Plain Talk

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VI No.XII Pg.7

February 1970

Queries And Answers

Robert F. Turner

Dear bro. Turner:

What is meant by the providence of God, and how or by what means does this operate? TF

Reply:

The expression providence of God does not occur in the scriptures, and the word providence is found only once (Acts 24:2 KJ) where it refers to the forethought of Gov. Felix — real or flattery — in correcting certain national problems or evils. We do not mean to suggest there is no providence of God but would caution those who glibly assign all sorts of specifics to Gods intervention.

Arndt and Gingrich (Lexicon) indicate the word pronoia (forethought) was used frequently among the Greeks with reference to the planning and concern of the gods; and translate the word in Acts 24:2 as meaning, foresight, care; make provision for something, be concerned for or about something. Its only other use in the N. T. is in Rom. 13:14, .....make not provision for the flesh to fulfil the lusts thereof.

A kindred word, pronoeo is used three times in the N. P.: 1 Tim. 5:8 If any provideth not for his own... Rom. 12: 17 Provide things honest.. (Take thought for things honorable R.V.) and 2 Cor. 8: 21 For we take thought for things honorable... (RV) In Heb. 11:40 God having provided... the word provided is from problepo and means to foresee. It should be obvious that providence refers primarily to looking ahead planning forethought rather than to some spur of the moment intervention to alter the chain or natural events.

God thought ahead in arranging natural and spiritual laws, so as to show His care for us. (1 Pet 5:7) The evil—doers are punished (Rom. 12:19) in Gods own good way and time (Rom. 13: 3—4), and this was true in the days of Roman persecution of Christians, as today. God will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able to bear, but makes the way of escape. (1 Cor. 10: 13 RV) Viewing this as the providence of God, we must consider it as a part of Gods forethought or advance planning in the very nature of things, rather than a last minute door opening, by some supernatural intervention.

God chastens His children, for their good (Heb. 12:6-f), directs our life-span (Jas. 4:13-16); in the light of which we are urged to be humble. I pray for wisdom (Jas. 1:5....8) not knowing how such wisdom will be given me, but believing that God has looked- ahead and provided such benefits for his children.

Did God simply make some laws and is now doing nothing? Such questions betray our failure to grasp the timeless nature of God. When we say God thought ahead we are using accommodative language — God IS — and there is no past, present, future with Him. What God provided (our past) He provides (our present) and will provide (our future). There is no separating the laws or provisions of God, from God Himself. I know nothing of the modus operandi of God, except as revealed in His word, whereby I believe, or TRUST, in Him.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VI No.XII Pg.8

February 1970

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

There are thousands of voters who are pledged to back their party; and have to shut their eyes and close their ears to facts in order to stay with the party. And there are church members who brag they are Church of Christ, all the way. That becomes somewhat of a feat in these days of change, and about the best the party member can do is to try and find that legendary great middle section and slide along with it; poor sop for one with conscience toward God.

The situation reminds me of the boastful hunter and his faithful Indian guide. The hunter would tell of creeping close enough to an elk to kill it with his hunting knife. He would then turn to the guide and ask, Isnt that right, Falling Rock?

And Falling Rock would answer, Umph, heap long knife. Him pretty — good all right.

The hunter then told of hitting a deer in the left ear and the right rear foot, all with one shot. Isnt that right, Falling Rock? The Indian hesitated — and the hunter hurriedly added, Of course, he was scratching his head at the time. Isnt that right, Falling Rock?

And Falling Rock agreed, Umph, heap crazy shot. Him pretty good, all right. So the hunter told of shooting a running coyote — at 600 yards. Isnt that right, Falling Rock?

At this the Indian motioned the hunter aside, and whispered, Four hundred, pretty good; three hundred, all right; but for pretty good all right, cut um to two hundred.

The party man with the conscience of Falling Rock finds it increasingly difficult to stomach the antics of the party he is pledged to champion. Separate organizations for orphan care — well, it was such a good work! Some gagged a bit at fishing camps, and fellowship kitchens, yet went along to keep peace. But universal church organizations multiply, church support of colleges is growing, devotional exercises begot speaking with tongues, and liberal subjectivism is crying for attention.

A few hardy souls are awakening, and some begin to realize their allegiance is to Christ, not to a party. As the movement grows, like the signs say, WATCH OUT FOR FALLING ROCK!!

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VII No.I Pg.1

March 1970

Little Stories (About A Lot Of People)

Robert F. Turner

It was just one of those days for this brother. He wasnt feeling very well, but hated to say No when he was asked to serve at the Lords Table. And when it was suggested that he read a passage of scripture before the service, he consented.

Reading aloud was not his best side, but he selected an appropriate passage, and when the time came, did very well — by concentrating carefully on each word, and avoiding the direct gaze of the people before him. He finished, closed the book and put it away; and the silence of the lapse of time proved embarrassing. When he turned back to the table he felt an urge to do or say something — resume activity — and his attention focused upon the most obvious thing before him — the communion service. So, he began to pass the plates of unleaven bread to the men who would serve the assembly, and failed to offer thanks for the bread. It was a real BLUNDER.

Among those present for worship were two men of widely varying dispositions. One had listened critically to the reading, noting the quaver in the readers voice, and filing a mental note regarding this, for possible use in later confrontations. And when the brother failed to give thanks for the bread — WOW!! The mental office came alive! Other notes were pushed aside, and this tasty morsel was typed in CAPS. with gleeful anticipation of the use that could be made of THE BLUNDER.

The second man in our study was thinking of the scriptures read, of the sacrifice that Christ made for poor sinners like himself; and when the reading was finished he bowed his head in expectation of the prayer of thanks. His mind did not wait for the public prayer — that never came — but he began to pray privately. He thanked God for the bread, the symbol of Christs body. broken for his sin. bruised for his iniquity. I am the one to whom the strokes were due, he thought; but He bore my penalty.

And when the deacon presented the bread for his partaking. he partook; and never even knew about THE BLUNDER.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VII No.I Pg.2

March 1970

Skimming The Cream

Robert F. Turner

New conservative congregations are springing up all over the country, for which we are most grateful. Most of these seem to be the result of migrations — faithful brethren move into a community and plant the cause of undenominational (and we trust, of non-sectarian) Christianity by designating a place for assembling, and working diligently to find kindred spirits and convert others to Christ.

Other new churches come about as liberal minded brethren become more liberal, and the folly of digression becomes more apparent to those who previously refused to see where the social gospel and churchhood projects were leading them. They ask for Bible authority for their practices, are branded as Antis, and find that exponents of love can be bitter opponents indeed.

And perhaps most encouraging of all — in that it shows growth of the churches standing for Bible authority in work and worship — are those cases where a sound church has increased in size to the point that saints who have buses from distant parts of the city, may now swarm and establish churches in their section of town without crippling the original work. We rejoice to report an increase in such swarms, and yet experience prompts us to offer an observation and advice. When planning such a new work we usually recognize the need for a core or nucleus of experienced men — some stable leaders, about whom the new church can grow in good health. This means taking cream away from the original church; and we rejoice that such men have been developed, and that they have the courage to accept the responsibilities of the new field.

