Plain Talk

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VIII No.I Pg.4

March 1971

By Truth Or Trivials?

Dan S. Shipley

Many Christians faced with the problem of choosing a congregation with which to identify themselves. Regrettably, this important choice is sometimes determined more by trivials than truth. With some, the location and appearance of the church building become influencing factors; with others, the size and friendliness of a congregation are more persuasive. Still others are swayed by little more than preacher personality. In many cases, little, if any, effort is made to determine whether a church is teaching, practicing and standing for gospel truth. That Christians would allow such trifles to determine so serious a matter is almost unthinkable.

The role of the individual Christian in the local congregation is not one to be assumed or considered lightly. This together arrangement is ordained of God and its activities are governed by His word. Individual responsibilities are not diminished in this union, no matter how large it may become. The Christian is no less amenable to Gods truth in this collective arrangement than as an individual. Any truth - determined obligation in reference to the local church or its elders is best understood as being an obligation unto God Himself. Therefore, it is not a matter of being faithful to the church or to its elders, but to God and His truth! In view of this principle, one can easily understand how that members of churches who are led into unscriptural practices by the elders are no less guilty than the elders themselves. Every Christian owes primary allegiance to the great Shepherd and Bishop of his soul (1 Pet. 2:25). Truth is degraded to trivials in con- gregations where error is condoned or tolerated. Whether it be in the counten- ancing of false teachers or ungodly members, truth suffers when sin is allowed. Neither God nor His truth are honored in churches where unqualified men are allowed to continue as elders. Churches do not support human institutions from their treasuries in response to Divine truth. Instead, such truth is being ignored in favor of expedients, human reasoning, sentiment and other such trifles. If God can be honored by individuals in authorized collective efforts, then He certainly can be dishonored in the unauthorized! Every Christian in every congregation sustains a personal obligation to Divine truth for which an account will be given.

The spiritual strength of individuals and churches is reflected in their regard for gospel truth. The Christian who truly loves and respects this truth should seek to join himself with like-minded brethren. Their meeting place may be remote and modest; the members may be few and plain, but such things are mere trifles compared to the precious truth to which they are dedicated and by which they are bound together — an saved.

Submission to only some of Gods truth is not enough. It must be allowed to determine every decision an every duty. The individual who doe not submit to ALL truth doesnt submit to truth at all!

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VIII No.I Pg.5

March 1971

To Spank Or Not

Jim R. Everett

I learned a lot from the cotton stalk, peach tree limb and 1X4 — primarily, that there are types of behaviour that are unacceptable. Not one of those lessons was enjoyable but most were very needed. But then, Gideon took the elders of the city, and thorns of the wilderness and briers, and with them he taught the men of Succoth (taught means correction and could be translated threshed), (Judges 8:16).

Punishment of children for wrongdoing is primarily the responsibility of parents. The chimney -corner- scripture spare the rod and spoil the child is not unlike Solomons statement: He that spareth his rod hateth his son; but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes, (Prov. 13:24). This does not justify beating the child black and blue; however, there are times when only the imprint of the whip impresses a lesson on the heart. Permissive parents supply the hammer for their own heartbreak.

While punishment and discipline sometimes become a necessity, there is a limit to motivation by spanking. When I was four, Mother thrashed me so many times one day that the last one didnt hurt —I just took a deep breath, turned and walked away. The only things you can teach a child by the rod is that misbehaviour brings disapproval and pain. But if no is all he hears and the smack of the hand is the only teacher, his character becomes negatively lop-sided. The will to do good should also be instilled in his heart.

Paul reproved Peter rather sharply (Gal. 2:11-14). He also sternly rebuked brethren for keeping company with a brother who was a fornicator (1 Cor. 5:1-ff), and called some deceitful workers and false apostles (2 Cor. 11:13). Not only did he reprove sinners himself, but he also charged Timothy: reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine, (2 Tim. 4:2). There are times when such is needed, but let one never confuse reproof with vindictiveness —Vengeance is mine, I will repay, God said (Rom. 12:19).

When I first began preaching, I felt it was my responsibility to lash those who were not conducting themselves properly — no thorns, just stern rebuke. I had no desire to hurt them, but felt that if they knew what was amiss, they would appreciate the spanking later, as I have now that years have passed. I learned after using many different kinds of whips that a steady diet of negative lessons only served to depress the congregation and frustrate me. The problem was not that the members didnt understand what was wrong, but that they had a greater desire to do other things and be other places.

Several years have passed and I continue to reprove sin and sinners. I use the whip if it is needed, but a sound spanking helps not the depressed, discouraged and weak — they need encouragement. It really doesnt help the person to try and beat him into subjection. The man without the will is about as tasty as the lobsters shell. Christ wants men who will to do his will.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VIII No.I Pg.6

March 1971

Protest And Plea, 1875

Robert F. Turner

San Francisco, Calif.

August, 1875

To Elder J. W. Tener, and the

Church of Christ in San Francisco:

The undersigned, Members of said Church, in view of the action of a portion thereof, in introducing Instrumental Music into the congregational worship, offer this, their protest, and earnestly ask, for the sake of peace in the body of Christ, that it be regarded.

It is a notorious fact, that where-ever the subject of Instrumental Music in the Churches of Christ has been agitated it has led to discord and strife, and that its introduction has been the means of dividing bodies otherwise harmoniously working for the good cause. Without discussing the question upon its merits, it is enough that we look at the facts in this case.

A few of your brethren have asked you to abstain from gratifying your tastes, in what is to you, confessedly, a mere matter of expediency, at the expense of their convictions, upon what is to them a matter of vital import. You cannot lightly decide for them, and for the great body of Christian people with whom they stand in perfect accord, that they must not entertain conscientious convictions upon a matter for which the most favorable argument is, that the Scriptures do not in express words forbid.

They have not asked any great sacrifice on your part. They have not asked you to abstain from anything enjoined upon you in the scriptures. They have asked you to do what the Christian Church, during all the earlier and purer ages of its history, did, and continued to do for 1,200 years after Christ — what the authors and movers in our great Reformation, for many happy, peaceful and prosperous years were content to do, to the glory of God and the upbuilding of His kingdom. They have asked you the simple boon of worshipping God with you according to the dictate of their conscience, in a way which all agree is sanctioned by the Word of God.

The Scriptures demand of us that we avoid foolish and untaught questions and such as do gender strife. In all sincerity and candor we believe that you have violated that Scripture — with other precepts and principles contained in the law of the Lord — the observance of which, while it might not commend us to the lovers of show and worldly pomp, would certainly promote our growth in that religion whose chief beauty is its simplicity. We believe your action in this matter to be totally unjustifiable, and until the error is amended, unpardonable. We beg of you that you seriously consider the responsibility you assume in depriving some, however few and however humble, of the privilege of worshipping God, in His congregation, according to their conscience, in conformity with divine commands and apostolic precedent. Believing, as we do, that the action taken in this matter is a grievous wrong, we can do no less than utter in this way our lasting protest against it. (Sgn., 11 saints.)

