Plain Talk

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IX No.VIII Pg.4

October 1972

Had We Been There - -

Robert F. Turner

If Jesus had had the spirit of some of us, his work may never have gotten off the ground. When multitudes began to press about in popular acclaim, his friends (literally, those with him or his relations Marshall) sought to restrain him saying, He is beside himself. (Mk. 3:21) With an air of mockery they later chided him for his quiet works, and said, If thou do these things, show thyself to the world. (Jn. 7:3-5) For neither did his brethren believe on him. Do you resolutely continue your work for the Lord even though your family discourages and ridicules you?

Suppose John the immerser who started it all had refused to step down? (Jn. 3:25-f) He began this movement and Jesus was but one of many he had baptized. His disciples seemed a bit puzzled that all men would go to Jesus, and John could have made a few choice remarks about Johnny-come-lately. The makings of a leadership feud are here. How would you or I handle this situation?

The disciples could have been jealous of John (Bar-Zebedee) whom Jesus loved (Jn. 21:20-f). They evidently recognized this special affection, and Peter singled him out by a question concerning his future. He was one of those brothers who had come to the Lord asking a favored place in the kingdom (Matt. 20:20-f), and feelings ran high at the time.

And John, in turn, could have blown his top when Peter was named to handle the keys. (Matt. 16:18-f) On that very occasion Jesus had to correct Peter, and called him Satan. Later John had a good case of Peter disqualified because of the denial—not to mention the cursing and swearing. (Matt. 26:69-f) If you were the favored John how would you have used this juicy ammunition?

Perhaps todays Paul and Barnabas would break up for life because of their contention over Mark. (Acts 15:37-41) Paul could say Barnabas loved kinship more than the Lord: and Barnabas could say Paul was unforgiving, and would not preach if he could not have his own way. Each would cultivate a sphere of influence antagonistic to the other, and both would bend the ears of the brotherhood as they sought to justify themselves. Can you differ in judgement, go your separate way, and soon afterwards write of Barnabas as a fellow-worker (1 Cor. 9:6), or commend Mark, over whom your judgements differed? (Col. 4:10) Do you feel sorry for Mark?

How could Peter ever forgive Paul who withstood him to the face? How pride must have suffered under these circumstances! (Gal. 2:11-f) Surely the church in Antioch must have had a split after this (had they been as we are) for two spiritual GIANTS differed publicly, and Jews and Gentiles in Antioch were a natural for party affiliation over this issue.

When one views the various situations of the first century in the light of the way we handle such today, it is remarkable indeed that the cause of Christ ever got started. Or is it possible that love for God and brethren can conquer such problems history awaits your answer and mine.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IX No.VIII Pg.5

October 1972

Ten Commandments

Robert F. Turner

Can you name the ten commandments? In proper order? With some understanding of their significance? Or have you relied upon the stock reply: "We are under the New Covenant," to excuse your ignorance. Many say, "They are all in the New Testament except the 7th Day Jewish Sabbath," and yet have made no serious effort to find and apply these NT regulations.

We are under the system of Faith, rather than any system of Law; but respect for God and Divine authority is not outmoded. The principles of respect for God and man (MAT.22:35f) are very much needed today, and better understanding of the code given Israel, through Moses, is a very good beginning for every one. (GAL.3:24-f)

All ten commandments focus attention upon God, the author of eternal morals; with the first four directly related to God. THE ONE GOD -- "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." THE SPIRIT NATURE OF GOD -- "Thou shalt not make unto thee (to worship) any graven image." TO HOLINESS OF GOD -- (allowing no secular consideration) "Thou" shalt not take the name of God in vain." GOD IN HIS SAVING CAPACITY -- "Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy."

God "set His hand" to redeem Israel from Egyptian bondage (EXO.15:) and gave them a "sign" for a constant reminder "throughout your generations". (EXO.31:12-17; DEU.5:2,3,15). Isaiah promised (ll:10-f) that God would set His hand "the second time" in offering Jesus Christ (the root of Jesse) for the salvation of "the nations" as well as for the remnant of Israel. Our "rest" is neither a single day nor Canaan, but Heaven. (HEB.4:1-11) The next five commandments focus attention upon man's relationship with man, but we should remember that these are more than social morals. They are "as to the Lord" -- a principle more fully developed in the NT. (see COL.3:17-25) The first of this group demands RESPECT FOR THE CENTER OF LIFE, THE HOME -- "Honor thy father and mother". Then LIFE ITSELF -- "Thou shalt not kill". THE SANCTITY OF THE: MARRIAGE RELATIONSHIP -- "Thou shalt not commit adultery". RESPECT FOR PROPERTY -- "Thou shalt not steal". RESPECT FOR NAME AND HONOR -- "Thou shalt not bear false witness".

Then the last commandment is something like a preview of the deeper meaning Christ would one day place upon all of God's laws. It looks inwardly, calling upon man to RESPECT HIMSELF: -- "Thou shalt not covet". One may covet his neighbor's wife, yet never make a perverse move, one may covet his neighbor's property, and never steal a single object. Covetousness is intense desire, a longing for more, a feeling within, that will affect many facets off life. The covetous man sets up idols in his heart (COL.3:5) and thus sins against himself, his fellow-man, and God.

The ten commandments as given in Exodus 20:1-17, DEU.5:1-21, etc., are clearly the central fiber of a covenant which God made with Israel in a dispensation now past. But they are stamped in principle throughout the New Testament, and are sorely needed in this generation.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IX No.VIII Pg.6

October 1972

Preparing To Preach

Robert F. Turner

I have recently read Alexander Campbell by Benjamin Lyon Smith; The Bethany Press, St. Louis, Mo., 1930. If one wonders why there are so few Campbells in our day, the following quotes may explain. First, Campbells conception of the necessary qualifications of a minister, written in his journal while yet a student at Glasgow, Scotland. (Age, 20-21 years.)

1. The preacher must be a man of piety, and one who has the instruction and salvation of mankind sincerely at heart.

2. A man of modest and simple manners, and in his public performance and general behavior must conduct himself so as to make his people sensible that he has their temporal and eternal welfare more at heart than anything else.

3. He must be well instructed in morality and religion, and in the original tongues in which the Scriptures are written, for without them he can hardly be qualified to explain Scripture or to teach religion and morality.

4. He must be a proficient in his own language to be able to express every doctrine and precept with the utmost simplicity, and without anything in his diction either finical on the one hand, or vulgar on the other.

5. A sermon should be composed with regularity and unity of design, so that all its parts may have a mutual and natural connection, and it should not consist of many heads, neither should it be very long. 6. A sermon ought to be pronounced with gravity, modesty and meekness, and so as to be distinctly heard by all the audience.

7. Let the preacher, therefore, accustom himself to articulate slowly and deliver the words with a distinct voice, and without artificial attitudes or motions or any other affection.

In 1810, being 22 years old, young Campbell arranged the following STUDY plan for himself,

One hour to read Greek-- from 8 to 9 in the morning.