But cream is more difficult to replace, and takes much more time to develop, and a new crop of novice saints. The original church may soon grow back to its original number — and enthusiastic members may feel it is time to do it again — have another swarm — when in reality there is not the cream to spare. Little has been accomplished — perhaps even harm done — if our desire for congregations in all communities represented, leads us to cripple seriously the original work.

To some degree the same effect is found in places that urge all men who can make a talk to leave home on preaching appointments. We need lots of preachers — but we also need sound men at home, developing as bishops of the local flock. WE CAN SKIM CREAM UNTIL NOTHING IS LEFT BUT BLUE-JOHN !!

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VII No.I Pg.3

March 1970

Attention Ladies!

Robert F. Turner

Ladies, your short dresses are making it more unlikely for you to be surrounded by honorable minded gentlemen. Dresses too short, too low, and too tight may attract men, but such do not attract gentlemen. And, they are not inclined to produce honorable thoughts. Think for just a moment — honestly now; you must admit this is true. If you want the men around you to be gentlemen and think about you as gentlemen should, dress (and act) like a lady — better still, as becometh women professing godliness. (1 Tim. 2:10)

Ladies, you sometimes make it uncomfortable for a gentleman to be in your presence. Your dresses are too short when you are standing, and when you are seated a gentleman can not look in your direction without being embarrassed for you. This presents no problem to unprincipled men, but a gentleman expects, and respects the privacy of a lady. He seeks to maintain her dignity, and looks the other way when she is uncovered. But your indiscretion shows no respect for yourself, nor for his manners.

Frankly, you are embarrassing us. We cannot help being embarrassed when you do not wear enough clothes to hide your nakedness. One high school Bible class studied around tables arranged in a horse—shoe shape. The young men continually refused to sit at the tables but rather went to the rear of the room. Finally it was discovered that they were embarrassed to sit facing the short skirted girls seated at the tables. But the brethren corrected the problem; they enclosed the tables with wooden skirts.

I thought then it would be better to put skirts on the girls rather than on the tables.

I understand the boys problem. I teach classes and it is sometimes embarrassing to stand before the class. You find it impossible to freely look at the audience because some of the women do not have on enough clothes. If we cant get ladies to wear more clothes, churches may need to consider buying some lap robes.

Ladies, can you honestly say you think these short, tight skirts are modest apparel? Not Are they the style but Are they modest? If so, how would a woman be immodest? a belt is about the only article of outer clothing that is tighter or shorter! Women who profess godliness ought to be concerned with adorning themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety. (1 Tim. 2:9-f.) They should learn to be discreet, chaste. (Tit. 1:5) Styles should be considered, but I fear some of my sisters in Christ have sacrificed modesty and discretion for style.

Ladies, consider the impression left by such scanty attire. It is by such advertising that the lewd and vulgar appeal to their counterparts. These are the tools of risqu cartoons, dirty jokes, and outright pornography. Do you suppose anyone suspects you are a Christian, on the basis of such clothing?

Ladies, wake up! Adorn your inner person for heaven, and allow this primary consideration to dictate correct outer garments. Joe Fitch

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VII No.I Pg.4

March 1970

Sensible Dancing

Robert F. Turner

Dear Sir:

My dad reads your paper; thats how I got the address. Ive been talking to him about dancing. He wont let me, because of what it will lead to, and all the preachers he has talked with on the subject say No, it isnt good.

But my side: Thats just about all the things that teenagers do beside smoking and drinking. I can see where these arent good and I would never dream of doing them, but whats wrong with dancing? Its just something to do for pleasure.

I have already promised to keep my dancing sensible. Other kids (two) at my church (Church of Christ) can. Do you, and the ones you can talk with about this subject. think I should miss out on the fun? Please answer in a letter. _________ N .Y.

Dear Miss_________________

I certainly do not want you to miss the fun — and I am aware that what it leads to makes very poor argument indeed to early teens. But you seem to be very intelligent — try reasoning on your own statements.

By what standard do you reject the smoking and drinking? It is done for pleasure; and many contend it can be kept sensible. Other kids do them, and should you miss out on the fun? Some other kids break store windows and bait the police just for kicks. But you see the END of these things — the alcoholic, death by cancer, etc. These ends are physical. and more readily seen than the break down in morals, and of character. Apparently your dad, and those with whom he has counseled, see some ends of dancing that are not yet clear to you. And they know that ones concept of sensible dancing — like that of smoking and drinking — usually change for the worse as we grow older.

You will not long remain a young teen, dancing at school or in supervised parties. In a few short years you will dance at Clubs. Night-Spots, where drinking, smoking and sensuous dancing will be pressured upon you. (Associates there will ask why you should miss the fun of things you now know to be wrong, and reject.

What you reject now, because their end — the physical break-down are not nearly so damaging as those things that attack ones morals, a destroy character. and cause the loss of ones immortal soul.

It is difficult, if not impossible for younger and less experienced boys and girls to see this point. That is why Christian parents have to set and rule in such matters, for the children. (Pity those whose parents are too weak to accept and meet the responsibility.)

But I believe you can understand that the wrong dancing is NOT the gay association, music and rhythm you might enjoy now. It is the sensuality, immodesty, and lasciviousness (study these words an unabridged dictionary) of the full grown vice of which we warn. Already you may sense such association being made by older and more bold girls boys of your public school classes. IM RESTING MY CASE ON YOUR MATURITY AND YOUR LOVE FOR JESUS CHRIST.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VII No.I Pg.5

March 1970

Whot Hoppened?

Robert F. Turner

Although Restoration History gives attention to rumbles of a Holy Spirit issue among early pioneer preachers, until recent years my generation thought such an issue was impossible. Thirty years ago I could conceive of trouble over. institutionalism, and forms of modernism were considered dangers; but Church of Christers who speak in tongues?? impossible!! Yet, it is happening!! (Vol.6, No.11)

We plan a series of articles on the Holy Spirit (although headings will vary) and we open that series by an examination of causes. How did a basically conservative people, with traditionally strong aversion to all emotionalism and direct operation spawn even a few tongue-speakers??

Perhaps our very aversion to displays of emotions helped to lay the trap. Reaction to shouting Methodists and better-felt-than-told religions of the 19th. century may have caused us to sqush de spirit of genuine enthusiasm and expression of feelings. Doing things decently and in order became mechanical, unvarying three-songs-and-a-prayer; and we began to count the items of worship, instead of worshipping. Now, especially among young Christians, there is reaction to what they consider formalism — tradition-ridden habits — and the pendulum swings in the other direction.