(From Oct. 29,70 Gospel Guardian.)

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VIII No.I Pg.7

March 1971

Queries And Answers

Robert F. Turner

Dear Editor,

If God answers my prayers for personal needs, wouldnt he have to work a miracle to do it? What does this do to our teaching that the age of miracles is over?

Reply:

God answers prayer. There is no if about it. He not only created the world by his Son (Heb. 1:2), but he also is upholding all things by the word of his power (Heb. 1:3). His powerful word maintains the universe and causes all things to function as they do. Natural law is but our term to describe the universe in response to his powerful word. To him who runs things in this world we make known both our thanksgiving and our petitions in everything (Phil. 4:6).

Gods hand in the affairs of men is not always obvious. Elijah prayed for a drought, and rain ceased for three and a half years (Jas. 5:17). A resident of Israel — being unaware of Elijahs prayer — could not perceive this drought to be a specific answer to prayer. Nothing dramatic happened — just a long dry spell. Then Elijah prayed for rain while his servant watched toward the sea. When a cloud appeared on the horizon, they prepared for rain — the specific answer to Elijahs prayer. Yet the cloud came from the sea as all rain clouds did (1 King. 18:41-f). Nothing seemed out of the ordinary except the dry weather was over. At times God openly displayed his power to answer prayer. King Hezekiah was sick unto death, but God heard his prayer and spared his life. God demonstrated his power by moving the shadow of the sundial backward (2 King. 20: 1-f). We anticipate no such display of power, but we confidently expect God to our prayers. Man will not long continue to pray who does not believe God will hear and respond to his prayers.

But is Gods hand in the affairs of man a miracle? Define the term. A miracle is a supernatural happening; it is defined by comparison to the normal. It is not natural for man to calm the wind with a word, to instantly heal the sick and crippled, or to raise the dead. Thus when a man does such, it is a miracle — an incident above his natural power as man. But what is supernatural for God? It is no miracle when God causes rain in answer to prayer. He provides the rain anyway (Mt. 5:45). It seems out of place to refer to the actions of God himself as miracles.

Consider the age of miracles. Signs, wonders, and miracles guaranteed Gods spokesman and their words to be true (Jno. 3:2 Act. 2: 22) Gods revelation has been completed; there are no inspired men working miracles today. However, this has no connection with Gods actions in answering prayer.

Our great need is for more faith in both Gods power and his willingness to answer prayer. Making my heart known to God in prayer is my part. What he answers (yes or no) or how he accomplishes it must continue to be his business. We trust him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think according to the power that worketh in us. (Eph. 3:21). --Joe Fitch

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VIII No.I Pg.8

March 1971

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

Out west some brethren are having a wonderful time, and doing something useful, by trying their hands at song writing. Brent Lewis has produced a singable hymn; and bros. Bolton, Worley. and Stevens have written several spiritual songs and hymns, available by writing Claude E. Worley, 809 N. Doheny Dr., Beverly Hills, Cal. 90210

I couldnt resist telling them the following story, from my earlier days when I taught some singing schools. An aspiring song-writer brought three manuscripts, no names attached, asking my judgement. Singing through the first, I found it a bit awkward — so with a little hemming and hawing it was lain aside, and the second examined. This too was not smooth, and the melody was rather dull, so with some limited commendations we moved to the third.

This one had it! It was singable, well planned, with a lilting pleasant tune; yet neither jazzy nor too complicated for congregational use. I began to praise the song, and congratulate the man for an excellent job — and was amazed that he seemed rather unhappy about the matter.

Whats wrong with the others? he asked, and put them into my hands for explanation.

I replied that in my opinion they just didnt jell — the feel, the touch was missing. But one out of three is an excellent average. We cant expect to hit on every sermon, article, or song we write. You have done a marvelous job on this third song, and you may scrap the first two with no feelings of regret.

The mans feelings were unchanged. In despair he explained, But bro. Turner, I didnt write that third song. It belongs to Bro. Teddlie.

I wonder how many trial runs, bits and scraps, whole songs, bro. Teddlie threw into the waste basket before he produced the singable version. Once in a marvelous while we come up with a first-run gem — usually the cream of many months of musing and study, even though we may not be aware that the idea grows beneath the surface. But most good things are the product of luck, spelled hard work. The public sees the condensed, pithy, challenging and action-producing end. (Oh, how we hope!!) But we clean out an overloaded waste basket, and wonder where well get the next one.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VIII No.II Pg.1

April 1971

Shhh! Men Thinking

Robert F. Turner

God seeks thinking men; he has no use for a remote controlled robot. Man, a living sacrifice to God, is presented as a reasonable service — rational, offered by the reason (Rom. 12:1). This man is transformed by renewing his mind (Rom. 12:2) — getting him to think right. He meditates on Gods law (Psa. 1:2) and acts according to its precepts. He considers Gods unspeakable gift — his son (2 Cor. 9:15) and praise with thanksgiving is offered to God. He realizes the worth of a soul and seeks to save men. Thus God succeeds, and heaven rejoices over this thinking man in service to God.

A brother in an assembly sings without comprehending the words of praise. He bows — and dozes — while someone expresses to God the mind of the congregation. He eats a pinch of bread and drinks a sip of grape juice but never remembers the sacrifice behind this memorial. He sleeps as a preacher stirs. . Pure minds (2 Pet. 3:1). His performance is empty — a useless ritual. God is not pleased; the man is not profited. Thoughtlessness destroyed his worship.

Some folk assume that thinking of something makes it both right and wise. Their thoughts become their own supreme court. They settle all questions with Well, I think.. . . Remember, a man can think and yet think wrong. Saul of Tarsus did. I verily thought with myself, that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth (Act. 26:9).

Others decide thinking is reaching different conclusions from everyone else. Such is false. In fact, beware of a conclusion no one holds. There is probably a good reason. Everyone believes the world is round. I weigh the evidence and arrive at the same conclusion — because the evidence demands it. Yet the conclusion is mine.

There is always risk in men thinking. At times weird ideas will be advanced. A baby would not fall if he never tried to walk; he would also never walk. Thinking has its childhood stage (1 Cor. 13:11). With patience and constructive help brethren should out grow the nutty idea stage to reason logically and reach mature conclusions. Joe Fitch

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VIII No.II Pg.2

April 1971

A Circular Rectangle

Robert F. Turner

A circular rectangle. Now, that has a nice scholarly ring to it. It is even simple enough to say. Try to draw one! Circle describes something absolutely different from the term rectangle. The result of joining the words together is an impossible contradiction of terms. It is gibberish. But so much for geometry and verbal gymnastics.

A young brother — just home from the University — in an air of superior scholarship announces, I believe the Genesis account, but I also believe the theory of evolution. Hmmm. The Bible teaches God formed man from dust (Gen. 2:7) and later fashioned the woman from a rib taken from Adams side (Gen. 2:21,22). The theory of evolution claims man has evolved from some ape-like animal over a period of millions of years. This young brother believes BOTH the Bible and the evolution of the species? I am confused; is that a circle or a rectangle?

