Plain Talk

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VI No.IX Pg.6

November 1969

1941 Co-Op Study

Robert F. Turner

In the late thirties and early forties the stage was being set for rapid expansion of the sponsoring church idea in this country. Terms, like cooperation and independent, were carelessly used, and the basic issues of organizational structure were seldom met. But in the CHRISTIAN LEADER, Apr. 15, 1941, bro. Jesse P. Sewell recognized a distinction in what we would call collective and or concurrent action. We will quote his words, with our comments, in this and next months issues of Plain Talk.

**************************

A fundamental doctrine of those people, standing for a restoration of the New Testament order in all things, is that the congregation, the local church formed after the New Testament order, is the only organization used by Him in giving His service to the world. The doctrine is, If I correctly understand it, that each local church is complete within itself as a unit of service, and as such is entirely independent of all other congregations, and under Christ it alone must determine its own procedure in all things. This has been a fundamental doctrine of the restoration movement with which we are identified since the days of Campbell and Stone. It is now.

I shall not at this time discuss the soundness of the position. For the purpose of this discussion I accept this position, as stated. Personally, I believe it is perfectly sound when applied to the worship of God and the performance of these great spiritual services provided by Christ for the world. I believe, however, it should forever remain an open question for full and free study and discussion on the part of any and all whose minds may not be fully satisfied with reference to it.

With this position accepted as our basis of discussion, I submit: 1. One or more congregations may cooperate with another congregation in any activity, either worship or service, in which a New Testament congregation may engage. 2. Two or more congregations may not cooperate together in planning, deciding or determining anything that will bind or control the conduct of the congregations involved. On the basis of our universally accepted position, this distinction is clear cut and fundamental.

Today many would accept the first proposition submitted, and with it as a basis, justify their area-wide work with planning boards, executive sessions, and all. They might argue that bro. Sewells second proposition only forbade forcing a church to do some work. But this was not Sewells point as next months quote will show.

Bro. Sewell accepted collective action of churches, so long as one church did all the planning. He did not distinguish between assisting a church in need (alms, 2 Cor. 8:) or, simply working toward the same end — a form of cooperation — and collective functioning of many churches via the media of a controlling (as respects the project) sponsoring church. Whether or not bro. Sewell saw the logical end of his reasoning, I can not say. (Continued next issue)

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VI No.IX Pg.7

November 1969

Queries And Answers

Robert F. Turner

Dear bro. Turner:

How is the contribution a part of the Lords Day worship? Do we give to God this offering? FC

Reply:

Sometimes, in a sincere effort to strengthen half-hearted members, and get them to give of their means as they should, we say things inaccurately — things that establish false concepts, and have far-reaching effects. The contribution has had more than its share of such errors.

In the first place, the thing done in worship is but the fruit of the proper attitude or spirit of worship, and does not, of itself, offer or provide God with anything. This was true even in the Old Testament, when the blood of animals was offered as propitiation for sin. The offerings paid for sin only in a symbolic sense, typifying the one true offering which Christ made of Himself, for the sins of the world. (Heb. 10:1-f. Study 1 Sam. 15:22; Prov. 21:3; Hos. 6:)

In the more literal sense, Christ is the ONE sacrifice of the New Covenant, one sacrifice for sins for ever once offered once for all, (Heb. 9:28 10: 10-12). God does not need anything (Acts 17: 24-25) and certainly isnt appeased or conciliated by our prayer, song, or money. The Lords Day contribution IS NOT an offering at the alter; and many of the pleas and prayers some associate with the collection border on the ridiculous, and are pure Judaism.

A far more appropriate way to consider the matter is to see ourselves as belonging to the Lord, body and spirit (1 Cor. 6: 15-20 2 Cor. 8:3-5) after which we use time and material blessings as stewards only. Christians are living sacrifice (Rom. 12) Our singing, prayers, teaching, remembering (L. S. ) and giving of our means to promote His cause, are acceptable only as they indicate a sincere desire on our part to serve God with our whole being. Thus, we worship God in spirit and in truth.

When an individual becomes a Christian he serves the Lord with his all, regardless of what others do. Finding other Christians, he joins with them in the service of Christ (an association commanded and sanctions by the Lord: Heb. 10:25; Acts 20:7, etc) and this collective action is the very essence of the local church. Saints pool their means in order to work as one in the service of Christ, and this necessitates a time of gathering.

1 Cor. 16:1-3 is an example of such a gathering in the early church, and as an approved example, serves as authority for like action on our part. It was done in keeping with an apostles explicit instructions. Today we also have needs to meet, work to be done; and in order to accomplish the work God has authorized to be done collectively, Christians must pool their means and/or abilities — usually through a medium of exchange, or just plain MONEY.

We give to support preachers, to feed the hungry, to supply facilities for our work and worship. The gift is to God: only as respects purpose and as it reflects a heart wholly His.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VI No.IX Pg.8

November 1969

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

One elderly brother in a rural community thought he had discovered a Bible truth never before understood. He managed to twist some verses about until he made them say that John the Baptist could talk when he was only eight days old.

He injected this novel interpretation (?) into every class period, used it in his talks at the Lords Table, labored his point at every court yard session. He jumped every preacher who came along, startling some into silence — which was proof- positive to him that they were powerless before his logic.

Until he approached a preacher who had heard of his peculiar wisdom and was prepared for it. The preacher said, Oh, there is nothing outstanding about a child talking when eight days of age. Consider Job! He cursed the day be was born. (Job 3: 1-f)

The preacher should have been ashamed of himself. He took away the old mans forte — left him unadorned — reduced him to an ordinary person like the rest of us. He could have spared his feelings by saying, Say, thats astonishing! Im sure a man of your talents has noticed that Job cursed the day he was born. Together they may have started a movement of some kind. Essential ingredients are a few startling, never — before twists to the Scriptures, or the novel use of a few words, partially defined. This gives the originators a sense of scholarship — for they alone have discovered these things, and all the ordinary brethren are slaves of orthodoxy, or time — serving preachers who parrot the former generation and are afraid to think for themselves.

We sorely need honest, free (in the sense of not being bound to human traditions) thinkers. Men with well— rounded knowledge of the Bible as a whole, who can approach passages objectively, seeking truth at whatever the cost. But such men usually have sense enough to know that arrogance is not scholarship; and that chances are very slim that one mans conclusion is more accurate than the combined weight of centuries of study.

I want to encourage independent individual Bible study, and believe desire for such is strong among conservatives today. We must make the spirit of humility equally strong.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VI No.X Pg.1

December 1969

Delight In Numbers

Robert F. Turner

2 Sam. 24: records the sin of David in numbering the fighting men of Israel and Judah. The counting itself was not wrong. Earlier in Israels history God had ordered the numbering of the people. (Num. 1:2) But there was a sinful motive involved in Davids census. Satan moved David to the task (1 Chron. 21:1) and God used the occasion to punish Israel (2 Sam. 24: 1). But what was the sin?