The swing has been encouraged by the trend of recent years to emphasize devotional activities among the young people, rather than solid, meaty Bible study. I havent been about the colleges much lately, but in the early 5Os, the evening devotionals were very popular at ACC and other colleges. So-called church- camps have contributed to the emotional impetus; and I can personally testify to the heady influence of songs and prayers under a starlit sky with a glowing camp-fire, and smoke ascending to heaven. Writing against such is like challenging motherhood. How does one warn of songs and prayer in a devotional?? A sane man does not question these, per se; yet cool observation tells us that they may be used (intentionally or otherwise) by novice teachers, to take the place of intelligent service to God, in keeping with sound Bible instruction.

Impressionable youth, and untaught older folk, are caught up in the appeal to the senses, and soon we are hearing of mood music being sung by a special group, as worshippers assemble on Sunday morning. The young people are given charge of a service, and they turn out the lights, use rotating prayers, and other short-cuts to emotional response. We have even read of a cross burning at vespers.

People fed on such a diet soon regard careful Bible study and doctrinal matters as irrelevant. They cant be bothered with discussions concerning church organization. and readily accept social gospel appeals. There have been hints of some special Spirit action in their devotionals — and they are prime targets now for the providential, then the direct action pitch. Those who question their feelings are cold legalistic Anti-s, and I wouldnt give what I feel right here for all ——.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VII No.I Pg.6

March 1970

Mainstream Theology

Robert F. Turner

In the Dec. 16' 69 Firm Foundation. Johnny Ramsey wrote, it is altogether possible that some men are considered heretics just because they have the quiet, reserved courage to buck the tide of apostasy while those leading us into apostasy are being praised for their sense of timing in public relations! A man is not a heretic when he differs with the mainstream of the restoration movement. He is a heretic if he opposes New Testament Christianity. (emph, rt)

Then, in a Jan. 6,70 editorial, bro. Lemmons says, The Restoration movement is still in adolescense, but it is showing some signs of maturity. We have all confidence in the sound and Biblical stance the mainstream of the movement has assumed and we believe that its very growth and developing influence is a lesson to elements both to the right and to the left worth consideration. (emph, rt)

The mainstream of the movement needs quotes, in bro. Ramseys judgement, and is a standard for nothing. Bro. Lemmons thinks it is maturing (with a Biblical stance), and that its size and influence should be a lesson to those who are not in the mainstream. I vote for Johnny! And I like my lessons from the word of God, before they are filtered through the majority opinion of a movement.

There is no surer sign of sectarianism than an appeal to the faith and practice of a majority of the Churches of Christ in Texas or the mainstream of the movement — and I am keeping in mind the fact that bro. Lemmons has confidence in its sound and Biblical stance. Trouble is, the mainstream of the movement is the {one} or more steps removed from the true basis of authority.

This is the open Sesame to partyism; and when mainstream churches begin to function collectively, it is the grist of denominationalism. It narrows N.T. brotherhood to party fellowship, and soon its followers begin to think that TRUTH flows in the channel cut by this mainstream. The fact is, TRUTH cuts its own channel and IS the mainstream which all faithful Christians follow.

God is the source of truth, and by this standard we are constantly challenged to climb upward. But mainstreams of ANY movement (majority opinion, or bulk of adherents) have a human source. The movement begins with zeal, dedication and strong conviction — but always with something less than the perfect truth of Gods word. AND — the testimony of history is that it almost invariably degenerates — majorities tend to accept less and less truth as a sufficient standard. Of course, differing with the mainstream doesnt prove one right. Why go to either majority or minority for lessons when Gods word is available? (2 Cor. 10:12-f)

I have written, and will continue to write against the iconoclastic spirit that delights in attacking old established positions — ego that feeds itself on novelty — but this is not to enthrone mainstream creeds. Genuine truth seekers are uninhibited — allowing neither our nor their doctrine to replace the truth of God.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VII No.I Pg.7

March 1970

Queries And Answers

Robert F. Turner

Bro. Turner:

It is scriptural for one church to assist destitute saints who are members of another church, without such assistance being sent through the elders of the other church? PK

Reply:

Paul was in want, had affliction (although he said he knew how to be content under such conditions) and the church at Philippi sent to him. (Phil. 4: 10-f.) Brethren from Macedonia supplied his want when he was in Corinth, although Paul considered some of the assistance received as wages. (2 Cor. 11:8-9) We do not offer these cases as exact parallels to that of the question, but feel they contribute to the solution.

John urged brethren to show hospitality (assist) traveling saints (3 Jn. 5-8) and the Romans were asked to assist Phoebe while she was in their city. (Rom. 16: 1-2) These passages seem to counter the idea that a saint must receive all his help from the local church of which he is a member. I would add that the obligation of the local church is one of love and concern for a brother, NOT party rules and regulations that stem from the fact his name is on the roll.

Circumstances (dating back to the earliest struggles with the missionary society) have conditioned brethren to think of the local church as the organizational media for the universal church. Campbell proposed that the universal church function through the missionary society — and others countered with the proposition that the universal church was to function through the local church organization. The fallacy — somewhat overlooked in the smoke of battle — was the concept of the universal church functioning through ANY media. Church of Christ denominationalism will continue to germinate as long as this seed is allowed to live.

Saints who agree to work and worship together collectively make up a local church — and I believe the N.T. authorizes and encourages this kind of functional entity. Saints who make up this local team have team obligations — but this is far from saying that henceforth their whole life must emanate from and be directed by the forces that make this local team possible.

In the event of general destitution, where individual and detailed needs are not known, the overseers of a local church would certainly be in a position to see that assistance reached the persons in want. It seems to me this was the case in Acts 11:27-30, when disciples in Antioch sent relief unto the brethren... sending it to the elders.

I grew up in a community where the missionary society battle was lately fought. I heard preachers stress that we must glorify God in the church (Eph. 3:21) and it was several years before I studied the passage for myself, and noticed that it referred to glorifying God as saints, i.e., in the universal Church, NOT that all must be done through some local church. (See 1 Cor. 10: 27-31) Saints may function to Gods glory as individuals, as well as collectively.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VII No.I Pg.8

March 1970

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

We do not expect this article to appeal to everyone — just those parents who have married off a daughter, or who face that dreadful day in the future. Vivian and I joined the clan several years ago — and lived to marvel that that man who was so unworthy of our girl, could father such wonderful grandchildren, and become such a grand son-in-law. We appreciated the story, heard in California, right down to the last line.

A preacher had given his darling daughter in holy wedlock, and joined the two till death do you part! and then witnessed the loading of the honeymoon car — including the teddy- bear she had kept on her dresser. Mother kissed the young couple, and collapsed in the living room to cry it out; but father bravely carried the last item to the car, and then slowly walked the bride to the side of her waiting husband. Now was the time for those memorable parting words — the warm fatherly advice that would sustain her in trying times — words to live by!! And what did he say? He told me all about it.