Another brother freely quotes, We speak where the Bible speaks and we are silent where it is silent. I thought I understood him until he explained a current practice with Oh, we do many things for which we have no scripture. Another brother smiles and confidently nods his head. We do not need authority for everything we do. I am having trouble drawing this one. Should I use a compass or a straight-edge? But brethren are patient with me and continue to explain. You see, it does not really matter how you get the job done, just as long as you do it. That is what counts. And that is the same fellow who said to me earlier, We do Bible things in Bible ways and call Bible Things by Bible names. Is that an optical illusion or does that rectangle actually have curved sides?

Obviously it is not as difficult to find and repeat a good principle as it is to apply it consistently in both speech and life. Also, it does not take a genius to say an impossible thing nor a fool to be inconsistent. Average folk like us easily do both. Joe Fitch

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

Word from Robert is encouraging. He is holding up to the heavy work load and good results are evident in the meetings. Several have been baptized. Some contacts and studies with unbelievers leave further work to be done and the results yet to be seen. Brethren grow stronger, have deeper convictions, and firmer ties to both God and each other. We rejoice over the good reports and look forward to more details when Robert returns.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VIII No.II Pg.3

April 1971

Buying Truth

Dan S. Shipley

Buy the truth, and sell it not; Yea, wisdom, and instruction, and under- standing. (Prov. 23:23) Gods truth is treasure of immeasurable value. It alone anticipates and provides for mans every spiritual need because it, as man, has come from God Himself. Only this truth shows man how to be freed from sin and how to serve God. By it comes faith, unity of the Spirit and sanctification. It is the only adequate defense against Satan. This truth is the second-most precious thing to come from the Father.

However, to accomplish its Divine purpose, truth must he appropriated into the lives of individuals. This is what our text calls buying. The price of truth is that which it requires of those who would embrace it. As with most truly precious things, truth cannot be bought with money. Those who would buy it must pay for it in the coin of learning, belief, and obedience.

Truth must be known to be owned: learned to be earned. God endowed man with both mind and truth but has left it to man to get truth into his mind — and this is achieved only at the price of mental industry. Such learning leads to Christ: Every one that hath heard from the Father, and hath learned, cometh unto me (Jn. 6:45). The blessings of truth are many and great, but every one of them is predicated upon its being known. Needless spiritual poverty abounds because so many are unwilling to pay the price of learning in order to acquire truth. My people are destroyed for a lack of knowledge... (Hos. 4:6) But, neither can one claim truth as his who does not believe it. Knowledge is not faith; knowing truth is not the same as believing it. Rather, knowledge is to faith as cause is to effect (Rom. 10:17). These things are written that ye might believe (Jn. 20:31). Saving faith is unfaltering trust in God and His Son founded on a firm conviction of His truth. Apart from this truth there is no faith: there is nothing of faith, claims to the contrary not withstanding. The excellence of genuine faith lies in WHAT is believed. If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater. (1 Jn. 5:9)

Finally, truth is owned through obedience. At this point, much alleged faith proves counterfeit. Many say Lord, Lord but refuse to pay the price of doing His will (truth): hence waive its purchase. Contrary to the popular and contradictory concept which urges all men to do their own thing in their own way, God is only served in the doing of His will. There is much doing that is not serving in truth (Josh. 24:14; 1 Sam. 12:24; Matt. 7:21). Only wrath and indignation await those who obey not His truth (Rom. 2:8).

This precious truth is available only in the market place of the Bible. Those who would buy it must pay the price individually and on the lifetime installment plan. Faithfulness means meeting all installments coming due on truth — even unto death.

This truth IS the pearl of great price — a bargain at any price! Buy it and sell it not.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VIII No.II Pg.4

April 1971

For Lack Of Wood

Jim R. Everett

On those cold, frosty mornings when the fire had burned down to nothing during the night, it was necessary for Dad to get some cedar bark and start his fire from scratch. After lighting the fire and adding a generous supply of kindling, he would then gradually increase the size of the limbs thrown on the fire until finally he would heave on a backlog. Now. if he wanted a quick, hot fire, he would use cedar, but he was careful to move the furniture back from the hearth — cedar pops . However, if he wanted a fire that would burn slower but last longer, he would use dried, live oak — one or two good sized. back-logs would last about all day.

Solomon said, For lack of wood the fire goeth out, (Prov. 26: 20) but Dad knew that without reading the Bible. I don t believe the wise man was nearly as interested in teaching a truth about the continuity of fire as he was in teaching a parallel truth. He also said , And where there is no whisperer, content ion ceaseth. As coals are to hot embers, and wood to fire so is a contentious man to inflame strife, ( Prov. 26: 20-21).

The Lords church has been having problems from the very beginning and our generation is no exception, but not once has a problem been solved by a contentious spirit or by whisperings which gender strife. The solution comes with an honest look at the problem, an application of Gods word and a lot of patience without erring brethren. In Acts 15:1-25; 1 Cor. 1-15, and others, dissension did exist and when Paul wrote the second Letter to Corinth he said, For I fear lest by any means, when I come, I should find you not such as I would, and should myself be found of you such as ye would not lest by any means then should be strife, jealousy, wraths factions, backbitings, whisperings swellings, tumults... (2 Cor. 12:20 Then, as now, men seem fascinated by fire — pyromaniacs, they be.

Sometimes so-called sound or conservative congregations have begun only because of a prevailing contentions split. Present issues conveniently offered an occasion for a split and any other issues would have been just as suitable. To the surprise of no one, a new beginning in these instances, solved nothing and the lull of peace was only temporary — the fire was constantly kindled by fresh wood. This has caused some to equate such with conservativeness (the belief that one must be confined to Gods authority for every practice). Of course, such at equation would necessitate that none who are so-called liberal be whisperers or contentious which, quit obviously, is not true.

If Dad wanted to build a raging fire that would scorch our britches on the back-side of the room he would use lots of wood. If we want to cause contention and separate friends, let us pop-off and harbor smoldering embers of contention (Prov. 16:28). Truth can never be compromised but one should never use standing for truth as a slogan to cover contention. Be forbearing that fires of contention may go out.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VIII No.II Pg.5

April 1971

Chameleon Christians

Dan S. Shipley

The chameleon will be remembered as the small lizard with the remarkable faculty of being able to change its color in such a way as to blend with its surroundings. Some who like to be known as Christians manifest a similar characteristic.

This chameleon Christian assumes the color of those with whom he associates and whose favor he courts, whether saints or sinners. What they are governs his words and actions more than what he is. His conduct always conforms, even in the company of carnal—minded companions. He blends by proving himself proficient in the smutty language of worldlings and by expressing delight in their vulgar humor. When with the crowd that walks after the flesh, he keeps in-step; he runs with the pack into the same excess of riot (2 Pet. 2:l0; 1 Pet. 1:4). His abused taffy-like conscience will allow just about anything a situation may seem to justify. He is adept at mixing with the world and identifies with those of darkness with such ease that they never suspect him of being a Christian.

