YATER TANT'S INVOLVEMENT WITH CROSS-ROADS

"I charge thee in the sight of God, and of JesusChrist, who shall judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word; beurgent in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort,with all longsuffering and teaching. For the time willcome when they will not endure the sound doctrine; but,having itching ears, will heap to themselves teachersafter their own lusts; and will turn away their ears fromthe truth, and turn aside unto fables. But be thou sober in all things, suffer hardship, do the work of an evangel-ist, fulfill thy ministry" (2 Timothy 4:1-5).

In January, 1980 I learned that brother Yater Tanthad been invited to speak to the Wednesday eveningassembly at Crossroads church of Christ, Gainesville,Florida, on December 5, 1979. I had some idea abouthow he might have been invited, but I was not sure. Ifmy idea was not true, I could not explain the occasionexcept that Yater or Crossroads was changing.

I talked with a friend who had some knowledge ofwhat had occurred and he told me how to obtain a tapeof his speech. I got the tape and listened to it. I hadsome questions about brother Tant's influence as the result of what he did not preach while he was at Cross-roads.

I went to Birmingham, Alabama in April, 1982 andtalked to brother Tant about what he was writing inVanguard and about his partial endorsement of theCrossroads church. He continues to believe that his speaking at Crossroads will do them good, and eventu-ally he will get other churches to accept Crossroads. Ifhe does not believe that now, I do not know WHY hecontinues to seek opportunity to fraternize with them.

I asked him why he did not tell Crossroads what waswrong with the social gospel which they preach andpractice. He said they probably would never have in-vited him back, and by returning he could teach themagain. But I asked, if he continued to be mute about thethings wherein they were wrong, what good would it befor him to keep preaching to them?

The elders at Crossroads wrote letters to Reuel Lem-mons, Jimmie Lovell, Yater Tant and Guy N. Woods,inviting them to speak on the 1982 Florida EvangelismSeminar, Friday, August 13. They were to speak on thetopic, "That They All May Be One. Only Yater showedup to speak, but with no more effect than the first timehe spoke at Crossroads.

I have no desire whatever to misrepresent in any waybrother Tant's connection with the Crossroads church in Gainesville, Florida, nor do I want to misapply ormisuse any of his quotes and statements of the glowing reports of the great work being done by this false reli-gious system. I think I understand what he means in hisreference to their "success," but I sharply disagree withboth his evaluation of their work and his Crossroads "Total Commitment" concept.

I fully understand the fleshly ties and the friendship-business bonds that explain why some take a very leni-ent and tolerant view of the known sins of Crossroads. It explains the silence of some on the scriptural depar-ture of 14th Street as it progressed toward the presentCrossroads System as it is today. In particular, I canexplain to my satisfaction the influence that movesYater Tant toward the Crossroads church and its work. Aside from the fact that Yater is compelled by the desireto bring all "factions" among churches of Christ to-gether in one congregational function, regardless of dif-ferences and the basis of differences, he has emotionaland nostalgic ties with some in "high places" at Cross-roads. His goal for unity is good, but his method isimpossible and unscriptural! I love him for trying toprovoke peace and unity among brethren, but I cannot strike hands with him on any plan he has proposed inthe last three or four years.

Brother Tant is fascinated by the zealous programthey call "total commitment," which he obviously be-lieves will achieve two goals which every sincereChristian desires: salvation of souls, and unity of di-vided groups in the church.

In the first place, I do not believe Yater Tant knowswhat the Crossroads system really is. When he ex-plained to me that he saw and talked to young men and women, and attended some of their "soul talks" and prayer sessions, and he did not find such as I described,I told him they had provided a show case for him, and hesaw what they wanted him to see.

I have not been to any of the meetings or "soul talks,"but I have talked to many who have been there and arestill part of the system, and they were not "thrown out"for any reason. They told me what takes place and howthe plan works. In most cases they thought they wereteaching me "a better way."

Brother Tant is also drawn to Crossroads because he is thrilled with the number baptized. Several have charged that Crossroads baptizes many of their con-verts two or three times. They are charged with makingthem so guilty and unhappy that they want to be bap-tized again, and this explains the large number of bap-tisms. Chuck Lucas vehemently denies this both pub-licly (on tape) and in print. I do not have the proof inhand to charge him with lying. I do know this: by somemethod Crossroads has increased her membership toseveral times what it was when Lucas arrived in Gaines-ville in 1967.

I do not believe the problem is with "re-baptism" ofyoung converts, but with the unscriptural methods ofindoctrination and discipline of those baptized. I amconcerned with the great emphasis on the social gospel and the commercial involvement of the church. I am concerned about the error taught and practiced relatingto the organization of the church. These are the things Iknow to be contrary to the word of God. Brother Tant, why baptize people into such a mess of doctrinal corrup-tion regarding the nature, organization, name and workof the church?

Yater Tant is "totally committed" to bringing about UNITY among brethren at about any cost. Crossroadshas an attraction for him because he thinks the zealous program will promote unity in action that will bringparties together. Tant makes it known that he has aimed his biggest guns at bringing together the "pro-institutional" and "anti-institutional" brethren to wor-ship and work together as one body. He says, "Anyhow,for my remaining years, I still want to pursue a coursethat will lead eventually to the unity of God's people. Irealize that liberalism is making serious inroads into thebrotherhood, particularly among the larger 'pro' insti-tutional churches; but if brethren in both the 'pro' and the 'anti' congregations can become truly committedand involved in reaching the lost, liberalism will have avery difficult time in creating much of a problem." (Edi-torial, Vanguard, December, 1981).

(Continued on Page 4)

CONTRIBUTIONS AND BUYING SERVICES

Until the problems surrounding church contributionsto various private business enterprises began to lead todivision, brethren did not seem to have much troubleunderstanding the difference between a church pur-chasing a service from a business and making a contri-bution to that same business. All seemed to understand that in the realm of expediency congregations had aright to pay a service company for supplies they neededin the execution of scriptural work.

For example, a meeting house is an expedient to thecommand for Christians to assemble (Heb. 10:25).There is a vast difference in paying a constructioncompany for supplies and work on erecting a buildingfor the church and in making a monthly contributionfrom the church to the construction company. In casesof benevolence for which the church is responsible, whowould argue that the right to purchase a bill of groceriesto feed the needy would authorize the church to make amonthly contribution to the grocery store?

By the same token, churches may purchase Bibles,communion ware and supplies, maps, chalkboards,tracts and class literature to utilize in scriptural work,but they cannot make contributions to church supplyhouses.

I thought this principle was pretty well understood,but evidently not by some. In the November, 1983 issueof BIBLE HERALD, Clifton Inman, former editor ofthat paper and for years operator of a church supplybusiness, calls in question the right of churches to pur-chase ads in such religious papers as GUARDIAN OFTRUTH and in SEARCHING THE SCRIPTURES. He also raised the issue in his last speech in the debate we had a few years ago at Middlebourne, West Virginia.Strangely enough, he also had somewhat to say aboutgiving away free samples of religious papers duringgospel meetings when I have personally seen any num-ber of preachers in the Ohio Valley hand out copies ofBIBLE HERALD at meetings. And all this during the time he was the editor. Brother Fred E. Dennis carried bundles of BIBLE HERALD and a number of other papers around with him for years and gave them out.That neither proves the practice right or wrong but ifbrother Inman objected to it then, he did not say soloudly enough to be heard very far.

But what about ads purchased by churches in SEARCHING THE SCRIPTURES? Brother Inman charges that these ads are just ways for churches tosubsidize such papers. Further he asserts, "And theseads do not help the churches one particle. The churchescannot be helped by these ads!" That is a strong affir-mation and has no greater support than the fact thatClifton Inman said so.

SEARCHING THE SCRIPTURES has never accepted a contribution from a congregation and hasno plans to begin that practice now. We sell a product.In addition to making a subscription charge for thepaper, we sell some advertising space. Religious SupplyCenter of Louisville, Kentucky purchases two pagesof ad space per month. We also sell ad space tochurches who wish to advertise their services for our readers. There are two essential issues involved here:

(1) Do congregations have a scriptural right to advertise their services? and (2) May they purchase some of that advertising from a paper such as SEARCHING THE SCRIPTURES? If churches cannot purchase advertising space then brother Inman needs to instruct his brethren to stop doing sothrough newspapers when they have meetings, or onthe Saturday church page ads. If it be contended thatchurches may buy advertising space, but not from apaper operated by brethren, then upon whose authority is that to be based?

The amount of good done in any form of advertising isa matter of judgment. In our own case, people regularlytell me they use our ads when traveling, or to put theirfamily members who are away in school or in the mili-tary in touch with brethren who can help to teach themwhile they are away from home. I have personally beenpresent in congregations in distant parts of this land when visitors came in with ad in hand from STS or one of the other papers.

Perhaps brother Inman could enlighten the editors ofthe GOSPEL ADVOCATE and FIRM FOUNDATION on this subject since they accept such ads also.

