"And we know that God causes all things to worktogether for good to those who love God, who are called according to His purpose" (Rom. 8: 28). God can anddoes turn adversity into advantage. However, to makethat the meaning of this passage is to set our sights toolow. Paul has much greater "all things" in mind thanthe personal setbacks of life. It is the things of God—elements of His plan—that He so beautifully bringstogether on our behalf. Five components are specified inthe two verses that follow.

Foreknowledge

"For whom He foreknew..." To "foreknow" is simply toknow before. The Greek word is prognosis. A doctor's prognosis is his forecast of what course a disease will take. Admittedly, his forecast is based on past cases andis subject to error; God's foreknowledge is perfect. WhenGod reveals to us what will happen before the event, we can have foreknowledge (e. g. 2 Pet. 3: 17).

In this case God's foreknowledge involves people:"whom He foreknew." God knew beforehand what group of people would be saved. How? Because he chose thegroup and He does the saving. The group He chose isthose in Christ (Eph. 1: 4).

Predestination

"He also predestined..." Here again is the idea ofsomething done beforehand. To predestine is to decideor determine in advance. We predestine a vacation whenwe decide what attractions we will see and what roads we will take; when we make motel reservations or buyairline tickets.

God predetermined many things regarding salvation: Jesus' crucifixion as the atonement (Acts 2: 33);adopted sons, with full right of inheritance, as the statusof the saved (Eph. 1: 5, 11); eternal life as the reward(Ti. 1: 2). Our text mentions another: "conformed to the image of His Son" as the character of the saved. Jesus is our example (1 Pet. 2: 21). Being a Christian is not simply belonging to a church or havingcompleted certain requirements. It is molding our livesto conform to Jesus' pattern, becoming partakers of theDivine nature (2 Pet. 1: 3, 4). In the resurrection, too,we will be like Jesus (1 Jn. 3: 2).

Why did God predetermine that we be like Jesus?"That He might be the first-born among many brethren." The first-born is a position of honor and preeminence. We glorify Him by changing to be like Him.

Calling

To be in Christ and to live like Christ requires achange. God invites us to make that change: "these Healso called." He encourages us to come and enjoy His rich blessings. This "call" or invitation is made through thegospel (2 Th. 2: 14). Paul described it as an upward call (Ph. 3: 14), an invitation to something better.

God's calling can be rejected. Jesus told His disciplesto preach the gospel to all creation (Mk. 16: 15). Everyone is invited in one sense. But He knew not all would accept. Those who do will be saved; those who do not willbe condemned (v. 16). So in another sense, the called arethose who accept the invitation. "Many are called, butfew are chosen" (Mt. 22: 14).

Justification

"These he also justified..." God is calling sinners to bein Christ. The required change is so radical it is termed"conversion," the process of turning one thing into another. Some of this transformation is up to us. We mustrepent or turn from sin (Acts 17: 30). We must replacesinful practices with godly ones (Eph. 4: 17ff). But there remains the problem of guilt.

"Justification" refers to acquittal of guilt. God is graciously willing to pronounce us righteous, based onthe sacrifice of Christ (Rom. 3: 24-26). We can neverdeserve that, but receive it as a gift. Obviously God doesthis only for those who accept His call. We are justified by faith (Rom. 5: 1), believing His promises and thepower of Jesus' sacrifice. The question is, how do we accept God's invitation? Or asked another way, at whatpoint are we justified?

Here the Bible makes a play on words. "Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved" (Rom. 10: 13).God calls us; when we call on Him we will be saved. Wedo not call on Him simply by saying "Lord, Lord" (Mt.

7: 21), but by following the terms of His invitation: specifically, confessing Christ and being baptized forforgiveness of sins (Acts 2: 38; 22: 16). Interestingly, itis that same act which puts us in Christ (Gal. 3: 27). Doyou remember what God foreknew? That act is also aconformity to the death, burial, and resurrection ofChrist (Rom. 6: 3, 4). Do you remember what Godpredetermined?

Glorification

"These he also glorified." Earlier in this chapter Paulhad written of our glorification (vv. 18-25). It is yetfuture, but is so certain it can be spoken of as alreadyaccomplished. "For our citizenship is in heaven, fromwhich also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord JesusChrist; who will transform the body of our humble stateinto conformity with the body of His glory..." (Ph. 3: 20, 21).

Having enumerated the elements God brings together for those who love Him, Paul asks, "What thenshall we say to these things?" Will you not say, "That'sfor me!"? Accept the gospel invitation today.

Page 3

THE NASHVILLE MEETING

On December 1-3, 1988, the Doubletree Hotel indowntown Nashville, Tennessee was the scene of a mostunusual gathering. Institutional and non-institutionalbrethren came together to discuss their differences.Steve Wolfgang arranged for the non-institutionalspeakers and Calvin Warpula make the same provisionsfor the institutional speakers. Seven major areas werecovered. They included a history of the division, establishing Bible authority, collective and individual activity, the work of the church, the relationship of the churchto human organizations, cooperation of churches, and the question of fellowship.

The procedure was simple. A man from each sidemade a thirty minute speech. Each main address wasfollowed by a fifteen minute reaction speech. Then moderators handled questions from the audience directed to specific speakers. Each session lasted three hours. Good order prevailed from the first to the last.The whole affair was really an extended debate. Speakers came well prepared. The attendance exceeded everyone's expectation. Crowds ranged from 500 to 800 on Friday night when we met at the Vultee church building. Each session at the Doubletree was overcrowded and many stood, or sat out in the hall, or in an overflow room where they could hear, but not see, the speakers.While there were many preachers present, it was notjust a gathering of preachers. There were many interested men and women from a wide area.

Interestingly enough, the bulk of those in attendance were non-institutional, a remarkable fact in view of thefact that there are so many large institutional churchesm Nashville and middle Tennessee. One local preacherof the institutional persuasion simply explained thatmost of our brethren are not interested in these issues — other things are much more important to them. "

There were some who were conspicuously absent,both in the audience and at the speaker's stand. Those men who write for THE SPIRITUAL SWORD, men likeRoy Deaver, Thomas B. Warren, Alan Highers, RobertTaylor, Dub McLish and others who are generally regarded as more conservative among the institutionalbrethren, were not there. None of them consented tospeak and they did not attend. These men are themselves being called "antis" by some of the institutionalfolks who WERE at this meeting. The above named men,and others who run with them, are generally contemptuous toward those they describe as "antis. "

That within itself created a weakness in the program,for among the institutional speakers there was a wide difference on serious matters. Perhaps the two mostconservative-minded speakers from the institutional side were Johnny Ramsey and Roy H. Lanier, Jr. I am sure they were personally embarrassed by some of thethings said by speakers on that side. Yet, in fairness, itshould be pointed out that each speaker came to represent only himself.

This was the first time many in the audience hadlistened to one from the other side in an orderly presentation of what he believed and why. It was an eye-opening experience for many. We heard many strangethings from the institutional speakers. There were decided hints of rank modernism in speeches by RichardRogers of El Paso, Texas and Bill Swetmon of Plano,Texas. Both denied that the New Testament provides a pattern for the church. Brother Swetmon amazed uswith the news that the canon of the New Testament was not settled until 400 years after Christ. We were told byhim that we "need a new hermeneutic" for this age andthat the old idea of having a command, approved apostolic example or necessary inference to authorize whatwe do, is not valid. Lewis Hale of Oklahoma City wasmore conservative and made the same kind of arguments which we have heard in debates on these matters for the last thirty-five years.

Randy Mayeux, who preaches for the Preston Road church in Dallas (where Roy E. Cogdill preached manyyears ago) was even farther out in left field. He spoke ofthe New Testament responding to the "felt needs" ofmen and said it was never intended as a code of doctrine. He made one reference to the "eucharist" and defended gymnasiums, or whatever it takes to get people to comeand hear about Jesus. Calvin Warpula said Jesus is thepattern for the church and that whatever Jesus did,surely the church can do. Keith Sharp pointed out thatJesus lived and died under the law of Moses which included instrumental music and showed that on that basis we could use that now.