Joab, Davids right-hand man, seemed to sense the basic error. He said, Jehovah thy God add unto the people, how many so ever they may be, a hundredfold; and may the eyes of my lord the king see it; but why doth my lord the king delight in this thing? (2 Sam. 24:3 1 Chron. 21:3)

Davids pride in numbers was an echo of the sin of the people who desired a king in place of Samuel the Judge. They feared the Ammonites, and desired a king like all the nations to go out before us and fight our battles. (1 Sam. 8:20) But Jehovah had delivered them in times past, and stood ready to protect the faithful. (1 Sam. 12:6-12) Trusting in horsemen and chariots was rejection of Jehovah and His all-powerful arm. (Isa. 31:1-f)

Later David recognized his error and repented. saying, I have done very foolishly; but his sin brought great pestilence upon the nation. Our pride, and trust in carnal strength, are often the unsuspected causes of problems that beset us. And, we are seldom exercised by the punishment. Have you ever heard one pray Father forgive me for counting people, fine church buildings, impressive contributions, etc., as indicative of how well we are doing here.??

The desire to grow in number is not wrong. If true spirituality increases, so as to stay in the lead, our material strength furnishes tools for greater service to God. But sometimes the ones who come out of digression, and suffer hardships as a little bunch standing for truth, are overcome — not by submission to doctrinal error, but by pride. They are worn down because they chafe at the thought of littleness — or growing, they delight in this thing and forget their dependence upon God.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VI No.X Pg.2

December 1969

Rx For 3G Syndrome

Robert F. Turner

Sometimes we describe the periodic digressions that affect a church as Third Generation Syndrome. The first generation recognizes gross improprieties (though they may not, at first, grasp their full significance) and the noble ones make personal investigation into the scriptures. They learn the truth, and seek to teach others. (Gal. 6:1-f) Tradition — ridden majorities are adamant; and for conscience sake a faithful few are forced to begin anew at great personal sacrifice.

The second generation develops with the scars and smell of war about them, patriotic slogans ringing in their ears. They get the arguments down pat, in a second- handed sort of way, but they are wearied by talk of battle, and never really search out the fundamental principles for themselves. As a consequence, their teaching is superficial. prejudicial.

So, the third generation learns the right words to say, can make the arguments, but neither understands nor appreciates their importance. It is among such people that the constant factor drift produces disastrous results, and off we go again.

Members of the church are going to have children, and many of them will be brought up in the church. We can not eliminate the third generation by bringing up our children in a vacuum, nor can we expect new converts of the second and third generation to have the same appreciation for a specific problem as do those who have had direct experience with such. Some characteristics of the second and third generation can not be avoided; they are the normal problems of life. Lest we despair, remember that the noble first generation arises out of the third generation.

And, there are things we can do to combat the ravage of third generation disasters. (1) We can work hard to maintain a steady flow of new blood into the church. Converts from sin, rejoicing in their new—found salvation, are eager to learn and their zeal and enthusiasm is catching. No congregation can long survive if evangelism is neglected.

We must not neglect teaching issues to both new and old converts alike. If the issue did not involve essential principles of truth. it was wrong in the first place. If it did, the new convert needs to know the unvarnished truth, exactly as you would teach regarding mechanical music in the worship, or any other past issue.

The Lords Church Consists Of Taught, Faithful People, Of Any Generation.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VI No.X Pg.3

December 1969

The Eunuch's Secret

Joe Fitch

Look at a man who found the way of salvation (Acts 8: 26-39). Do you know the secret of his success?

He had AN OPEN BOOK. We first meet him reading from the scriptures (Ver. 28). "Have you not read" (Mt. 12:3, 5; 19:4; 21:16; etc.) and "What saith the scriptures?" (Rom. 4:3) are inspired appeals for open Bibles. Jesus said the Sadducees were wrong about the resurrection not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God (Matt. 22:29). Is it strange to find people wrong about spiritual things when they never open their Bibles?

"Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ" (Eph. 3:4). Confusion is banished by knowledge. Reading an open book — is the first key to understanding what the will of the Lord is (Eph. 5:17).

Many people avow they are looking for truth yet they never open their Bibles. They claim to love truth but refuse to discuss the scriptures. Something is wrong somewhere! ... "thy word is truth" (Jno. 17:17).

The man from Ethiopia also had AN OPEN MIND. Many people protest they cannot understand scripture. The problem may not be so much hard scripture as hard hearts. People observed the miracles of Jesus but just couldn't see that he was Christ. Why? "They closed their eyes" (Matt. 13:15). It is hard to see anything with your eyes closed!

Consider the parable of the good Samaritan (Lk. 10: 29-36). Why couldn't the priest and Levite see the wounded man? Was he hidden? No, they knew he was there. The Samaritan had no problem finding him. Suppose we move the wounded man into the middle of the road where you can't walk around him — the priest and Levite will just look up, step over, and keep walking! Attitude makes the difference. The Samaritan was willing to see.

Prejudice (pre-judging) is an enemy of the quest for truth. A verdict is reached before the evidence is heard. Nathaniel didn't ask Phillip how he knew Jesus of Nazareth to be the Christ; he just said, "Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?" (Jno. 1:45, 46). He made up his mind when he heard Nazareth mentioned. Likewise, Jesus was discredited in Nazareth — his family were all common people (Mk. 6: 2-4). Stephen preached the truth and was killed (Acts 7:51-60). These people were — as he charged — "stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears" (closed minded).

"Come and see" (Jno. 1:46) is the only answer to prejudice. An honest heart will consider the facts — and change when wrong. Others will find excuses or ignore the situation completely.

An OPEN MIND and an OPEN BOOK can be the secret to your success. It was for the Bereans. They "received the word with all readiness of mind" — an open mind — and "searched the scriptures daily" — an open book — "whether those things were so" (Acts 17:11). Or you can close your mind and Bible and drift gently on waves of self satisfaction to hell!

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VI No.X Pg.4

December 1969

Righteousness Of Faith

Robert F. Turner

Thousands of sincere Lutherans, Baptists and other faith only adherents have been convinced that they must reject obedience as an essential to salvation, because it is not compatible with the righteousness which is of faith. I respectfully suggest a restudy of the text — Rom. 10: 5-f.

Paul is contrasting the system of works (mans own righteousness, by a purely theoretical perfect doing of all required — Vs. 3 -5, Gal. 3:10-f) with the forgiveness made possible through trust in Christ. (Rom. 3:23-f; 4:6-8) The faith is objective — depending upon Gods revealed will — made available to both Jews and Gentiles.