We do not, solicit and will not accept contributionsfrom churches but this editor defends the right ofchurches to buy advertising space in this paper, in a public newspaper, and to purchase supplies fromhouses operated by brethren without being falselycharged with making a contribution to a private busi-ness. There is a difference in buying a service and mak-ing a contribution and I am sure brother Inman recog-nized that difference when, for many years, he soldliterature to churches from the BIBLE HERALD BOOKSTORE in Parkersburg, West Virginia. Interest-ingly, the same issue of BIBLE HERALD in whichbrother Inman's article appeared carried back page adsfrom an insurance agency and from AAA Motor Clubboth of Fairmont, West Virginia and also one from ajewelry company in Moundsville, West Virginia. Ques-tion: Did these businesses make a contribution to BI-BLE HERALD or did they buy a service? I wonder if"these ads do not help" the businesses "one particle." Isit true that they "cannot be helped by these ads?"Things surely do get interesting sometimes.

WISDOM FROM GRANDMA GARDNER

My maternal great grandmother was an unusualwoman in many ways. She spent her last few years inour home when I was a small child. She knew much about many things, wrote poetry, composed songs and knew a seemingly endless number of old folk songs. Shewas also very outspoken and sometimes her descrip-tions were graphic. For instance, my father used to tellof the time a neighbor lady came to visit and soon wasabout to divulge some juicy bit of gossip to GrandmaGardner about another woman in the community.When Grandma Gardner saw the drift of the conversa-tion she interrupted as follows: "You know, if everyonewho totes news had her tongue run out about a yard,and a slit cut in it, and her leg pulled up through it, therewould be a whole lot more folks goin' around hump-backed than what there are now." Total end of conversa-tion!

(Continued from Page 2)

Editor Tant notes that APATHY is "the one greatestproblem" he sees, and he thinks Crossroads church hasthe answer. He said, "It was for this very reason that Ivisited with the Crossroads Church in Gainesville, Flor-ida, and have been strongly impressed with their suc-cess in getting the members involved in HomeBible Studies." Then he says, "How are they doing it?Not by recreation, not by 'gimmicks,' not by high-pressure tactics and hoop-la, but by getting the members actively involved and participating in thesoul-winning process." (ibid).

I do not know where brother Tant has been, and I donot know what he saw when he was at Crossroads and preached to them, but they DO have church suppers,refreshments, banquets, a camp-ground, entertain-ment, "Crossroads Singers" who are entertaining allover the country. Some of the strongest pressure tac-tics found in this country are used in Crossroads' cell-type-confessional-prayer-partner system of control. Fartoo much evidence over the past several years is availa-ble to deny this. Chuck Lucas has created a smoothlyoperated organization, and he DOES use recreation,gimmicks and high-pressure tactics in the operation ofCrossroads.

Finally, a very strong factor in brother Tant speakingat Crossroads church was his friendship and businesstie with John Whitehead, brother of Richard White-head. I do not know when their friendship or businessrelationship began, but in October, 1967 Yater Tantintroduced in an editorial of The Gospel Guardian IM-PAC, a new Personal Evangelism program which heand John Whitehead sold. This business relationshipcontinued for several years.

In those days John was a strong, outspoken "anti"institutional, "anti" church sponsoring, "anti" central-ized oversight, "anti" social gospel preacher. But Johnhas changed over the years, and he now serves in a church he once condemned as unscriptural in doctrineand practice. He told me more than once that if he werein the position of his brother or any at Crossroads, andcould not give Bible authority for what they did, hewould quit. I wonder if John has found the Bible author-ity? I am certain John feels more secure to have Yaterjoin him at Crossroads!

This explains in great measure why Yater would seekthe opportunity to visit and speak at Crossroads, andwhy the Whiteheads would desire to have him. There isnothing evil about such a relationship, but it just helpsme understand why Yater Tant has tried to defend TheCrossroads System.

GOOD ADVICE FROM ADENOMINATIONAL PREACHER

In the December 18th, 1983 issue of the Dayton DailyNews, eight area ministers were interviewed in regardto their lives and their congregations. One of the minis-ters was a Church of God preacher. What he said about"church growth" caught my attention. I believe there isa good lesson in his assessment as to what makes achurch grow.

The article reported that Mr. Grubbs, the preacher ofthe Salem Church of God, came to Dayton in 1968 whenattendance average 225 people every Sunday. Today more than 1000 people attend Sunday morning serv-ices. Grubbs said: "Growth is not stimulated by gim-micks and publicity—Like a person, a church can gainweight, get fat and not grow at all.

"Rather, a church that grows has to have these threethings: First, they must have a vision of who they areand what they're supposed to do; second, they mustbelieve God is able to empower them to be who they're supposed to be; and finally, they must pay the price—intime, talents and treasures." Certainly, Grubb'sevaluation is in the right direction of what is required to build up the church. Of course, many of us alreadyknew this, but our problem in far too many places isnot implementing his suggestions. Let us enlarge upon what Mr. Grubbs enumerated.

Vision

You will notice, first of all, that a church should haveVISION AS TO WHO THEY ARE. A faithful, localcongregation is the Lord's church, purchased and re-deemed by the blood of Christ. Paul said to the Ephe-sian elders that they were "to feed the church of God,which he hath purchased with his own blood" (Acts20:28). God's church has been redeemed from all iniq-uity, purified and made a peculiar (possessed) people, zealous of good works (Tit. 2:14). A local church is thebody of Christ (1 Cor. 12:27). We are God's husbandry, God's building (1 Cor. 3:9), and the pillar and ground ofthe truth (1 Tim. 3:15). These facts should provide theimpetus to be enthusiastic servants in the church.

Secondly, a church needs to REALIZE WHAT IT ISSUPPOSED TO DO. Too many times congregations donothing more than worship on Sunday and have acouple of Bible studies during the week for the mem-bers. Religion is confined to the meetinghouse. There isno sounding out the gospel like the Thessalonians did (1

Thess. 1:8), or personal evangelism like those who were

scattered abroad from Jerusalem (Acts 8:4; 11:19-21).

Grubbs went on to say, "The church can be the most

cloistered, remote and unreal place in the world—a real

microcosm of unreality. People go to church to get away

from the pains of the world, when they should be going

to the world __ "

Christians must get out into the "marketplace" withthe good news of salvation and bring the lost to theSavior. We must hold forth the word of life (Phil. 2:16).Jesus came to seek and save the lost (Lk, 19:10). Thatmust be the church's mission, also. We must break outof our self-imposed isolation and insulation and moveout into the field, white unto harvest.

God's Empowerment

The second thing a church needs to grow is to BE-LIEVE THAT GOD IS ABLE TO EMPOWER THEM. Paul had this confidence. He said, "I can do allthings through Christ, which strengthened me" (Phil.4:13). He also stated, "But my God shall supply all yourneed according to his riches in the glory by Christ Jesus(Phil. 4:19). To the Ephesians Paul wrote, "Now untohim that is able to do exceeding abundantly above allthat we ask or think, according to the power thatworketh in us" (Eph. 3:20).

Yes, God provides the strength, the help and needs forthe inner man through the Spirit (Eph. 3:16). Of course,this is not miraculous or mysterious, but by permittingour hearts to be influenced and directed by the HolySpirit through the Scriptures. By increasing in theknowledge of God, we are strengthened with all might(Col. 1:10-11).

To convert the lost, God empowers His children withthe gospel, which is His only power unto salvation. Thegospel in THE power of God unto salvation (Rom. 1:16).Paul said, "For the preaching of the cross is to themthat perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it isthe power of God" (1 Cor. 1:18).

The church does not need gimmicks or claptrap meth-ods to win the lost, yea, it must not employ such carnalmeasures in its efforts to convert the world. Depend on God—not on theatrics, games, entertainment, pleasure,etc. We need to sow the seed of the kingdom and Godwill give the increase.

Paying the Price

Paying the price of time, talents and treasures iswhere many of us balk. The cost is too much, the sacri-fice is too great.

Our TIME is disproportionately consumed on our own interests rather than devoting to the Lord's work the share that it rightfully deserves. Many of us arenot willing to take a few extra hours each week, inaddition to church services, to have Bible studies in thecommunity, visit the weak, the shut-ins, the sick, and tocall on the visitors to our services. As a result, we arenot witnessing the baptisms and restorations that weonce did.

Our schedule for many of us during the week is one tofour hours at the meetinghouse for church services,with the rest of the week, year in and year out, taken up in bowling, fishing, socializing, club meetings, ball games, shopping, school events, etc., and not one houris used toward helping some soul be saved for now andfor eternity.

All of us need to be "Redeeming the time, because thedays are evil" (Eph. 5:16). In view of God's judgment ofevery man's work, we need to pass the time of oursojourning here in fear (1 Pet. 1:17). It is "high time toawake out of sleep" (Rom. 13:11).

We will give account to God as to how we use ourTALENTS. Every Christian has some ability and whenan opportunity presents itself to him, he becomes re-sponsible. Someone correctly stated that "responsibil-ity equals ability plus opportunity." This lesson istaught in the parable of the talents (Matt. 25:14-30). Some of us are going to lose our souls because of theapathy we manifest toward the life of a Christian ingeneral. May God help us to become more interestedand more involved in His work.