While my assessment may be regarded as biased bysome, I thought the non-institutional speakers did goodwork in setting forth the basic causes of our differencesand contending for the old paths. Some feared that such a meeting would tempt some to compromise the truth. Ido not believe that any objective observer would reach that conclusion. This meeting differed from the Arlington meeting of 1968 in that on that occasion, only theparticipants were present. This time, anyone whowanted to hear it was welcome and questions werereceived from the audience at each session.

What Good Did It Do?

I do not expect to see any spectacular results from thisgathering. It is painfully evident that the differencesbetween us are far greater than they were thirty yearsago when churches were dividing. If anyone thinks weonly differ on sending a check from the treasury to anorphan institution or to some sponsoring church, thismeeting surely dispelled that notion. The differencesare vast. There will continue to be individuals who will come out of these churches, and occasionally, a congregation with turn around. In the last few years there havebeen several preachers to leave the ranks of the institutional brethren to stand for the truth. I have worked with several the last two or three years and have metothers in our travels over the country.

There were a number of young men and women whoattended this meeting who were not involved in thedivision. They have grown up since that time and had noacquaintance with brethren on that side. I don't knowhow many we heard express their surprise, and even shock, at some of the things they heard. They came awaywith a deeper appreciation of the truth. Some of theyounger generation have thought that had some of usbeen kinder and shown more love and understanding,the division might not have happened. This meetingshowed the fallacy of that. Truly there is a great gulfbetween us.

Those who attended this meeting should have comeaway impressed with the urgency of speaking as the oracles of God and determined not to let this happenagain. And it can, you know.

The only way for us to have unity is for all of us to "walk by the same rule" (Phil. 3: 16), respect the exampleof the apostles (Phil. 3: 17) as we practice what was"received" from them (Phil. 4: 9). We must all be willing to "walk in the light as he is in the light" (1 Jno.

1: 7). We must speak "as the oracles of God" (1 Pet, 4:11). We dare not "go beyond the doctrine of Christ" (2Jno. 9-11) and we cannot afford to "think of men abovethat which is written" (1 Cor. 4: 6).

There can be no unity with the folks who went out toform Christian Churches as long as the objectionablepractices continue. Neither can there be unity with the institutional brethren as long as the practices which divide are still present. I cannot speak for others but I can speak for myself. There is not a single point of truthwhich is negotiable with me. I have never stopped lovingthose brethren who left the truth. I have always beenwilling to study, whether one-on-one, informal gathering or structured public discussion. Loving each other,was never the issue and is not at this late date. But I cannot, and will not, look the other way and pretend that church support of human organizations, sponsoringchurches, church sponsored recreational activities, and now the issue of whether there is such a thing as patternauthority, and even the integrity of the scriptures themselves, are simply matters of opinion. Thirty years ago,the camel stuck his nose in the tent. Now he has moved in, hide, hump, hooves and all, and the institutionalfolks don't know what to do with him. The Nashville meeting made that abundantly clear.

MARRIAGE AND CHILDREN Question: Does a married couple have a right todecide against having children?

Answer: Marriage serves three purposes: (1) Companionship. "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him" (Gen. 2: 18).

(2) To avoid fornication. "Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let everywoman have her own husband" (1 Cor. 7: 2). (3) Procreation. "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenishthe earth" (Gen. 1: 28, 9: 1; cf. 1 Tim. 2: 15; 5: 14). Toignore any one of these purposes is to thwart a God-given role of the marriage relationship.

Of course, marital responsibilities cannot always bemet because of adverse circumstances. Companionship may be lost due to institutionalizing a mate who hasbecome mentally or physically incapacitated. Conjugalrights may be denied because of biological impairment,and bearing children may be inadvisable due to the highrisk to the woman's life because of poor health, orimpossible because of sterility or past child-bearing age.

But the natural, God-given function for a married couple is to have children. Paul wrote, "I will thereforethat the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house" (1 Tim. 5: 14). This is inspired counsel to preventyounger widows from falling into the danger mentioned in vs. 11-13.

It is normal to desire children. When Cain was born,Eve said, "I have gotten a man from the Lord" (Gen. 4: 1)She considered this a blessing from God. After the birth of Isaac, Sarah said, "God hath made me to laugh" (Gen.

21: 6). Leah rejoiced in her children (Gen. 29: 32-35).Rachel envied Leah and said to Jacob, "Give me children, or else I die" (Gen. 30: 1). Hannah prayed for a son (1 Sam. 1: 8) and Samuel was born. When the announcement was made to Zacharias that he and Elizabeth would have a son, the angel said, "And thou shalt havejoy and gladness" (Lk. 1: 14). At the birth of John the neighbors and cousins rejoiced with Elizabeth (Lk. 1: 58). Yes, children are a great blessing sent from God.

To not want children is contrary to the tenor ofBiblical teaching. To decide not to have children maybe indicative of selfishness, self-centeredness, a psychological hang-up, fear, an unhappy marriage or moreinterested in a career than home and family. The Psalmist wrote, "Lo, children are an inheritance of the Lord:

Page 5

and the fruit of the womb is his reward... Happy is theman that hath a quiver full of them" (Psa. 127: 3, 5).

How many children a husband and wife should have,God didn't say. To contend that a husband and wife musthave all the children they can is without scripturalwarrant and to deny family planning is imposing a human regulation. God left this matter to our own good judgment.

Once in a while, something happens. Perhaps I seesomeone act in a certain manner or perhaps somethinghappens which reminds me in a personal way of a particular spiritual lesson. Yesterday such an eventtook place.

Since moving to Washington, D. C. five years ago I've seen, up close, political leaders of our government andothers who wield great power and influence. One almostbecomes calloused about such things and ignores them.So maybe this is why I was left unprepared for whatoccurred. Yesterday, I was invited by the pilots of theprivate jet for a "local" multi-millionaire to go for a ride in the jet to New York City and back. It seemed "theboss" wanted the crew to fly a veterinarian to New Yorkto care for one of his thoroughbred race horses. Theplane would be empty coming back. Needless to say Ijumped at the chance. Some of you may not realize it butthese jets aren't exactly Yugo's with wings. They costmillions of dollars. This particular one costs approximately $3000.00 an hour just to operate.

Meeting the crew at the airport they took me aboardthe aircraft and showed me around. It had soft leather seats (and couch), video/stereo system, gold-plated fixtures, and a small kitchen. I knew immediately I was intall cotton. I felt like I had walked onto the set for one of Robin Leach's scenes of "Lifestyles of the Rich andFamous." I sat up front with the pilots on the way up toNew York while the doctors sat in the cabin being waited on by (you guessed it) the stewardess. With the airplaneempty on the return trip I sat in the cabin all by myselfand had a chance to imagine, to feel, and enjoy for a few minutes what it must be like to have more money thanyou can spend. It was quite a rush to say the least.

While surrounded by this luxury. I couldn't help but think about Jesus' teaching in Matt. 19: 16-24. I looked with new insight at Matt. 19: 24 which says, "It is easierfor a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." As I sat with myhands on the gold-plated arms of my seat I wondered ifI would not have had the same reaction as the rich young ruler did in vs. 16-22. The young man couldn't turn loose the power, the fun, the security he felt he received fromhis earthly treasures. Oftentimes, it is hard to understand a lesson of Jesus' until you're in that position. I was awarded just an imaginary peek and what I saw scared me to death. How easy it would be to clutch these beautiful things so tightly so as not to let go. Oh, we saywe can give up what we have for Jesus but few of us havereal wealth of great degree to release. What a blessing itis that God holds back these temptations which formany are too great to overcome. It must be said however,that wealth is relative. James shows the proper outlookfrom both sides of the "coin" in James 1: 9-l 1, "But let thebrother of low degree glory in his high estate: and the rich, in that he is made low: because as the flower of thegrass he shall pass away. For the sun ariseth with thescorching wind, and withereth the grass; and the flowerthereof falleth, and the grace of the fashion of it perisheth: so also shall the rich man fade away in hisgoings." Emphasis on one's physical goods instead ofone's spiritual will condemn an individual whether the pile is large or small.

One of the pilots said of the owner of the jet that hetreats it like it was his own "magic carpet." I supposethat is a fitting description. But there is one place intowhich no man can buy entrance, and that is heaven.There is no magic carpet to carry you there. You mustwalk it step by step just as all other saints have done.Don't be distracted by things that glitter by the roadside.Paul said it best in Phil. 4: 11 — Learn to be content. Your physical situation is only temporary, but yourspiritual one is eternal.