Darling, your mother and I have watched you grow from our precious baby to beautiful womanhood. You have brightened our every day, and spread light into the darkest moments of lives. We have never had reason to doubt you, and although you may not always have understood our efforts direct your paths, we want you know that only love, and a since desire to make you happy, have been our motive.

We have tried to give you every benefit we could afford — and we have not regretted a penny spent upon) clothing, shelter, pleasures. and education. We wish we could have done more for you, for there is nothing this world we would not have done you, while you were with us.

But now the time has come to open the cage, and let our darling fly away. You have married a man, a family relation is being formed. much as we love you, and hate to you go, your tie with home is broken. You must depend upon your husband all those things we once gave you, to him for love; go to him for money. Settle your own problems, and learn to live your own life, apart from us.

And if you ever need anything, anything at all — you know you can always call us collect!!

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VII No.II Pg.1

April 1970

Little Stories (About A Lot Of People)

Robert F. Turner

Joe Doakes really loves God — he stoutly affirms, every time some nosy person asks why he was not at worship Sunday. He can not understand why any one would think differently; and suspects their seeming interest in him must be a self-righteous covering for hypocrisy. If they would leave him alone, so he could act on his own, he would worship God regularly — maybe.

It has been many months since Joe gathered for prayer with the saints. He says some of those church-tied ninnies seem to think the church building is the only place where one can talk to God. Of course he doesnt pray at home — but he could.

Joe says worship must be directed to God — and a fellows clothes have nothing to do with it. Joe doesnt notice how others are dressed — he is wondering what they think of him. They are probably snickering at his out-of-date suit — when they should be thinking about God. If he had a new suit he would likely resume his place in public worship — after waiting a few months to wear off the newness. You know how some people are — notice all the clothes in the house.

Love God? Serve God? What ridiculous questions! Everyone should know that he loves God and wants to serve God. Why are people always pushing him around? His wife, always saying, Do this! His friend, saying, Joe, will you help me here? And the boss, yelling, Finish that job! No one is going to push Joe Doakes around!!

But Joe listens to his wife — for he loves his wife, and wants to make her happy. And Joe helps his friend, because he appreciates and needs him. And Joe listens to his boss, because he wants his praise, and a raise — and lest he be fired. Joe submits himself to these, because he believes it is to his best interest to do so. Re-examine Joes thinking, and you see he judges others on the basis of his own standards, with thoughts always turned inward. He has not yet learned that to save his life, he must lose it. (Matt. 10:39) Joe does not love and serve God, because he has chosen to love and serve himself (Matt. 6: 24)

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VII No.II Pg.2

April 1970

Some Condiments

Robert F. Turner

Joe is coasting this month — just kicked his typewriter out of gear for awhile — but his past material has produced many fine comments, and we hope to have his articles in their old place (pp. 3) again soon.

His last article, Attention Ladies! was especially well received; although one reader said it was not the women who pulled and tugged at short skirts who bothered him. It was those who didnt bother to tug, and apparently felt no shame.

Heard of one preacher who was emphasizing the importance of every single word in the Bible. Leave out one word, and you are in trouble, he said. For example, when Jesus said, Come forth! (Jn. 11: 43) suppose he had forgotten to say, Lazarus? You talk about a population explosion—!

PLAIN TALK is printed and distributed free of charge, for the good we hope to accomplish through its contents; and we are happy for this material to be reworked in sermons and reprinted in bulletins. The reward we seek must come from heaven, so we have little grounds for complaint when our articles are reprinted, even lifted bodily, heading and all, out of P. 1. and into other papers, with no credit given. But there is a valid warning in order. When the impression is left that the material originated with the editor (and a lack of signature does leave this impression) there is a little (?) matter of honesty to be considered. Incidentally, my name is NOT selected!!

Preachers constantly on the move in meeting work, and presented two Thanksgiving dinners per day, seven days per week; have learned that fix a light meal is just as impossible as a little garlic in the salad. There is no such thing as a little garlic or a light meal for the visiting preacher. I suppose it started with the idea that to properly treat a guest, he should have the best we could afford — but this has gotten out of hand, especially for one who must try to be at home under circumstances so unlike home. What home has three pies for desert at noon, and three different pies for desert at the evening meal? And with rules that insist, eat heartily, at all meals, or we will feel you are not making yourself at home??

The tobacco user was incensed. Do you mean to tell me I cant chew tobacco and go to heaven? The preacher replied, Wouldnt say that, but you would have to go to ______ to spit.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VII No.II Pg.3

April 1970

When Brethren Differ

Robert F. Turner

Now there are brethren, and brethren!! Children born in the same hospital have something in common. They may join the same Memorial Hospital Alumni Association, but they are brethren in a limited sense only. Such membership is no assurance that they have the same parents. (Pause, and think on that for awhile.)

But there are brethren in Christ, born of the same seed (Jas. 1:18), and children of God as proven by their works. (Jn. 8: 39-44; 1 Jn. 3:9-10; Mat. 5: 44-f) These are children in the same family, members of the one body, which is the church (Eph. 1:22-23), in a sense far more meaningful than mere congregational association — although they may, of course, have that in common also. This article concerns the later class — brothers and sisters of common divine parentage.

Such brethren are of the same mind (have a common desire) in matters religious (Rom. 12:16 15:5-7) with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel. (Phil. 1:27) They are kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love; in honour preferring one another (Rom. 12:10); they submit to one another (Eph. 5: 21-24) in the fear of God — seeing no contradiction in this submission, and subjection to Gods plan for proper rule and oversight. (1 Thes. 5: 12-f)

They do nothing through strife or vainglory, for each is more concerned for the others well—being than for his own (Phil. 2:3-f), and their love for one another is such that each is kind, suffering long, humbled, thinking no evil, but rejoicing in the truth. (1 Cor. 13: 4-7) It is a rare thing for brethren like this to have serious difficulties.

When such brethren differ in religious matters-— as is to be expected among free-thinking men — their respect for the word of God, and its harmony, make them at once aware that the difference is of human origin. In humility and candor they ask, Is it I? Have I failed to fully study and understand Gods will in this matter? Have I failed to understand my brother — to walk in his shoes? The difference may be one of judgement — so diverse that each must continue his faithful service of God fully persuaded in his own mind. (Rom. 14:5-f) Paul could depart asunder from Barnabas, in such matters; and could report that Barnabas had, in hypocrisy, walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel; (Acts 15: 39 ;Gal. 2:11-14) and yet maintain respect for the man Barnabas. (Note, even Barnabas, or Barnabas also) (Note his continued regard for Mark. Col. 4:10; 2 Tim. 4:11)

While you are thinking up a sharp reply about how Barnabas and Mark must have corrected their error, consider the attitudes, love for truth, and Christ-like treatment that must have influenced the correction. When true brethren in Christ differ, each is anxious to discuss the issue in the light of Gods word. They study and pray together in love.