The church has too many in it like the old fellowmisquoted Matthew 22:14. Jesus said, "For many arecalled, but few are chosen." The old gentleman's version was, "For many are cold, and few are frozen."

Finally, church growth demands TREASURES. Topreach —the gospel at home and abroad requiresmoney—a lot of money. There are many avenues thatmay be utilized to take the gospel of the world, such astelevision, newspaper articles, correspondence courses,gospel meetings, filmstrips, radio programs, distribu-tion of tracts, etc. Inflation has caused a great increasein all of these and the members of the church must givemore than they used to in order to compensate for thespiraling costs. Churches should set challenging budgets for the year and then endeavor to meet thebudget to accomplish the work planned. Too manytimes brethren wait to get the money and then decidefor what to spend it, with all too frequently having alucrative bank account left over. This is going at itbackwards.

The more we give, the bigger our treasuries and themore with which to work. Hence, generous giving leadsto larger and larger churches, providing the money isput to proper use.

In conclusion, it is time that we open our eyes to thefield of labor, open our hearts to the power of God,ration our time to allow a generous share for the Lord's work, unleash our talents and overflow His treasurywith love offerings and then behold one of the greatestrevivals we have seen in our lifetime.

Paul wrote to the Galatians, "You observe days andmonths and seasons and years. I fear for you, thatperhaps I have labored over you in vain" (Gal. 4:10,11).Likely the observance of no day would cause moreconsternation than participation in all the activities ofthe day we call "Mardi Gras." This article will serve asan introduction to that day.

Origin

As in several other holidays (holy days), the celebrations of Mardi Gras are descended from pagan festivals. Spring festivals in celebration of the fertilityof the earth were common long before the first century.These were often characterized by various sacrifices—sometimes of humans, especiallyvirgins—and general debauchery. In time they wereadopted with modifications as "Christian festivals" incommemoration of some Biblical event of significance.

A number of historians relate Mardi Gras to the Roman festival of Lupercalia, a fertility god, whichwas celebrated February 15. "During the Lupercalia complete and universal license was granted thecitizens of Rome. Almost all laws were abandoned and a Roman might do anything, not always even ex-cluding murder, on that one day. It was an uninhibited debauch during which every caprice was freely and openly indulged . . . Rape, robbery, and the slaying ofenemies, while disguised, were popular diversions. Allsocial barriers were down, and slave and freedman, patrician and pauper, ran riot in the streets of Rome, hand in hand."1 That description would not miss by much the scene of Mardi Gras in the twentieth cen-tury.

Many participants in the Lupercalia were masked.The first to wear them were female impersonators. Thearistocracy often wore them to avoid being recognizedin association with the common people, or "to avoidthe gossip that might follow in soberer days ahead."5 Though there is a good bit of secrecy about the moderncelebration, I fear it is not out of a sense of shame (Jer.6:15).

The Roman feasts of Saturnalia and Floralia are also mentioned in connection with Mardi Gras.3

Religious Significance

Mardi Gras is the day preceding the beginning of Lent on Ash Wednesday, which occurs forty days priorto Easter, not counting Sundays. In Roman Catholic theology the Lenten season is a time of fasting andpenitence in preparation for the celebration of Easter.

The three days immediately prior to Ash Wednesdaywere known as Shrovetide. The name is from "shrive,"which means to administer penance and to absolvefrom guilt. During these days the people would maketheir confessions to the priest and be "shriven" in anticipation of Lent. The last day was known asShrove Tuesday.

Meats and fats were often forbidden during Lent. Soit became customary to have a feast in which these things were consumed the day before the Lentenseason began. That practice was abused and perverted into a time of unrestrained merriment which evolved into the modern celebration. "Mardi Gras" is French for "Fat Tuesday." The season became known as Carnival.

"Carnival" is from two words meaning farewell tomeat or flesh. Some think it came from the practice ofleaving off meat during Lent; others, that flesh is themore accurate idea, denoting the putting aside of all earthly pleasures. "Carnal" is from the same root. Carnival actually covers the period from Epiphany, thetwelfth day after Christmas (a commemoration of the visit of the wise men), until Ash Wednesday. It mightlast less than one month or more than two, dependingon the particular year.

In spite of the abuses Carnival still has the approvalof the Catholic church. "The Carnival in Catholic countries, and in Rome itself, is a special season forfeasting, dancing, masquerading and mirth of all sorts.In itself this custom is innocent. . . But the pleasuresof the Carnival easily degenerate into riot, and the Church therefore encourages pious exercises at thistime."4 Needless to say the religious aspects of theseason, and Mardi Gras in particular, have long sincelost their emphasis.

History

Carnival has been observed in a number of Europeancountries for several centuries, particularly in Italy. Inthe fifteenth and sixteenth centuries their Martedi Grasso was a day much like the ancient Lupercalia.After decades of savagery, laws were finally enacted which stopped much of the violence. In the seven-teenth and eighteenth centuries peaceful celebrationstook place in the Colosseum.

Carnival celebrations were also common is such cities as Paris, Madrid, Geneva, and Warsaw. At onepoint the season was lasting as long as half the year inVenice.

In England the last day of Carnival was often calledPancake Tuesday, after the custom of making greatquantities of pancakes and having contests in flippingthem (thus the "flapjack"). Football games betweenvarious parishes were common in the eighteenthcentury as a part of the celebration. There was also acustom in some parts of beating cocks to death—thought by some to be a kind of punishment ofthe one heard by Peter when he had denied the Lord, though that tradition is not sure.

Specifically when the observance began in theUnited States is uncertain. It is generally consideredto have begun with some French explorers early in theeighteenth century. With few exceptions the celebration is limited to the gulf coast of Louisiana,Mississippi, Alabama, and a few counties in the panhandle of Florida, areas explored and settled by theFrench. When the Spanish occupied this territory inthe eighteenth century much of the celebration wasoutlawed, but it was gradually renewed after the Louisiana Purchase.

Nineteenth-century observances varied greatly fromone year to the next. The day was frequently markedby violence on a large scale. Often dozens were killed.Prostitution was rampant. Mardi Gras appeared indanger of extinction when in the middle of that centurya mystic "Krewe" was formed, a private, secretiveclub that paraded on Mardi Gras. Its members weredressed as demons with Satan himself on the throne. Other krewes were formed in the decades to come, andpresently there are more than sixty of them, thoughthe activities of some are limited to balls, anointing kings and queens, etc. Many are named after Roman gods. The modern celebrations are financed completelyby these private organizations, hence Mardi Gras isbilled "the greatest free show on earth" (it might beargued that it is worth what you pay for it!).

Celebrations

Much of the Carnival festivity is hidden from publicview in exclusive, lavish balls and ceremonies. Paradesbegin more than a week before Mardi Gras. Thesefeature gaudy floats manned by members of the various krewes, many of whom are so inebriated theymust be tied onto the float. They throw beads,doubloons, coconuts, trinkets, etc., to an audienceshouting, "Throw me something, mister," while scrambling, shoving, stomping, and scratching tosnatch the worthless throws. Several children have been killed in the shuffle in the past couple of years.

The French Quarter, where parades are banned,becomes one giant party. Nudity is commonplace anddrunkenness prevails.

The attitude of most is summed up by one localwriter. "There is pleasure to be had as a spectator, butnot nearly so much as when you become part of theshow. This is supposed to be your farewell to the flesh,too, so make the most of it. You can do penancetomorrow. If you are not going to be a Mardi Gras [acostumed participant], you might as well spend theday in the country"1 (exactly what my family did last year).

Words like drunkenness, sensuality, immodesty,idolatry, revelling, carousings, and the like sum upmuch of the day's activities, though I wonder if theycapture the real picture. It amazes me that people attempt to observe religious holidays God has notauthorized by doing things He has specifically for-bidden.

Fat Tuesday is the pride of New Orleans. I am reminded of Isaiah's statement, "Woe to those who

call evil good, and good evil; who substitute darknessfor light and light for darkness; . . . Woe to those who areheroes in drinking wine, and valiant men in mixing strongdrink" (Is. 5:20,22). Peter warned, "For the time already past is sufficient for you to have carried out the desire ofthe Gentiles, having pursued a course of sensuality, lusts,drunkenness, carousals, drinking parties and abominableidolatries. And in all this, they are surprised that you do not run with them into the same excess of dissipation,and they malign you; but they shall give account to Himwho is ready to judge the living and the dead" (1 Pet. 4:3-5).

FOOTNOTES

1

Robert Tallant, Mardi Gras (Gretna, LA, Pelican PublishingCompany, 1947), pp. 86,87.2Tallant, p. 86.

3

Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (Grand Rapids:Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1977), Vol. III, p. 401.

4

"Carnival," A Catholic Dictionary [Addis and Arnold] (London: Virtue & Co., Ltd.), p. 124.

5

Tallant, p. 219.

MARRIAGE, DIVORCE, AND REMARRIAGE Introduction

The world in which we live today is in a state of upheaval. The home is in serious trouble, and a divorce isalmost as easy to obtain as a new suit or dress. In manycases, it is not as expensive.