After our landing in Washington, I walked off theplane (I wonder if anyone saw me?) with my head in aspin from my jaunt in the "fast lane" of society, yetknowing a little more about some lessons of Jesus and alittle more about myself. On the drive home, I felt happy.It had been an exciting trip. The feeling of sitting there among all that wealth was awesome, yet it had nosubstance to it. I felt no envy for Mr. Firestone. I felthappy because I was content with what I have. Contentment and peace of mind, now that's something worth holding on to tightly. I hope maybe now you feel that, too.

MUST ONE BE A MEMBER OF THE CHURCH OF CHRIST TO BE SAVED?

You have probably either asked or been asked thequestion "Do you really believe that a person has to bea member of the church of Christ in order to go to heaven?" Whether you were asking or answering, youfound that answering the question wasn't the real problem. The real difficulty was in swallowing the answer that was given. The religious world in generalcannot imagine that the Bible could answer that question in the affirmative. Part of the problem is in understanding what the church really is.

The Standard

The first thing we must do is agree upon a standard of authority to answer the question. We never will cometo any agreement until we use the same standard.Thus, our first concern is expressed in the words ofPeter who said, "Lord, to whom shall we go?" (John 6:68). To whom shall we turn for an answer to our question?

We must NOT turn to: (1) The ideas of men. The philosophy of some man is of no avail in that God said"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither areyour ways my ways... For as the heavens are higherthan the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways,and my thoughts than your thoughts" (Isa. 55: 8-9). (2)Our own thinking. My own human reasoning will notbe sufficient for "There is a way which seemeth rightunto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death"(Prov. 14: 12). (3) Parents and family. One of the first responses to any suggestion that one must be a memberof the church of Christ is that if that is so then that would mean that a mother or grandmother would belost. Since no one likes to face the fact that a close relative will be lost in hell, he or she rejects Biblicalstatements in favor of family members. However, theone who wishes to be a disciple of the Lord must love theLord more than father or mother (Matt. 10: 37).Our standard must be the word of God. Peter went on to say "thou hast the words of eternal life" (John 6:68). John suggested that we determine whether aman is speaking truth or error by whether or not whathe ways agree with what has been revealed unto theapostles (1 Jno. 4: 6). When this life is over we will bejudged by the words of Christ (John 12: 48).

A Misconception

When one misunderstands what the church is he has a hard time seeing that it could be essential to salvation. Many think of the church in terms of a denomination, rather than the body of the saved.

To refer to the church as a denomination or a group ofdenominations indicates several things. The word "denomination" suggests the idea of division or fraction.When asked by the bank teller "what denomination" shemeans what division of money (e. g. ones, fives, tens ortwenties). Thus, the concept of denominationalism indicates (1) division is approved, (2) one division is as goodas another (e. g. four fives are as good as one twenty and two tens are as good as twenty ones) and (3) there are nowrong choices (i. e. no one is going to condemn you forchoosing the two tens instead of the four fives).

The same is true if the church of Christ is a denomination or a group of denominations. That would mean that

(1) all are divided with the approval of God. Yet,Paul plainly stated that God does not approve of division(1 Cor. 1: 10; Phil. 2: 2; Eph. 4: 4). It would also meanthat (2) one church is as good as another, and (3) that there are no wrong choices (i. e. if one chooses to be a member of one denomination while another chooses another denomination, neither one has done any wrong).Furthermore, it would mean (4) that the things thatdistinguish one church from another are of human origin. If the things that distinguished one church fromanother were of divine origin, then one church would not be as good as another. Thus, in denominationalism the different names, doctrines and practices are of human origin.

If the Bible teaches that there is one church and that one must be a member of that one church, then the church is not a denomination as many want to believe.

One Church

The Bible could not be clearer on any point than it ison the matter that there is just one church. The apostle Paul said "There is one body" (Eph. 4: 4). What is thebody? The same writer says that the body is the church (Col. 1: 18; Eph. 1: 22-23). Thus Eph. 4: 4 is saying there is one church! Oh sure, there are many churches like there are many gods and many faiths, but only ONE God is true and only ONE faith is true and only ONE church is true.

Jesus spoke of his church (singular), not churches(Matt. 16: 18). Paul said that all are reconciled in one body (Eph. 2: 16). Jesus is the one shepherd havingone fold (John 10: 16).

The Church Is The Saved

If the church and those who are saved are one and the same, then obviously one must be a member of thatchurch to be saved. The evidence is great that the churchand the saved are one and the same.

1. The saved are added to the church (Acts 2: 47). Those whom the Lord saves are added to the church. Thus, the church is the saved.
2. Christ is the savior of the body (Eph. 5: 23). Remember, that the body is the church. Christ isthe savior of the church. Thus, those whom Christ savesare in the church. There is no promise to save anyone outof the church.
3. The church was purchased with the blood of Christ (Acts 20: 28). If the church is not essential to

salvation, then the blood is not necessary either! However, if we are saved by the blood of Christ, then we mustbe in the church to be purchased or saved. If youpurchase a pair of shoes for $45..00, then any benefit you get out of the $45..00 will be in the pair of shoes.Likewise, since the church was purchased by the bloodof Christ, any benefit we receive from the blood must bein the church.

1. "Ekklesia" is the Greek word that is translated by the English word "church." Ekklesia liter-ally means the called out (ek — out of; kneo - to call). Those in the church are those who have been called out of darkness into the light (1 Pet. 2: 9; Acts 26:18), out of the power of Satan unto God (Acts 26: 18) and from sin unto the forgiveness of sins (Acts 26: 18).
2. The church is the house of God (1 Tim. 3: 15). A house is a family (e. g. the house of David - Luke 2: 3). The church then is the family of God. To be in the family of God, one must be in the church.

6. We are saved by the blood of Christ in the

one body. Notice the parallel statements:Redeemed — In Christ — Through The Blood (Eph.

1: 7)Made Nigh — In Christ — By The Blood (Eph. 2: 13)Reconciled—In One Body—By the Cross (Eph. 2: 16)From these passages I learn that we are saved (redeemed, made nigh and reconciled) by the blood (through the blood and by the cross). But, it is in Christ or in the one body that we are saved by the blood. Oneenters into Christ or the one body by being baptized(Rom. 6: 4; 1 Cor. 12: 13).

In view of the above who could deny that one must bea member of the church of Christ to be saved?

"THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERSREJECTED"

The entire system of Premillennialism hinges on theclaim that God aborted his plans to establish the kingdom, because rebellious Jews frustrated divine preparations and prophecies relative to that kingdom. Such aclaim not only contradicts the scriptures, but questionsthe wisdom, prudence, and power of God.

In fact, the scriptures were very emphatic in pointingout in detail how the Jews would reject Christ and hiskingdom. Jesus himself knew that he would be rejectedwhen he quoted from Psalms 118: 22 as recorded by Matthew (21: 42, 43). Peter later referred to the sameprophetic passage (Acts 4: 11, 12). Isaiah also prophesied of such a rejection (Isa. 53: 3).

The truth is that the Jews would not have rejectedChrist had he set up an earthly kingdom, for they triedto force him to become an earthly king (Jno. 6: 15). Jesusresisted their efforts, just as he shall resist similarefforts of the premillennialists to set up an earthlykingdom at some future date. The multitude (Lk. 19: 11),and the disciples also expected an earthly kingdomfashioned after the old Israelite kingdom (Acts 1: 6).Christ's kingdom is a spiritual kingdom, and "not of thisworld" (Jno. 18: 36). Both the weapons and the warfareof Christ's kingdom are spiritual (Eph. 6: 12, 2 Cor. 10:4). And, it is just as ridiculous to suppose that a carnal battle, falsely described as Armageddon, wouldhave anything whatever to do with Christ's spiritual king-dom.