And should you ask about brethren who differ in bitter envy and strife, — Hmmmmm, you must know the wrong kind of brethren!! (Jas. 3:10-18)

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VII No.II Pg.4

April 1970

Come To The Mountain

Robert F. Turner

Does Isa. 2:2-3 prophesy the establishment of the church? Before you answer, read it again, and again.

—the mountain of Jehovahs house shall be established— WHAT shall be established? — the mountain of Jehovahs house— WHAT?? —the mountain of Jehovahs house —.

—and all nations shall flow unto it. Unto WHAT? The language is very clear. It refers to the mountain. WHICH mountain? Why, the mountain of Jehovahs house. Gods people (house or family) are considered, but the obvious emphasis is given to the mountain, to which these people flow.

Read the next verse: And many peoples shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of Jehovah, to the house of the God of Jacob— and someone says, There, it said house of God to which I would agree. But it is the mountain that is to be established. It is the mountain of Jehovah, the mountain of Jehovahs house, or people, to which all nations flow. In doing so they become, and are associated with the people of God — but they come to the mountain.

It is not a mass of people, called a mountain. Sentence structure does not permit this interpretation; and in addition, notice the other terms used to identify the subject. —He will teach us of his WAYS, and we will walk in his PATHS: for out of Zion shall go forth the LAW, and the WORD of Jehovah from Jerusalem.

This passage says that Gods mountain shall be established in Jerusalem. Now, does this passage inform concerning the church?? I believe does!! But the emphasis is given that which makes the church what is, not to the people as a party.

The mountain is established on the top of the mountains or, as the foot-note reads, at the head. Rank is under consideration, not altitude. Gods mountain is above, superior to all other mountains. This is much like the prophecy of Daniel (2: 31-45) and the small stone which smote the image of gold, silver, brass, iron and clay. These world empires (Babylonian, Persian, Greek, Roman) were overwhelmed by the stone, which became a great MOUNTAIN — representing the kingdom of God. Unlike the rule of men, Gods rule shall never be destroyed, nor shall the sovereignty be left to another people.

The Messianic Kingdom was estab- lished, made operative, in Jerusalem (Acts 2:) and all, nations began to flow unto it. Unto WHAT? Unto the sovereign rule or authority of God in Christ. If you can read Acts 2: without prejudice this is exactly what becomes apparent. The Spirit outpouring was explained (with Joel 2:) a signaling the time of deliverance by Messiah; then Jesus of Nazareth was cited as one approved by divine signs and wonders — now fulfilling Davids prophecy by being resurrected to sit on his throne. Therefore.... know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified both Lord and Christ. (Acts 2:22-36

The church, then and now, consist of those who come to the mountain.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VII No.II Pg.5

April 1970

All Feeling, No Proof

Robert F. Turner

The current rash or tongue -speaking, miracle -sanctioning, and the far more common errors concerning direct Spirit indwelling, that infects many institutional churches of Christ, was not brought to earth in the Apollo 11 moon dust. It sprang from causes within the ranks. Last month we suggested that reaction to coldness may have triggered some of this error. As an interrelated cause, some sought to promote genuine worship with material props, such as dimmed lights, mood music (a cappella, of course) and other devotional clap-trap; and the resulting emotionalism was glibly assigned to the Holy Spirit.

Serving God from the heart involves the emotions, to be sure — but such emotions as proceed from knowledge of Gods will, and desire to serve Him. The art work and parties of the popular Young Peoples Classes produce only a superficial knowledge of the Bible, (doctrinal studies, you know, are no longer relevant) so churches that have gone along with the modern trends are poorly equipped to combat direct Spirit errors.

But the underlying cause of this and practically every other brotherhood problem is subjectivism — looking within ourselves for authority. When brethren no longer feel the need for Bible authority (external authority — going to the Bible for their faith — Rom. 10:17) they look inward, to human reason, practical experience or feelings for the answers. This may begin with their feelings about instrumental music (I like) or the care of orphans (Surely that is good) or other churchhood projects (proven right by mainstream acceptance) until finally, demands for Bible authority become most distasteful.

Subjectivism takes many forms. The rank modernist makes Gods word subject to his approval — divine truth becomes relative to his understanding, or so he thinks. But the same error is at work among those who say Gods word can be understood only by the Spirit-endowed elect. And those who believe they are cut by the Holy Spirit (apart from His sword, the written word) are but a step away.

When Pat Boone says that God communicates with Him in a way that maybe you wouldnt understand except inwardly and in a spiritual way — this is subjectivism. The product of the communication is put upon exactly the same ground as the feeling, or still small voice of the sectarian, that he offers as proof of his salvation. Neither can be proven by the external authority of Gods word, as revealed to the Apostles and Prophets. ( 1 Jn. 4:6; Eph. 3:3-5; 1 Cor. 14-37)

Conservative brethren, who have steadfastly demanded Bible authority for faith and practice, are little affected by the current Spirit craze. It is the brother who has been softened by earlier forms of subjectivism who now feels that the Holy Spirit helps him to find a parking place. I feel no joy in stating this. I am saddened by the defection of Pat Boone, and all the others. But my sadness began long before they got this far. It began years ago, as they took their first steps in institutionalism and the social gospel movement.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VII No.II Pg.6

April 1970

Exodus, But No Moses!

Robert F. Turner

Two years ago I preached for a church in New Jersey, and heard how one EXODUS movement worked. When the planners came into this community and found an estab- lished church, with adequate property, well located for the members and those with whom they worked, they insisted that the church building be sold, and that the members (with their treasury) be added to their EXODUS effort. A few heeded the liberal and status-conscious call but more stable minds prevailed, and most of the church continues to meet at the original location, and serve God according to their ability.

Recently this was brought to my mind anew when I read a form letter from a church in Erie, Pa.; listing $39,952.27 in out- standing debts, and asking for $50,000. because we stand to lose everything this small congregation has unless we receive help immediately.

It seems an Exodus Erie was planned (by some think BIG organizers) that promised to bring 100 families to this area. The Erie brethren, less discerning than their conservative brethren in N. J. , fell for the spiel of the brotherhood busybodies, and set in motion a building program to accommodate the expected inflow. Instead of 100 families, two families came. (Count them: one, two.)

And if that isnt enough, the letter says, The reason for our financial need can be attributed to our building program to a great extent. We regretfully admit that through failure of an improperly handled program and affairs pertaining to it, we are now without money to pay for what has been done already and none to finish the building which is useable but not completed.

Further, If you have contributed any to Exodus- Erie in the past four years, will you please indicate the amount below and to what it was designated — such as Exodus—Erie Building Fund, Exodus— Erie Evangelistic Fund, Jerry Overby, etc. We need this information in order to complete an audit since part of our records have been misplaced.