To impress this point, Paul refers to Deut. 30: 11-f. where God says His commandment is not too hard for thee neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us — etc. Read this 0. T. passage, and compare it with the application made by Paul. Christ is available to both Jew and Gentile, in the word of faith preached.

How shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? (Vs. 14) So God sent inspired men to both Jew and Gentile (Vs. 15, from Isa. 52: basically Messianic) to make His way available to all. But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? (Vs. 16) There is no salvation in a faith that will not obey, and failure to obey is evidence of a lack of faith. (See Jas. 2:17-f.)

The chapter concludes by showing that the Jews should have known, from the words of Moses and Isaiah, that Gods word would be extended to the Gentiles. (Vs. 19-21)

Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. When Rom. 10:17 is put in proper context we see it as a key passage indeed. Consider some obvious applications.

Saving faith is objective — resting not upon what we experience or feel inside but upon what we read in Gods word — external authority. Faith itself is not a gift of God (it of Eph. 2: 8 refers to salvation) but is the result of mans accepting the word (teaching) made available through Gods grace. (Titus 2: 11-f) God provides the evidence, but man does the believing.

There can be no saving faith without its companion thus saith the Lord. Walking by faith is a journey that depends upon Gods word, not on human wisdom or senses ,for direction. Gods word teaches by direct statement, approved example, or necessary inference (deductions from statements given by inspiration) and there is nothing silly or childish about asking for scriptural authority for ones faith and/or practice.

Christ is available as Saviour for all nations — brought down from heaven, brought up from the dead — but He must be found in the word of faith. (Rom. 10: 6-f.) Believing confessing and calling upon Christ indicate our dependence upon Christ as revealed in the proclaimed word. They embrace and include obedience to the word. (Jn. 12: 48; 14:23; Acts 22: 16)

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VI No.X Pg.5

December 1969

We Walk By Faith

Robert F. Turner

What proof have you of Heaven?

The question was asked with some belligerence, and the querist seemed poised for his counter-strike at any reply I might make. He seemed a bit puzzled when I answered, None! absolutely none!

None?? Then why would you believe in Heaven?

I assured my visitor that I had excellent reasons for believing there was a Heaven; and that my faith was based upon testimony that had a proven source. This led us to a discussion of miracles, and their place.

Gods plan for divine revelation is really simple and to the point. He is declared unto man by the Son, who was a manifestation of deity — a demonstration of God in a way accessible to mans grasp. (Jn. 1:18; 14:7-11; 1 Jn. 1:1-3; Col. 2:9) Jesus gave proof of His origin by miracles and wonders and signs which God did by Him before a critical audience — people that were touched despite deep prejudices. (Jn. 7:45-46 10:19-f; etc) These are written, that ye might believe — (Jn. 20: 30-31).

Jesus chose messengers, who were given power to work miracles — prove the source of their message — as they went about preaching Christ. They began by speaking with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. The Lord worked with them, confirming the word with signs following. God bore them witness with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will. (Acts 2:4 Mk. 16:20 Heb. 2:4) In all of this, it seems evident that Jesus did not attempt to prove WHAT HE SAID — satisfy hearers on a purely logical or demonstrable basis, that WHAT He said was true. Instead, He gave them ample proof of WHO HE WAS AND IS. The source was established, and then He taught them as one having authority. and not as the scribes. (Matt. 7:29)

The Apostles, likewise, were given power to confirm the word — to establish it as having divine origin, as being indeed the product of the Holy Spirit, That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. (1 Cor. 2: 4-5)

The written word of God, by its internal evidences, by its very work in the hearts of men, stands today as living proof of its divine source. It records the life of Jesus the Christ, and of the many infallible proofs that accompanied Him. The signs of the Apostles established their message, and sustain it to this day.

We need no further confirmation of the word, any more than we need further miracles to prove that Jesus was and is the Christ, the Son of the living God. To ask for miracles today. is to count as nought those now written that ye may believe. Brethren who expect the Holy Spirit to find them a parking space, may consider themselves the spiritual ones but I see them as lacking in faith. Gods confirmed word is sufficient to produce faith in the revealed Heaven.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VI No.X Pg.6

December 1969

Co-Op Ambiguity

Robert F. Turner

We continue quotation of article by Jesse P. Sewell, from CHRISTIAN LEADER, Apr. 15, 1941. See last issue of Plain Talk for first installment.

***********************

One congregation may cooperate with another congregation in any worship or service permissible to a congregation, and each congregation remain complete and independent within itself. The congregation doing the thing makes its own decisions, determines its own procedure, and on the basis of these, invites and accepts the cooperation of one or more other congregations. These other congregations remain complete and free under Christ to determine for themselves, to cooperate or not to cooperate, solely and entirely on their own understanding of and attitude toward the thing in which they are invited to cooperate.

wo congregations may not, on the basis of the doctrine declared in this paper, cooperate together in planning, deciding or determining anything. Cooperation together thus, means studying, planning and deciding together. in joint consideration. with reference to any given act or procedure. This cannot be done except as the two or more congregations, as units or through delegates, get together and jointly consider and decide the matter in hand. This cannot be done without each congregation forfeit its completeness and independence.

In joint or mutual consideration and decision there is of necessity a forfeiture of individual completeness and independence. When two men jointly consider and decide any proposition neither of them does it independently. When two congregations or more jointly or mutually decide or determine any course of procedure for the entire number (two or more) neither of them does it independently. Two or more congregations, cooperating in this way together in anything, great or small, to any extent, clearly violate the doctrine of congregational completeness and independence under Christ.

Bro. Sewell made the same ambiguous use of cooperate that is common today; but he recognized a distinction within the bounds of this word that is rarely seen by current liberals. Independent action and collective action are NOT COMPATIBLE. Being willing to enter into city-wide or area-wide planning sessions, or to support and execute the results of such, doesnt change the fact that congregational completeness and independence under Christ has been sacrificed. Such willingness is a willingness to do wrongly.

Whoever first applied cooperate to the assistance of a church in need (2 Cor. 8: etc.) confused a lot of people. The term is too broad — which explains the seeming contradictions in bro. Sewells article.

No collective action of churches is involved when one sends alms to a dependent church; and this is in no wise comparable to churchhood projects like Herald of Truth , however planned and executed.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VI No.X Pg.7

December 1969

Queries And Answers

Robert F. Turner

Bro. Turner:

Do you consider instrumental music a live issue? What do you consider the most valid arguments made against the instrument? md.