Any good Bible student knows that God is perfectlycapable of handling complicated political situations. Atone stroke, God had a future heathen king anointed, along with a king for Israel and a prophet to succeedElijah (1 Ki. 19: 15-17). At the same time, God was stillmonitoring the situation in the kingdom of Judah, andhad plans for Egypt, Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome.The idea that God would allow one small remnant of a rebellious, rejected nation to upset his plans concerningthe kingdom is ridiculous indeed. The folly of such anotion is further accentuated by the total destruction ofJerusalem and the scattering of its inhabitants in the year A. D. 70. If the Jewish nation were influential enough around the year A. D. 30 to upset God's plans,why did they not influence his plans and propheciesconcerning Jerusalem only forty years later?

God's ability to declare "the end from the beginning, "

to cause his counsel to stand and do his pleasure (Isa.

46: 10, 11), has been manifested at times and in ways too numerous to mention. "Shall I bring to thebirth, and not cause to bring forth? saith the Lord: shall I cause to bring forth, and shut the womb? saiththy God" (Isa. 66: 9). Yet, that is exactly the accusation which the premillennialist makes against God,saying that God was able to bring the kingdom to the birth, but not able to bring it forth.

There is only one way I can account for the rejection of Christ's spiritual kingdom by the Jew of the firstcentury and the premillennialist of the twentieth century — a worldly-minded attitude that cannot discern spiritual things. Brethren likewise need to takeheed when they question the sufficiency of the churchto perform its mission, thereby questioning the wisdom and prudence of God (Eph. 1: 8).

ANTIOCH — THE POWER OF THE LOCAL CHURCH

In order to study the New Testament church it isimperative that we study New Testament churches. Weknow about Jerusalem and the potent preaching onPentecost. We have studied Corinth and seen in detail their triumphs and troubles. Thessalonica, Philippi,Ephesus, and Rome are likewise places about which we know a great deal. But there is another New Testamentcongregation that deserves our attention yet seldom receives it: Antioch. The place Paul and Barnabus called "home." The place God chose to be His strategic center forthe spread of the gospel. The place that brings us face toface with the power-potential of the local church. Antioch.Our study continues...

2. The Antioch church made a commitment to teaching. After witnessing their enthusiastic responseto the gospel (Acts 11: 19-21), Barnabus now arrives toencourage, edify and challenge these first generationbelievers.

And the news about them reached the ears of the church at Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabus offto Antioch. Then when he had come and witnessed the grace of God, he rejoiced and began toencourage them all with resolute heart to remain true to the Lord; for he was a good man, andfull of the Holy Spirit and of faith. And considerable numbers were brought to the Lord (11: 2224).

A Commitment to Teaching Means aCommitment to People

Barnabus. His name meant "son of encouragement"and if ever a name was tailor-made, his was. This servantdedicated his life to lifting up others. From his financialsacrifice (Acts 4: 36-37), to his vote of confidence in oneSaul of Tarsus (Acts 9: 26-27), and finally to his willingness to give a young preacher a second chance (Acts 15:36-39), Barnabus was a giver. And now... he leaves thecomfort and security of the Jerusalem church to workwith a group of un-known pagan converts. It was a boldmove. He knew it would be challenge. He knew therewould be those who needed encouraging. He was right.

You don't turn to Jesus Christ from a morally depravedculture with generations of heathenistic tradition without carrying some baggage. The changes in lifestyledemanded by Christ were anything but superficial for these early believers (1 Cor. 6: 9-11). It would take aman of patience to work with these people. It would take one who knew the merit of complimenting positiveprogress as well as pointing out failures and areasdemanding change. It required one who, while not wishing to squelch the enthusiasm of new-born believers, could balance the zeal with knowledge andinstill within them a quest for continuance (Rom. 10: 2; Acts 11: 23). It would take a preacher who loved people.Barnabus did. He was the right man for the job.

People. Preaching is about people. Barnabus understood what we are prone to overlook. It's easy to viewpreaching as a mere 9 to 5 desk job that is best accomplished with minimal interruptions. Thus, people problems are often seen not as a part of the preacher's workbut, rather, as an inconvenience and interruption to hiswork. Such is a far cry from the attitude of Jesus (andBarnabus!).

I'm not denying the need for prime-time studying (2Tim. 2: 15). A preacher who doesn't study and prepareadequately for his lessons has about the same effect ona congregation as cold left-over meatloaf has on a family.It doesn't exactly generate enthusiasm for coming to thedinner table... There has to be a balance. Everypreacher needs to learn that mastering the finer pointsof hermenutics, restoration history, and Koine-Greekhas its place but that place is not to act as a substitutefor walking among the people and meeting their needs.

I heard of one preacher who remarked as to how muchhe enjoyed working where he did because "I can sit in the study all day long and not be bothered by thebrethren." Can you believe that? Can you hear Jesussaying that? Our Lord's office was in the market placeamong the people. That's what set Him apart from thereligious preachers of His day. That's what caused thecommon people to love Him. He was one of them. He wasapproachable. He was real.

Whoever advanced the "it's not good for the preacherto get close to the brethren" notion didn't get if from theexample of Jesus (or Barnabus). (I've heard some dumbadvice before but that's about the dumbest!) Nothing cancels out a preacher's effectivity any faster than thatkind of thinking. We need to go back and study the workof the preacher as it was carried out in the first century.From it we learn two fundamental principles that wemust never forget: (1) people are the only reason forpreaching, and that (2) no one cares how much we knowuntil they know how much we care!

Barnabus cared. The "son of encouragement"preached a message of encouragement (11: 23). He saw men and women leaving lives of sin and becomingtransformed into new creations. He witnessed peopletrying to cope with the fast-lane lifestyle and seeking totake a stand for the one God in the midst of a contraryculture. They encouraged him. He encouraged them."And considerable numbers were brought to theLord" (11: 24).

The more I study Antioch the more I see a preacher-congregation relationship the way it ought to be. Often we preachers miss out on one of the greatest joys ofChristianity because we seek to keep the brethren at a distance. That's sad. Paul said of the beloved Philippians — "For it is only right for me to feel this wayabout you all, because I have you in my heart... For God is my witness, how I long for you all withthe affection of Christ Jesus" (Phil. 1: 7-8). It doesn'thappen by accident. It requires sacrifice. It demands .time. It takes patience.

I am convinced that there needs to be more said about this business of preaching and getting along withpeople. Many church-preacher problems cannot be avoided. But some can be. You see, it's not a matter of personality or charisma or a particular style in the pulpit that endears brethren to a man laboring amongthem but, rather, it is a knowledge based on observableaction from his life that tells them that he really lovesthem. Paul said, "I have become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some" (1 Cor.

9: 22). Paul said, "I adjusted my schedule, went out of myway, and reached out to people... I built bridges insteadof barriers." See the Ephesian elders as they wept and embraced the man who had worked so long among them(Acts 20: 36-38). They loved him. He loved them. And... they weren't afraid to show it.

Little things... It's often said that marriages fail notover big things but through the neglect of little things.The same could be said of preacher-church relationships. It's easy to take people for granted. It's easy to maximize faults. It's easy to forget basic courtesy andkindness. Sometimes we can find ourselves so detached that we're unable to "weep" and "rejoice" with ourbrethren. That's sad. More than that, it points to aserious flaw in our character.

I don't suppose I've done anything more important inmy preaching work than a little practice I began a fewyears ago of sending a personal handwritten note toevery member of the congregation (kids too!) at leastonce a year (usually on their birthday). A note of appreciation for a job well done. A note of admiration forfaithfulness and zeal. A note of admonishment and challenge when spiritual things are lacking. "Hey, doesn't that take a lot of time?" You betcha! (And stamps, too!) But in my opinion it's time well invested. Besides... if you haven't stood at the back door afterservices and had a little five year old come by and grab your neck and give you one of those "moisturized" kissesand say, "Thank-you brudder Adams for my birfhday card... "—you have yet to learn the meaningof "thrill." Little things.

A commitment to teaching begins with a commitmentto and a love for people. A man can be equipped with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures and have the God-given truth on any subject and yet fail to be effective.Why? Because he fails to see himself as nothing but aservant among his brethren. Jesus said, "If any onewants to be first, he shall be last of all and servantof all" (Mark 9: 35). Jesus lived the principle. Paulpracticed it. Barnabus understood it. And I'm... well, I'm working on it. What about you?