I feel sorry for the brethren of the original church in Erie. Having worked in difficult fields, with small groups of saints, I know how tempting the promises of the Exodizers must have sounded. Youll be a BIG church, with a fine building, on the RIGHT side of the tracks! Excuse me if I remember, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and showeth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; And saith unto him, all these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. (Matt. 4:8-9) Jesus understands their failure (Heb. 4: 15-16) and will forgive if they will repent and turn to Him.

If brethren want to move to N.J., or Pa., and plant the cause of Christ, in a new field, this is wonderful. But they should know that the seed is the word of God (Lu. 8:11) and not a fancy building, built on the wreckage of another congregation. Church-hood planners do not respect the independent church, serving God according to its God-given ability.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VII No.II Pg.7

April 1970

Queries And Answers

Robert F. Turner

Dear Sir:

Does the Bible teach that Satan has ever exercised any degree of supernatural power, and if so, does the Bible indicate that it is still possible for him to do so today?

Reply:

The Egyptian magicians with their enchantments (f. n. , secret arts) changed their rods into serpents, turned water to blood, and brought up frogs upon the land of Egypt. (Ex. 7:8:) Jesus said false prophets shall show great signs and wonders; (Matt. 24: 24) and Simon of Samaria, with his sorceries amazed the people. (Acts 8: 9-11) I believe these wonders were deceptions — things that astonished and dumfounded because the method of performance was hidden.

But here were signs and wonders that come to pass( Deut. 13:1-f) and it was necessary for God to point out that it was the word, not the sign, by which a prophet was to be judged. (See 1 Jn. 4: 1-6) Perhaps fulfillment of these signs was coincidental, or explainable upon other bases, but they were real enough to witnesses that they needed another grounds for testing. More difficult to explain, and outside my knowledge, are those cases of demons — where to cast out was to challenge and overthrow the power of Satan. (Matt. 12: 22-29)

It has been suggested by some that Satan exercised some direct and arbitrary power (seemingly supernatural) prior to the death of Christ, which power has been taken from him. (See Lu. 10: 17-20) I do not see that this necessitates actual supernatural power on Satans part — deceptive works, and the overthrow of Satans sway in the hearts of men, seems equally an acceptable interpretation — but I must admit that demons seem the most likely examples of some direct power on the part of Satan. However, the fact that Christ overcame this power shows that it was not of the same nature as divine power — for divinity is not divided against itself.

The most appropriate text of all is 2 Thes. 2: 8-12 where the working of Satan is described as power and signs and wonders of falsehood (f. n. of RV). Lenski says, Our versions make the genitive adjectival and construe it only with wonders: lying wonders. But Paul means: lie-signs and lie-wonders. The genitive is qualitative and stronger than an adjective. It does not denote source: derived from what is lie; nor effect: producing what is lie; or a combination of these two ideas. These signs and wonders are themselves, in their own quality, lie.... We may translate: pseudo-signs and pseudo- wonders. Lenski also says the singular power is no equivalent of the plural powers (power works) used elsewhere to designate works of divine omnipotence.

Genuine super-natural power is power above or beyond the laws which God established to control His universe. There is something incongruous in thinking that Satan ever had power superior to Gods power, in any way. That Satan, and man, might use natural laws to work wonders — even to deceive — is believable; but I would not call this supernatural.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VII No.II Pg.8

April 1970

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

Visit a Sale Barn in sheep country, and you may join with the buyers on grand -stand type seats, arched about and elevated above the sales corral, facing the auctioneers box. Behind and to either side of the auctioneer are waiting pens, where the stock to be sold has been gathered. A sale is about to begin, so let me warn you about raising your hand, even to scratch your ear. You may buy twenty or thirty sheep, and not know it until they present you with the weight ticket and a bill.

When all is ready, the auctioneer signals, and a gate is opened between one waiting pen and the sales corral. The first animal through the gate is usually a goat, perhaps a large Billy, that rushes confidently into the arena and crosses to the far side. He is followed by a flock of trusting sheep, eager to be led, knowing not they are being led to sale and slaughter. Now keep your eyes on the goat!

As the sheep crowd the pen, you will see that he is no longer the bold confident leader. Head lowered, moving to one side of the milling sheep he slinks quietly toward the entrance gate. Just as the last sheep comes streaming into the sales corral the Billy goat slips quietly out, and the gate is closed. He has done his job well, and while the hapless sheep are being sold he munches a piece of cake and awaits his next turn at leading the sheep to the slaughter .

Do you understand why he is called the Judas Goat?? (Matt. 26: 14-f)

Jesus knew of his betrayal (Jn. 13) and freely gave Himself for us — but the stigma and responsibility of his betrayer remains. Nor did the odious office of betrayer cease when Judas Iscariot hanged himself. The world is filled with Judas Goats who, for a piece of cake, will lead unsuspecting followers to their doom.

He makes bold pronouncements on delicate subjects. While his followers are tangled in argument and confusion, he sneaks out by saying he was mis- understood, and didnt mean it that way. He proposes great projects, unmindful or ignorant of their ultimate cost in money and souls. The good shepherd leads boldly, but will die for his sheep. (Jn. 10:) The hireling flees when the wolf comes.

Judas Goats prosper because sheep will not think and act independently.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VII No.III Pg.1

May 1970

Little Stories (About A Lot Of People)

Robert F. Turner

A factory spewed toxic fumes over a community, and the smog problem became acute. Something must be done.

Joe pled with the public to become better stewards, to respect Gods creation, and their fellow-men. He urged fair dealing with manufacturers and consumers alike, recognizing the joint responsibilities of consumers and producers in a society that demands (though perhaps selfishly) our current standard of living. Joe sought to touch the public conscience and, by legal and orderly means, to solve an immediate problem with principles that would extend to the solution of problems yet unborn. Joe got nowhere!! — or so it seemed.

Bill became interested in the smog problem because it was hot news, and served well his political aims. He encour- aged a mob to break factory windows, storm the governors mansion and shout obscenities at his political opponent — whom he falsely accused with taking bribes from big business. Bill pulled strings to high places, and closed the factory!! Flushed with victory, and with the gratitude of a public relieved from the immediate smog problem, Bill won the election. And, while his mob organization was intact, he launched a campaign to ruin several other factories that were in competition with his private interests.

The strings he pulled, to swing the first job, were elastic — and had a counter-pull. Now that he was in a power position, certain requests had to be granted — and pollutions far more damaging to the public than that of the first problem, had to be ignored. They came from factories belonging to the powers who put him in office. But Bill got his cuts and died a very wealthy and influential man. (Choked to death on a $5. cigar)

Joe died in obscurity, little mourned. There were other problems. Trees were stunted, grasses withered, and old folk smothered in their sleep. Only one remembered Joes plea (Matt. 7:12) and was determined to carry on. I dont know his name, but unborn children may live to celebrate it.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VII No.III Pg.2

May 1970

The Perk Up Sheet

Robert F. Turner

A very young preacher showed me a couple of drawings, done in color, which I took to be the product of the Junior Bible Class — but which turned out to be the preachers special project for stirring the congregation to active service. One pictured a man at rest, with Sunday paper draped across his face. The other showed this man knocking at a door, presumably to invite a neighbor to Bible study.