Reply:

If live means widely discussed, the music question is certainly not as alive among brethren as it was in the last century. (Neither is subject baptism as widely discussed as an issue with sectarians.) But the word of God teaches the same on both subjects now as it did when first written. If we would be faithful to God we must teach the truth on both subjects now as always.

We realize that one may harp on a few subjects, to the neglect of other equally important matters; but doctrinal issues are never settled for all time. The truth may be clearly set forth in one generation, and even if all or most of that generation accepted the truth (which is seldom the case) the people of the next, or third generation (see editorial) must reach decisions about the same truth, on an individual basis. Sometimes our reluctancy to discuss the supposedly dead issues, results in an untaught generation, highly vulnerable to that error.

As for most valid arguments made against the instrument we are not obligated, by the very nature of the case, to find prohibitions. Our practice, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord is not under fire. If any question this practice, the most valid arguments for such are Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16; 1 Cor. 14:15, etc. It is the use of mechanical instruments of music in the worship that is questioned, and all who insist upon such use are obligated to produce the Bible authority for their practice.

For example: What is the most valid arguments against the burning of incense in the worship? The anointing with oil, as a religious service? The partaking of the Lords Supper on Thursday? Denominational organic ties that bind congregations to some central headquarters? Sprinkling in the place of immersion for baptism? For all these, and many more, we must say THERE IS NO AUTHORITY FOR SUCH!! If someone wishes to promote these or other like matters, we would insist that they have the obligation to produce the authority for such.

This is not a request for specific authority — statements in the Bible that command or authorize the specific act in so many words. Any valid means of establishing Bible authority (statement, necessary inference, approved example) will be accepted. We would also urge you to consider that if it be argued simply as an expedient or matter of judgement, it must be subject to all revealed truth relative to such things. (See 1 Cor. 6:12; Rom. 14: 19-f. etc.)

We have, with reluctance, come to conclude that some people intend to have their mechanical instruments in the worship — or their incense, or their sprinkling, or their area-wide collective of churches, or whatever else they may want — and use the fallacious question, Where does it say NOT — as a salve for their seared or badly burned conscience. We will not be party to encouraging such sin.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VI No.X Pg.8

December 1969

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

A small group of saints had agreed to work and worship together, and had obtained a meeting place. They met regularly for several months, and were growing numerically as well as spiritually. Then, from another city, they were visited by an elder and a preacher. The preacher asked to speak to the assembly, and his request was granted.

He congratulated the group on their fine beginning as a mission, and said that since the church where he preached was an organized church they had consented to take this new mission under their wing. Henceforth, all bills would be sent to the city church, as well as all contributions. The city church would send a preacher to the mission at times.

When he finished, one stalwart man present asked politely if the elder had anything to say. No, the preacher had stated things quite well. The man then asked the preacher if he had any thing to add. He did not. So the local man made a very simple statement: There on the wall are your hats; and there is the door! Now, get out of here, and dont come back! Thats what I call getting to the point, and I think he was clearly understood. In my earlier years I preached at a small country church in Indiana and was surprised to see one of the elders pull his rocking chair into the aisle directly before the pulpit, and from this position, listen carefully to my sermon. I assumed he was hard-of-hearing, or something like that; and it was not until later that I learned he was presiding — a custom brought over from England.

I was also told that some months before, a stranger had asked to speak and his request was granted. As he developed his subject he advocated a premillennial position. The elder had tapped his cane on the floor for attention, and asked the speaker to repeat his last statement. When he did so, the elder said: Thats what I thought you said. Get down out of that pulpit!

Perhaps this was lacking in style and finesse, and I can not vouch for the elders objectivity, but there is a beautiful simplicity in the finality of the matter.

This is not written to advocate arbitrary rule or censorship. But we sometimes long for men who will say something positive and mean it.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VI No.XI Pg.1

January 1970

Are You A Liar?

Robert F. Turner

Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God. —but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. All things indeed are pure but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence.

Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. AND HE THAT DOUBTETH IS DAMNED IF HE EAT, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

These quotations (from Rom. 14: 5, 12, 14, 20, 22-23, with my emphasis) say in unmistakable terms that man must be honest with himself before God. Before God says that we shall be judged by the divine standard, or, the word that I have spoken, the sane shall judge him in the last day. (Jn. 12: 48) Let no man think that if he is satisfied with himself that God must be satisfied with him.

But honest conviction is also essential if we are to please God. The man who acts upon anothers conviction — or having some conviction of his own, refuses to carry through —-is a traitor to himself and to God.

Even things pure or good within themselves, become evil to him who accepts them against his own inner conviction; and what must be the sin of him who condones and supports a wrong — having inner doubts about the matter, but going along because of family ties or popular acceptance.

If we give not our heart, our very self to God, what have we to give?

Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart — (Acts 8: 37 Stop, and think what it means to believe with all thine heart!! Can this be said of one whose convictions are one way, and whose actions are another? Living a lie before God is the most futile and damning of deceits.

HAPPY is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. There can be no true happiness here or hereafter, for those who fail to act upon honest self-conviction.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VI No.XI Pg.2

January 1970

Meeting The Issues

Robert F. Turner

During the past two years I have conducted gospel meetings with 53 conservative churches. Single service appointments bring the number of contacts to 58 — New Jersey to California, Oregon, Iowa to Florida, and even lovely Texas. I think I have some conception of the issues which face such churches.

I do not refer to institutionalism; although I believe the truth concerning congregational independence and support of human institutions should be kept before brethren. A better grasp of the principles involved is needed by old and new converts alike. But the many new churches scattered throughout our land have other problems. I can but briefly sketch some issues here, but these and others deserve our detailed and careful attention.

There are many small churches, subjected to bitter attacks from liberal brethren, where slow growth breeds discouragement. This issue (discouragement) must be faced realistically, with positive steps taken to overcome it. Internal personal conflicts are high on my list of current issues. In times of unrest and division, malcontents often go with the smaller group, to have a small pond for their croaking.

Lack of leadership is a challenging issue of our day. It is encouraging to remember that the courage which brought these saints to take a stand for truth, will be useful in developing bishop material, but sober judgement and experience is a scarce and precious commodity in any day.

Many small churches (and some BIG ones) seem to lack ambition, or push. It is almost as if they were afraid to grow, or tackle anything of size. This may be a sad trauma, received in their struggle with digression in the big church; but it is an issue we must meet and overcome if we are to please Jesus Christ, who sent His messengers into all nations.

Crack pot ideas are sure to come from self-appointed free-thinkers among us. Some seem to love the role of issue maker. We must be neither bound to traditional ideas, nor loosed from Gods Holy Word. And worldliness, (in attitude and practice) is always with us.