The three synonyms, "psalms, hymns, spiritual songs" are each a specific kind of song. The word "ode," is a "generic" term which is an umbrella over all the specific kinds of vocal music. Only one of these three synonyms, "psalms, hymns, spiritual songs"" i. e., psalms, has any history of vocalmusic being accompanied by man-made musical instruments. The other two, i. e., hymns and spiritual songs have through all ages referred to purely vocal music. Evolution of the Greek Word — Psallo

In the Classical Age of the Greek Language, psallowas used to describe the "pulling of a whisker" or the"plucking of a bow-string." Eventually, this word cameto refer to the "twitching or twanging" of the strings ofa musical instrument.

By the third century B. C., the Greek Translation ofthe Old Testament, used the word psallo to refer to the singing of songs with instrumental accompaniment,such as had been practiced by David.

Still later, in New Testament times, psallo referred to a song that was vocal, and without man-made instrumental accompaniment. Eph. 5: 19 and Col. 3: 16 indicate that the emotions of the worshipper serve as thatwhich accompanies the singing.

Psallo _ Verb, "To Sing" — Psalmos — Noun, "A Song"

"Psalmos" is the word from which the Book of Psalms,takes its name. Related words include "Psalter," referring to all the Psalms as a collection. "Psalmody, "has to do with the art or practice of singing sacred songs."Psaltery," was an ancient stringed instrument.

"Psallo," is the act of singing and in the New Testament, was figuratively accompanied by the 'heartstrings' of the worshipper. Thus, in New Testamentassemblies, every Christian was "psallo-ing" so to speak. In congregations that digress from the NewTestament pattern of worship, the players-on-instruments or special choir-groups, take the place of totalcongregational worship in song.

Figures of Speech Used in the Bible — By E.

W. Bullinger In writing about the synonyms, "psalms, hymns,

spiritual songs" Bullinger states:"Although the first word, psalmos, implies musicalinstruments, it was only in Old Testament worshipthat these were used: not in the New Testament, norin the Primitive Church. Basil, Ambrose, andChrysostom all speak in panegyrics on music, but do not mention instrumental music. Indeed, Clement ofAlexandria, forbade the use of flute in the Agape,though he permitted the harp. Basil condemns it, andJustin Martyr expressly says that it was not used inthe Christian Church. "There is no gift of God which fallen man has notmisused, and indeed diverted, or rather pervertedfrom its original design. The great enemy used it forthe destruction of spiritual worship, under the guiseof aiding it; and few discern the meshes of his marvelously clever snare. (Page 334).

Expository Dictionary of New TestamentWords — W. E. Vine

Concerning the word "kardia" (heart), Vine writes" "...By an easy transition the word came to stand forman's entire mental and moral activity, both the rational and the emotional elements. In other words,the heart is used figuratively for the hidden springs ofthe personal life..." Pages 206-207. From the abovequotations, it can be readily demonstrated that the 'instrument' that must accompany our psalms, hymnsand spiritual songs, is the mind; the intellect; theemotions of the worshipper. Thus, figuratively, the Christian accompanies his worship in song, with joy inhis heart! Nor do we have any Bible authority forsubstituting man's inventions in place of "the fruit of thelips. "

Three verbs are involved in our song-service speaking, teaching and admonishing. A mechanical instrument of music cannot accomplish any of the three!While man's vocal chords, designed by God, can achieve each and all of the three!

Anything that discredits Jesus Christ, departs fromBiblical truth, and admits to no absolutes must beconfronted and assailed with the sword of the Spirit,which is the Word of God (Eph. 6: 17). Whether it be awritten religious dogma invented and advanced by man;a worldly lifestyle; a misinterpretation of Scriptureadvanced by a brother; a philosophy or worldview; or a social movement — it shouldn't matter to the conscientious child of God. The high things of men that exaltthemselves against the knowledge of God and the arguments that accompany those things must be cast down (2 Cor. 10: 1-6).

Today, in the society in which we live; in the circle ofassociations where we try to raise our children and preach the gospel, there is the burgeoning New Age movement. It is flourishing quickly, influencing youngand old alike and making disciples of people from everylevel of society.

An urgent call to give heed to this danger and castdown these arguments needs to be sounded. For this isa view, an approach to life and a set of premises which discredits Jesus Christ, departs from Biblical truth, andadmits to no absolutes!

In preaching and writing against the New Age movement over the past few years, I am often confronted withmild interest, and the incredulous question: "IS THISREALLY A BIG DEAL? This is somewhat interesting,and it certainly isn't biblical. But do we need to preachand warn people about it?" Curiously, this inquiry oftencomes from gospel preachers who preach multiple — series type sermons against Calvinism, the Social Gospel, Situation Ethics, etc., but cannot see the need todeal with something equally false and perhaps moreinfluential in the "Yuppie" segment of the population.

Here is a movement (an outlook, set of premises and practices being widely promoted) which is corruptingand subtle, with a non-religious billing, which pleads forsome of the ancient errors and misdeeds Jehovah entreated the Israelites to refrain from (Isa. 2: 6; 8: 19,20). The New Age movement stands on a course awayfrom the Word of God, which says that IT IS NOW INMAN THAT WALKETH TO DIRECT HIS OWN STEPS (Jer. 10: 23). It denies the basic distinction between humanity and deity; it places more value oncrystals, reincarnation and visualization than faith, repentance and baptism. And the New Age gurusspeak of Christ, Buddha and Edgar Cayce with thesame esteem! So here is something that's happeningright now, that discredits Jesus Christ, departs fromBiblical truth, and admits to

no absolutes. Let every Christian "have no fellowshipwith the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather exposethem," (Eph. 5: 11).

What are the evidences of this widespread influence?What's going on in America that points to the receptionand popularity of the New Age movement? Please take these ten evidences into account:

1. THE GROWTH OF BUDDHISM. There are now more than "1,000 Buddhist organizations in the UnitedStates," and "more than 4 million Buddhists in this country." This religion is rapidly discarding it's cult image and gaining more respectability among "middle class" America. And "they believe there is no higherbeing than oneself...," (Houston Chronicle, Nov. 26, 1988, page #2E).
2. CELEBRITY CREDIBILITY. Early in 1987, ABCcarried a mini-series called "Out On A Limb," starringShirley MacLaine. It was an extended "plug" for New Age thinking; a docu-drama of her personal religious quest that led her to discover her divinity. Reincarnation is held by such notables as John Denver, GlennFord, Loretta Lynn and Sylvester Stallone. In WillieNelson's autobiography, he tells of an unpleasant experience he had with a Baptist minister, that prodded himtoward New Age beliefs. He preaches that "every atom inyour body was once in a star, that life is continuous andnothing dies, and that the law of Karma... is as real aselectromagnetism...," (Houston Chronicle, Nov. 3, 1988,page 2D).
3. CORPORATE RECOGNITION. "In July 1986,representatives of some of the nations largest corporations, including IBM, AT&T and General Motors, met todiscuss how metaphysics, the occult and Hindu mysticism might help executives compete in the world market." (UNDERSTANDING THE NEW AGE MOVEMENT, by Russell Chandler, p. #148). Some of the young executives in our local churches are sent toseminars and workshops where meditation, New AgeCapitalism and self-discovery sessions are common; andall of this under a non-religious billing!
4. ENTERTAINMENT ATTENTION. "Such films as CLOCKWORK ORANGE, ROSEMARYS BABY, THEEXORCIST, 2001, DR. STRANGELOVE, COCOON,and ANGEL HEART convey New Age themes and occultism," (UNDERSTANDING THE NEW AGE, Chandler, p. #22). Ted Turner says that America needs to elect a New Age president, if it is to survive through theyear 2000 (Cited in Ronald Enroth, "The New Age Movement," Fundamentalist Journal, Feb. 1988, p. #49).

5. FROM OUTER SPACE TO INNER SPACE! Edgar

D. Mitchell (Apollo 14 astronaut) established THEINSTITUTE OF NOETIC SCIENCES, in Sausalito,California, to study PSI, which means "phenomena thatescape traditional scientific definitions," including telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition and psychokinesis.