One hour to read Latin-- from 11 to 12 in the morning.

One-half hour to Hebrew -- between 12 and 1 p. m.

Commit ten verses of the Scripture to memory each day, and read the same in the original languages with Henry and Scotts notes and practical observations. For this exercise I shall allow two hours. These exercises being intended for every day, will not be dispensed with. Other reading and studies as occasion may serve. These studies in all require four and a half hours. Church history and divers other studies are intended to constitute the principle part of my literary pursuits.

(Anyone for preaching??)

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IX No.VIII Pg.7

October 1972

?You Know What?

Robert F. Turner

Bro. Turner:

 

We enclose a tract containing arguments on "the name" for scriptural baptism. Please comment.

Reply:

The tract (author unnamed) indicates several erroneous concepts, beginning with the superstitious idea that certain sounds -- "magic" words-are essential to valid baptism. If the passages cited are giving the one valid "formula for baptism" why does the wording differ from place to placer. If the differences are just alternate ways of saying the same thing, and all are saying what was commanded in MAT.28:19, then why can we not say, "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" as stated by Jesus?

Nine passages are cited to "prove" a single formula for baptism: ACT.2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5, 22:16; ROM.6:3; 1CO.6:11; GAL.3:27; and COL.2:12. As an unprejudiced reading will show, there is no uniformity here, as respects a "formula"; and the verbal expression of a proper "name" is not even under consideration.

In ACT.2:21 Peter quotes Joel as saying, "whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved". Although invoking the Lord (22:16) is not ruled out, the promise is of the Messiah -- Redeemer for those who depend upon, put their trust in, Him. He manifested God, showed God's love, died for us, and is our LIFE. Call upon Him has no specific reference to verbally saying "Jesus", but refers to faith and trust in Him, indicated by submissive obedience to His will.

Calling upon the Lord extends to the whole of our dependence upon Him in the Christian life. "In the name of Jesus Christ" meant letting Him tell what to do, submitting to His authority, trusting His power. Many "say the right name" without "calling on the Lord". (ACT.19:13-16)

Baptism depicts burial and resurrection, and by it we are "buried with Him" ("co-buried" Marshall) as stated in COL.2:12. Baptized into Jesus Christ (ROM.6:; GAL.3:) refers to our relationship with God through Christ. Jesus died for our sins, and only through forgiveness found "in Him" can we have fellowship with God. (lJO.1:2:1-2) All spiritual blessings are thus "in Christ" (EPH.1:3); and I fear there is scant hope for one who confuses these profound yet fundamental truths with the words pronounced at the time of baptism.

Giving a cup of water "in my name" is explained by Christ as meaning "because ye belong to Christ" (MAR.9:41) i.e., to encourage and promote the cause of Christ. We are to do all things "in the name of the Lord Jesus" (COL.3:17-f) -- in the light of and in harmony with His will. It is appropriate to acknowledge Him by "name"-but the doing is here commanded.

Finally, some urge prayer and baptismal "words" through simple misunderstanding -- failure to think the matter through. But this writer fails to accept God's word concerning Father, Son, and Holy Spirit -- triune functions of Deity. I accept revelation without understanding the nature of God. Apparently he does not.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IX No.VIII Pg.8

October 1972

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

Im in Monroe county Kentucky, and the soil of these hills is blended with the dust of my ancestors. Having lived in other states most of my life, Kentucky holds an old world fascination for me, and the ancient living like to tell me stories of my people.

Once a wrinkled great-grandmother, with a twinkle in her eye, told how one of my uncles left his horse tied at the church building so he could walk a young lady home. He then had to walk the several miles back to the horse—to ride the same trail home.

He could have led the horse and let the lady ride, I suggested; with my mind on long walks and tired feet.

We could have taken turns leading the horse, while we both walked, responded the young-at-heart; with her mind on the moonlit long ago.

There is no limit, it seems, to what a man will do for love. Like one cousin—second, or twice-removed, I can never remember the difference—whose father was a mortician. He just had to have that girl; they had no money; so—he loaded a casket into the flower wagon and they headed for Nashville. There he sold the casket (to the original manufacturer) and. they continued their honey-moon in the flower wagon. By the time the casket money ran out the parents were reconciled to the idea, and brought them home from Texas. Which proves that flower children and love can conquer death and Taxes.

And then, there is love for truth. A few miles from here is Old Mulkey Meeting House. It is now a State Park, and tourist come to see this example of a pioneer church building, and the burial place of Hannah, Daniel Boones sister. But students of Restoration church history see it in a different light. Here John Mulkey preached New Testament truth and refuted creed-bound traditions of the party. When the inevitable split came, he asked those who would stand on the Bible alone to move to one side of the twelve-cornered log house while others took the other side. In this case the majority desired truth, a remarkable tribute to the teacher: and Old Mulkey became the first reformed church in this section.

Feelings run deeply here: faith in God, country, and mans stubborn will. Our nation, our souls, may well depend on such a do-or-die spirit.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IX No.IX Pg.1

November 1972

Great Swelling Words

Robert F. Turner

One time I was in a meeting where the local preacher either thought very highly of my work, or had read too many Win Friends And Influence People books. (I like to think it was the former.) For several nights he spent much time praising me, until I asked him to cease and desist, saying, I just cant stand praise.

The next night he made a few reserved remarks, explaining, Brother Turner tells me "he has an intense dislike for praise. That was not so! He had misunderstood me because he was an outlander, and did not know the American translation of my Kentucky speech. I had said, being interpreted, My system cant take it. It swells my head, I get to believing it, and then make a mess out of my sermon, I cant stand it.

After having a heat-stroke a fellow cant stand much sun. A person with a diabetic condition (sugar-diabetes, for those of that faith) cant stand molasses. (Poor soul!) Lots of folk cant stand prosperity- they let it make a fool out of them—or show them up for the fool they had kept hidden— but this doesnt mean they dislike prosperity. Oh no! Just about everyone likes praise, although some may have learned from bitter experience to distrust it and become a bit wary when it is poured on thickly. And, genuine encouragement, expressions of confidence, etc. help to build ones self-respect and self-confidence, without which we may fail to measure up to our potential. Because we need some of this, and enjoy getting more than we need, praise becomes a commodity that must be accepted with a great deal of control. (Weight-watcher, do not look on pie!)

Some Australians call Americans great palaverers!-- and they dislike this trait. I agree with them. I think we could do with a lot less back-slapping, syrup-pouring, compliment-as-a-policy talking, and get our words of encouragement into a better yea and nay frame, Of course, not everyone has a tender head like mine.