But, there is another kind of chameleon Christian. This one is more subtle and sophisticated and his conforming is less obvious because it is done on a much higher plane. He seeks identity with the successful, the influential, and the elite within the world community. While this blending is often done under the guise of social, civic, or business obligation, it is with careful tact and discretion — and with a view toward gaining approval and acceptance, whether for reasons of pride or profit.

But, regardless of how this blending is motivated or accomplished, it is always hurtful to the believer —whether realized or not. Courting the worlds favor means partaking of its flavor. Be not deceived: bad company corrupts good morals (1 Cor. 15:23, NASV). One must be like the world to be liked by the world (Jn. 15:19) —and just about anything that gains the approval and esteem of the world can become a hindrance to serving God (Oh, how we need to learn this! — and teach it to our young). Nothing can justify seeking mans approval above Gods — it is sinful and so are the motives that prompt it. There are simply no right ways to achieve wrong objectives or to express wrong motives! This urge to please men is not only wrong, it is intensely strong — strong enough to keep some from confessing Christ (Jn. 12:42); strong enough to cause another to deny his discipleship while blending by the enemys campfire (Jn. l8:17-27) —and strong enough to tempt any disciple to fashion himself according to this world, wherein he makes wrong friends and wrong enemies. (Jas. 4:4).

What most blending believers fail to realize is that their efforts to identify with the world are far more successful than they ever intended. In convincing some that they are of the world, they also convince God! They forget that by walking in darkness with the world they sever their fellowship with God (I Jn. 1:6). The name and claim may not change, but the chameleon Christian soon becomes the chameleon worldling —a sinner who sometimes seeks to pass himself off as a Christian.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VIII No.II Pg.6

April 1971

By Prideauxs Test

Robert F. Turner

There never was an imposture, in the world (says Dr. Prideaux, Letter to the Deists) that had not the following characters:

1. It must always have for its end some carnal interest.

2. It can have none but wicked men for its authors.

3. Both of these must necessarily appear in the very contexture of the imposture itself.

4. That it can never be so framed, that it will not contain some palpable falsities, which will discover the falsity of all the rest.

5. That wherever it is first propagated, it must be done by craft and fraud.

6. That when entrusted to many persons, it cannot be long concealed.

1. The keenest-eyed adversary of Moses has never been able to fix on him any carnal interest. No gratification of sensual passions, no accumulation of wealth, no aggrandizement of his family or relatives, no pursuit of worldly honour, has ever been laid to his charge.

2. His life was unspotted, and all his actions the offspring of the purest benevolence.

3. As his own hands were pure, so were the hands of those whom he associated with himself in the work.

4. No palpable falsity has ever been detected in his writings, though they have for their subject the most complicate, abstruse, and difficult topics that ever came under the pen of man.

5. No craft, no fraud, not even what one of his own countrymen thought he might lawfully use, innocent guile,... can be laid to his charge. His conduct was as open as the day; and though continually watched by a people who were ever ready to murmur and rebel, and industrious to find an excuse for their repeated seditious conduct, yet none could be found either in his spirit, private life, or public conduct.

6. None ever came after to say, We have joined with Moses in a we have feigned a Divine authority and mission, we have succeeded in our innocent imposture, and now the mask may be laid aside. The whole work proved itself so fully to be of God that even the person who might wish to discredit Moses and his mission, could find no ground of this kind to stand on. The ten plagues of Egypt, the passage of the Red Sea, the destruction of the king of Egypt and his immense host, the quails, the rock of Horeb, the supernatural supply by the forty years manna, the continual miracle of the Sabbath,.... together with the constantly attending supernatural cloud; ... all invincibly proclaim that God brought out this people from Egypt; that Moses was the man of God, chosen by Him and fully accredited in his mission; and that the laws and statutes which he gave were the offspring of the wisdom and goodness of Him who is the Father of Lights, the fountain of truth and justice, and the continual and unbounded benefactor of the human

(From Adam Clarke, notes on Ex. 18)

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VIII No.II Pg.7

April 1971

Queries And Answers

Robert F. Turner

Dear Editor,

We know faith comes by hearing the word of God (Rom. 10:17). We also know prayer must be in faith (Jas. 1:6) May we ask for things of this life — as safety on a trip? The Bible doesnt tell us to ask for this? How could such be a prayer of faith?

Reply:

In a diligent search for a mechanical formula for prayer, we have not discovered the personality of our God. Jehovah is interested in his people and expects them to share with him their joys and sorrows. Peter urges. Cast all your care upon h m; for he careth for you (1 Pet. 5: 7 ). God who knows even trivial facts — the number of my hair (Mt. 10: 20) — also cares about my trivial problems. They concern him because they trouble me.

We have no list of specifics for which to pray. Such would be impossible. We do have generic authority for prayer to include thanksgiving, requests, and the cares of this life. Our requests to God may he as broad as our thanksgiving to him — in everything (Phil. 4:6).

We might also investigate the reference to asking in faith. Does this mean faith in the answer to our prayer? If so, how could we continue to pray in faith after a petition had once been denied? (Lk. 18:1-f). The testimony of a denied petition would be contrary to the request and hence against asking again — in faith. Also, we may know only the problem — not the answer.

Paul prayed three times for the thorn in his flesh to be removed. God refused his petition but gave him the strength to endure (2 Cor. 12:7-9). Was Pauls prayer without faith? Was his faith groundless? Absolutely not! His faith was not in a removed thorn. He believed in God who had both power to remove the thorn and wisdom to know the best answer to Pauls problem. Paul had the same faith after the request was denied as before.

Jesus prayed for his cup of suffering to pass (Mt. 26:39). Yet he knew his death was necessary to redeem all men (Jno. 12:32-33). He knew God commanded him to lay down his life (Jno. 10:18). He also knew it was the time for his death (Jno. 13:1). The testimony was opposite to his request, yet he prayed for the cup to pass. Was his prayer in faith? Surely he was not told to ask for this. He could not believe the cup would pass. He told his Father of his dread of the cross and his desire (Jesus will) to avoid its pain and shame. Then trustingly, he left all in the Father s hands — nevertheless not my will but thine be done. This is the highest manifestation of faith.

With faith in God, we ask for wisdom (Jas. 1:6). No doubters are heard: man must believe in God who can reward those seeking him (Heb. 11:6).

We trust God with our hearts secret feelings — our weaknesses and fears. We confide to him our many needs and confess dependence on him. We are confident he listens, cares, and acts in our best interest. Such is prayer in faith. Our faith is in God. -- Joe Fitch

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VIII No.II Pg.8

April 1971

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

I heard a little girl say her prayers, and the low, lisping murmur warmed and filled my heart. Now I lay me down to sleep — and she explored her childish memory, searching for the words her mother had sought to place there.

And then, a young dynamo of six full years said his prayers. His open, confident voice showed no hesitancy. He wanted me to know that he could do it without half trying — and he hurried through the words in rapid succession. Now-I-lay-me-down- to-sleep....