Many of our problems stem from zealous but inexperienced members who are as ready to bind where God has not bound as their counterparts in more liberal churches are to loose where God has not loosed. We sorely need an honest look at ourselves, and determination to MEET OUR ISSUES.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VI No.XI Pg.3

January 1970

Wounds Of A Friend

Robert F. Turner

Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful (Prov. 27:6). Compliments do not necessarily identify friends; criticism does not always come from enemies. Remember Judas who kissed the Lord — and betrayed him. Some of the most elaborate, gushing compliments I have ever received came from my enemies — often closely associated with a sharp pain in the back where the knife entered! Some of the most unpleasant, painful, and ego deflating comments about myself and my work have come from my best friends. An enemy will tell everyone you have bad breath; a friend might give you a bottle of scope and suggest you try it. Oh, how criticism hurts! How awful it makes you feel! But when the pain of a wounded pride subsides, you realize it was a favor. Ignoring the problem would never have helped. You would not have your friend to act otherwise — though it takes a little time to appreciate the wound he inflicted. It is hard to appreciate a dentist while he is drilling!

Genuine interest in soul prompts concern in a friend who observes my path leading away from God. A sharp personal rebuke — thou art the man (2 Sam. 12: 1-7) — may be necessary to set me straight. It is better to suffer a momentary wound than eternal loss. Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?

Yet a friend finds no pleasure in inflicting such wounds. I resent the doctor grinning as he probes a sore spot! I know he must do it, but I do not like to think he enjoys it! It is all too easy to become a professional and perpetual critic of everything, and everybody — to delight in finding fault. Such is surely no virtue am evidently rarely profits anyone. An enemy aims his dart to destroy and to maim; a friend never does that. Our parents corrected us. The red welts on the hinder parts were not aimed at our destruction but were wounds of love for our profit.

And there is the other side of the coin — being a friend. That is not always easy. Friendship is more than social calls, sharing meals, and enjoying each others companionship. It is caring enough to do whatever needs to be done — regardless how utterly distasteful the task may be.

Pauls sharp letter of rebuke to the Corinthians was written out of much anguish of heart... with many tears..., that ye might know the love which I have more abundantly toward you (2 Cor. 2:4). Paul worried about writing the letter and how it would be received, but he rejoiced when he heard of their repentance (2 Cor. 7:6-). His attitude and actions proved him to be a friend.

Why do you suppose we often excuse ourselves from all attempts to restore the lost (Gal. 6:1). We know we should; we know it would be a kindness. It is NOT easy! Why do we not reason with our neighbors who are not Christians? We claim to be a friend but we ignore their greatest need — salvation from sin. We dread saying, I fear you are going to be lost. We keep quiet and let them go undisturbed to hell. With friends like us they dont need enemies. Joe Fitch

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VI No.XI Pg.4

January 1970

Pats Prayer Language

Robert F. Turner

Displaying the absurd and unscriptural ends to which some brethren go is not my idea of good journalism, and a steady diet of such serves neither God nor man. But Pat Boone is a widely known figure among brethren, and the Holy Spirit issue is very much alive. Complacent brethren who said it cant happen among us, and who challenge conservative writers for proof of Holy Spirit errors among those in good standing need to know Pats current position.

We Quote from An Interview With Pat Boone by Walter Wagner, published in the Nov. 69 issue of a 72 page magazine called CHRISTIAN LIFE. (Wheaton, Illinois 6O187)

George Otis (Business associate of Boone, taking part in interview.): I think, I personally feel that the most significant wellspring of power in Christian living today, is the presence of the Holy Spirit in the lives of those who have committed themselves to Jesus Christ. He has promised us spiritual power — gifts with which to operate in this world And so I have to say in clear language that the beginning of my new association with the Lord came when I spoke with other tongues....

CHRISTIAN LIFE interviewer:

Maybe we should put in context here what the Word of God says about the gifts of the Holy Spirit in 1 Cor. 14: 1, Follow after charity (love), and desire Spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophecy. Does that mean we have an option, that we can choose what gifts of the 5 pint we want?: (Thus, the immediate context of Boones statements following. rft)

Pat Boone:

Ive heard ministers in my church of Christ worship the Lord in other languages, and I myself do.

It appears to me Paul was saying, Look, its better to prophesy, its better to teach, because after all, the person who speaks in this prayer language is only speaking to God. Hes only helping himself and its much better to help others. But in the next verse. (1 Cor. 14:2), Paul also says that when we speak in this prayer language we help ourselves. And man. I need help.

And besides, I want to be able to speak to God and I want Him to understand me. I was a graduate with honors from Columbia University. But Im still an illiterate ignoramus when it comes to trying to speak to God. And so I dont have the words or the brain power. I have the feelings. I know what I would like to express within my inner self. but I dont have words to do it. So God says, through this prayer language. Im bigger than you are, I understand your problems and I will communicate with you in a way that maybe you wouldnt understand except inwardly and in a spiritual way. You and I understand it intellectually, but I will commune with you and I understand your needs and I will minister to them.

Are you ready for RAPTURE?? Pats singing and witnessing record???

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VI No.XI Pg.5

January 1970

Bearing Witness

Robert F. Turner

I am told that two elders (?) all of twenty years old, asked their host if he believed the scripture re. witnessing; i.e., in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.? he answered that he did: and then one young man turned to his companion and asked him to bear witness.

The youth said, I bear witness that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. Whereupon, the first youth also said, I bear witness that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God.

Well, that settled it! Joseph Smith must have been a prophet of God for both young men bore witness — or did they??

In genuine trial, does God or the court consider every one who can speak — utter words — a witness? We know better! To qualify as a witness, one must have knowledge of that to which he testifies. John could bear witness of Christ because he had heard, seen, and touched Him; and because Christ had been manifested unto him. (1 Jn. 1:1-3) The manifestation of that eternal life was Deity made known in the life, works, and heavens declarations concerning Jesus of Nazareth. (Jn. 5:31-47 14:7-9) John, like Peter, had been with Jesus in the holy mount (2 Pet. 1: 16-21) and spake as he was moved by the Holy Spirit. Now theres a WITNESS for you.

But some have concluded there can be no witnessing or testifying today. This is hasty! We have as much right — and obligation — to be a witness, as did any saint of the past. What we have seen, heard, touched — i.e., what we have come to know, we may tell — testify. If you believe Jesus is the Christ, you may tell others THAT YOU BELIEVE JESUS IS THE CHRIST. If you were baptized on July 6th., you may tell others WHAT YOU DID, AND WHAT YOU FEEL ABOUT IT!! But dont get the idea that your testimony makes a thing true — or even that your testifying is on a par with that of the inspired Apostles.