The preacher was real thoughty. He said he understood what I meant now, and would do better in the future.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IX No.IX Pg.2

November. 1972

Co-Ordinating Churches

Robert F. Turner

The development of organic ties among churches—even while they continue to say they are independent —is historic fact. It may be observed in the history of various denominations (Church of God, Baptist, etc.) and it is equally apparent in our own history. Our history is documented (Search For Ancient Order by Earl West; Disciples in Kentucky by A. W. Fortune; and other like books) and is available for study. It is not lack of information, or the ability to perceive what is taking place in our generation that blinds preachers and teachers. It is the unwillingness to see. Pride and jobs are at stake

Sponsoring churches, Executive Boards, and other media by which a plurality of churches function as one in benevolence and evangelism have caused brethren to think of Churches of Christ as a functional organic body which must, somehow, be coordinated and harnessed for work. This is the essential element in the organic concept of every denomination that has ever been formed.

A Vancouver, Wash., church offers SERVICE FOR THE WHOLE BROTHERHOOD, Their literature says, Whenever some member moves to another community... send the moving members name, new address, and date of moving to a SINGLE CO-ORDINATING CONGREGATION, which congregation will serve the whole nation. This congregation will then immediately send this same information to a relay congregation... etc. Relay stations have been established in many of the states, therefore the program is effective immediately. (Do you suppose the so-called Anti churches should prepare for a great flow of these addresses? Hmmmmm!)

The San Jose church, Jacksonville, Fla., has taken the oversight of the Evangelism/73 project to inform and motivate our brethren. The advisory committee consists of men from Texas, Florida, Arkansas, Georgia, Tennessee, California and Oklahoma; a nice little local church arrangement. Their NEWSLETTER (No. 1) says this is the response of churches of Christ to the opportunities that will be available as a result of Key 73, an inter-denominational activity. IN THE MILL of future plans are Area meetings of church leaders in many cities to discuss cooperative plans for evangelism in 1973. (NEWSLETTER No. 5)

Now I suppose someone will ask why I oppose evangelism or keeping up with brethren who move—and will ignore everything I have said about the trend toward national or universal churchhood organization. Someday they may wonder how this happened.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IX No.IX Pg.3

November 1972

Simon Says

Jim R. Everett

When I was a boy, we played a game called, Simon Says. One person was selected who had the authority to direct the game, but what he said was to be obeyed only if he said, Simon says. It didnt matter what Simon said —- Play dead, roll in the grass or kiss a girl (yuk!) — if you were going to play the game you had to do it. Therefore, one could be put out of the game by failing to do what Simon said, or by acting when Simon hadnt said to do it.

Simon (Peter) says to people who believe in Jesus and want to be saved from their sin: Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins... (Acts 2:38). In the game, pretend-Simon might have said: Take two steps forward for a soda water. Every child playing the game would have obeyed that command carefully —you see, soda waters were precious.

While every little boy and girl would know exactly what for meant, some claim today that for doesnt mean for and refuse to do what Simon says that they might be saved. Jesus said, For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for (eis,) same Greek word as in Acts 2:38, —JRE) the remission of sins, (Mt. 26:28). And we understand that his blood had to be shed in order that sins be forgiven.

Years later Simon wrote to the elect scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, etc., and said: The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us... (1 Pet. 3:21). Aha, says someone, Baptism is only a FIGURE. Indeed it is, but Simon says it is a figure of NOAHS salvation by water —as Noah was saved by water, we are saved by baptism. Dont presume that Simon said that baptism was a figure of OUR salvation.

Simon explains the scriptural baptism that saves by saying, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh (i.e., not washing the body, JRE), but the answer (interrogation or appeal) of a good conscience toward God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, (1 Pet. 3:21). Baptism that saves is that which Simon said was for the remission of sins.

One lady said that Simon could not have been teaching that baptism saves (even though thats what he said), because Peter knew that men were saved by the grace of God. But, that is exactly what Simon said; hence, the baptism of which he speaks must be in complete harmony with Gods grace.

In the game, Simon Says, the difficulty was not in understanding what Simon said, but rather in willingness, at times, to condescend to the commands of the leader. Simon says that we must repent and be baptized for the remission of sins and some pretend that it is too hard to understand. But I suspect that it may be too costly for them to obey.

Do not think, however, that Simon originated such teaching. JESUS commanded Simon and other apostles to go and preach the gospel to every creature, He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved... (Mk. 16:16).

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IX No.IX Pg.4

November 1972

Learning From Figures

Robert F. Turner

The relation of the disciples of Christ to their Saviour is pictured for us (Jn. 15:l-8) in terms of HORTICULTURE. Christ said, I am the vine, ye are the branches. The function being emphasized in this figure is that of fruit-bearing—As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. In this same passage we see the theme or principle of the lesson is our dependence upon Christ for life and usefulness, Now, outline it like this:

CATEGORY HORTICULTURE

UNIT The Branch

CHRIST The Vine

FUNCTION To Bear Fruit

THEME Dependence on Ch.

ENTRANCE (Grafted- Rom. 11)

EXIT Cut Off

Many figures are used in the New Testament to describe the relationship of saints and Christ, and not all of these points will be found in every case, nor in one passage. Never force a figure to fit the outline.

Get your Bible, concordance, paper and pencil and try your hand at this study. You will be amazed at what it can teach you. We will abbreviate the headings and give further examples:

C. KINGDOM BUILDING FAMILY

U. Citizen Stone, etc. Child

C. King Foundation Eld. Bro.

F. Submission Holy Temple Godliness

T. Authority Gods Dwell. God-like E. Translated Built Born

X. Cast Out Firey Trial Cursed

(There will be variations. Jn. 3:5 has one born to enter the kingdom and Gal. 4:5 has some adopted into the family; but these conform to the demands of the figure. I went to 2 Pet, 2:l4 for cursed children, but you may go to Jn. 8:37-47 or Matt. 5:45 to show that the child relationship is dependent upon continued conduct. Other CATEGORIES are Vineyard, Army, Body, Race, etc. Include Scripture citations in your outline.)

There are some characteristics common to all such figures, and here one begins to reap great rewards for his study and effort. For example: the unit of each figure is always, the individual Christian, never a group, church, or denomination. The chief position in each figure is always given to Christ. Not one figure teaches a permanent relationship, or fixed and unchangeable status. The sheep can be lost, the building material burned, the branch cut off. We wonder how any Bible student can fail to see that the unfaithful will be rejected in the day of judgment.

And all these figures refer to ONE and the SAME RELATIONSHIP. There is no difference in being built into building, grafted on to the vine, born into the family, hired to work in the vineyard, or translated in the kingdom. In each case a figure is being used to emphasize some particular point about the saints relationship with God through Christ, and the language used is dictated by the figure. (A stone isnt born in a house.)

Finally, figurative language does not make truth less important. Divine truth is thus impressed upon us.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IX No.IX Pg.5

November 1972

Mother's Going Out

Robert F. Turner

A woman writes, "I would like for you to write an article on TIT.2:3-5. A woman in the Lord is answerable to God for what she does in His Kingdom, or what she fails to do. Our fast society, and women in the world, have lulled us to sleep about our real responsibilities in this life, for God, and our families". And that is not nearly all she had to say about it. Shades of "women's Lib".