Probably everyone who reads this series of articles hasexperienced the heartache of divorce, either in their ownlives or in the lives of a family member or some close personal friend. For the past few years the Devil has donea good job breaking up marriages; and we, the Americanpeople, have certainly been willing subjects. Nearly 50%of today's marriages end in divorce, and in some areas the rate is 2 out of 3. This condition is not confined to anygiven area. In 1980 Paul Harvey re-ported that in a smallcounty in West Tennessee there were more divorces percapita in one given month than any other county in theUnited States.

My purpose in preparing this material is three-fold. First, it is my prayer that those who have never married will be able to grasp the awesomeness of the responsibil-ity theyare undertaking in choosing a husband or wife and will understand that marriage is a life-time commit-ment.

Second, I hope that those who study this material will beable to see the truth on the subject of divorce and

remarriage as taught in the Scriptures and use it to combat false doctrines being propagated by false teachersboth in and out of the church.

And finally, to those who have already made the mis-take of being divorced and remarried, I hope that thestudy of this material will in some way help you to seethe position that you have placed yourself in before Godand rectify it before it is everlastingly too late.

The thoughts for the first article on marriage have beendrawn from several different sources; however, the material and charts for the divorce and remarriage is-sues werecompiled while I was preparing for four de-bates on thissubject.

Marriage — God Ordained

That marriage is ordained of God cannot be success-fully denied. In the very beginning of time, when Godmade man in His own image and after His own likeness, Hesaw that it was not good for man to be alone; and he madehim a help meet. The word "meet" means, " 'a helper,' literally, 'a help,' ezer. Her position is further defined by the expression 'like Turn,' keneghdo, literally 'as agreeing to him,' or 'his counter part.' She is the kind of help man needs,agreeing with him mentally, physically, spiritually" (H. C.Leupold Commentary on Gene sis, page 130). "And Godcaused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: andHe took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh thereof;And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made He a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said,This is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shallbe called Woman, because she was taken out of the Man.There-fore shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh"(Gene-sis 2:21-24).

What Constitutes Marriage?

Since the origin of marriage is divine and since it is the first and most permanent of all human contracts, we wouldcertainly expect God to tell us what it takes to constitutemarriage as He would have it.

man's part to constitute a marriage. As you can see fromthe chart, the first thing to be considered is "agree-ment."This "agreement" is based on God's statement to "leave and cleave." The word "leave" means "to leave behind" (W.

E. Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Page 666); while the word "cleave" means "to joinfast together, to glue, cement, is primarily said of metalsand other materials" (IBID page 198).

Page9

Thus the man and woman are to be "glued or cemented"

together agreeing to "leave behind" father and mother

and "cleave" to each other.

Because of Romans 13:1 which says, "Let every soulbe subject to the higher powers," they must, in order fortheir marriage to be approved of God, comply withwhatever civil laws are in effect wherever they are liv-ing, as long as these laws do not violate God's law.

The third consideration is the matter of taking vows.All marriage ceremonies with which I am familiar endwith both parties vowing to remain together "till deathdo us part." Not only is this vow made between maleand female, but God is also witness to it. Thus there are actually three parties involved in the marriage — the bride, the groom, and God. The taking of vows consti-tutes a covenant between marriage partners to live to-gether as husband and wife.

There are many occasions recorded in the Old Testa-ment where vows were taken, and we learn that God was very strict in insisting that the vow be carried out.Solomon said, "When thou vowest a vow unto God, defer not to pay it; for he hath no pleasure in fools: paythat which thou has vowed" (Ecclesiastes 5:4 cf. Romans 15:4).

Finally the marriage is consummated by the sexualunion or cohabitation. Obviously, all of the above things must be involved in order for there to be a mar-riage. Marriage is not just agreement for sexual union,this alone would constitute fornication.

God's Purpose for Marriage

I believe that God has at least four purposes for mar-riage: sociological, biological, procreative, and reli-gious. We will examine these in the order which I havelisted them.

First, we will consider the sociological aspect of mar-riage. Companionship is one of the primary purposes forwhich God instituted marriage. In Genesis 2:18 we read, "And the Lord God said, it is not good that man should be alone, I will make him an help meet for him."This is the abiding value of marriage.

The second purpose is biological. For every desirethat God has placed within man He has provided alawful and Scriptural way to fulfill that desire. God hasplaced within man the urge for sexual relations (I amtold that hunger and thirst are man's greatest desires,and that the sexual desire is the next greatest) and hasprovided a lawful means to fulfill that desire. "Never-theless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his ownwife, and let every woman have her own husband. Letthe husband render unto the wife her due: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not powerof her own body, but the husband: and likewise also thehusband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.Defraud ye not one another, except it be with consentfor a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt younot for your incontinency" (I Corinthians 7:2-5).

God's prescription for fulfilling the sexual desire is forevery man to have his own wife and every woman herown husband. However, it is not enough just to know the solution. Paul continues by commanding every hus-band and wife to "render their due." Here are some comments on the expression "rendering their due." "Some have rendered the words, not unaptly the matri-monial debt, or conjugal duty — that which a wife owes to her husband, and husband to his wife; and which they must take care mutually to render, else alienation of affection will be the infallible consequences, and this in numberless instances has led to adulterous connections. In such cases the wife has to blame herself for the infidelity of her husbandand the husband for that of his wife. What miserable work has been made in the peace of families by a wifeor husband pretending to be wiser than the apostle, andtoo holy and spiritual to keep the commandments ofGod" (Commentary on I Corinthi-ans, by Adam Clark,Page 221).

Often we witness the very thing set forth by AdamClark. People do not carry out the commandments ofGod; and after the husband or wife has allowed themsel-ves to be tempted by Satan, and because of inconti-nency has yielded to temptation, the one who is unwill-ing to "render their due" is then ready to "put away" their mate, placing all the blame on the one who yieldedto the temptation. (The word "incontinency" means want of strength to regulate one's desires or appetites."Want of power, hence, want of self-control" — W. E.Vine, Page 594). However, it may be pointed out herethat the one who "holds back" on yielding to his or hermate has violated specific commands of God and is alsoguilty. Paul said, "The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husbandhath now power of his own body, but the wife" (I Corin-thians 7:4).

Notice also another command that is violated in this situation. Paul said, "Defraud ye not one another... " (ICorinthians 7:5). Notice in the paragraph above thatPaul said we are to, "render that which is due." Paul says that failure to "render that which is due" is "de-frauding" the other, thus making the one who failed to"render their due" guilty in God's sight of "defrauding,"That one is guilty of violating two commands of God — to "render that which is due," and to "defraud not." However, it should be noted also that these sins on the part of one do not give the "defrauded partner" the right to seek the fulfillment of his desires elsewhere.

Since God has given a lawful means of satisfying thisstrong desire He has placed within man, satisfying it byany other means is sinful. Notice various means whichGod condemns:

1. Homosexuality is an unlawful means of satisfyingour sexual urges. This is so stated in both Old and NewTestaments (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; ICorinthians 6:9; Jude 7).
2. Beastiality is also condemned by God as a means ofsatisfying our sexual desires because beasts are notsuited to man (Genesis 2:20; Exodus 22:19; Deuteronomy 27:21).
3. Polygamy is also sinful, for God has set forth that there is to be one man for one woman for life (Romans7:2-3).

The third reason for which God instituted marriage isfor the procreation of the race (Genesis 1:28; I Timothy5:14). However, as we have already observed, this is notthe only reason for marriage, though some religiousbodies teach this.

The fourth and final purpose for marriage that I con-sider here is religious. You will recall that Paul said oneof the reasons for each man having his own wife and each woman having her own husband was "to avoidfornication (I Corinthians 7:2). You will also recall thatPaul said fornication is a sin (Galatians 5:19). The He-brew writer said, "Marriage is honorable in all, and thebed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge" (Hebrews 13:4). Thus marriage was insti-tuted by God so that man may fulfill the sexual desiresgiven him by God and yet avoid the sin of fornication.

For more than twenty years I have been saying that,according to the Liberal position on sponsoringchurches, ALL OF THE MONEY OF ALL OF THECHURCHES OF ALL OF THE WORLD could be placed under the elders of a single congregation andthat they alone could decide who should preach, wherehe should preach, what he should preach and when heshould preach. I suggested that they would be reluctantto admit it because they simply did not know wherethey were headed. I suggested this to Guy N. Woods, inmy debate with him. He wouldn't admit it, but heDIDN'T deny it! I presented the same to W. L. Totty,and H. C. McCaghren, and Alan Highers. None of themadmitted it but NONE of them DENIED it!

Now comes a report of the Dale Smelser-BusterDobbs debate in Ft. Wayne, Indiana. And Dobbs isreported to have swallowed the "whole thing" hook,line and sinker. He is reported to have admitted that ifthe elders of a congregation decided to do so they could contribute every cent they took in to a sponsoring church and that the latter could then spend the moneyas they saw fit. And he admitted that every congrega-tion in the world could do the same. Thus it would seem that the whole "ball of wax" of the Sponsoring Churchtype of work has been reduced to an absurdity.