Witnessing and Testifying have a sectarian or denominational connotation — enough so that I do not use the words in the current religious sense — because what can be no more than purely subjective, has been used as though it were a voice from God. In fact, this is one of the modern or neo-orthodox concepts of how God speaks to man. A bit earlier, sectarians thought the Holy Spirit moved them to witness in some direct way. Of course, both concepts are erroneous and harmful — leading gullible people to accept as testimony from God something that originated in the mind of the speaker.

Mormon elders may testify THAT THEY BELIEVE SMITH WAS A PROPHET OF GOD, and I would have no reason to doubt their testimony. They are qualified to tell me WHAT THEY BELIEVE, but that is a long way from proving that what they believe is true. When people tell me their religious experience, I believe they had some sort of feeling or experience — there is really no way I could testify that they had not. But I refuse to accept an interpretation of their feeling that contradicts the Bible.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VI No.XI Pg.6

January 1970

Girl Watcher, 202 A.D.

Robert F. Turner

One thousand, seven hundred, and sixty-eight years ago a preacher took a look at the scandalous conduct of the women of his day, and wrote an article. We have been doing this ever since — and it doesnt prove that the effort is useless, nor that women are the only transgressors. (It suggests that there are more men writers than women writers; and they watch women!)

It may help us to take a better look at ourselves, however, to consider the article by Tertullian, from Vol. IV, p. 18-f., Ante-Nicene Fathers.

*************************

There must be no overstepping of that line to which simple and sufficient refinements limit their desires — that line which is pleasing to God. For they who rub their skins with medicaments, stain their cheeks with rouge, make their eyes prominent with antimony, sin against HIM. To them, I suppose, the plastic skill of God is displeasing.... Whatever is born is the work of God. Whatever, then, is plastered on, that is the devils work.

I see some women turn the colour of their hair with saffron. They are ashamed even of their own nation, ashamed that their procreation did not assign them to Germany and to Gaul: thus, as it is, they transfer their hair thither! Ill, say, most ill do they augur for themselves with their flame-coloured head, and think that graceful which in fact they are polluting! ...But, however, God saith, Which of you can make a white hair black, or out of a black a white? And so they refute the Lord! Behold! say they, instead of white or black, we make it yellow, — more winning in grace. And yet such as repent of having lived to old age to attempt to change it even from white to black! 0 temerity! The age which is the object of our wishes and prayers blushes for itself,! a theft is effected! youth, wherein we have sinned, is sighed after! the opportunity of sobriety is spoiled! Far from Wisdoms daughters be folly so great!

And Then He Looked At Men

Of course now, I, a man, as being envious of women, am banishing then quite from their own domains. Are there, in our case too, some things which, in respect of the sobriety we are to maintain on account of the fear due to God, are disallowed? If it is true, as it is, that in men, for the sake of women (just as in women for the sake of men), there is implanted, by a defect of nature, the will to please; and if this sex of ours acknowledges to itself deceptive trickeries of form peculiarly its own — such as to cut the beard too sharply; to pluck it out here and there: to shave round about the mouth; to arrange the hair, and disguise its hoariness by dyes; to remove all the incipient down all over the body; to fix each particular hair in its place with some womanly pigment; to smooth all the rest of the body by the aid of some rough powder or other; then, further, to take every opportunity for consulting the mirror; to gaze anxiously into it: — all these things are rejected as frivolous, as hostile to modesty. Tertullian, 202 A.D.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VI No.XI Pg.7

January 1970

Queries And Answers

Robert F. Turner

Bro Turner:

We have some songbooks which we no longer use, and a neighboring church would like to have them. They are financially able to buy their own books. Would it be wrong for us to give them these books?

Reply:

Under current circumstances I believe I would let them buy the books; and even a very low price would be to the advantage of both churches.

The above question was plucked from a list of quibbles, to illustrate an ever present problem. The APPLICATION OF A SCRIPTURAL PRINCIPLE OR RULE, IS OFTEN REGARDED AS THE RULE.

We set out to teach congregational independence — that each church has its own oversight, treasury; and is to operate according to its ability. The objection to such arrangements as a sponsoring church is that this church has become the medium through which a number of churches act collectively — and in collective action the unit must give up some of its independence.

But in the process of discussing the matter, and of making application to current practices, (contributing churches being sister churches in a churchhood activity) we begin to make sending to another church as the RULE or PRINCIPLE violated — and before long the sending is regarded as wrong — whether it has anything to do with collective action or not.

I have known churches to become so obsessed with the application of an independent local treasury, that they refused the market value of their property (sold for highway development) contending that the profit would be money in the treasury that was not their own contribution. No independence principle would have been here violated — since they did not buy the property as a business venture or commercial speculation.

The scriptures establish the RULE of modest apparel (1 Tim. 2:9—f) and I believe the APPLICATION of this rule forbids many of the mini peek through fashions of our day. But the RULE does not establish a hemline in inches, nor dictate a certain pattern for dress making. If we allow current APPLICATION (legitimate and proper) to become the RULE, we establish an orbiting platform, outside the divine regulation, from which to launch our creed to realms unknown. (Thanks to W. L. Wharton for the metaphor.)

Must we practice close contribution (making it wrong for someone other than bonafide members to give — and placing safeguards to assure the same) because we confidently believe the principle of self-sufficiency? Is there no difference in the gift of a visitor, and a solicitation of regular funds from outside sources? I believe there is validity in the distinction the Internal Revenue Service makes in a gift and support or salary; in a gift which a saint or church may make to another church, and a plan of operation calling for pooling of funds from many churches under the oversight of one church. Do not confuse RULE and APPLICATION.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VI No.XI Pg.8

January 1970

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

We are again indebted to Joe Creasons Kentucky (Louisville, Ky. Courier—Journal) for this sample of pre- World War 1 journalism.

Miss Jennie Jones and Bob Henry were married last night.

The bride is the daughter of Constable Jones, who has made a good officer and will doubtless seek reelection this spring. He offers a fine horse for sale in another column in this issue.

The groom runs a grocery store on Main Street and is a steady patron of our advertising columns. He has a good line of bargains in his ad this week. All summer he paid two cents more for butter than any other store in town.

The young couple was married by the Rev. Josiah Butterworth, who last week called at this office and gave a nice order for printing. He is also going to give some time to the real estate business. So say the business cards we recently printed for him.

Jennie and Bob left on the 10 oclock train for Chicago to visit the brides uncle, who, we understand, has lots of money and an incurable disease.

Which leads us to observe that an editor may write a story from his own point of view. And, sometimes the subject (like the wedding announcement) plays second fiddle to the real subject — selling space in the classified columns.