From "Love, Marriage -- And Crime", by Lester Velie; Reader's Digest, Aug. 1972: "there is an ever rising tide of children who are growing up without both parents. By 1970 the number had risen to 7.6 million under 18 - double that of a decade ago. Among black children, fully 40 % don't know what it is to have a home with both parents in it. Potentially, each of these millions of broken home children is a source of trouble to himself and to us. In the first six years of his life a child's development is influenced primarily by his parents -- or by a lack of them...."

"Cornell University researchers have found that children from homes in which one or both parents are frequently absent are "pessimistic about the future, rate lower in responsibility and leadership, and are more likely to engage in anti-social behavior". Note that this deals with "frequently absent" parents, NOT just divorced parents. Read on, you mothers who take jobs outside the home!!

From "When Should Your Child Go To School?" by Raymond and Dennis Moore; Reader's Digest, Oct. '72: "A wealth of research has established that a child's primary needs in these formative years are for an environment free of tasks that will overtax his brain, and for a setting that provides warmth, continuity and security". John Bowlby, a world authority on the subject of maternal deprivation, points out that in the Western world early-childhood problems commonly result from 'too little mothering, or mothering coming from a succession of different people' ".

"Throughout the experimental work in this area there is considerable evidence that early schooling and parental deprivation together are prime contributors to childhood maladjustment, motivational loss, poor retention, deterioration of attitudes and a wide variety of other physical and behavioral problems". Incidentally, Dr. Bowlby also insists, "children thrive better in bad homes than in good institutions".

Now mothers, I have given you some of the latest scientific findings on what you may be doing to your children by unnecessarily "working out". Is that color T.V., dress, or fancy living-room suite really worth it?? Do you suppose God knew what was best long before the above was written??

"That aged women likewise be reverent in demeanor, not slanderers nor enslaved to much wine, teachers of that which is good; that they may train the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be sober-minded, chaste, workers at home, kind, being in subjection to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed." TIT.6 2:3-5.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IX No.IX Pg.6

November 1972

Not Called A Society

Robert F. Turner

The American Christian Missionary Society was formed in 1849, and became a dividing wedge between brethren, and the pattern for an organic skeleton upon which the digressive element in the church built a full-fledged denominational body.

Missionary Society became almost a curse word among non-instrumental Church of Christ preachers; but the later generations have condemned the label, and outstanding abuses associated with it, with but a poor grasp of the principle error involved. The A.C.M.S., and what followed it, are but the fruit of a churchhood concept, that seeks ways and means for a plurality of churches to work as one.

In this quote we let A.W. Fortune, in his book The Disciples in Kentucky, 1932; tell us how the society idea developed in Kentucky. Remember, Fortune approved the society.

The general organization of the Disciples in Kentucky developed naturally as there was need. At first there was a simple cooperation in which all churches were invited to have fellowship to support Smith and Rogers as evangelists. Then the churches north of the Kentucky River formed an association to support these men in their evangelistic work. Then the churches south of the Kentucky River formed an association to promote the cause of evangelism in that territory, The churches of the four counties: Fayette, Woodford, Jessainine, and Scott, then agreed to cooperate in keeping four evangelists of the churches of other districts. Finally the churches of counties parts of counties were organized for evangelistic work, either in that territory or in more needy sections.

While the tendency was for the territorial unit for the cooperative of churches to become smaller, there was a growing feeling that there should be some organization in the state binding together all the churches. According to the Ecclesiastic Reformer the first Kentucky State meeting was held at Harrodsburg in May, 1840. Forty-seven counties and one hundred and thirty-three churches reported to this meeting. There were thirty-four evangelists in attendance.

* * * * *

While there was much preaching during these ten days which resulted in forty additions to the Harrods Church, the purpose of the meet was to plan for united action in the work of the state. A committee of five persons was appointed to select two evangelists for the state with discretionary power to send them out. The committee reported their selection of John Rodgers and J. J. Moss. Steps were taken to secure the cooperation of the churches for the support of these men.

According to the report of the meeting it was brought to a tranquil, pleasing and successful issue. The churches that reported to meeting showed a strength of about 10,000 members, which was believed to be about one-third of the member of the state. Although this was not called a state missionary society, it virtually was that. (Pp. 205-207)

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IX No.IX Pg.7

November 1972

?You Know What?

Robert F. Turner

Bro. Turner:

 

What scripture teaches that the church should have a general treasury in the local church? Be specific.

Reply:

From experience with others who have asked this, and presented their views, I assume that by "general" the querist means one from which the various expenses of local church work and worship are met - as opposed to a treasury gathered for some single specified purpose. I know of no passage that stipulates such a "general" treasury; nor of any that stipulate a specific treasury for providing a place of assembly, communion service, Bibles, support of bishops, advertisement for a meeting, or support of a preacher -- all "church" work.

But the Scriptures clearly teach that the local church is authorized to support a gospel preacher (PHI.4:15, the "church" communicated with Paul, and here the saints are not considered distributively, for the verb is singular, referring to these brethren as a unit), and other verses confirm such, as a work of the church. (2CO.11:8; 1CO.9:1-14) There is a necessary inference in PHI.4:15 that the "church" had a source, a fund common to the unit; and so with each "church" of the "churches" that sent to Paul, (2CO.11:8)

Now are we to assume that in each of these cases a specific exclusive treasury had to be provided -- the sole ground being that a specific purpose is named in 1CO.16:1-3? This would necessitate a separate gathering, and treasury, for every separate function which the local church performs via a medium of exchange. Will those who make such a fuss about the "general treasury" go to this length?

No, they are going the other way. They are denying that saints should function as an "organized entity". A very few have contended that church buildings should be sold, and saints cease to function as a team. Most will reject this extreme, and be content to simply cut back on activities that require prolonged united effort, or very much money. They like the "church at large" idea, where there are few obligations; or small non-aggressive churches, where the extent of their obligation is to "chip in" now and then for grape juice, or a few utilities.

There has been much misunderstanding of "contribution" and "treasury," and much abuse of these. Some regard the act of giving as an act of worship "per se" -- almost as if they brought some "offering" before the sacred altar of Judaism. In Christ we present ourselves "a living sacrifice" after which we use ourselves and our substance in His service. But abuses do not justify denial of principles.

1CO.16:1-3 (even as a specific example) shows the "church" at work. And practically every function God has given saints to do collectively necessitates a means of support. The "general treasury" is an expedient, and 1CO.16:1-3 an example of how one (and why not all other) works of the church may be supplied. Can anyone name another, more scriptural way? Let us be busy in the Lord's works.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IX No.IX Pg.8

November 1972

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

There was this candidate who went all out in his campaign promises. He assured the people, upon his untarnished record of honesty, that if elected he would lower taxes (Oh yes) and see to it that every man and woman had a job. He lost the election by an overwhelming lack of votes. No one wanted to go to work.