1. THE U. S. ARMY commissioned a West Coast firm to "explore the military potential of meditation andextrasensory perception," (TIME, Dec. 7, 1987, p. #63).
2. STATISTICS (even with wide margins of error granted) indicate a growing interest in eastern relig

ions, mysticism and other subjects and practices withNew Age connections. According to an opinion researchorganization in Menlo Park, California, SRI International, about half of American adults (47%) now believe they have been in contact with someone who has died— "up from 27% in a previous national survey eleven yearsago," (Chandler, p. #20). According to a 1982 GallupPoll, 23% of Americans believes in reincarnation. Manybelieve this has increased since '82. As far back as 1978,a Gallup Poll indicated ten million Americans engaged in some aspect of Eastern mysticism.

1. THE PUBLIC HAS GROWTH MORE TOLER-ANT of psychic beliefs and practices. "... thenation's courts have increasingly called on psychics touse their reputed powers to weed out lying witnesses,pinpoint suspects, and locate missing bodies," (Chandler, p. #24).
2. IN RELIGION, some of the radio and television preachers reflect New Age influence in theirdoctrines. Kenneth Copeland says, "You don't have a God living in you; you are one," (Tape, "The Force OfLove," BCC-56). Robert Schuller, Charles Capps andYong-gi Cho all teach doctrines which have connections to mysticism and Shamanism (contactingthe spirit world through visualization and meditationmethods, to gain super- natural powers, knowledge and inner healing).
3. IN EDUCATION, Dr. Beverly Galyean received afederal grant to use her Eastern religious methods in the Los Angeles Public Schools. She has said: "Once webegin to see that we are all God, that we all have theattributes of God, then I think the whole purpose ofhuman life is to reown this Godlikeness within us... mywhole view is very much based on that idea," (SCPJournal, Winter/1981, 82, p. #29).

Conclusion:

What religion really amounts to can be expressed inthree questions: WHAT IS MAN? WHAT IS GOD? AndHOW CAN MAN ENTER INTO FELLOWSHIP WITH GOD? The New Age movement says, "Man is god," andit is through some mystical, esoteric means (or costlyseminar!) that you can look inside yourself, discoveryour divine essence, then join with other enlightened ones in the dawning of a New Age.

Let us tell everyone we can, THIS IS NOT GOD'SWAY! The truth to which we are committed is capturedby the words of Jesus, when He said: "I am the way, thetruth, and the life. No one comes to the Father exceptthrough Me" (Jno. 14: 6).

The New Age movement — especially to those over40—may seem like a big package of nonsense that grewout of the 60's counterculture. It may be easy for thosein the older generation to dismiss the whole thing. But bring up some of these ideas and New Age premiseswith a group of High School students, and see what theresponse is? Discuss these things with some young couples, and see if they give it any credibility.

Let us take every challenge against truth seriously.For, anything that discredits Jesus Christ, departs from Biblical truth, and admits to no absolutes must beconfronted and assailed by the sword of the Spirit.

In the March issues of Searching the Scriptures in both 1987 and 1988, Connie W. Adams had some excellent comments on the ever increasing problem of findingthat mother is not at home. If you have not read thosearticles and have access to back issues I would recommend that you take the time to go back and read them.But even more than that I would recommend that you take your Bible and read Eph. 5: 22-33; Col. 3: 18f; 1 Tim. 5: 9-14; Titus 2: 3-5 and 1 Pet. 3: 1-7. Rather thanallowing the thinking of this ungodly age to completelyshape our views and values regarding marriage we need to make certain that God's word is the final word when it comes to home and family.

In this article I want to briefly examine the mostcommon argument I hear being made for women not being "homemakers" who stay home to "manage thehouse." (Titus 2: 5; 1 Tim. 5: 14 NKJV) While a few sisters in Christ may admit that they have gone to work inorder to find fulfillment, most make the claim that theywould stay at home if they could. I frequently hear itsaid that "I would love to stay home with my children,but we just can't make it on one income." Is it really truethat in the 1980s it has become impossible to live on oneincome? Have we reached a point where families withonly one income cannot survive? Though there can belittle doubt but that the feminist movement has wielded a tremendous influence on the thinking of Christians, itjust may be that it is more the influence of materialism than feminism shaping our thinkingregarding working women. Too many of us see it asimpossible to make it on one income because we havebecome so materialistic in our thinking. Consider thefollowing:

Are two incomes necessary to provide shelter from theelements? Two incomes are usually not necessary toprovide adequate shelter, but a 2000 square foot housewith 3 bathrooms in the "right neighborhood" often doesrequire an extra income.

Do most families need a second income just to clothetheir children? Not if they are content to outfit thechildren with something less than the most prestigiousof labels. However, if one's children must wear the samebrands as the children of the doctor down the street two incomes may become necessary.

Can adequate nourishment and nutrition be providedfor the family with only one income? It all depends. Is themother willing to take the time to clip coupons and comparison shop or does she insist on eating out several times a week? One may not eat a lot of steak and trips toShoney's may be rare, but the honest person must admit

Page 13

that one income will generally be sufficient to feed a family.

We could go on and talk about a host of other thingslike VCRs and more cars than licensed drivers, but Ithink that you can see the point. In the beginning Ilisted some verses for consideration, at this point Iwould like to suggest a few more for you. Please readLk. 12: 23, 1 Tim. 6: 6-10 and Heb. 13: 5f. Brethrenwho believe that life's needs are met when food and clothing are taken care of will rarely be heard to say that they "just can't make it on one income. "

I am not trying to suggest that everyone can live onone income, but I am strongly suggesting that mostwho speak of being unable to make it are in reality unwilling to say "having food and clothing, with these we shall be content. "

It has been well said that God's plan will work if wewill work God's plan. In the New Testament, God created local churches without additional layers oforganization, without earthly headquarters, and without any kind of centralized agency to coordinate thework of the churches. Every church in every cityselected local leaders called by several names to indicate their leadership function: elders or presbyters,bishops or overseers, and pastors or shepherds (Acts

14: 23, 20: 17, 28; Tit. 1: 5, 7). These terms do notdesignate separate offices but all refer to the samefunction of guiding a local church in its God-givenwork. No church was led by a single pastor, bishop, orelder, but two or more were always chosen. They werechosen according to strict qualifications given in theBible (Tit. 1: 5-9; 1 Tim. 3). Special servants or deaconswere also selected in each local church.

Paul wrote a letter "to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons"(Phil. 1: 1). Each church was independent and autonomous with its own elders leading, deacons serving, and other saints cooperating in the work and worship appointed by God for His people. There were no human organizations, bureaus, societies, archbishops, popes,presidents, councils, conventions, synods, presbyteries, zones, districts, circuits, or institutional ties of anykind between the churches or over them. No such organizational structures were authorized by Christ. Allsuch councils and institutions impugn the perfection ofGod's plan for the local church and transgress the clearteaching of Christ. True churches of Christ follow the teaching of Christ (Rom. 16: 16; 2 Jn. 9-11).

Each local church is to do its own work of proclaiming the gospel, helping Christians to grow spiritually, and supplying the emergency needs of destitute saints (1 Tim.

3: 15; 5: 16; 1 Cor. 14: 26). God's plan will work in every phase of the church's mission, including benevolence. GOD HAS A PLAN FOR THE LOCAL CHURCH TO RAISE FUNDS FOR ITS BENEVOLENT WORK "Upon the first day of the week let every one ofyou lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him" (1Cor. 16: 1-2). Each Christian gives according to his own ability and his own purpose of heart (Acts 11: 29; 2 Cor.

9: 7). God authorized no high pressure appeals, no tithes, no sales or suppers, no begging money from theunconverted world, and no collections on days otherthan the first day of the week. God's plan will work!

GOD'S PLAN TEACHES THE LOCAL CHURCH TO HELP DESTITUTE SAINTS. From its beginning, thechurch was taught to supply the emergency needs ofdestitute saints. The New Testament church did not extend benevolent aid to the unconverted world. This work was limited to "all that believed," "the number of thedisciples," "the brethren," or "the saints" (Acts 2: 44; 6: 1;

11: 29; Rom. 15: 25). Christians who were lazy,unfaithful, or fallen back into sin were not helped fromthe treasury of the church (2 Thes. 3: 10; Ja. 5: 19-20).Faithful Chris-tian widows who were destitute of all other means of support could be enrolled for regularbenevolent care under certain conditions (1 Tim. 5: 416).

Christians on a personal, individual, daily basis are to"do good unto all men," but God did not plan the churchas a general welfare agency to all the needy of the world(Gal. 6: 10). We must work God's plan, not change it!