When a thing can be thus reduced to an absurdity it isnot the truth and it is contrary to the truth. At the timeI was advancing this argument with Woods, Totty, Mc-Caghren, and Highers, I did not realize it was so potentand so powerful. I should have pressed them to at leastsay something about the matter. Instead, they just ignored it. But I am glad somebody among them hasnow come out flat on the matter and admitted the obvi-ous. I am going to ask Smelser how he managed to getDobbs to come up and lick the log.

Surely, now that Dobbs is co-owner of the Firm Foun-dation, things will move fast among the Liberals. Onthe other hand, perhaps Dobbs will act like Reuel Lem-mons before him and write up and down, in and out sothat nobody can pin him down as to exactly what hebelieves. At any rate it is refreshing to know that some-body has had the courage to admit the consequences ofhis doctrine.

Of course, if a church can send $100 to a sponsoringchurch, it could send $200 or $300, or as Dobbs said itcould send ALL OF IT! But will our liberal brethren now back off and shell down the corn and admit that they have over stepped the bounds of reason as well asScripture? And will they take a stand for the truth? Or,will they be like Brother Woods who said "there is noplace for benevolent organizations in the work of theNew Testament Church" and then say he wasn't talking about any of the benevolent organizations it is nowsupporting. It appears that they are in the position of the man who took in a mouth-full of scalding hot coffee.He realized that he had to do something quickly andrealized that whatever he did was probably the wrongthing to do. But I hope and pray that this admission byBuster Dobbs will at least cause them to pause and takestock of the situation and pull back and get in line withthe word of God.

Page 11

There can be no doubt about the fact that John Calvin and his theological allies believed the Bible to be the inspired word of God and the true testing ground for allreligious propositions. They were convinced that theScriptures upheld their views. (In the Institutes Calvinrefers to no less than 2400 passages to support hissystem.) But every lover of truth in every generation ismorally bound to take the Bible in hand and concludefor himself whether Calvinism can legitimately befound there. II John 9 says, "Anyone who goes too farand does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God"; and I Thessalonians 5:21 warns us to "ex-amine everything carefully; hold fast to that which isgood."

No one can deny that the Bible teaches a man is savedby the grace of God and not by his own meritoriousworks (Romans 3:23, Ephesians 2:5, Titus 3:5, et al.).But does this mean that God saves him uncondition-ally, apart from the cooperation of his own will? Paulsays in Romans 1:16 that "(the gospel) is the power ofGod for salvation to everyone who believes." John writes, "As many as received Him, to them He gave theright to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name" (John 1:12).

Traditional Calvinists, however, have consistently re-garded those passages which affirm salvation apartfrom works to be denying all human cooperation in thesalvation process. Requirements which a man must ful-fill, they say, would negate salvation by grace andoblige human free will. While these scriptures do saythat no man can earn his salvation by works (for thiswould demand perfect obedience, Gal. 3:10-12), they donot teach that salvation by grace is unconditional.Faith as the basic prerequisite for redemption is contin-ually emphasized throughout the New Testament,along with repentance, baptism, and other human activ-ities. Romans 4:16 is decisive on this matter. Describ-ing how a sinful man obtains righteousness Paul says,"it is by faith, that it might be in accordance withgrace." Far from teaching that the need for man's re-sponse would nullify God's grace, Paul says it is hisresponse of faith that establishes his salvation as beingby grace. The Scriptures repeatedly affirm the neces-sity of human cooperation in the salvation process. Con-ditions must be met. Instructions like those given inMark 1:15 are clear: "The time is fulfilled, and the king-dom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel."

Calvinism attempts to counter these passages by ar-guing that faith, repentance, and other so-called re-quirements for salvation are actually brought about inthe elect by the supernatural impartation of God. Ap-peal is made to such places as II Timothy 2:25, Romans12:3, II Peter 1:1 and Philippians 1:29 where faith and repentance are said to come from God. But these versesdo not state that they are given supernaturally or apartfrom a man's own determination. Romans 10:17 on the other hand teaches that faith comes by hearing theword of Christ, and Romans 2:4 says that God's kind-ness is what motivates one to repent. The majority ofpassages dealing with faith and repentance clearlypresent them as autonomous responses to the gospel ofGod. The Bible only speaks of repentance and faith untosalvation coming from God in the sense that God pro-vides the motivation and the opportunity. Calvinism's notion that they are bestowed supernaturally makesthem symbolic, rather than authentic human activities. The frequent pleas in the New Testament for all men tobelieve and repent become feigned. They are vain peti-tions addressed to those who could not possibly heedthem unless God supernaturally granted the power todo so.

Calvinism argues in this fashion in order to maintainits doctrine of divine sovereignty. But its errors alongthis line become even more apparent in the face of sev-eral key scriptures. Revelation 2:20-23, for example,gives Jesus' indictment against the church at Thyatirafor tolerating "the woman Jezebel, who calls herself aprophetess, and she leads my bond-servants astray, sothat they commit acts of immorality and eat thingssacrificed to idols" (verse 20). This wicked woman, towhom the record ascribes the name of the most treach-erous of Old Testament women, was influencing theseearly Christians to associate themselves with the festiv-ities of pagan worship. Notice what is said in verses 21 and 22: "And I gave her time to repent; and she does notwant to repent of her immorality. Behold, I will cast herupon a bed of sickness, and those who commit adulterywith her into great tribulation, unless they repent oftheir deeds." It is obvious from this passage that theLord's desire was that Jezebel repent; if not, why doesHe say, "I gave her time to repent"? Yet, she did not.The verb employed is thelo ("to will"), and literally theverse says, "she does not will to repent." How can Cal-vinism explain this statement? Here is a clear exampleof an individual who was not under the absolute, deter-ministic control of God, but possessed the freedom tochoose whether she would or would not submit to God's wishes.

A similar text is Luke 7:29-30: "And when all the people and the tax-gatherers heard this, they acknowl-edged God's justice, having been baptized with the bap-tism of John. But the Pharisees and the lawyers re-jected God's purpose for themselves, not having beenbaptized by John." God's will regarding the Phariseesand lawyers was that they submit to John's baptism of repentance even as others had done (cf. Luke 3:3-14).But these stubborn men "rejected God's purpose forthemselves." Thayer says that the verb Luke uses, athe-teo, means "to thwart the efficacy of anything, nullify,make void, frustrate" (Thayer's Lexicon, p. 14). Calvin-

ism teaches that men do not have the ability to thwartthe will of God, that the only reason why some reject thegospel is because God does not desire for them to accept it. This passage teaches the opposite. God's desire wasfor these men to repent and be baptized, but they hadthe right to not comply, and they exercised it.

Jesus' lament over sin-sick Jerusalem in Matthew

23:37 further attests to the fact that salvation dependsupon a man's voluntary submission to the divine will.He cried out, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills theprophets and stones those who are sent to her! Howoften I wanted to gather your children together, theway a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and youwere unwilling." Calvinism teaches that the only reasonsome are not gathered into the family of God is becausethey are not of the elect, and therefore not regeneratedby God. But Jesus says that the people themselves areto blame, for they refused to believe in His gospel. Twicein this passage the very thelo ("to will") is used, oncepositively to denote Jesus' willingness to save theseJews; then negatively to denote their unwillingness.Here then is another passage demonstrating that thedivine will is not deterministic and irresistible. If Cal-vinism is correct then Jesus' declaration of remorse for the lost city is nothing but a facade. Lord, why are youbemoaning their rejection of the gospel when it was bydivine decree that they not be granted the power toobey? The Scriptures plainly teach that election is notunconditional.

Nor does it consist of the selection of particular indi-viduals for salvation and others for reprobation. TheBible teaches that the gift of salvation, while not uni-versally efficacious, is universally offered. Paul toldTimothy, "God our Savior... desires all men to be savedand to come to a knowledge of the truth" (I Timothy 2:3-4). To Titus he wrote, "For the grace of God has ap-peared, bringing salvation to all men" (2:11). Peter saidin his second epistle, "The Lord ... is patient towardyou, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come torepentance" (3:9).

In an effort to skirt the obvious sense of these pas-sages, Calvin suggests that there is both a general call to redemption and a specific, effectual call extendedonly to the elect.

There are two species of calling;—for there isa universal call, by which God, through theexternal preaching of the word, invites allmen alike; even those for whom he desires thecall to be a savour of death, and the ground ofseverer condemnation. Besides this there is a special call which ... God bestows in believ-ers only, when by the internal illumination ofthe Spirit he causes the word preached totake deep root in their hearts.