A Junior, age nine, was late to the table — throwing his baseball at the couch as he raced for his seat — but when his father asked him to say grace he settled himself and bowed his head. God is great, God is good, God, we thank thee for this food! he repeated, with firmness and clarity.

But in another home a teenaged boy, whose ultra-long hair scented to embarrass his parents, came reluctantly to the table. He would not look directly at the preacher when introduced, but muttered a few words beneath his breath. His father had to ask him the second time to say the blessing (his sister was reaching for the food, and seemed surprised at the fathers request) and there was an awkward silence before he began; God is great, God is good —.

A young convert, zealous and eager to learn, attended a mens training class and listened intently to the more experienced give the prayer. He wanted to be prepared when his turn came, and when it did he took a deep breath and began: Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thee name —. (He didnt know what hallowed meant, and had no conception of the grammatical use of thee-thou etc., but that was the way more experienced men had trained him to give a prayer.)

And the elderly saint worded the prayer — without fear of molestation, suit unto us such blessings, that we may hear thy welcome plaudit, — and all listened patiently.

Until one day I may live to hear a child taught to speak to God (by parents constantly aware of His presence) or someone in the assembly may really PRAY — and people will ask in astonishment, What was he doing??? Never spake man like this!!

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VIII No.III Pg.1

May 1971

Appraising Gods Gift

Robert F. Turner

Majestic pines and other forest giants tower above the old mans mobile home. Beauty and serenity are in abundance but there are no frills. He is a quiet and simple man, yet a twinkle in his eye and a quick smile shows his love of people.

He plans everything. For instance, each month he divides his social security benefits — his sole income — in two parts. $40 is put aside while the remaining $100 is placed in an envelope — each sum carefully considered.

The old man meets with saints at a little country church building. One brother arrives in a new sports car. All gather to admire its sleek lines are awed by the full complement of equipment. Yet the atmosphere is obviously strained. This brother recently contested the property line between the church building and his acreage. He claimed a few feet of land and the water well brethren had just finished drilling. However, no one is unpleasant and all go inside to study the Bible together.

The Bible study progresses for a time and then reaches an impasse. The fellow with the sports car raises a question: Paul says to give as we are prospered, but he also says to give cheerfully. Now, according to my income I should give several dollars per week but I cant give more than a dollar cheerfully. What about that? Several brethren are chewing on something — and I thought they got rid of their tobacco cud. Say, it seems they are biting their tongues!

The following hour, people sing, pray, and eat the Lord's supper. Then a brother passes the collection basket. Nickels and dimes drop noisily from small childrens fingers. Checks and folds of bills are given by wage earners. With a satisfied smile, our sports car buff cheerfully (?) deposits a crisp new one dollar bill. In accord with his weekly budget, an old man in worn clothes quietly removes $25 from an envelope containing $100. He adds it to the collection.

Who loves his God and appreciates his salvation most? Read Lk. 7:36-50. .. to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little. —Joe Fitch

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VIII No.III Pg.2

May 1971

A Mans Man

Robert F. Turner

I feel a little guilty. I should boo Esau and applaud Jacob yet I like Esau! I see why Isaac loved Esau (Gen. 25:28). Esau was a cunning hunter (25:27) and with his bow and quiver (27:3) —no rifle and scope — brought home the venison. He also knew how to cook that venison to delight a man (27:4). And Esau was an outdoorsman — a man of the field (25:27). He was hairy and his complexion red (25:25) —nothing smooth or dainty about him. No sissy perfume for Esau; he smelled of the field (27:27).

And he had a temper to match. When Jacob cheated him he cried with a great and exceeding bitter cry (27:54). He hotly plotted revenge (27:41). I understand his feelings. Furthermore, Esau did as he pleased. NO asking Momma who he should marry; he took a wife that pleased him (26:34) His judgement was poor; his independence delightful!

Yes sir! Esau was a mans man In fact, that was his fault. He was profane (Heb. 12:16) —coarse, fleshly minded. He never looked to the final result of anything. His actions were dictated by his momentary wish, need, or pleasure. Thus, when he was hungry he traded his whole birthright for a bowl of soup (25:29-f). I am ashamed.

On the other hand, Jacob is not too appealing at first meeting. He is crafty, scheming, unscrupulous, and dishonest. I can not bring myself to like a fellow who would haggle with his starving brother, deceive his old blind father, and cheat his brother while his back is turned. But one thing about him, he kept his eye on the end result and was patient in achieving his goals — how else could he work so long for his chosen wife?

But God succeeded in changing his goals. He began to look for a heavenly country. Read Heb. 11:9-16. With new goals, his character changed. He became so different God changed his name from Jacob (supplanter —27:36) to Israel (ruling with God— 32:28).

Now the point: The citizen of the kingdom of God is not supposed to be a mans man —a man of our liking. The gospel has power to transform the carnal man into man —if we let it work in us. Joe Fitch

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

Robert is back! — safe, sound, and tired. He has about 7 meetings before rest and home. Page 3 carries his first report.

I now willingly return the editor his shoes. They rub and pinch. Three fellows —named Jim, Dan, and Joe — now fully realize the work behind a PLAIN TALK article. And thanks to Jim and Dan who made the work lighter. JF

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VIII No.III Pg.3

May 1971

God Was Willing

Robert F. Turner

Claude Guild mailed a form letter to caution you about some planned activities for Australia. Robert F. Turner, Burnet, Texas is coming to Australia for 13 missions. Further, The elders at Rosemont (Ft. Worth church, rt) have requested that we warn the churches. My copy of this carnal sword has Claudes signature and a hand-written note: I hope you can stop the plans for Rocky for this man. It was sent to Rockhampton.

It didnt work. We had good meetings in all appointed places, many with record attendances. My notes, reasonably accurate, show 154 non- member visitors. There were 11 baptisms; and many home studies with results yet unknown. We traveled 6,100 miles or more within Australia, and had two one-hour radio interviews in which listeners participated.

We were in large cities: Sydney, with a population of 2,646,800; and Melbourne, 2,319,700. Industrial cities: Wollongong, 162,835; and Newcastle, 233,967. Cities with their own special flavor of sheep, cattle or mining: itie;[sic] Wagga Wagga, 25,939; and Rockhampton, 45,349; or Bundaberg, 25,404, with its sugar cane and Bundy Rum. There was the delightfully British town of Launceston, 60,453, in its Tasmanian island setting; Armidale, 14,990, with its University; Invereil, 9,800, and its bustling dam project; and Emerald 3,72O, typically western with cattle and mining.

Congregations number from 4 to 35 regular members, most of whom are new converts. In many cases the church began when a few courageous souls saw the errors of the Associated Church (Christian, or Disciples) and were forced out by their convictions. After questioning their history carefully, it became apparent that social activities on the part of the church, and the denominational Association of churches, were the real issues — NOT mechanical instruments of music. In more than one case faith only was the rankling error.