WHEN CHURCHES ARE UNABLE TO CARE FOR THEIR OWN NEEDY, GOD HAS A PLAN FOR OTHERCHURCHES TO HELP. During a great famine, thedisciples at Antioch sent "relief unto the brethren whichdwelt in Judea... sent it to the elders by the hands ofBarnabas and Saul" (Acts 1: 27-30). The church at Antiochchose its own messengers to carry its own funds to theelders where the needy saints lived. Several years laterthe saints of Jerusalem suffered an extended period ofdeep poverty. Many churches in other places raised theirown funds, chose their own messengers, and sent the helpneeded so desperately (1 Cor. 16: 1-2; 2 Cor. 8-9; Rom.

15: 25-32). No local church acted as the planning, centralizing, orcoordinating agency for other churches and no other formof denominational machinery was created. Churchescooperated by sharing information and by each one sending its own funds to the needy churches. God's planworked perfectly well!CAN GOD'S PLAN WORK TODAY? Or, if localchurches of Christ are to cooperate in benevolence today,must we pool and centralize our funds under "sponsoring"churches, man-made boards, and denominational machinery? After Hurricane Gilbert hit Jamaica and Mexicoin mid-September 1988, the White's Ferry Road Church of Christ in West Monroe, LA set itself up as a centralizedagency to collect funds from hundreds and thousands of

churches in order to carry out relief work for them. The Richland Hills church in Ft. Worth and the Memorial Dr.

church in Houston, TX did the same thing. This violatesGod's plan for independent and autonomous churches todo their own work.

Many churches of Christ have followed God's plan by sharing information and sending messengers with helpfor brethren who suffered from the hurricane. The church of Christ in West Columbia, TX sent aid as did churches in Clute, Southern Oaks in Lake Jackson,North Freeport in Freeport, Herman St. in Humble,College Park in Deer Park, Park View and Southside inPasadena, and others. None of the relief disappeared into the dark hole of institutional bureaucracy, but wereceived a direct report from our messengers and grateful letters from the brethren we helped. YES, GOD'S PLAN FOR CHURCHES TO COOPERATE IN BENEVOLENCE WILL WORK, IF ONLY WE WILL WORK GOD'S PLAN!

In the past year we all saw and heard or read aboutthe things happening to Jimmy Swaggert. And there isno doubt that he sinned for he confessed it before his whole television audience. But Jimmy Swaggert's situation is not unique for other preachers in the public eyehave sinned before him, and still others will sin. However, in the process of the news reports regarding JimmySwaggert and Jim Bakker we have been given a real view of denominationalism. I fear that sometimes I fail to teach as much about the nature of the Lord's church as I should; to show its organization and how different it is from the denominational world. But this situation is just too good to miss, for we can easily show the Lord's church as different from the denominational system.

First of all, what is a denomination? The word issometimes used to designate a certain class or society ofpeople who are called by the same name. But denominationalism is much more than just the fact that peoplewear a certain name. It is clear that those who followed Jesus in the New Testament wore the name "Christian,"but they were not a part of any denomination. They werea part of the church that you read about in the New Testament, the church which belongs to Christ. Thesystem we all saw in the news reports regarding JimmySwaggert is a denomination, because it is a class orsociety of people who all wear the same name, subscribeto doctrines and submit to an organization differentfrom that in the Bible.

When it was first learned that Jimmy Swaggert had sinned, the matter was taken up by a group of men whose area of responsibility was the state of Louisiana.

And it appears that these men had the right (according to their by-laws) to suggest some kind of discipline forJimmy Swaggert, or for any person who preaches for oris a member of one of their churches. Then, their recommendation was sent to Springfield, Missouri to theworld headquarters of the Assemblies of God where theexecutive council was given the job of reviewing thesituation, and deciding upon the recommendation of theLouisiana council. The executive council in Springfield disagreed with the Louisiana council and suggested much more severe penalties for Mr. Swaggert. Theydecided that Jimmy Swaggert should not be allowed topreach in one of their churches for at least one year.(Louisiana recommended three months), and that he beunder probation for two years while undergoing rehabilitation. Where would we go in the Bible to find such penalties for sin? Who has the right to decide on suchpenalties and to enforce them? The truth is that in a denomination those who are in positions of power can dojust about whatever they want because their authority,either to exist, or to function, does not come from theBible but from their Constitution and By-laws. And apparently decisions made by their executive counciland their superintendent are final and binding on thewhole denomination.

Contrast all of this with the system so clearly revealed in the New Testament. The church which belongsto Christ has only one head, and that is Jesus. Paulwrote of this in his letter to the Ephesians when he wrote of God raising Jesus from the dead and setting Him atHis own right hand, "far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every namethat is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: and hath put all thingsunder his feet, and gave him to be head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullnessof him that filleth all in all" (Eph. 1: 20-23). Jesus isthe one who heads His church, and the rules He set inplace are those given by the Father Himself. In a denomination, a man or a group of men head the denomination, with the power to set policy and make rules,even rules different from the Bible.

In denominationalism, the unit of the denominationis the local congregation. But in the Lord's church the unit is the individual Christian. This is made clear byJesus in John chapter 15. Jesus said: "I am the vine, yeare the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, andthey are burned" (v. 5-6). It is not denominations, oreven local churches themselves that are the individual units of the church, but Christians, men and women who abide in Christ.

Further, in the Lord's church the only kind of organization found is on the local congregational level. Thereis no national or international, or even state headquarters. But on the level of the local church Jesus did give some rules. After Paul and Barnabas had returned from their first preaching tour they went back through the

cities where they had preached, "confirming the soulsof the disciples, and exhorting them to continue inthe faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God. And whenthey had ordained them elders in every church,and had prayed with fasting, they commendedthem to the Lord, on whom they believed" (Acts

14: 22-23). Every church where men were qualified was to have its own elders or bishops. And these menwere limited to that church. Paul told the elders from Ephesus to "Take heed therefore unto yourselves,and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghosthath made you overseers, to feed the church ofGod, which he hath purchased with his own blood" (Acts 20: 28). The "flock" over which they had been appointed was in Ephesus. This is the same as thelanguage used by Peter when he wrote that the eldersshould "feed the flock which is among you" (I Pet.

5: 2).

View again the denominational system where there is an executive council able to make decisions about sin within a local church somewhere, and able to choosepunishments not found in the word of God. But the Biblewould place such responsibility in the hands of localelders, and even then they could not require something different from what God has already said about forgiveness of sins. When we begin to apply human wisdom andhuman rules to religious things we soon find that we arenot the church found in the New Testament, but a fullgrown human denomination. And don't suppose thatsuch cannot happen to us.

To be sure, many of those men and women, perhapsall of them, who make up the Assemblies of God aresincere people. And I don't mean to single them out fromany of the other denominations, for all of them are of men. But in any such system, when error is practiced itaffects the whole of the denomination. But in the systemof Christ, when one man or even one local church goesinto sin, the rest of the Lord's people are not necessarilyaffected by it. And when some of our brethren begin toset one group of elders over more than one local church,or begin to function through the "sponsoring church"arrangement, we have the beginnings of the same denominationalism that we have seen so clearly in thenews reports.

Let's shout out the news to all of the world who will listen that the church of our Lord is not a denomination and is different from denominations. We are not just a better church, or a better denomination; we are followers of Jesus, and the church that belongs to Him, and they can be too.

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

PAUL WILLIAMS, P. O. Box 324, Eshowe, 3815 South Africa — Three were baptized in the work here while we were in the U. S. A. fromJuly 28-October 26. Also, during that time, one young man waswithdrawn from. Brethren in places we visited in the States made itpossible to purchase a computer with all necessary equipment. Thiswill enable me to put out quality tracts, reports, correspondencecourses, and our teaching paper "Words of Life." My heartfelt thanksto all of you, and my prayer is that the use we make of this equipmentwill justify the expense.