(Institutes, III:24:8)

The Scriptures never talk about two types of calling.But by making such an assumption at the outset, Cal-vin can then regard all passages speaking of a poten-tially universal salvation to be referring to the ineffec-tual call, something the original readers of the NewTestament were expected to understand. Calvin's posi-tion makes the universal call unauthentic. God invites even the reprobate to enjoy redemption, knowing theyhave no ability to accept for He has not granted it.(Curiously, Calvin still asserts that the full blame fortheir failure to respond lies not with God, but with the reprobated individual himself. The unchosen, he says,have "an asylum to which they may betake themselvesfrom the bondage of sin, while they ungratefully rejectthe offer which is made to them", Institutes, III: 24:17.) In what kind of God do Calvin and his followers be-lieve? A sovereign God, is the consistent reply, who hasthe right to withhold mercy from whomever He desires.Certainly God has this prerogative, but the same Biblethat affirms His sovereignty also proclaims His loveand equity. "I most certainly understand now that Godis not one to show partiality, but in every nation theman who fears Him and does what is right, is welcometo Him" (Acts 10:34-35). The God of Calvinistic theol-ogy could not adequately be represented by the goodSamaritan in the Lord's parable. He is more akin to the priest or Levite. Calvinism's God sees one sinner lyingon the side of the road and extends His aid; but furtherdown the road He unsympathetically passes by another in precisely the same predicament. (Continued)

THE POPE SPEAKS TO THE LUTHERANS

During the early days of the Reformation, Pope Leo Xcalled Martin Luther "the wild boar that has invaded the Lord's vineyard." Luther responded by calling the pope "Antichrist" and the Catholic Church "the mostlicentious den of thieves, the most shameless of broth-els, the kingdom of sin, death, and hell."

But times, and people, and attitudes, and convictionshave changed! In December of last year, 1983, the As-sociated Press published the following article under the heading "Pope joins in service at Lutheran Church."

"ROME — Pope John Paul II, in a historic visit to aLutheran church, said Sunday that despite bitter pastdifferences between Roman Catholics and Lutherans,'we desire unity, we work for unity.'

" 'The gift of this encounter moves me deeply,' the pope said during the first visit by a Roman Catholicpontiff to a Protestant church in his own diocese.

"It also was the first time a pope attended a service ofthe Lutheran church, which is founded on the preceptsof Martin Luther, the excommunicated German priestwho led the Protestant Reformation that split the church 462 years ago.

" 'I have come in the spirit of the Lord that calls us inour days, through ecumenical dialogue, in the search forfull Christian unity,' the pontiff said in German.

" 'And in the 500th anniversary of the birth of MartinLuther we seem to discern from far away the dawning ofan advent of a recomposition of our unity and commu-nity,' John Paul added.

"The pontiff shook hands with many of the estimated400 worshippers who took part in the service, whichwas broadcast in part on nationwide television. About100 journalists from various countries crowded into thebalconies.

"John Paul appeared tired as he sat beside his host,Pastor Christopher Meyer, on a raised platform before the marble altar of the small church. The pontiff stumbled over several words in his sermonduring the hour-long service.

John Paul was without his mitre — the symbol of the papacy — when Meyer greeted him as bishop of Romeat the white travertine church on Via Toscana just offthe Via Veneto.

"Together they joined the congregation in reciting aprayer written by Luther for Christian unity."It is Advent, from Latin for 'an arrival,' a celebra-tion leading to the anniversary of the birth of Jesus Dec.

25. The service did not include Holy Communion — asacrament the two churches celebrate differently."

When something is done or said which is antitheticalto what a dead man believed and practiced, it is com-monly said that if he knew it he would "turn over in hisgrave." If that were true, surely Martin Luther wouldbe spinning in his grave. His modern-day followers havecompromised the cause for which he suffered and la-bored so diligently.

From a recent article by the local preacher of the Christ Lutheran Church we quote:

"Luther held the priesthood of all believers. This meant when one believes in Jesus, he does not need thePope, the priest or anything else but Jesus to intercedefor him. The washerwoman could serve the Lord just asmuch as the priest in front of an altar. The celibate life was not better than a Christian carrying out his faith inservice to God and man. Luther gave dignity to allwork, all men and their tasks.

"The bulk of his writing was against the institutional-ized church. He felt the Pope was not infallible; that hewas not the only one who could call a council, or placehimself over the word. Luther thought the laity shouldreceive both bread and wine in the Holy Communionand that the sale of indulgences, which were supposedto enable sinners to get out of purgatory, was not scrip-tural and should cease."

While Luther was a man of ability and conviction, andthe freedom-loving people of the world are indebted tohim, we certainly do not defend all that he did andtaught. For example, he taught salvation by faith only.While we can appreciate the fact that he was driven tothis position by an equally false position, the Bible doesnot teach it. The apostle Paul expressed the truth on this, clearly and succinctly, when he wrote that salva-tion was by "faith which worketh by love" (Gal. 5:6). Seealso James 2:14-26.

Is there hope for unity among Catholics and Lutherans? An article in Christianity Today, December16, 1983, answers the question by saying: "What doesthis increasing doctrinal unity signify for the reunion ofthe two Christian communions? Msgr. Jerome Quinn ofSaint Paul Seminary does not believe the two theologi-cal systems are yet sufficiently compatible for a unitedchurch to emerge in the next generation. Gerhard O.Forde of Luther Northwest Seminary in Saint Paul alsosays there are 'all kinds of conditions about eventual union' that must first be resolved. He notes that to date the Vatican has been 'remarkably silent' about the dia-logue team's continuing efforts."

Yes, and we note that the pope was silent about hisposition as Vicar of Christ and head of the church whenhe addressed the Lutherans. The news report said thathe appeared "without his mitre — the symbol of thepapacy." Could it be that he wanted the Lutherans tothink of him as the bishop of Rome, rather than the popeof the universal church?

We can be reasonably sure that any compromise intheir efforts toward unity will not affect the office of thepope. And that is the real issue, and one that we plan tostudy in future lessons. Will the Lutherans accept the office of the pope? If not, how can there be unity amongthe two groups? We say again, the pope will stay as he ispresently regarded, for without that office there wouldbe no Catholic Church!

The pope said that he came before the Lutherans "inthe spirit of the Lord... in the search for full Christianunity." If he and all others would follow the teaching ofthe Lord and his true apostles we could have unityamong all believers in Christ. Christ prayed that we beone by believing on him "through their word" — theword of the inspired apostles (John 17:20). Their wordwhich described the "unity of the Spirit" was that we allbelieve in one God, one Lord, one Spirit, one faith, onebaptism, one body, and one hope (Eph. 4:3-6). Why can't we all understand and accept that? That is the only planfor unity revealed by the Spirit, and the only one accept-able to the Heavenly Father. If Catholics, Lutherans,and all other denominations would turn from their man-made doctrines and traditions and accept the plan givenby the Lord and his apostles, all believers would be"sufficiently compatible" to experience peace and unityin the one body, the church of the Lord Jesus Christ.Let's all work and preach and pray to that end.

David Lipscomb the man, once edited the Gospel Advocate and was known for his opposition to unscriptural innovations in the church. A collegenamed after him is located in Nashville, Tennesseeand has not fol-lowed the principles he strongly heldto. In fact, David Lipscomb the man, could not teach atDavid Lipscomb College where he taught when he lived.

The November issue of the David Lipscomb News hasan article on the back page, written by G. David England, Director of Lipscomb News Bureau. The ar-ticle is entitled, "First Elders Conference Meets Goals."It seems that England should check his facts for this isnot the first "elders conference" to meet goals. If thefacts had been checked, another elders conference couldhave been thought of. In fact, it was an elders,preachers and teachers conference which was vehe-mently and adamantly opposed by David Lipscomb the man.

The article tells us that "some 48 men from congrega-tions of the church of Christ in middle Tennessee and southern Kentucky visited the David Lipscomb Collegecampus Oct. 8 for the first Elders' Conference." The purpose of this conference was to try some group train-ing and be better elders. One elder is quoted as saying,"Of the many things that have marked this administra-tion, one has been building stronger ties with the broth-erhood. As I serve as an elder, I have sensed my ownpersonal need and have sensed from my fellow eldersthe need for learning more about how to fulfill the role ofshepherd and overseer." My mind went almost auto-matically to 1 Peter 5:2-3, which teaches elders to "tendthe flock of God among them" and I wondered if thisman might not be better off reading Peter and Paul thanhe would be attending a DLC Elders' Conference.

Another statement the report made that is interest-ing is as follows. One of the elders of the Division Street church in Smyrna, Tennessee is quoted as saying, "Ithink it potentially is one of the greatest things tohappen to the church in middle Tennessee. It broughttogether a group of elders representative of elders ofMiddle Tennessee congregations. Many good thingscan come of it." I ask you to please remember that laststatement to the end of this article.

The other elders' conference these people should haveknown about is one that the man for whom the collegetakes it name was rather deeply involved in. Earl Westwrote a biography of David Lipscomb and in the book he describes Lipscomb's involvement with a meeting in West Tennessee.

Early in January 1910, this problem (ofcombining churches, DRS) forced itself anewon Lipscomb in the form of an overture fromthe church in Henderson, Tennessee, a callfor a meeting of all elders and preachers tomeet at Henderson, January 25-28. The callreferred to those congregations in south-western Kentucky, eastern Arkansas and northern Mississippi, and was signed by J.