Liberal churches from America have nothing to offer these people. Greatest strides were made by earlier conservative minded preachers who, although supported by institutional U.S. churches, were soul—hungry, and sought to establish independent self- sufficient congregations. Band-wagon tactics of the Campaigns; Youth Rally with Our own version of Johnny Cash Ed and his guitar!; or a picture of an over-weight song leader in a ten-gallon hat, dubbed Hoss Cartwright of the church — these things sicken the serious- minded Christians in Australia as they do the same kind of saints in America.

Following the Claude Guild letter one Australian preacher wrote to me: There seems to be an ingredient that many overlook when they accuse men of being dividers... that ingredient is the intelligence and rationality of those who listen... I have come to similar conclusions as you on these things because I believe them to he the truth as Gods word teaches it. I have been coerced by none.

Hail , wonderful Australia ! And may it ever be so!! (Further Australian articles follow, dv. Robt. F. Turner

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VIII No.III Pg.4

May 1971

Given To Change

Jim R. Everett

Sometimes, when I come home, nothing is where it used to be. The furniture has been rearranged, my books and papers have been stacked neatly away somewhere, and everything is so orderly that I cant find anything. Margarets kinda that way —given to change — and you might even say that, at times, I am a companion to such change. And now that Spring cleaning time is here, I try to stay away from the house as much as possible.

Solomon said, My son, fear thou Jehovah and the king; and company not with them that are given to change: for their calamity shall rise suddenly; and the destruction from them both, who knoweth it? (Prov. 24:21- 22). But he is not condemning me when I reluctantly agree to change the furniture. Woe be it unto me, If I agree not!

The direct application of his proverb to our present time would be this: A Christian should not be a companion to a revolu- tionists. The proof of that conclusion is the context and the definition of its words.

The context of this proverb is a call for the student of wisdom ( my son) to fear Jehovah and the king. Keil translates it: My son, honour Jahve and the king, and involve not thyself with those who are otherwise disposed, (Keil and Delitzch, Proverbs, Vol. II, p.137). Quite obviously there was a need for this proverb because then, as now, there were some who had no respect for God or civil authority.

Companion here literally means to mix oneself up with, and is much more intensive than just friendship. To mix oneself up with is interpreted as to make common cause with one. The companion of one given to change, then, becomes a party to anothers goals and a sympathizer with his aspirations.

Those given to change are those who are disposed otherwise than to fear God and the king. They respect no authority and recognize no law that would restrain them. This particular class of men are dissidents, oppositionists, or revolutionists. Revolu- tionists do not lead peaceful lives nor do they normally die of old age — sudden calamity and destruction come upon them.

A Christian is to seek a peaceful and quiet life (1 Tim. 2:2). He cannot make common cause with a revolutionists because he is a subject of Gods law and is, therefore, to be obedient to civil law. Peter said, Be subject to every ordinance of man for the Lords sake, (1 Pet. 2: 13). Pauls revelation was no different: Let every soul be in subjection to the higher powers, (Rom. 13:1).

If you have a hankerin to be a revolutionist, if you want to turn the world upside-down, then try your hand at elevating mans values and ideals by turning him to Christ. You will meet all the opposition you could possibly want, but its a real challenge and its constructive too. Such change will naturally make a better world, but most important it will save souls from the calamity of eternal destruction.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VIII No.III Pg.5

May 1971

Good Heart-Keeping

Dan S. Shipley

In his popular little book Flesh And Spirit, William Barclay recounts an interesting history of the Greek word akatharsia. He reveals that when transferring ownership of a house in ancient Greece, the sales contract would often require the outgoing tenant to leave the house clean of all akatharsia (dirt). Later, in medical parlance, this same term was used to denote impure substances in sores and wounds. In the Septuagint, ritual and ceremonial impurities were referred to as akatharsia. Such uncleanness could cause one to he cut off from Jehovah (Jer. 22:5).

In the New Testament. akatharsia appears as uncleanness and is found in company with such words as fornication, lasciviousness and covetousness. Such uncleanness is listed as a work of the flesh (Gal. 5:19), to he repented of (2 Cor. 12:21), not to be named among saints (Eph. 5:5), and can keep one from heaven (Gal. 5:21; Eph. 5:5). Thayer defines akatharsia as the impurity of lustful, luxurious, profligate living. Considering all evidence, it becomes apparent that in this word is conveyed the idea of a general moral uncleanness such as to be avoided by the people of God.

From other New Testament teaching we learn that defiled lives are hut the products of defiled hearts. For out of the heart cometh forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, railings: these are the things which defile the man... (Matt. 15:19,20). As the seat of mans moral nature, the heart—house is to be kept clean from all akatharsia. Keep thy heart with all diligence for out of it are the issues of life (Prov. 4:23). Heeding the admonition to keep thyself pure begins with the heart — it requires good heart- keeping.

Mans heart—house has many doors through which uncleanness may enter and defile; such as those of seeing, hearing and thinking (note 1 Cor. 2:9). Leaving these doors open to all sorts of indiscriminate traffic degrades the heart to little more than a moral trash dump. Through the open eye —door is tracked in the smut of salacious literature, immodesty, and even the respectable pornography of television to defile the purest of hearts. Other pollution enters through the ear —door left open to obscene, vile, and evil language. In addition, there passes through the unguarded heart— door the re-runs of this seen and heard filth, plus such soil—soiling guests as lust, greed, hate, envy, and jealousy. No heart- house can host such company without flavoring ones conduct accordingly — a lesson that many have not yet learned. It is useless to think of attaining a clean heart without first controlling these sources of defilement.

Accordingly, good heart— keeping demands diligence; the continual exercise of will power and self-control . Satan and his polluting devices only need resisting (Jas. 4:7); with Gods help we endure (1 Cor. 10:15).

As man repents and obeys in faith, God cleanses the heart-house with His forgive- ness, thus making it fit for the King who seeks a dwelling place there (Eph. 3: 1 7).

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VIII No.III Pg.6

May 1971

Warning, From 1919

Robert F. Turner

My files contain a copy of the following article, Combines in the Church by C. M. Pullias, with this notation: The following article was first printed as a first page editorial in TIDINGS OF JOY, published in Nashville, Tennessee, July, 1919. So we are reprinting a reprint, which may account for one place where it seems a line is missing.

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

All combines in religion are dangerous because they violate a cardinal principle of the Bible. Just as much so as to put asunder what God has joined together. Men want to build something big, and therefore they combine a number of small things They fail to see the value of small things, hence they despise them, but (perhaps God uses little things) that the power of God might be manifest and might confound the mighty with the weak and the wise with the foolish, and the big things with the little things that God in all things might be glorified and that no flesh should glory in his presence.

But men would take this glory from God and bestow it upon themselves by combining the small things. For an instance, one would yoke a number of local congregations together to do a given work. This destroys congregational independence and sets up the very thing God sought to avoid in arranging nothing larger than a local congregation through which to work and worship. True enough, the church in one sense includes the saved in their intense aggregate, but God has tempered the body together as it has pleased him, and let us be satisfied with his work. An individual is responsible as far as he is able, so also is a congregation; but no farther. A combine is to get more power, but the work is of God and God does not need our help in any such way. God works in and through us to do his will, but only by his means and arrangements. Any other drives God from the work and makes it wholly of men.