One local politician had a hard time getting people to promise their support. But he stayed at it, and received 464 votes to win the chief seat in the synagogue. The next day more than 1,000 people came to congratulate him, and say they had voted for him— and would he please—

But not all politicians can win, and when they lose they have to find a face-saving explanation. One loser blamed deep-south prejudice, saying he was going to have to leave the county because of his beliefs. It turned out he got to believing that he owned all the hogs that roamed the woods without a mark on them.

And now a news report on the anniversary of some Council of Churches quotes a dignitary as saying there is politics in the operation of all churches, that his organization has helped to make this understood, and make members unashamed of it, so that now church politics can freely take its course and accomplish good (?). Since all church activities involve social relations, I assume he was excusing party schemes or tactics.

Sounds like situation ethics to me. Like This is the way we are going to do it anyhow, so lets rid ourselves of the guilt complex and get on with the job. What job? Serving ourselves, or serving God? Meeting temporal needs, or eternal needs? Men who argue the end justifies the means, have lost faith in God and His ways. They can not lift us upward.

All the petty tricks, vote manipulations, name callings, etc., of dirty politics may be found in churches— for churches consist of imperfect people. But Gods standard is perfect, and God condones only perfect motives, and sincere efforts to measure up to His standard. This is precisely the difference in a church that maintains a divine status, and one that degenerates into a mere social institution.

The church, or country, that quits TRYING to be better, is surely lost.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IX No.X Pg.1

December 1972

Getting By With It

Robert F. Turner

He got by with it! That colloquial expression means someone is unaware that he was caught. He thinks he got by with it, but this is never true. The one who makes the statement knows better, and has already changed his opinion of the one who tried to get by with it. There is very little we really get by with—even in this life.

I believe mans capacity for greatness is a divine endowment (we are made in His image) but we are molding our individual character day by day, by our response to the experiences of life—drawing closer, or pulling further away, from what our Maker would have us be. And make no mistake about it, we ARE what we ARE, not what we like to kid ourselves into thinking we are.

When a man gives in to temptation, no matter how well the matter is concealed from others, his own make-up is affected. A thousand victims have a thousand shoulders upon which to bear their burden, but the man who tries to get by with it must take the total wrong upon himself. He is guilty before God, and even if he cares little for that, he has whittled a bit more from the stature of the man he could have been.

This amoral, god-less generation tells us there is no standard for determining a good or bad man, but in practice they repudiate their theory. They recognize, and do not want to do business with the bad man. One can not fool all of the people all of the time.

Pro. 11:3-f. reads, The integrity of the upright shall guide them: but the perverseness of the treacherous shall destroy them. We can build in to our character that which will sustain us in adverse times; or we can cut ourselves loose from solid mooring, and drown in our own folly.

And we fool God none of the time. All creatures stand before God naked and opened, (Heb. 4:13), (The last word means literally, to bend back the neck of a victim to be slain, or exposed. How can we expect to get by with anything, when we are so exposed to Him who judges righteously?

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IX No.X Pg.2

December 1972

Its A Great Life

Robert F. Turner

There are times when I do not know if I schedule my work, or my work schedules me. Maybe it is a combination of both: I want to be busy in the Lords work, and opportunities seem to beckon on every hand. Anyhow, here is the 1973 program.

Discounting a few days for hunting and working on my house during January (maybe a short trip to Mexico thrown in) —meeting work begins in February, with the first meeting at Bellaire, Houston, TX., Feb. 5-11. We are next scheduled in Tampa, Fla., Feb. 19-25; then Memphis, Tenn., Feb. 28-Mar. 7. Thence to Madrid, Iowa, Mar. 11-16; and Mulvane, Ks., Mar. l8-23. Sinton, TX., is next, Mar. 26 - Apr. 1.

After a short stay at home, we go to California: Canoga Park, Apr. 15-20; Fullerton, Apr. 22-29; Cayucus, Apr. 30-May 6; and Santa Rosa, May 7-13. Then to Cottonwood, Ariz., May l8-20. Well have a few days in Burnet, then to Norhill, Houston, TX., June 3-8; then a long loop to Shelbyville, Tenn., June 17-24; El Dorado, KS., July 8-13; Blackoak church, Winslow, Ark., July 15-27; then hurry to Baytown, TX., July 30-Aug. 5, and S. Park, Houston, Aug. 6-f. PLAIN TALK (must, of course, be written throughout this period.

We purposefully limited our program this year in consideration of a new plan for not more than 20 meetings per year — and more time to work in the study on forth-coming books. However, we have several invitations to return to Australia (middle of September to middle of December) and we are determined to do this, if the necessary details can be worked out.

1974 is already filled with the twenty meetings of our revised plan of work, and includes a tour of four meetings in Canada. We are now working on the 75 schedule.

The work at Burnet continues to be encouraging. We thank God, first of all, for innumerable blessings; and acknowledge a heavy dependence upon our elders: bros. Collins, Parks, and Stephens; and the dedicated work of the local evangelist, bro. Shipley. Of course, these fine men could do little without the cooperation of the rest of the team—the saints of Oaks-West, in Burnet. A hurried check reveals a membership of 110, average contribution of $586., average attendance (Sunday morning) of 132. The sterling quality of bro. Shipley was revealed in a unique way as he helped me get these figures from the books, He would not add Easter attendance into the column for averages, for he said that was not representative. We can not claim greatness; only a GREAT purpose, work, and eternal goal.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IX No.X Pg.3

December 1972

Last Things First

Dan S. Shipley

The scene is Shechem. The occasion is Joshuas farewell address just prior to his death. All the tribes of Israel are assembled to hear the aged Joshua, now 110, as he begins recounting Gods dealings with their great nation. Showing that God has continually been with and helping them, he concludes, Now therefore fear the Lord, and serve him in sincerity and in truth,,. (Josh. 24:16)

The scene is Jerusalem. David is nigh unto death as he gives this last charge to his son Solomon: ...I go the way of all the earth: be thou strong therefore, and show thyself a man; and keep the charge of the Lord thy God, to walk in his ways, to keep his statutes, and his commandments, and his judgments, and his testimonies... (1 Kings 2:2, 3)

The scene is a Roman prison. Paul is writing his last epistle. In giving his final charge to Timothy, he reminds the young evangelist not to be ashamed of the gospel (2 Tim. l:8); to hold the pattern of sound words (1:13); to suffer hardship as a good soldier of Christ Jesus (2:3); to give diligence to present himself approved unto God (2:15) and to persevere with urgency in preaching the word (4:2) with the assurance that a crown of righteousness awaits all the faithful (4:8).

Such are the words with which these great men of God conclude the final chapter of their earthly existence. The last words of any dying man are generally regarded as having special significance, but the words of these men ought to be especially so regarded—not so much because of being last words necessarily, but because of who they were and what they said with these words.