Somehow, these two drawings, when attached to the bulletin board with appropriate headings, were supposed to remind brethren that they should not neglect their opportunities to go into the world and preach tile gospel. It all seemed so childish — very much like a promotion poster in a Grade School Library — that I found it difficult to maintain a civil conversation. Then, I remembered — A young preacher who used a coffee pot as the trademark of the church bulletin he published. (He called it Perk up!) The drawings, and promotional gimmicks of that paper were — well, pretty good, now that I recall that I was the editor. Strange — how sensible they seemed then (25 years ago) and how immature they seem now.

Please do not understand me to say that youth justifies claptrap in religion (showy but cheap device or expression, as insincere sentiment, designed to excite applause), nor do I believe we are to defend a practice because it was a part of our early and immature efforts, no matter how sincere. But sober reflection may make us a bit more understanding and patient with todays young man.

And I wonder this change in my concepts of propriety. Am I really that much older? I hasten to deny it. Some say my youth is reflected in Plain Talk. (Give the man a quarter!) No, it is something else. Add several years of study, blend with reflection and meditation, test with experience, and hone the edge with heart- breaking mistakes, past correction but all too easily recalled — and a man sees matters in a different light.

I believe we come to appreciate the gravity of our condition, and of the remedy Christ offers. If our faith has endured, it has fiber, is more meaningful. The good news of gospel has passed the light bubbling stage, and its deep joy becomes the peace that passeth understanding. And we are just a little bit offended by a less sober consideration of Gods truth. Let our hard-gained advantage be a guide to youth, not a stumbling block. If we have learned something, let us hope we have learned to use it wisely.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VII No.III Pg.3

May 1970

Time And Truth

Dan S. Shipley

Early in the first century Christ sent the Spirit of Truth to guide the apostles into all truth. (Jn. 16:13; Acts 2: 1-f) The New Testament records that truth which these inspired men wrote and taught. This gospel truth was being preached, believed and obeyed before the middle of that first century. Over 1900 years ago souls were being saved from sin through the knowledge of this truth. The implications of this simple fact are profound.

Think of it! A sinner could be saved in obedience to this gospel over 250 years before the Nicene Creed was formulated; long before there was a Catholic church to establish Divine Tradition or interpret the scriptures; over 500 years before Catholicism had a universal Pope; before Catholic doctrine of celibacy, sprinkling for baptism, instrumental music in worship, transubstantiation, purgatory, extreme unction, holy orders, Mary-worship, confession before priests — and over 1800 years before the doctrine of Papal infallibility.

Think of it! An individual could be reconciled to God through Christ over 1450 years before the Catholic monk Martin Luther made his historic protest; before he advanced the false notion of justification by faith only; before his name was worn by anyone except his family.

Think of it! Men and women could become CHRISTIANS, live and die with the hope of heaven, over 1450 years before there was a Church of England (Episcopal) or a Presbyterian church; before John Calvin and his false teaching on predestination, direct operation of the Holy Spirit and infant baptism!

Think of it! Men were being redeemed by the blood of Christ over 1500 years before John Smyth began his work which resulted in the establishment of the first Baptist church; over 1650 years before John Wesley and the Methodist church; over 1750 years before Joseph Smith, the father of Mormonism, received his alleged revelation; which was about the same time the Adventist group had its beginning under the leadership of William Miller; over 1800 years before Mary Baker Eddys revelation and Christian Science; over 1800 years before there was a Jehovahs Witness sect to knock on the door or distribute the Watchtower paper!

Think of it! The simple gospel of Christ was providing men with ALL THINGS pertaining to life and godliness over 1900 years ago! (2 Pet. 1:3) It was furnishing men completely unto every good work at that early date. (2 Tim. 3:17) That gospel. truth provides the basis for mans becoming, being and doing ALL that God requires of him, is further evidenced by the fact that men will one day be judged by this very gospel. (Jn. 12:48)

Think of it! If ALL of the combined religious creeds, ideas, doctrines, concepts, opinions, revelations, and traditions of the past 1900 years should perish, men could STILL know how to serve God and be saved! Is it not time you considered uncluttered, unadulterated New Testament Christianity??

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VII No.III Pg.4

May 1970

Respect Of Persons

Robert F. Turner

The Corinthians used the time of assembling (when ye come together in the church or congregation fn, AS, 1 Cor. 11:17-22) to satisfy their personal appetite. The thing done was out of place (have ye not houses to eat and to drink in?) and their inconsideration for others compounded the error. I think I have seen the same error committed, repeatedly, in present day assemblies — with not a morsel of food in sight.

One is hungry, and another is drunken. Some say the word drunken does not necessarily mean intoxicated but rather having partaken. In either case, it shows inconsideration for a brother or sister in Christ, and this is my point. Repeatedly I have stood at the back of a building. just before worship, and have been able to spot those who are hungry for association and attention — while inconsiderate brethren enjoy a last - minute social visit, and then settle at one anothers side for worship. With the closing amen! these brethren resume their visits with close friends, and the hungry ones, no part of the inner circle, gather their belongings and slip quietly and sadly away.

Some reply, We are assembled to worship God, not for social visits. These people should be satisfied with the purely Christian fellowship. Well, that is all they are getting, and if they come again it would seem they find it satisfying. I wonder how many of the visiting circle would continue to come if they were given such limited personal reception. And, are we not assuming that friendly conversation with these lonely ones must be of a purely social nature? If we have so much in common IN CHRIST, is there no place for conversation relative to spiritual matters?

Let us not deceive ourselves. We are the ones who are feeding on personal and social association. I am aware that all public gatherings have some social aspects; and often the separate ones are poorly orientated to society — they separate themselves and hurry from, the building, or huddle in a corner with little to say. If we act selfishly, love only the lovely, we will pass them by for social contacts more to our taste. Perhaps this sort of selfishness caused the Corinthians to seek so—called social and economic equals, and take before other his own supper. It may also have moved James to write. Have not the faith... with respect of persons. (Read Jas. 2: 1-f)

When we gather to worship God what better time could we find to practice unselfish love and regard for all the saints. Here is a new convert, in new and different surroundings, embarrassed, uncertain, feeling alone. You may, indirectly, save a soul from drifting and death by simply sitting next to this person, showing genuine sympathy and concern, making him or her feel truly a part of this church. A formal handshake and Welcome! at the time of their baptism is NOT enough.

Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another; love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous. .. (1 Pet. 3: 8-f) Think awhile!

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VII No.III Pg.5

May 1970

Chirps Or Testimony?

Robert F. Turner

The current wave of ascetic utterances, speaking with/in tongues, which has swept parts of the country and made inroad among some brethren, is directly related to the increase in a subjective approach to authority. External authority, exemplified in the written word and approached objectively, has been eroded by no pattern arguments, and replaced by an appeal to majority practices. Even good judgement looks inward, and is not good at all when it ignores the divine revelation.