BROTHER KELLY ELLIS GOES HOME

Brother Kelly Ellis ceased his journey among men on December 2,1988, in an extended care facility in Stanford, KY. Kelly was bornSept. 3, 1913 to Charles Lee (April 18, 1874-June 6, 1960) andLillie Bell (Oct. 22, 1874-Apnl 19, 1956) Ellis. His parents weregodly and righteous. They worshipped at the Sycamore church inBoyle County all their lives. Sycamore church was founded in 1840,and continues a thriving congregation to this day. Brother Charles Ellis, baptized in 1897, was a long time gospel preacher; he setbefore Kelly the

examples for life, and encouraged him to practice the truth. He saw inhis father the same toils and sacrifices for the gospel which he himselfmade many times.

Kelly's wife, Claudia, preceded him in death just over a year. His way was more difficult after her passing, but he continued to serve inthe Danville church and to preach in other places. He had preachedthe gospel nearly forty-five years. His home was in Danville during allthis time. Through these years he taught in the school systems there,and was a bookkeeper for a local Ford Motor Agency. He would preachin an average of about 15 meetings annually. For many years, in laterlife, he served as an elder in the Danville church.

Perhaps, there has not been a man in the church in centralKentucky since the days of McGarvey who has had the wide respectand influence in the churches as Kelly Ellis. In most cases, preacherscome into a city, stay short time and then leave. Kelly came to Danvilleand stayed. Though small in physical stature, he was a giant inspiritual matters and mental powers.

Kelly is survived by two daughters: Mrs. Dickie (Sue) Cooper ofStanford, KY, and Mrs. Mike (Betsy) Meadows, Cleveland, OH, and several grandchildren. One brother and one sister also survive.

Funeral services were conducted Sunday afternoon at 2:00 fromthe Preston-Pruitt Funeral Home, Danville, by Earl E. Robertson andSteve Wolfgang. Burial wag beside his beloved Claudia in the BuffaloSprings Cemetery, Stanford, Kentucky. — Earl E. Robertson, 514 S.Green St., Glasgow, KY 42141

STEVE WALLACE, P. O. Box 7257, APO NY 09012—There are now two more churches in West Germany, one in Wuerzburg, theother in Stuttgart. For information on the church in Wuerzburg, please write: Russell Roberts, Frankenstr. 17, 8702 Eisingen, W. Germany. For information on the church in Stuttgart: Robert Manaugh, Blanken-steinstr. 17/1, 7141 Murr, W. Germany. Also the church that used to meet in Moerfeldon is now meeting inGustavsburg near Mainz. For information on this church write: GregEngel, Det. 12, 7 WS, Finthen AAF, GE, APO NY 09185. Feel free tocontact this writer at the above address for any help I can give aboutthe work in Germany.

CIRILO B. SUMABAL, Baybay, Leyte, Republic of the Philippines

— Leyte Province is composed of 65 municipalities with a population of 3,000,000. The third largest city is Baybay where a congregationwas started in 1977. Alberto D. Vivero is the preacher there. In 1978 a church was established in Barrio Ampihanon, 20 kilometers northeast of Baybay by the writer. In September, 1988 another work wasestablished about 16 kilometers from Baybay. The writer, Seraphin O. Petallar and Ben Pitogo worked as a team. 11 obeyed the gospel.Now relatives of those saved are interested and studying.

Ten days later we moved to the town of Hilongos, Leyte, 53 kilometers south of Baybay, a town of 125,000 which was 100% RomanCatholic. Four families of professionals were converted and werejoined by a brother from Pagadian City who had been unfaithful for 10years. So, now there is a small congregation in that town. They are meeting in what was once the office for Philippine Air Lines.

TOM MOODY of South End church in Louisville, KY and GERRY SANDUSKY of Madison, Indiana, left on January 9 for six weeks ofwork in India. They were there last year for a similar period. Thesemen, along with John Humphries, Jerry Parks, Bill Beasley andothers, have done outstanding work there in training Indian preachers to work among their own people.

PREACHERS NEEDED MERRITT ISLAND, FLORIDA: Small congregation with greatpotential is searching for a full time preacher. We can provide a nicehouse, 3 bedroom - 2 bath, and some salary. If interested pleasecontact Jim Winton (407) 452-4762 or Cloyce D. Walden (407) 6368255 or 636-4361. Our mailing address is: Merritt Island Church ofChrist, P. O. Box 540591, Merritt Island, FL 32954

MT. WASHINGTON, KENTUCKY — We are in need of a faithful gospel preacher. We are 55-60 in attendance and can provide partial support, depending on the need of the person. Weare located just outside Louisville, KY. We would like a matureman who might be elder material with strong personal work skills.You may contact Louis Miller (502) 538-7934 or Darrel Swift (502)538-7182.

MT. STERLING, KENTUCKY — We are in need of a full time preacher for the Oak Hill church, located about five miles from Mt. Sterling. Attendance runs between 35-40. At the present time we canprovide $1200 a month in financial support. For more informationcontact: Arnold Smith, 604 Brentwood Dr., Mt. Sterling, KY 40353

(606) 498-1375, or Russell Ginter, Rt. 3, Mt. Sterling, KY 40353 (606)498-3811.

WORSHIPPING THE LESSER GOD

You see it in many places over the country. On Sunday morning most of the audience arrives looking their very best. They appear to be a people who have come to a special occasion which caused them topresent themselves as respectfully as possible. But then, the samepeople (minus a few) come back that night looking as if the track meetjust ended, or they just finished a softball game or tennis match. Whythe difference? It put me to wondering if some suppose they are worshipping a lesser God on Sunday night. Now, don't get bent out of shape. Just think about it, that's all I ask.

SPEAKING A DIFFERENT LANGUAGE

At the Nashville meeting in December, one of the institutional preachers said of the non-institutional speakers "I don't understand what you fellows are talking about, we don't speak the same language." He was right. As brethren drift farther from the truth, theirvocabulary changes. Every apostasy has demonstrated that. Titus was told to use "sound speech that cannot be condemned" (Titus 2: 78). When men make the change from gospel preachers to theologians,their speech is sprinkled with expressions garnered from more timespent in reading the philosophical and speculative musings of men than in study of the text of scripture. "Speak thou the things whichbecome sound doctrine" (Titus 2: 1).

SUPPORTING GOSPEL MEETINGS

It is not unusual, when preaching in Canada, to have brethrencome from 200-300 miles away to attend the meeting, some will makethat trip two or three times during a week of gospel preaching. Thathappens a few places in this country, but not many. There are severalmetropolitan areas where there are a good number of congregationsand where some of the ablest preachers of our time can be heard mostany night from early spring to late fall. Yet, in many places, there arevery few who will come from other congregations to encourage, tolearn and to just be with other Christians. Our children need to knowother young people from godly homes. They need to be exposed to the preaching of good men. But now, we have band, scouting, ball games,little league, camps, and you name it. Load up with the family anddrive across town, or 40 miles away, to attend a gospel meeting? Don't be silly! We have no time for that stuff? Did somebody say somethingabout confused values?

SWIFT PUNISHMENT

In a time when a murderer can take nine or ten years to exhaustall the legal ploys available, so that people have forgotten the horrorof what he did, and the press has made a folk hero out of him, it wouldbe good for presidents, governors, judges and lawyers to read whatEzra the scribe said: "And whosoever will not do the law of the king,let judgment be executed speedily upon him, whether it be unto death,or to banishment, or to confiscation of goods, or to imprisonment"(Ezra 7: 26).

"DON'T WEAR FUR"

Fur is expensive, and for that reason, everyone cannot afford towear it. But there is a movement under way now to discourage the wearing of fur because it will cost the life of an animal. To bedeliberately cruel to animals is one thing. But to recognize that Godmade the animal creation for the use and blessing of man is not crueltyto animals. The Lord God made coats of skins, and clothed" Adam and Eve" (Gen. 3: 21). When will we hear activists admonishing people notto eat fish, or chicken, or pork or beef? Plants are also living things.Shall we ban the slaying of them, too? This whole silly business is the outcropping of evolutionary philosophy which reduces man to the level of the beast. God made man of a higher order and gave himdominion over the animal kingdom (Gen. 1: 28). Interestingly, some ofthe same activists concerned about the saving of the life of furryanimals, are also loudmouthed advocates of abortion on demand. Save the chinchilla, but kill the human babies! What a crazy world!

IN THE NEWS THIS MONTH

BAPTISMS 225 RESTORATIONS 48 (Taken from bulletins and papers received by the editor)