Joshua, David and Paul were men who had given most of their lives in consecrated service to the Lord. God had used their tongues and talents extensively to serve His purposes among men. Through experience and revelation they accumulated such wisdom as experienced by few mortals. Joshua, for instance, knew how the lack of faith could prevent ones entering into Gods rest. David understood about temptation and sin, and Paul himself had made the transition from chief of sinners to ambassador for Christ. As few others could, they perceived how the will of God compliments the greatest needs of man—so their last words deserve an attentive hearing.

And what do we hear? Though different in expression and separated by hundreds of years, we hear messages that are strikingly similar. All emphatically recommend to others the same course they have now finished. All emphasize serving the Lord. Essentially, they are saying to all who shall come after them, Live for the Lord!; or, as another wise man put it, fear God and keep His commandments. After all, thats what living is all about. Theirs is a lesson we must learn! Apart from truly reverencing God and walking in His ways, man can have no meaningful existence here nor hope of life in the hereafter. As those destined to go the way of all the earth, may the last words of these godly men find first priority in our lives.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IX No.X Pg.4

December 1972

Relative Fellowship

Robert F. Turner

Much of the loose thinking of our day, as regards fellowship, is derived from the tidal wave of subjectivism which modern theologians have cast upon us. TRUTH is no longer equated with Gods word, objectively considered. Granting that each mans knowledge or understanding of truth is relative to his total experience—and that no mans knowledge is completely perfect— we have not made TRUTH relative. It is such only to those who reject GOD as an external authority, and the revealer of truth.

I may remind my brethren that we have an imperfect grasp of truth — by virtue of our very fallible nature. This is done to keep us humble, ever searching, never using our imperfect level of understanding as though it was the final word of truth. But this is far from denying that GOD has all truth, and has delivered to man (via the inspired word) such truth as is needed for salvation. (Jn. 17:17)

But we are told, if you recognize that mans understanding is less than perfect, and his fellowship with others is based upon his understanding of Gods word, perhaps we are making a mistake in our fellowship. So the conclusion is drawn: we must recognize all claimants for fellowship, or at least, relax our concept of faith in Jesus Christ so as to embrace the majority who claim such faith.

The majority is no less subject to relative understanding than the few; and there is no warrant for our substituting the opinions of few or many for our individual obligation to study and act upon Gods word. My acceptance or rejection of my fellowman as a brother in Christ will not affect his standing before God — but it may vitally affect my standing. If I fellowship that which I understand to be contrary to Gods will (1 Cor. 5:), or fail to fellowship that which God commends (3 Jn. 9-10) God will not hold me guiltless. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God. (Rom. 14:)

Respecting those things essential to ones becoming a Christian, I find it difficult to believe they are all that hard to understand. My experience has been that once the hearers attitude is right, there is very little problem in telling him what God wants him to do. I may add, the 1st. century preachers seem to have had the same experience, as revealed in the New Testament. God intended His word to be understood (Jn. 20:31) and guided the writing accordingly (Eph. 3:3-f. 1 Cor. 2:13). But, regardless of the other fellows honesty or lack of honesty, I must strive to act in keeping with my understanding of the divine standard.

If someone feels I have drawn unwarranted conclusions concerning the truth, and that my standards of felowship are therefore in error, let him teach me the way of God more perfectly. (Acts 18:26) I want none of his inner light feelings or relative truth approach. Let us go 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) My imperfect knowledge does not invalidate the divine word.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IX No.X Pg.5

December 1972

Believing In God

Robert F. Turner

The atheist tells me I can not know there is GOD— as though GOD was amenable to man, to be summoned at my will, and displayed or tested. God has, and continues to demonstrate Himself in His own way, providing man with ample reasons to believe in Him, As for knowing, the atheist Is a poor one to push this. He despairs of ever knowing anything. He only believes there is NO GOD, —and this is a blind unreasoning faith that runs counter to the evidence of the universe that surrounds him.

I want to believe in God; and although this may sound purely subjective, this desire is general enough in man to be considered a part of his very being, and point to a purposeful moral Creator. The modernist would make the moral and ethical nature of man the result of an evolutionary process; but as Dr. William Martin of Peking University says, this theory has the misfortune to be at variance with the facts. A wide survey of the history of civilized nations.., shows that the actual process undergone is precisely opposite to that which this theory supposes; in a word, that man was not left to construct his own creed, but that his blundering logic has always been active in its attempt to corrupt and obscure a divine original. (THE CHINESE, pp. 163-164) What elevating and improving standards for man have come from amoral, purely humanistic philosophies? If any, it has been in rebellion to the logical ends of the theory, and not because of it.

Unlearned savages, finding a jeep in the jungle, may never learn its true or complete purpose, but the order and arrangement of its parts show that it was planned and made to some end. Even crude stone instruments, found in archaeological diggings, are evidence of some earlier intellect. So, this complex universe argues design, and demands faith in a Designer. The simplest protein molecule has 2,000 atoms, in precise arrangement. Given 500,000,000,000,000 shakings per second the possibility of a proper arrangement by pure chance is one in 10,243,000,000 years. (HUMAN DESTINY, by L. du Nouy; 1949, p. 34.) The most charitable reduction of figures does little to help the cause of pure CHANCE. Intelligence is the necessary factor in design of life and the universe; and the most satisfactory solution is IN THE BEGINNING -- GOD.

We can reason that a flood is caused by heavy rain, and heavy rain is caused by condensation factors, and these factors are caused — etc. But can we go backwards forever? Some where we must reckon with THE FIRST CAUSE; and, rejecting GOD) we must assume (a) matter (with no cause), (b) force (with no point of origination), and (c) an integrated complex action of force upon matter, precise beyond imagination, but brought about in the complete absence of intelligence. Who can believe it?

GOD is more than Nature or The Universe considered abstractly. In His masterpiece of pottery, man, He reveals Himself a purposeful, moral and personal Creator. God is real, and to the extent that man can raise his hope to something better than himself, conceive of law and justice, and can love; GOD is believable.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IX No.X Pg.6

December 1972

Music Controversy

Robert F. Turner

In A.W. Fortunes book, The Disciples in Kentucky, (1932) he has much to say about cooperative efforts and the part they played in the division of brethren; but surprisingly little to say about instrumental music in the worship. I think conservative brethren of the last generation allowed the music issue to over shadow the true import of the society (really, churchhood projects issue) and were thus ill prepared for this generations battle.

But Fortune did recognize music controversy; as the following shows.

The introduction of the organ into the worship of the church was the occasion of a bitter controversy, and was one of the main causes of the division which finally came. It is impossible to state when instrumental music was first used in the worship of a Christian church. Dr. LL. Pinkerton is credited by some with having been the first to make this departure when he introduced a melodeon in the worship of the church at Midway.