We suspect that much of our life is affected by dual purpose — usually less obvious, often quite unintentional. A selfish man gives liberally — to gain favor or power. An envious man objects! He says it is unscriptural, but it only seems so to one who is not in the leading role. Small and ignoble men see only base motives in others. (1 Cor. 13:4 -6) And what do you suppose my crafty little mind hopes to gain by this article?

Well, not all editors are ogres, and the power of the press need not be used selfishly. We conclude STUFF with another Joe Creason story re. the editor of a county paper who wrote, This is another of those weeks when we didnt publish nearly all we knew. For which many may be thankful.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VI No.XII Pg.1

February 1970

Things Of God

Robert F. Turner

When certain Pharisees tried to ensnare Jesus by asking, Is it lawful to give tribute unto Cesar? he asked to see the tribute money. They showed him a coin, and he asked, Whose is this image and superscription? They said, Caesar's Then Jesus gave the classic reply, Render therefore unto Cesar the things which are Caesars, and unto God the things that are Gods. (Matt. 22: 15-21) (KJ)

The literal rendering of Marshall seems to give even greater stress to the point. Render then the things of Caesar to Caesar, and the things of God to God. Things of Caesar — that were of Caesars world—— that bore Caesar s image. While we are in the world, and have responsibilities to society, government, etc., our legitimate obligations here must be met. We meet such obligations with the currency of the realm — material debt paid with material coin; and it should be noted that there is a sense in which God is served when we use this material world properly.

But the coin is not given to God, it is given to Caesar; and God is served only in that He sees His creatures function in this life as He would have them function. There is Christian significance in properly fulfilling all rightful obligations. (See Co]. 3: 17-25 Rom. 13: 1-f.)

In a far greater sense, we have something else to render to God. It is that on which God has placed His image — the very soul of man. God made man in His own image (Gen. 1:26), i.e., an intellectual being, to think and to choose. He gave man individual identity, a conscious self, an affinity and capacity for spirit being but little lower than God. (Psm. 8:5) These are things of God which must be rendered to God.

We must deny self for earthly, sensual uses, and render unto God. Of what value is the gift without the giver? How may one worship who brings Caesars things, but whos heart is far from God? (Matt. 15: 7-9)

We have plead so long for men to give Caesars things to God (well enough, in the relative sense) we may have ignored giving God His things.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VI No.XII Pg.2

February 1970

Here And There

Robert F. Turner

At this writing I am again in the northern Arizona city of Flagstaff, conducting a study series on the Holy Spirit, and preaching on Sundays. On Feb. 9, I begin a series of one-week meetings in San Diego, Coalinga, Ox— nard, and Ontario. Calif. We have a short break in Burnet, then to Beaumont and Ft. Worth. Tex.; thence to Cyclone, Ky., Lexington, Ky., Mason. W. Va.. Baltimore, Md., Piscataway. N. J,, and Dexter. Maine.

Home ( to change shirts) and on to Houston, and Dallas, Tex. In July 1 will be in Paducah and Louisville. Ky. , with time for two more meetings in that section if needed. Then, back to Texas for Special Studies in Burnet, and a meeting at Dam B, near Jasper. Then hope to spend several weeks at home, studying and writing, before going for meetings in Camden. Ark. . Pasadena, Port Arthur, Arlington, and Lufkin, Texas; San Diego, and San Bernardino, Calif. Vivian and I are thankful for the health that enables us to make such rounds, and realize that God is indeed good to us.

********************

My part of PLAIN TALK is written while on the road; while in Burnet, bro. Joe Fitch continues to preach and work with that church. and write and see to the mechanics of mailing the paper. (Much credit must he given the Oaks-West members, who slip- sheet, staple, and prepare for mailing.)

We want this paper to do as much good as possible, and no harm at all. If you know of someone who would give attention to its message, send us the name, address. zip code, and we will be happy to send the paper without charge. We do NOT solicit directories of liberal churches, nor names of someone you would like to spank — for we are not in the spanking business. We want to TEACH — and this necessitates teachable readers. Use careful judgement. selecting fair- minded readers as best you can. We mail to MANY who differ with us — who ordered the paper for themselves — and who, occasionally, tell us in no uncertain terms that they differ. But they are WILLING to CONSIDER — and that is the mark of nobility we seek.

Changes of address continue to plague us. We are dropping names of many who move and do not notify us, on the premise that they must not be very concerned about PLAIN TALK. This makes it hard on the forgetful like myself, but we had to do something. We will, of course, reinstate those who write, giving new address. PLEASE HELP US TO MAKE PLAIN TALK A USEFUL TOOL IN TEACHING THE WORD OF GOD.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VI No.XII Pg.3

February 1970

Applauding The Practice

Robert F. Turner

Long ago at the Olympic Games in Athens, it is said a feeble old man came in late. No seats were left. As he passed their seats, the Athenians laughed at him. Then he passed two Spartans. Quickly they rose to offer him a seat, for they had been trained to be modest and courteous. When the Athenians saw this, they cheered the Spartans. Ah, said the old man, The Athenians admire what is right; the Spartans practice it. (Story courtesy of that prolific writer, brother Selected).

A godly man died suddenly. People were shocked — stunned by the unexpected. Brethren in Christ felt keenly the loss of a dependable worker and companion. Men of all classes and persuasions gathered in small groups to sadly shake their heads, recall the past, and applaud a good man.

He was sure a hard worker — always tried to do more than was expected. That was true. He exemplified Pauls admonition: ... let him labor, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth (Eph. 4:28). It was not the statement that was amazing but who said it — a lazy fellow who did nothing he could get out of.

Another added, He was surely honest — as honest as the day is long. A thought flashes to mind: Provide things honest in the sight of all men (Rom. 12:17). No one disagreed, but these words of praise fell from lips skilled in lies wherever a dollar is at stake.

The applause continues: He was a church going man. Surely if there was ever a Christian, he was one. Heads nod agreement, but neither they nor the speaker are accustomed to filling a pew when people gather to worship. They are more in the habit of walking roughshod over the principles of Christianity than in keeping them.

A preacher spoke to mourners of his dead friend and the Bible he lived by. What a beautiful eulogy. Yet many who were impressed by the words spoken refuse to live so that such can honestly be said of them.

When the applause subsides, an observer is compelled to add a final word — Go, and do thou likewise (Lk. 10: 37). No greater tribute can be paid a good man than to imitate his devotion to good. That ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises (Heb. 6:12).

I cant help thinking as a result of listening and observing:

Many people pay little attention in life to the things that are so important when it comes time to die.

We are so prone to compliment others for the very virtues which we carefully avoid cultivating in ourselves.

A godly man commands the admiration of all — even the vile and irreligious.

There are far more people willing to applaud a good life that are willing to make the sacrifices necessary to live one.