W. Dunn, G. A. Dunn, G. Dallas Smith, John

R. Williams, N. B. Hardeman, L. D. Williams, W. Claude Hall, F. O. Howell, D. AParish and T. B. Thompson. The article wentin part:

Fully appreciating the condition of thecause of Christ in West Tennessee and adja-cent territory, and knowing too, what greatgood can be accomplished by concertedaction on the part of both preachers andchurches, we desire to call a meeting of allloyal preachers and teachers of the gospel ofChrist, and all elders, with all who are inter-ested in strengthening the walls of Zion andcarrying the gospel to the lost, to meet at Henderson, Tennessee on January 25-28,1910. (Gospel Advocate, 1910, p. 59).

The purposes of the meeting were said to be "that thebrethren might get better acquainted; learn from oneanother more of the conditions of this great field oflabor; mutually encourage and inspire one another forthe work of preaching the gospel, and gain a more inti-mate knowledge of the Henderson school."

Lipscomb responded to the invitation by say-ing:

Some of the brethren last week called for a meeting of the preachers and elders in WestTennessee. We do not doubt that these breth-ren intend only the best for the churches, forthemselves and others. But I have been through and under these meetings so much itsurprises me to hear of such meetings. . . Ihave seen much evil come out of them to the preachers and the people. I never saw anygood come out of them to anyone... (Remem-ber the statement made by the elder fromDivision Street in Smyrna, Tennessee?, DRS)It is scriptural and right to call one man in toteach the members aright. But I never foundan inspired man called in at a council of eldersand preachers. Let us all individually and solidly try to stand on solid ground. Life and Times of David Lipscomb, p. 271-

272.

There can be little doubt about David Lipscomb (theman) and his attitude toward an elders' conference. His attitudes was that there was no good to come from it.Today, those who attend the same thing that he op-posed at a college named for him think there is nothing but good that can come from it.

But then David Lipscomb the man was severely criti

Page 15

cized for his opposition to the meeting. The late A. G.Freed learned that such meetings were conducted regu-larly in Nashville and wrote a scorching rebuke to Lips-comb. (Ibid, p. 273). Following that there was quite a lotof discussion about whether or not Henderson church should control and direct the funds of other congrega-tions and Lipscomb finally wrote again about the prob-lem.

Now what was that but the organization ofa society in the elders of this church. Thechurch elders at Henderson constitute a board to collect and pay out the money andcontrol the evangelist for the brethren ofWest Tennessee, and all the preachers aresolicitors for this work. This very samecourse was pursued in Texas a number ofyears ago. The elders of the church at Dallaswere made the supervisors of the work, re-ceived the money, employed the preacher,directed and counseled him. For a number of years they employed C. M. Wilmeth. He thendropped out of the work and the Texas Missionary Society took the place. Other ex-periments along the same course have beenmade. All of them went into society work.

All meetings of churches or officers of churches tocombine more power than a single church possesses iswrong. God's power is in God's churches. He is withthem to bless and strengthen their work when theyare faithful to him. A Christian, one or more, may visit a church with or without an invitation and seek to stir them up to a faithful discharge of other duties.But for one or more to direct what and how all the churches shall work, or to take charge of their men and money and use it, is to assume the authority God has given to each church. Each one needs the work of distributing and using its funds as well as ingiving them (Ibid. p. 275). I realize that we still do notoperate according to the standards of living set in1910, but we ought to operate by the same standard of authority David Lipscomb appealed to then. Lipscomb was opposed to more than the arrangementof several churches in a sponsoring church aggregate—he opposed "all meetings of

churches or officers of churches to combine more powerthan a single church possesses." He saw no good thatcould come from them and he was right. He lived to seesuch meetings develop into missionary societies whichin turn divided the church of the Lord. Now, it is differ-ent. The college which wears his name leads in conduct-ing the very type of conferences and councils he op-posed.

One of the stated purposes of the 1910 meeting was toget the churches better acquainted with the Hendersonschool. One of the purposes of the 1983 meeting was todevelop "stronger ties with the brotherhood" throughthe college itself. We can look for more of the same andit is said to know it will happen. A college that wears thename of a man like David Lipscomb and who practicesthe very things he devoted his life to opposing, is notworthy of the name.

But why such an article as this? It is not mere exposeor fun-making. We urge all to seriously consider theseevents and the historical background. Apostasy doesnot occur instantly—it develops over a long period oftime. I believe that we are along the way now and areseeing the growth and development of something thatour grandchildren will see clearly as another apostate group with all the denominational trappings and ma-chinery available to them. It is never too late as long asthere is life. Perhaps someone who has not been able tosee before the direction the institutional brethren have been going can see it now. Let us all sincerely hope so.

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

HERSCHEL E. PATTON, 7637 Fleming Hills Dr. S.W., Huntsville,Columbia, Tennessee and Little Rock, Arkansas. At the invitation of AL 35802. My first year of retirement (from local work) has been athe brethren at Jordan Park in Huntsville, Alabama where I formerlyvery enjoyable and satisfying one. Both Reba and I have enjoyedpreached for five years, I have decided to terminate my work atexcellent health. For the past year I have preached regularly for theVinemont the first of November to assume the responsibilities andVinemont church, near Cullman, Alabama. Besides this, I have work of a full time elder at Jordan Park. I have now been appointed anpreached in meetings in Nashville, Murfreesboro, Memphis and elder at Jordan Park, along with brother Jimmy Hooper, one of the most talented, dedicated, humble and loved men I have ever known.Brother Ken Green is the preacher at Jordan Park, whose ability,Bible knowledge, and devotion is a great asset to the elders and thewhole congregation. The brethren at Vinemont have been very fortu-nate, I think, to secure the services of brother Dick Poplin of Shelby-ville, Tennessee to move there and work with them on a full time basis. After retiring from the Postal Service, brother Poplin desired topreach regularly for a church that would not be able to otherwisesupport a man full time. He has preached for years by appointmentand for several years has served the Eastside church in Shelbyville asone of it's elders. I believe Dick and Sybil will do a wonderful work atVinemont and be a great asset to the Lord's cause throughout CullmanCounty. I have some meetings scheduled and plan to continue preach-ing in a limited number of meetings, but my duties as an elder atJordan Park forbids my being away very much.

ROBERTO TONDELLI, Via Quirino Roscioni, 69, 00129 Roma, Italy. The dates of October 3, 4, 5 I was with the congregation ofChrist in Trieste, Italy in a special engagement of sermons dealingwith "Death, Resurrection, and Judgment." Trieste is about 700 kilometers from our home near Rome. The brethren there received us very well and were especially prepared for the meeting. They printed 1,200 copies of a 16 page bulletin to pass out. In additionthey put up 500 large posters advertising the meeting all over thetown and surround-ing villages. The meeting was also advertised through the radio and by newspaper. The first night there were 80total present including 45 non-members. The second night therewere some 30 non-members present with the same number again thelast night. Following each lesson we had an hour question and answerperiod set aside for discussion. This proved quite interesting. The church in Trieste is meeting in a very nice apartment which includesan office, large auditorium, and two classrooms. Gianni Berdini is thelocal preacher. Several visitors who came to the meeting indicated adesire to keep on studying with Gianni. I am to go back to the Triestecongregation November 18-20 for another short meeting. On Thursday, October 6,1 went to Udine, Italy (about one hour fromTrieste) to meet Stefano and Antonella Corazza. I preached for thechurch there that night. We were all very glad to see each otheragain. Here at home in the Pomezia congrega-tion things are going well. I have been preaching some of the material presented in Trieste and it has been received favorably. In fact we did much advertising concerning these sermons. We printed up 500 posters to place onwalls in various places: Pomezia, Albano, Ardea, and Rome. We alsoprinted 6,000 pamphlets to distribute to people locally. I am alsowriting letters to RAI LAZIO REGION, which is the governmentradio broadcasting in the region called Lazio (where Rome is). I amtrying to get them to announce our meetings on the radio. We continue to have our weekly radio program on Radio Pomezia each Wednesday at 6 p.m. Some of you may know brother Rodolfo Berdini.Brother Berdini is to have surgery in a few weeks to remove histhyroid. They have to do this to avoid cancer of the thyroid.Remember him in your prayers please. Greetings to all the saints inAmerica.

CARLOS CAPELLI, Casilla #83, 1665 Jose C. Paz, Buenos Aires, Argentina. It is thrilling to see that when the same gospel ispreached today as was preached on Pentecost that the results are alsothe same. Here in the Jose C. Paz church, one precious soul was wonto Christ after the sermon on October 23. She was formerly a Catholic. I continue to have several Bible studies with many non-Christians. Also we are happy to note that four souls were baptized into Christ in Boulogne. While in Boulogne on November 1, I had a debate with 10 men and a "pastor" of a Pentecostal church. Thedebate lasted about three hours. I had another debate in Boulogne onNovember 9th with some people from the "New Apostolic Church." Next week I am to have a discussion with a "Only JesusPentecostal" concerning the trinity. This should prove to be a veryenlightening and interesting study and is an excellent way of eliciting and proclaiming the truth.