Evidently the use of instrumental music was being discussed in other churches at this early date. John Rogers wrote Alexander Campbell in 1851 and urged him to commit himself on the subject of instrumental music in the worship of the churches and dancing in the home. He asked the question: Has the object of this warfare, for more than a quarter of a century been to introduce instrumental music into our meetinghouses, and the elegant, healthful, inoffensive, improving practice of social dancing into our families? In reply to that article, Mr. Campbell discussed dancing, but did not refer to instrumental music in the worship. In a later issue he copied an article, signed G, which defended the use of instrumental music in the worship, and replied in a sarcastic statement against it. He said, To all spiritually minded Christians, such aids would be as a cowbell in a concert.

The advocates of instrumental music in worship maintained that inasmuch as it was not forbidden in the New Testament it was proper to make use of it, if it contributed to the worship. In spite of all the opposition instrumental music was gradually introduced into the churches. Moses E. Lard, in an article in his quarterly in 1867 said, Our brethren are freely introducing melodeons into their Sunday schools. This is but the first step to the act, I fear. As soon as the children of these schools go into the church, in goes the instrument with them. He expressed the fear that the church would be wrecked the day the adverse side triumphs, and he added: I live in fear that it will do it. (Pp. 372, 373, 375.)

Instrumental music gradually became a part of the program of the churches. While many of the congregations divided, the church did not divide at that time. It was, however, one of the main causes of the division that came at a later time.

(Fortunes sectarian concept of church is apparent in the words, the church did not divide-- etc. STUDY!)

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IX No.X Pg.7

December 1972

?You Know What?

Robert F. Turner

Bro. Turner:

Does 1 Cor. 2:12-14 teach that only spiritually minded people can understand the Scriptures; and how does one determine who is spiritually? D. B.

Reply:

The answer to the first question is No! and that will prove to the Calvinist that I am not spiritual. These and others like them teach that man is wholly dead and unresponsive to truth until moved by a work of Grace, and they cite 1 Cor 2: and Rom. 8:7. (Of course only the spiritual can understand these passages.) Election and Predestination are at the root of this concept, but we can not go into all of that here.

In 1 Cor. 1: Paul contrasts worldly wisdom with the wisdom of trusting in the gospel of Christ. The so-called wise of this world are pride-filled and reject Christ, while Christians glory in the Lord. In Ch. 2: Paul says that when he brought the gospel to Corinth, it was not with excellency of speech or wisdom— not with enticing words of mans wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. (vs. 1-5)

Worldly wisdom, i.e., refusing to accept divine revelation— to believe anything except that which man can prove in his own reasoning, apart from revelation— can never reveal to us the things of God. That is why Paul came in demonstration of the Spirit... (See above.) Now, Paul says WE speak the wisdom of God. He has broadened the speaker (teacher) from to others like him, i.e. other inspired men who spake as they were moved by The Holy Spirit. The we and us of 1 Cor. 2:6-13 refers to the Apostles and Prophets of the New Testament, not to those whom they taught, or to those they teach today through the written word.

A companion passage (Eph. 3:2-6) is more specific. How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; as I wrote afore in few words; whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ. Paul knew by revelation, but we know by reading what he wrote. The others knew by revelation (the us and we of 1 Cor. 2:) are the apostles and prophets. (Eph. 3:5)

The context of 1 Cor, 1: 2: contrasts the human wisdom speaker and those speakers who speak only what was revealed to them by the Spirit of God; and it contrasts those who hear requiring a sign, and seeking human wisdom (i.e., measuring the message by worldly standards) and those who hear in faith, trusting the message because of its origin. (Your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.) This is the setting for vs. 14: the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit... (Cf. 3:19-23) He who trusts in human wisdom, apart from revelation, can not know the truth.

Of course, the greater ones desire for truth— the more humble his heart, and diligent his study— the more likely he is to learn truth. But this does not make a direct operation of the H.S. a prerequisite of faith.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IX No.X Pg.8

December 1972

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

Scriptures are not the only things that must be judged in context. Human relations are largely a series of interpretations of one another, and will be grossly in error unless we take our fellowmen in context. This is the principle back of the proverb: Judge a man only after you have walked a mile in his moccasins,

Sometimes the seeming chip on a brothers shoulder may actually be some burden you should help him bear. We do not seek to justify sin with psychology, nor deny individual responsibility before God; but there can be no righteous judgement apart from the whole story.

From Joe Creason (Louisville Courier Journal) (and if he doesnt stop telling Texas jokes I am going to leave off the credits) comes an illustration of my point. It seems an elderly mountain farmer in a mule-drawn wagon had been involved in an accident with an automobile. Now, he was suing the driver, claiming personal injuries.

But isnt it true that after the accident, the defendants attorney asked, you said you never felt better in your life?

Well, the claimant began, that morning I got up, hitched up my mule, put my hound dog in the wagon and...

Give us a yes or no answer to my question, the attorney interrupted.

At this point the judge stepped in and directed the lawyer to let the farmer answer in his own way.

Well, the claimant began again, that morning I got up, hitched up my mule, put my hound dog in the back of the wagon, and jest got over the rise in the road when this big car barreled into my rear end.

My mule was knocked to one side of the road, my hound dog to the other, and I was pinned under the seat. Directly a police came along, seen my mule had its leg broke, pulled out his pistol and shot it dead. He went over to my dog, seen it was hurt bad, and shot it in the head.

Then, the farmer continued, he come over to me and asked, Well, how are you feelin? and, shore enough, I said, I never felt better in my life !

Now, see what I mean by context?

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IX No.XI Pg.1

January 1973

Love Is Not God

Robert F. Turner

If you have neither time nor inclination to think, you may skip this page— but there is a treasure in the following quote if you will take it.

St. Johns saying that God is love has long been balanced in my mind against the remark of a modern author (M. Denis de Rougemont) that love ceases to be a demon only when he ceases to be a god; which of course can be re-stated in the form begins to be a demon the moment he begins to be a god. This balance seems to me an indispensable safeguard. If we ignore it the truth that God is love may slyly come to mean for us the converse, that love is God.

I suppose that everyone who has thought about the matter will see what H. de Rougemont meant. Every human love, at its height, has a tendency to claim for itself a divine authority. Its voice tends to sound as if it were the will of God Himself. It tells us not to count the cost, it demands of us a total commitment, it attempts to override all other claims and insinuates that any action which is sincerely done for loves sake is thereby lawful and even meritorious. That erotic love and love of ones country may thus attempt to become gods is generally recognized. But family affection may do the same. So, in a different way, may friendship. (C.S. Lewis, The Four Loves)

Modern theology makes love the basis of spiritual fellowship, but TRUTH is the basis of fellowship, not love. (1 Jn. 2:24) We have in common a sharing relationship that is acceptable in Gods sight, only when we acknowledge Gods rule as superior to any emotion or expression of our own. The Jesus People err in thinking that love will unite all men in Christ. Situation ethics and the new morality have grown out of this viewing of love as authority.

