full time preacher. We are located just off I-40east of Jackson. For further information please contact L.G. Lewis at

(901) 968-7772; or Steve Wilkinson at (901) 968-5083.

LYNCHBURG, VIRGINIA—The church in this central Virginia cityneeds a full time preacher. This congregation is small in number (18) but big in love for the Lord and his work. Only partial support is available.Those interested may contact Larry Powell at (804) 237-3445 or John Malloy at (804) 237-2015. We meet at 1203 Westridge Cir., in Lynchburg.

MULVANE, KANSAS—The congregation in Mulvane is locking for a preacher. We are self supporting and furnish a house. If interested, contact Sam Walker at (316) 777-4259 or Ed Boyd at (316) 777-1054.Our mailing address is: Box 88, Mulvane, KS 67110.

REPORT FROM ITALY STEFANO CORAZZA, Via Tagliamento 912, 33100—Udine, Italy— Our work in Udine is making progress. In recent months we havebaptized three. During the year we had two gospel meetings for which wedistributed 10,000 invitation cards and placed 400 big posters on city walls. One of our converts came through one of the meetings. Each month we deliver from house to house our own bulletin. From this we have seven good contacts who now take our 24 lesson Bible correspondence course. We have started an effort in Gorizia, 40 miles from Udine. This is a city of 50,000 people. We are distributing 20,000 invitationcards. Gianni Berdini of Trieste will also help in this work. Next year wewill have a gospel meeting here. We also have opportu-nity to preach inMilan, the important metropolis in the northwest of Italy. We have somecontacts there now through a column written by Gianni Berdini inSENTIERI DIRITTI. A man and his wife, plus three others have been meeting in a home for sometime after separating from liberal brethren overdoctrinal matters. They have shown some interest and we will see what isthe situation. The liberal work in that area grows worse and worse. The gateis widely open by now! We thank brethren for their encouragement in ourwork. Our door is open to you. We hope someday to meet some of you, toshare personally our precious and unique love and faith and fellowship.

"They of Italy salute you."

IN THE NEWS THIS MONTH BAPTISMS RESTORATIONS(Taken from bulletins and papers received by the editor)	259 115