IN THE NEWS THIS MONTH BAPTISMS 422 RESTORATIONS 118 (Taken from bulletins and papers received by the editor) My work, "Comparing the Churches" (Comparando las Iglesias) isnow ready. I printed about 5,000 copies and hope it does much good.Also I printed 1,000 booklets entitled "Investigating the Church ofChrist" (Investigando la Iglesia de Cristo). We continue to have ourradio program — The Bible Speaks. However, the cost will increase100% in January. We hope we can continue with this work. On anational note — the Democracy has returned to Argentina after eightyears. The coming period will be critical in deciding the future of ournation. Pray that the Lord will turn the events of history into ablessing for this land and for glory to His name. Lord willing I willleave January 1st to go to Bogota, Columbia to work with the breth-ren there for a short time. My family is well and we send to you ourbest wishes.

ANOTHER FAITHFUL SAINT HAS GONE TO HIS

RE-WARD FORD CARPENTER, 18468 Catalpa St., Hesperia, CA 92345.Claude Eugene Worley, well known business man, who for the past 30years has been preaching and teaching among the faithful churchesthroughout southern California, departed this life at Desert Hospital,near his home in Palm Springs, California on October 31, 1983, afterwhat seemed to be a brief bout with cancer. Claude was 81 years oldwhen he died. W.C. Moseley of Folsom, California and I conducted a memorial service at Forest Lawn Memorial Park in Hollywood Hillswhere his body was laid to rest beside his faithful wife of 42 years whopreceded him in death by about 8 months.

Claude was born February 27, 1902 in Rochester, Texas near Abi-lene, and attended school in Sabinal. When he was 9 years old hisfamily moved with a small "American Colony" into Mexico under theleadership of a gospel preacher named W.A. Shultz. A short time laterthey returned to McAllen, Texas, where he finished grade school andHigh School. He attended college at Stanford in Palo Alto, California;University of Texas at Austin, and U.C.L.A. and U.S.C. in Los Angeles. He had an A.B. and was an M.A. candidate at U.S.C. He served as Assistant Supervisor of Public Instruction for the LosAngeles City School system for 19 years before retiring to enter intobusiness. He operated an Import-Export business for 5 years, and forabout twenty years engaged in buying and selling investment proper-ties. But in all of his life, Claude's primary concern was being a faithfulChristian. Being a successful business man he was able to be a greatfinancial help to the congregations with which he worked and oftenassisted in the financial support of gospel preachers in difficult places.He helped in the establishment of several churches in places where a need was brought to his attention and often drove many miles topreach for struggling groups who needed help.

Claude never did consider himself a "full time" preacher for or withany congregation although on several occasions known to me he drovefrom his home in Beverly Hills every Lord's Day to preach on aninterim basis for a year or more — to Bakersfield (Pioneer Blvd.), SimiValley, Palm Springs, Culver City, and Winnetka Ave. in Canoga Parkon two different occasions. There are few faithful congregations in the area which have not called on him at some time to "fill in" for a Sunday. Meeting work for small churches with little means of support took him to San Francisco and several remote areas of Oregon andWashington and on at least one occasion to southwestern Canada. Healso left a provision in his will for a substantial amount of his resourcesto be put into a trust fund to support gospel meetings for smallchurches which cannot afford such support. This fund, when it is setup, will be administered by brother W.C. Moseley and myself.

Claude will be sorely missed but all who visited with him in theweeks that he knew the end was near heard him confidently quotePaul's statement in Phil. 1:23 — "For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart and to be with Christ; which is far better..."So, we sorrow but "not, as others who have no hope" (1 Thess. 4:13) because we truly believe "Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord...that they may rest from their labors; and their works do follow them"(Rev. 14:13).

THE ROBINSON — CRAWFORD DEBATE

On the nights of December 5,6,8,9,1983, brother Bill Robinson, Jr.met Mr. R. Lawrence Crawford in debate. Bill Robinson, Jr. is a gospelpreacher and Mr. Crawford is a Baptist preacher. The first two nightwere conducted in the meeting house of the Floral Heights church ofChrist, Wichita Falls, TX where brother Robinson preaches, and the

Page 17

last two nights were conducted in the Victory Baptist church in WichitaFalls. The Victory Baptist church had imported Mr. Crawford from Hayward, Calif, to meet brother Robinson in the discussion.

All four nights were given to a discussion of the subject of salvation, andat what point in one's obedience is one saved. Is one saved at the point offaith, or is repentance and baptism essential before one receives theremission of sins? The question is certainly a timely one in view of thefact that much of the religious world teaches and practices the Baptist position that one is saved at the point of faith, before and without water baptism.

It was obvious from the very outset of the discussion that Mr.Crawford had under-estimated brother Robinson. Mr. Crawford having had 37 debates obviously thought that this twenty-eight-year-old kid wouldnot last through the discussion against the mighty Dr. R. LawrenceCrawford. In fact, he said the second evening that he was surprised thatthe "young man" was doing as well as he was. Yes, brother Robinson was doing "weller" than Mr. Crawford anticipated I am sure.

A number of things "stood out" in the debate. In his first speech,brother Robinson presented some charts showing that no one passage teaches everything that a person must do to be saved. He then began toshow charts with passages like Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, etc. that teach beyond shadow of doubt that baptism is essential to salvation. Mr. Crawford in his first negative required of brother Robinson some-thing thathe (Mr. Crawford) could not do himself. He demandedthat Billfindwherethe Bible said that baptism was "essential" to salva-tion — "in those words" and he said he would quit the debate. I guess he would. The word"essential" is not found in the New Testament... PERIOD. However, during the course of his speech, Mr. Crawford said that repentance was "essential" to our salvation. When brother Robinson asked him for the passage that said so, he gave Luke 13:5, "Except ye repent..." Well,brother Robinson pointed out, that you didn't have to be a "Dr." to knowthat "except" doesn't spell "essential." However, the good "Dr." was sayingthat if the passage could be found that said "except" you are baptized you cannot be saved. In his next speech, Bill used a chart on John 3:3-5 whichsays "except" one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into thekingdom of God. Also, the chart showed that Dr. John R. Graves (onwhom Mr. Craw-ford relies heavily as one of the great Baptist scholars)had said that the word "water" in John 3:5 meant baptism. Crawford said,"I stand by Dr. Graves," but he did not quit the debate.

Another glaring mistake made by Dr. Crawford was to translate the wordeis in Acts 2:38, "because of." In reply to this, brother Robinson had a chartwith twenty-two translations which translated the word eis in Acts 2:38,"unto," "for," "in order to." However, none of them said "because of." Yet, when Mr. Crawford replied to the chart, he said they all meant "because of."What Baptist preachers won't do to try to win a point.

Needless to say, Mr. Crawford basically followed the false theories thatare set forth by Baptist doctrine, throughout the discussion. It was evident to all that Mr. Crawford had taken on more than he had bargainedfor. Brother Bill Robinson, Jr. did a marvelous job in de-fending the truth. He is to be commended for his knowledge of The Book, for hisconviction and courage. Even though both men "pressed

their points," the discussion was orderly and neither speaker became"ugly" in any way. Would to God that there could be an increase in thiskind of discussion.

Lectures in Yoakum, Texas

The church in Yoakum, Texas announces a lecture series for February24-26 on the theme of "Modern Controversies." Speakers will be: BillCrews, Dee Bowman, W.R. Jones, James Rodgers, Elmer Moore, Harold Fite, Harland Huntoon, James Trigg, Elton Haley and Eddie Callender.

New Paper to Begin

A new 32-page journal named TODAY has been announced by BobBuchanon of Bowling Green, Kentucky. The flyer announcing it states "It is designed to be edification and meat for the Christian, while at the same time containing milk for the new convert and/or the non-Christian. Adiscussion of our internal problems has often con-fused the non-Christians we have given religiousjournals to.TODAY will try to present the gospel in more of a positive thrust." Annual subscription price willbe $15 in the U.S.A. and $18 in foreign countries. The address: TodayPublishing Co., P.O. Box 237, Bowling Green, KY 42102-0237.

NOTE TO ALL SUBSCRIBERS OF STS

With the January issue we had our mailing list transferred to a computer at the printing plant in Berne, Indiana. The paper has beenprinted and mailed from there for a number of years. With the new computer mailing printout, we ask all readers to check their addresses foraccuracy and also to notify us of failure to receive any issue.

SEND NEWS ITEMS TO THE EDITOR

For the past three years, the Newsletter Reports has been edited byWilson Adams. We thank him for a job well done. We would like for himto be able to write more than his work now allows and therefore release him from the responsibility of handling the news column. From now on allnews items should be sent to the editor at P.O. Box 69, Brooks, KY40109. There is much good news among brethren over the country. Please share it for the edification of others. Again, we ask that you please be asbrief as possible. Debate and lectureship notices need to be sent muchsooner than some do. We work on a one-month-in-advance basis with our printer. To allow editing time, an item to appear in April, should be onmy desk by Feb. 25.

The News Column and Church Splits

Unless we have information to the contrary, news items are received atface value. We cannot know of every disturbance which may result inbrethren parting company. Should an item be carried which speakscritically of another congregation, then those of the contrary part will wanta hearing also. We carry a news column to edify readers with news of activities among brethren the knowledge of which will inform andstrengthen the readers. The fact that we carry an item from a preacherand about a given congregation does not mean that we endorse everything about either the preacher or the congregation. Please do nottry to put us in the middle in such cases.