This is the love of God, that we keep His commandments: and His commandments are not grievous. (1 Jn. 5:3) The true love of God in our hearts will demonstrate itself in our submission to His will, What a travesty, that man would claim a divine attribute as his excuse for ignoring or supplanting the divine will.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IX No.XI Pg.2

January 1973

Writing An Article

Robert F. Turner

Frequently someone (usually a younger preacher) asks, How do you go about writing an article? How I do it may be poor grist for the mill; but I can recommend these directions by the well-known Joseph Pulitzer: Put it before them briefly, so they will read it, clearly so they will appreciate it, picturesquely so they will remember it, and, above all, accurately so they will be guided by its light.

Nothing worthwhile comes out of a writer until something worthwhile has gone in. Unless you do a lot of independent thinking, or read a large amount of the material of others and make it your own; you should limit yourself to an article every five years, In this you can skim the cream of experience and come up with something readable. But regular writing is hard work, requires great amounts of time, and develops ulcers.

In regular writing we must assume the author is a fairly capable student, and then we can say that his first great obstacle is the subject, and by that I really mean the aim or object of the writing. What will it be this time? The article is NOT the end; it is but the means to an end. In an effort to reach a wide public we must produce some light articles; some of considerable depth; some must be written with traditional

wording, some in current vernacular. But to all, it must be something that is needed. Religious articles have a serious purpose, whatever their form.

Then comes the road work, where the men are separated from the boys. Your subject must be researched— from Scriptures, word studies, commentaries, books or articles by others. The one-in-five-years article maybe written from the top of the head, but steady writing requires steady study. In its absence a writer is reduced to reaction to the lead of others (and this is nearly always negative reaction), or a dreary diet of cute little nothings and uninformed opinions.

Apt illustrations are found in most good articles. Read C. S. Lewis as a master in this field. And while you are there, observe the directness of his statements, and their conversational quality. This generation is long past the formal literary style of A. Campbell, or even the sermonizing of fifty years ago. Of what value to the general public is a wonderful lengthy article that is never read? Save it for a book.

And when you learn to write as Mr. Pulitzer suggests, will you teach me?

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IX No.XI Pg.3

January 1973

Men To Mark

Dan S. Shipley

According to the New Testament, Christians are to mark two different classes of men. They are to be marked in the same manner but for different reasons. In Rom. 16:17, Paul speaks of certain bad men who are to be marked in order that they might be avoided; In Phil. 3:17 he writes of marking good men for the purpose of imitating them. Doing as Paul says naturally involves an understanding of the word mark. (Incidentally, herein is once more illustrated the necessity for understanding words in order to understand passages. The very meaning of these verses turn on one word, as is often the case.)

So then, how do we comply with the admonition to mark certain men? Simply by observing them. As Thayer says, this mark (from Gr. skopeo) means, to look at, observe, contemplate (p.579), with which Vine agrees, adding only behold and watch. Accordingly, Moffatt renders the Roman passage, keep your eye on those who stir up dissensions and put hindrances in your way, while the RSV says, take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties. All seem to imply the idea of thoughtful observance involving the intellect as well as the eye. (Note: This term is not to be confused with the Greek stigma, a brand, Gal. 6:17).

So, Paul is saying to keep an eye on such men as would cause divisions and occasions of stumbling—and, in doing so, puts his finger on a prevalent cause of problems and division in the Lords church as being things contrary to the doctrine. Unity prevailed among the Roman brethren until some contrary things were introduced. They had a unity of the Spirit (Eph. 4:3) based on Spirit-revealed doctrine but with contrary things came division. Right relationships with men and God are predicated on right doctrine (2 Jn. 9; 1 Jn. 1:1-4). Therefore, any addition to, deletion from, or alteration of Divine doctrine affects scriptural unity. No wonder, then, Paul admonishes Christians to take note of those who would thusly depreciate the doctrine of Christ. It is easy for such contrary things to tip-toe in without arousing slumbering brethren. They may come in subtly through devious teachers or unintentionally through unthinking brethren, but always with a threat to the unity of Gods people. And that is why alert Christians must continue to insist upon a thus saith the Lord—even at the risk of reprisal and division.

But God wants his people to keep an eye on the good and faithful among them as well. Brethren, be ye imitators of me, and mark them that so walk even as ye have it for an ensample writes Paul. Elders, evangelists, teachers—all Christians must strive to be examples worthy of imitation (1 Pet. 5:3; l Tim. 6:12; Rom. 2:21). When we imitate a good pattern we set a good pattern. Your light does shine and with effect. Marking and following good men makes it easier to mark and avoid bad men. And remember, both good and bad are under the continual surveillance of the all-seeing Eye—all are marked men with God. He sees those who lead others to Him— or away from Him and He bids us to see and act accordingly.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.IX No.XI Pg.4

January 1973

Post Christian Period

Robert F. Turner

The Swiss writer, Dr. Francis A. Schaeffer, presents his material in this post-Christian period to call men back to faith in the reality of God and revelation. Post-Christian period caught my eye and shattered complacency with its realism. That means the period in history following the Christian period, and I wondered how many brethren realize the sense and extent of truth in such a label. Most of us have a Bible-sheltered existence, and find it difficult to believe that there is an outside world so removed from traditional faith.

Of course Schaeffers terms give a broad definition to Christian, and contrast the wide-spread atheism and amorality of this generation with past-century dominance of nominal faith. But we are absurdly naive if we think the general world rejection of Christian faith can have no influence on our work today. We are rapidly approaching a time when true Christians will stand out in the world because they believe, rather than because of their particular tenets. I said stand out in the world.

If you wish you may twist my statement to mean that particulars or distinctive doctrinal differences are no longer important. The very opposite is true, Faith in God Himself is eroded as men are led to treat lightly any portion of Gods word; or presume to select one teaching as important, another equally clear statement as of no consequence. In fact, the shocking inroad that liberalism has made among members of the church in our time is partially the result of no pattern -- we do not need authority teaching, offered in defense of churchhood institutionalism.

We are hounded on one side by a sectarian spirit that would make the traditional interpretations of the brotherhood (that great middle section) the standard of truth; and on the other side by a liberal spirit (no less sectarian in the final analysis) that uses such error to attack faith in firm, unchangeable standard of truth, To maintain balance in such a conflict is difficult indeed.

If we do live in the post-Christian period (and through the world-at-large there seems to be some evidence of this) we can expect more and more conflict with atheism and amorality. The Pentecostalism, Neo-Calvinism, and liberalizing of fellowship that plagues institutional churches of Christ today (and believe me, they have their hands full) will either. (a) penetrate currently conservative churches, or (b) drive them to build strict sectarian walls of loyalty, —or, (and Oh, how we must work to make this the course) (c) we may build constructively on the present searching, questioning spirit of the younger generation, give them honest, straight-forward Bible answers (or search with them for these answers) and so save faith and souls.

Dr. Schaeffer (denominational back ground; teacher and lecturer in various theological schools) dwells now where the action is. The post-Christian period is a reality with him, NOW! With us —a period of grace, but ITS LATER THAN YOU THINK!