The main principle violated by a missionary society is combining of all the congregations to do what God has assigned to one. There is no work that cannot be done by the power of God. Now unto him that is able to do exceedingly abundantly above all that we ask or think according to the power that worketh in us, unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. (Eph. 3:20,21) That which the church has not the power to do, then, should not be considered. Beside this we might say this way of a few getting together and saddling on the church of Christ orphan homes and schools or anything else is a very serious thing, and will in the course of time prove to be a curse to the church. An individual Christian or congregation might have a school or orphanage if it is able and so chooses, but to have one for the church at large is to bind what God has not bound, so whatever befalls one befalls every one. All such combines are wrong and in them the man of sin is working, just as in Pauls day; and in the course of time he will be revealed to the sorrow of the church. (2 Thes. 2:3-10)

To be concluded, next issue.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VIII No.III Pg.7

May 1971

Queries And Answers

Robert F. Turner

Dear Editor,

Does God answer the prayer of an unbaptized man? Doesnt the Bible say God will not hear the prayer of a sinner?

Reply:

The Bible does say, Now we know that God heareth not sinners (Jno. 9:31). Before reaching any conclusion several things should be observed:

(1) Who said this? John, by inspiration, records it, but the words belong to an uninspired man Jesus healed of blindness. John also records men saying Jesus was Josephs son (Jno. 6:42). Beware of conclusions based upon uninspired statements.

(2) The question in the passage is not the covenant right of prayer. All people in the passage were Jews and under covenant to God. All had the ordinary rights of prayer afforded by that covenant.

(3) If no sinner is heard, no man will be heard. All have sinned (Rom. 3:23) and all do sin (Jno. 1:8,10). Through prayer the sinning Christian receives his forgiveness from God (1 Jno. 1:9 2:1).

(4) This is evidently a conclusion the Jews accepted from reading, He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be abomination (Prov. 28:9). This principle governs any man praying to God. In any age —baptized or not —a man who refuses to hear God has no right to expect God to listen to him pray. Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer;... For they hated knowledge... .They would none of my counsel.... Read Prov. 1:22—33.

Now, will God hear a man before he has been baptized? (1) I do not know for sure. There is no guarantee he will. He does not violate his word if he chooses to hear and answer such a man; he is not committed by his word to answer.

(2) There seems to be two cases of God hearing an unbaptized mans praying. God tells Ananias that Saul is praying —and has seen a vision —while waiting to be told what God requires (Act. 9:11,12). At least, God did not ignore his prayer. Cornelius prayed to God and his prayer was heard (Act. 10:2-4; 30-31). Both circumstances are unusual; be slow to draw and apply general conclusions from them.

(3) For what is the unbaptized man praying? He may not ask for pardon, but his request for help in finding and receiving truth may be another matter (Mt. 5:6). I find no reason for refusing to pray such a prayer with unbaptized truth seekers.

Some things may he firmly established in this matter:

(1) A man who refuses to obey any part of the truth wastes his time in prayer. God surely will not hear.

(2) A Christian who seeks to live by the Bible has a sure audience with God and Jesus as his advocate.

(3) The truth seeker who wants to obey God should not be discouraged in praying. It is a good sign and God takes notice.

(4) The unbaptized man cannot sub- stitute prayer for faith and baptism. Even if God does hear his prayer. his soul must be purified by obeying the truth (1 Pet. 1:22).

(5) A man who is willing to obey — thus possibly be heard — will not long continue unbaptized. Joe Fitch

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VIII No.III Pg.8

April 1971

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

Hard times are marvelous times — after they are over. They provide such a rich source of material for back when stories. They also give us a feeling of superiority — In OUR day it took a real man to survive. So, the hard times stories survive, and grow, and grow.

There was this fellow who broke his arm getting breakfast. Go ahead and bite—. I did. How did he break his arm getting breakfast? He fell out of a persimmon tree. And when one man earned a little money and bought a piece of fat-back, that meat circulated through the neighborhood for two weeks. One family used it to cook beans, another to season turnips, and so on. Then some smart-aleck tried to use it in a blackberry pie, and just ruined it.

Status symbols are completely reversed when looking back to depression days. Instead of trying to prove our success and affluence, as in current times; most folk take pride in telling how poor they were. The bankers family shot jack-rabbits for food — but the rest of us had to run them down and catch them in our hands. I suppose it is good that we can laugh about what was once so very serious.

Humor is a sort of release for me, making my hurried up-tight life bearable, and helping me through my ulcer periods. I use it as breaks to rest the audience or reader when I want to drive in serious thoughts. Of course it is possible that my judgment is not always good. Some may think me irreverent at times —and that would really hurt me, for there is nothing light or frivolous about the purpose and intended end of my lifes work. I want to go to heaven, and to lead others there.

But innocent, clean humor can put life in its proper focus, and we can see ourselves for the blundering oafs we often are. Aye, here is the crux of the matter. If we can learn to laugh at ourselves, to see our own absurdities, and not be so pride - filled as to try and justify them, we have come a long way toward being objective. Pity the fellow who takes himself too seriously. There is little chance for self -improvement here.

It is the things of God we must take seriously, for God is no fool. We may act foolishly in our clumsy efforts to serve Him — and deserve even ridicule. (1 Kings. 18:27) But our God remains holy and reverend. RVF

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VIII No.IV Pg.1

June 1971

God Said - - Enough

Robert F. Turner

As the Israelites came into the promised land. God commanded, Take heed. . . that thou inquire not after their gods, saying, How do these nations serve their gods? that I also may do likewise. What thing soever I command you, that shall ye observe to do: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it. (Deut. l2:29-32 see footnote, A.S.V.

There were some things they did not need to know — were better off not knowing, if their curiosity was coupled with a desire to imitate. God had given them sufficient information concerning true worship — to look elsewhere was to deny His authority. And isnt this the Old Testament equivalent of Speak Where the Bible Speaks, Be Silent Where the Bible is Silent?

Paul wrote, that in us ye might learn not to go beyond the things which are written. (1 Cor. 4:6) And John wrote, whosoever goeth onward and abideth not in the teaching of Christ, hath not God; he that abideth in the teaching, the same hath both the Father and the Son. (2 Jn. 9)

One has not erased this principle by applying 2 Jn. 9 to a particular error concerning Christ; nor by citing cases where some have sought to bind or loose expedient methods of operation by misuse of the principle. Human organizations are not methods of either go teach or care: and one does not sing with a piano, one sings with ones voice. If we deny the validity of silent where God is silent we bury the first part (speak where God speaks) beneath the rubbish of human invention.

Habakkuk said. The Lord is in His holy temple; let all the earth keep silence before Him. (2:20) And we sing this sometime as though it meant be quiet in the church building. It says, in our vernacular, SHUT YOUR BIG MOUTH, AND LISTEN TO GOD.