One of the early fruits of such thinking is a rejection of hard-core, straight-line Bible preaching. Those who try to blend direct spirit operation with scriptures may contend that these must be spiritually discerned — and smugly conclude that you must not have the spirit since you do not see them as do they. But recent claimants are more - likely to pride themselves in their spirituality which finds unity in diversity. If we remove the idea of Gods word, sufficiently understandable to all, and to which all are subject, we have no standard for unity in the faith, and all truth becomes relative.

Who, or what, can test the feelings of another? None — nothing! The one making such claims may be happily satisfied but his hope is subjective, wholly within himself. I would not deny that he had a feeling, but would insist that its interpretation must be measured by a fixed standard, the truth taught by the apostles and prophets of the N.T. (Jn. 4:6)

When we cut loose from this mooring, we are adrift on the sea of human wisdom. There is no limitations except as they are self-imposed, and the person who accepts direct spirit guidance in one field, may go (or encourage others to go) to the extreme of tongue speaking. Once we step beyond the influence of the inspired (Spirit-breathed) word, that direct influence becomes a matter of degrees, with little to control our imagination.

Isaiah wrote, And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits and unto the wizards, that chirp and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? On behalf of the living should they seek unto the dead? To the law and to the testimony! If they speak not according to this word, surely there is no morning for them. (Isa. 8: 19-20 emphasis mine, rt) God is no respecter of person, but deals with each of us by appealing to common faculties. Each can hear, learn, and come unto God. (Jn. 6: 45) As free agents we may reject His word, or we may see with our eyes, and hear with our ears, and understand with our heart, be converted, and healed. (Cf. Matt. 13: 15-16) This is not only the process for becoming Christians, but also for growth and development as children of God. (1 Pet. 2:2)

Such basic principles are so completely scriptural, and so much a part of preaching once common among churches of Christ, it seems absurd to have to repeat this for brethren today. Ours is a new generation, and woe to him who is tied to the party, instead of to Christ.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VII No.III Pg.6

May 1970

Canadian Co-Op, 1843

Robert F. Turner

For 20 years or more we have tried to warn brethren of this generation that when cooperation becomes collective action of a plurality of churches, it violates congregational independence, and is the historic way to denominational organization. Most of our examples have been taken from the history of brethren in this country. We were not surprised, however, to find that the same movement took place in Canada.

Note the following quotes from History of the Disciples of Christ in Canada Since 1830 by Reuben Butchart; pub. 1949.

The method of working together in Christian effort beyond the bounds of the local church has immemorially been known as the co-operation. It was a method, not an entity. But, in time, the brethren learned they could safely delegate power to persons to act for the body. Thus the idea of an organization became a fact, perhaps in 1846. As men saw that the move was in harmony with other advances of mankind confidence was raised. That adverse criticism should hamper progress by so humane a method is something to marvel at. Liberty has been sorely won, in religion as in State.

The writer could offer no harmony with the scriptures, but felt it accorded with humane methods and advances of mankind. Acknowledging opposition, he attempts to escape by ridicule. He writes, as do some today, as though the opposition asks for specific authority for everything to be done in religion; then has the gall to say they beg the question. He says, One hidden cause for hesitation lay in the realm of expedients for the propagation of the gospel message. With the concept of a church and its fundamental beliefs and practices clearly and prophetically outlined in the New Testament, grew apparently, in some minds, as an afterthought, the idea that nothing but what was used, mentioned, or approved in the Book should constitute any part of Christian endeavor, either within or without the church. This attitude to disciplined minds, plainly begs the question: It is clearly uncritical and unsound.

But our liberal brethren are far to brilliant to be held in check by divine authority. In Canada, as in the U. S. A., The practical awoke in them as they threw off some of the chains of fear. Two churches would co-operate, practically always their method. Soon a group joined in, and their proceedings justified the step, because the laborers sent forth returned and told the church just what they had done. Thus the Church was honored; but still (in the words of the gospel) some believed not. Yet, the parent co-operation, the Eramosa-Erin Co-operation, the Niagara one, the Georgian Bay co-operation, the Prince Edward County co-operation came to productive life. By the year 1843 a provincial co-operation was in being, in a manner in which the majority apparently agreed. (Chapter 7, Pp. 77-f.)

Today brethren are co-operating themselves into the same organizational trap. History foretells the fate of those who blindly repeat it.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VII No.III Pg.7

May 1970

Queries And Answers

Robert F. Turner

Bro. Turner:

What is the law of love? We have a brother who uses this expression to justify a compromising attitude toward anything he wants to do. W.Va

Reply:

I suggest you read 1 Jn. 4:7-f. with great care. God IS love — the epitome of love, summarizing its very essence — the perfect source, example and motivator of love.

So absolutely true is this principle, that John says, everyone that loveth is begotten of God— i.e., is God—like, figuratively partakes of the genetic makeup of God, has His characteristics. This is the same child of concept seen in Jn. 8:39 -f, where Jews were told, If ye were Abrahams children, ye would do the works of Abraham. (Cf. Matt. 5:45) We thus know God — i.e., grasp the idea of God, perceive God, move on the same wave-length. With God so much the essence of love, how can one claim to be of God who does not love? (It seems to me it is this spirit of love referred to in vs. 13.)

The love under consideration is not mans concept of love, but a reflection of Gods love — hence must be confined to that type of love which God manifested. (Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.) If God SO (in this manner) loved us, we ALSO ought to love one another. Our love, to be of God, must be like that which God demonstrates in His dealings with man, through Christ. We are presumptuous indeed to think we can ignore the examples of Gods love as seen in Christ, and the revealed will of God; and substitute our own shallow, short-sighted, and self-serving concept of love and its fruits.

Gods love did not keep Him from condemning man to death for his sins. But it caused Him to give His Son so that those who obey Him might be forgiven. (Heb. 5:9) (Those evil, on whom God sends material blessings, will go to Hell, except they repent. Isnt it odd that those who use Matt. 5:44-f, to excuse sin, never seem to think of the sinners doom, and make sacrificial efforts to turn them to Christ.)

Did Paul not love those brethren whom he refused to feed? (2 Thes. 3:6-15) I believe he loved them too much to allow their slothfulness to go unnoticed, and uncorrected. He loved them with the kind of love that comes from the heavenly Father.

Did Paul restrict the burden of the church to widows indeed (1 Tim. 5:16) because he had no concern for the younger widow; or because he had more concern for the divinely authorized work of the church, and more concern that the younger widows function in their God-given responsibilities?

The law of love is not an emotionally orientated standard of conduct, originating in the mind of man. It is the result of man imbibing the manifested and demonstrated spirit of God, knowing Gods will, and being moved to act toward his fellow-man as God has acted toward His creatures. Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth? (Gal. 4:)