Some folk are content with the office of spectator — applauding good but not practicing it. Joe Fitch.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VI No.XII Pg.4

February 1970

Are Responses Wrong?

Robert F. Turner

Along with most preachers, I have noticed the increase in the number of restorations in response to the invitation. In the past year, more than thirty of the 200 members of the church for which I preach have come forward to ask for the prayers of the congregation. Did they do wrong in coming? It seems highly unlikely. Who would accuse anyone of sinning in confessing sin?

There are, however, two circumstances under which restorations, while not absolutely wrong, may be harmful to those who respond to the invitation.

If coming forward is substituted for real repentance or a true confession of sin, then it hurts more than it helps. Sometimes Christians make a general confession of sins in public when they should confess a specific sin to a particular individual (Matt. 5: 23,24). Sometimes they give no indication of why they came forward. At other times, it appears that coming forward has been substituted for repentance, because no change is apparent in the life of the individual who has responded. These practices are harmful to the individual because they may lead him to believe he has forgiveness when he has not actually met the conditions of forgiveness.

If public prayer is substituted for private prayer, then the person who responds lives without the peace he ought to have. I believe the reason why many Christians respond to the invitation is that they do not enjoy the Blessed Assurance, the peace that passeth understanding, the joy that comes from daily living with Christ. They fail to pray privately for forgiveness, and then feel that they should ask for the prayers of the church. They should be taught to seek Gods help, guidance, and forgiveness daily. If they did, they would not feel the need to be restored.

The prayers of the church are appropriate for any Christian at any time. But if an individual Christian substitutes the prayers of the church for repentance or for his private prayers, he robs himself of Gods blessings.

***********************

The above, written by Coy D. Roper and published in the Firm Foundation Nov. 9, 1965, caught my attention as I was checking a highly erroneous article on the Holy Spirit, by Arlie Hoover. (One which the F.F. never corrected. ) Well, out of the lion came forth honey.

I had been considering writing an article on the misuse of coming forward but felt this deserved repeating, so moved over for bro. Roper.

With responses so scarce, it seems ridiculous to say anything that may discourage them; but we aim for the heart, that the external response may have meaning before God. Neither baptism nor repentance-and-confession must be allowed to degenerate into a form of godliness that denies the power thereof. (2 Tim. 3:5) It is God who forgives, through Christ, and not through the church.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VI No.XII Pg.5

February 1970

Telling God What For!

Robert F. Turner

While home for the holidays I sat up for some late TV shows, and heard Eddie Albert do his prayer thing. He is highly talented, and did it well; but the product was another of the current sickening series of illogical and uninformed charges against God.

Sometime back a popular singer sang, If I Owned the World — everything would be lovely. He would make everyone act just right. Later, and still popular, the crooners tell God, What The World Needs Now — Is Love. We have enough fields and mountains, they say, but God, if you want to know — we need more love.

Now Eddie upbraids God, and practically orders Him to make everyone love one - another. One gets the impression from all of this that God must be a real dunce not to see the needs in His world; or worse yet, He must not care what takes place here. He is even charged with being responsible for our ungodly mess.

I do not charge a conspiracy and for all I know these singers and actors have so little faith and concern in the reality of God as to be totally insensible to the affront they offer. The injustice and sacrilege of the matter will only appear to those to whom God is real, and who know, by revelation, something of His nature. Oddly enough, I even like the songs as music, but am repulsed by a more general consideration of the attitude and social status they represent.

We are ensnared by a philosophy of corporate sin — the world is sinful — society is a mess— and we can somehow escape individual responsibility and guilt by making blanket charges against the establishment.

We will adjure God, Make everyone love his neighbor! as if God had not thought of that centuries past — to use relative terminology. Do we really want this kind of love — this kind of slavery?? Mans free- will must be destroyed — he must no longer be left free to choose — he must love me; for which I can feel little joy or gratitude, seeing it is forced upon him!! Is this really love??

A completely dominated police state has peace — of sorts. Would we have God become our arbitrary ruler — and all good become a farce? But someone says, God should make us so we really love one-another with our own free will. There is inherent contradiction in the very statement, making this nonsensical foolishness. Of such, C. S. Lewis wrote, It remains true that all things are possible with God: the intrinsic impossibilities are not things but nonentities. It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of His creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; but because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God. (Problem of Pain, pp. 16)

God is love, and proved His love in Christ; offering not only instruction and perfect example, but forgiveness for our failures. (1 Jn. 4: 10-f.) WE MUST CEASE BLAMING GOD FOR OUR OWN FAILURES: AND OFFER PENITENT PRAYERS.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VI No.XII Pg.6

February 1970

Preview Of Disaster

Robert F. Turner

I am reminded just here of a situation that developed in the early church. The number of disciples was multiplied, and there arose complaint that some of the poor widows were being neglected. When this matter was brought to the attention of the twelve, they called the multitude of disciples unto them, and asked that they look among themselves and select seven good, well prepared men whom we may appoint over this business. This was a matter of business, and as the record shows it was handled in a businesslike way.

Since we are followers of the early church in many other ways, may I suggest that we take its lead in handling matters of business? In this problem of education, which is one great problem of the church and one upon which the vitality of the church depends, could not those most vitally interested in Christian education call the multitude of disciples together to agree upon some plan of action? When the plan of selecting the seven was made known, it pleased the whole multitude. Should not the selection of a number of well—prepared members from among us to attend to our educational business be pleasing to our entire membership? Surely there can be found in the church not one friend of education who would object. We would all not only be glad but would rejoice to see business handled in such a business—like way.

We should then, at some early date have a general mass meeting where our different educational problems could be presented. Every factor that we have that is making for Christian education should be present, and feel free to express its views. Each representative should come remembering that he is representing that good, whole- some Christian influence which is so common in his community. At the close of such a meeting would be an ideal time to select from our number those members whose duty it shall be to attend to our business of education.

These men appointed would be able in a short time to formulate plans for our educational program, and in due time could correlate all our efforts into one united power for the purpose of driving the curse of ignorance from among us. They would give stability and permanence to our educational efforts, and therefore, make possible a large endowment, an essential factor in the success of any Christian college. They could in the light of the wishes of all the members lift the educational activities from the realm of confusion and random movement up to the level of rational, purposive conduct.

**********************

From pp. 73—74, Abilene Christian College Bible Lectures, 1919; speaker was Joseph U. Yarbrough.

He confused the local church (of Jerusalem, Acts 6:) with the entire brotherhood or universal church. He assumed that secular education (as is taught in our colleges) is the work or obligation of either the local church or an organized brotherhood. He asserts without proof that the vitality of the church depends upon the college. His kind are with us today!!