If we would spend more time reading and studying Cods word. and learning to be content therewith. we just might learn that God has adequately provided for us, all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him that hath called us to glory and virtue.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VIII No.IV Pg.2

June 1971

Home And Gone Again

Robert F. Turner

For the past four months PLAIN TALK has been edited by Joe Fitch; and articles by Dan Shipley and Jim Everett have filled those pages vacated by my trip to Australia. I join with the readers who express appreciation for the great job done by all three, and gladly make public my invitation to these men to continue their work in PLAIN TALK. In the future articles other than my own will bear appropriate identification.

PLAIN TALK format is poorly suited to narrative reports concerning the work in Australia, so I will confine articles here to editorial type observations and illustrative material, and offer more detailed accounts to other publications. However, a few statistics are in order here, with special concern for those who may be planning such a trip.

Travel expenses totaled $1,577.59 and lodging, food, etc., within Australia totaled $318.22. (I should warn you that I am the economy type, and some preparation expenses are not yet in.) I received $460.97 from the Australians, and the remainder of my support from Oaks—West church, and unsolicited gifts. All U.S. donors have been sent a full financial report, and $72.41 returned to travel fund donors.

Im thankful to God for a safe trip, and of course, the most interesting preaching experience of my life. This is true, not for any particular event (although the baptisms in Melbourne and Tasmania were truly memorable) but for the utter littleness I felt when the Australian — and the WORLD — picture began to sink in. It is such a BIG world, when viewed as people, in need of the gospel; yet so accessible with our modern means of transportation. Twenty-two hours from San Antonio, Texas there is a big, new world, with English-speaking people, many of whom will listen to the gospel story.

Capable, experienced men could, in the next five years, reshape the history of the cause of Christ there — NOT "Americanize it, but assist the sound conservative brethren there to stand firmly against liberal influences that are being heaped upon them and to build Australian churches that accept Christ as their Head. Our excuses shrink, and our obligations grow — and who will answer?

Two days at Rocky Roost, and now Vivian and I are in Tucson, Ariz. for the fourth of five western meetings. Next to Lubbock, Tex., then to Nashville, Term., Decatur, Ga., Birmingham, Ala., and so, on and on.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VIII No.IV Pg.3

June 1971

Abuse Vs. Principle

Robert F. Turner

Have you noticed that when we discuss the Missionary Society, an abuse of government is usually the error cited? After 135 years of controversy (including the past 25 years rehash) many brethren who wouldnt touch a missionary society with a ten-foot (O.K., feet) pole; still do not know the basic error involved.

Forty to fifty years after the A. C.M.S. had been formed, its divisive fruits clearly seen, its abuses exposed — the arguments of church of Christ vs. Christian church settled on instrumental music and the control which the society supposedly exercised over the churches. (The control was real enough, but usually took the form of influence or advice which churches accepted because of the supposed benefits of cooperative action. A restructured church with congregations organically bound together, is a recent development in the Christian church.) Perhaps it was easier to point out abuses than to analyze the error of churches acting collectively —but, for whatever reason, our generation was given but a superficial knowledge of what is wrong with the missionary society.

If a missionary society (or any other board of directors, sponsoring church or arrangement) serves as a media through which a plurality of churches act as one, it is the fact that churches so act which is contrary to New Testament teaching. In order for a plurality of churches to act collectively (as a team) there must be some means of coordination, some means of reaching a common mind, by which team activity is possible.

A dictatorship (one-man rule by some means of coercion) intensifies the error, making it more obvious and vulnerable to criticism; but the N.T. principle of indep- endent, self-governed churches, operating within their several ability, is violated when the common mind is reached by chosen representatives. Nor is the basic error corrected if the common mind is reached by a one man, one vote process, where action is taken only on unanimous decisions.

Can we not see that changing the form of government by which a project is executed collectively, does not remove the fact that churches are acting collectively? Have we become so wedded to the rhetoric concerning the abuses of the missionary society, or the sponsoring church, that we would readily accept the error if we could devise a better modus operandi? Must we spend our energies debating Dictatorship, Republic, or Democracy; While Gods plan for independent, self-governed churches suffers?

And if this pushes some to question strict independence, and to look for some form of collective action on the part of N.T. churches — in Paul, and Company or the Messengers Fund for Needy Saints — consider carefully your course. Does Gods word then really teach congregational independence? How far would you allow (as if that mattered) inter-congregational funds and administration to progress, on the basis you now advocate, before you cry. Halt!? And would not your argument then be right back where we began — crying Abuse! rather than scriptural principle??

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.VIII No.IV Pg.4

June 1971

Idolizing God

Dan S. Shipley

Bible students soon learn that idolatry is not confined to graven images and pagan people. MacKnight shows why this is so in commenting on 1 Cor. 8:4 The Greek word eidolon, translated idol, signifies an image formed in the mind and which exists nowhere else. (Apostolical Epistles) Of all the idols formed by the inventive imaginations of men, none are more popular or dangerous than those existing as perverted concepts of the true God. Many religionists pay lip service to the one God and Father of all of Eph. 3:16, but imagine Him to be a kind of God that does not exist. As the idolatrous Gentiles of Rom. 1, they exchange the glory of the incorruptible God — whether for graven or mental images is academic. Because the true God is immutable (Ps. 102:27; Jas. 1:17), He is what He has always been, eternally consistent with His true nature as revealed in His word. Therefore, any imagined god that differs from this God is false and nonexistent.

For instance, there are those who conceive of a fiendish sort of a god that sanctions suffering, poverty, wars and other calamities that befall men. Even among his professed friends this god is pictured as one who sometimes robs parents of infant children or otherwise brings tragedies to our loved ones. This is not the God of the Bible! It is contrary to His very nature. Because God will not directly intervene to counteract the free moral agency of man or His own eternal laws (called laws of nature), He is foolishly charged with much evil. God will not force parents to keep their children from playing on busy streets any more than He will keep a man from getting drunk. Why then, is God blamed when the drunk runs down the child in the street? God is love; He is a good, righteous and merciful Father (1 Jn. 4:16; Ps. 145:7-9). It is impossible for Him to do anything that is wrong or contrary to His nature. To picture Him otherwise is to see but an idol; a false god.

Others hold to a distorted image of God as one approving all kinds of religion as practiced by men. To them and their imagined god. Bible truth is not only relative, it is subordinate to such things as honesty, sincerity, and feelings; faith is purely subjective; right is right as men see it. Serving such a god makes for an easy and comfortable religion — just enough to satisfy the demands of a weak conscience in a carnal mind. But this god too, is as false as Baal. The God who cannot lie teaches that He is honored and served only in the doing of His will (Matt. 7:21). Man only chooses whether, not how he will serve God. Nothing is more worthy of mans confidence and acceptance than the words of his Creator! — even He who is able to save and destroy. What can any man trust more than what He says?

So, in these and many other ways, God is idolized by professed believers, even if unwittingly. True faith in the true God and salvation itself is made dependent on knowing His word (Rom. 10:17; Jn. 8:32). Imagined gods may give a false and temporary sense of security, but they make poor partners for facing death and eternity.