Plain Talk

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.II No.V Pg.5

June 1965

Unauthorized "Saluting"

Robert F. Turner

THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST SALUTE YOU! That's what the bill-boards say, and that's what we hear over radio, and see on T.V. It is at the world fair, county fair booths, and in the newspaper advertisements; and since it is also in Rom. 16:16 it must be right.

But recently I notice a "turn" to which "The Churches of Christ" is put that causes me to re-evaluate this passage in Romans. Now thing---is Paul saying that a brotherhood of churches (?) or a denomination called CHURCHES OF CHRIST salutes the world?? One may think so, from the current usage.

I have even had Rom. 16:16 cited as authority for the collective action of churches---as though it proved beyond a doubt that many churches may pool their means and operate as one under some "sponsoring" eldership, re. specific projects. That's reading a lot between the lines of so short a passage.

Rom. 16:5 reads, "Likewise greet the church that is in their (Priscilla and Aquilla's) house." Vs. 10 says "Salute them which are of Aristobulus' household." Vs. 11--"Greet them that be of the household of Narcissus, which are in the Lord." Vs. 14---Salute Asyncritus.....and the brethren which are with them." Vs. 15---"Salute Philologus.....and all the saints which are with them." Vs. 23 reads, "Gaius mine host, and of the whole church, saluteth you."

Why does not Rom. 16:16 mean exactly what its context demands, viz., a number of different congregations, knowing that Paul planned to write the brethren at Rome, individually expressed their regards. Each church, in its own way, said "Hello!" So, "the churches of Christ salute" the church at Rome. In debates when Rom. 16:16 is used to justify the designation of saints as "church of Christ" our Baptist opponents usually point out that this passage speaks of a plurality. I have never heard this denied. The usual reply is---if there is a plural, there must be singulars; indicating that we know Rom. 16:16 speaks of a plurality of local churches of Christ.

Until very recent times I had seen no indication that anyone thought the "churches" could be made a single entity, for which a "sponsor" could speak, work, or do anything.

Until recently "inter-congregational" was the flag of denominationalism and sound brethren used it only to show its error. Now, however, even "middle-of-the-roaders" have adopted this term. (Firm Foundation, 6-1-65 editorial) Is it possible that "Churches of Christ" will become the "official" designation for a combine or denomination of churches?

The only way "churches of Christ" can "salute" anyone, is for those separate and independent congregations to do so. Four or five of them may elect to do so, and say so on a bill-board, etc. But the salute is from those churches signing the "ad"---it is NOT from the whole number of churches of Christ throughout the world. Remember, great oaks from little acorns grow---in error too.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.II No.V Pg.6

June 1965

History Looks At "Church Universal"

Robert F. Turner

W. K. Pendleton based his apology for the Missionary Society (presented as an Address, in 1866) upon his conception of the church universal, and in this he followed closely the reasoning of Alexander Campbell. No man is prepared to see the Society as Pendleton saw it without beginning where Pendleton began.

First, he filled his mind with the thought of the church in its universal aspect, ignoring for the time being the local church. God gave to the church -- in its universal sense -- the responsibility to convert the world. But God did not give the method by which the church -- in its universal sense -- was to convert the world. So, whatever method the church -- in its universal sense -- uses, is acceptable. The method is a matter of expediency. The church universal is left free to decide for itself. This is briefly the defense he made for it.

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

There are some things about this truly significant. It is significant, for example, that the church universal has never known but one officer-Jesus Christ Himself, who is Head over the body, King over his Kingdom. The apostles were the ambassadors of this King to the church universal. They were not officers of the church, were never appointed by the church, and existed before the church did. The study of church history reveals the fact that every time men thought in terms of the church universal they ended up by forming organizations which in their work substituted themselves in the place of Christ. Roman Catholicism is the highest embodiment of the church universal concept, and claims that its pope is the vicegerent of Christ on earth. So far as the church universal on earth is concerned, as viewed by a Romanist, the pope is virtually Christ. Protestantism thought in terms of the church universal, and set up synods and conferences. These synods and conferences have written creeds, created confessions of faith -- in short, have made laws for the church universal, a prerogative that belongs to Christ. In the final analysis these synods and conferences assume the position of Christ over the church universal.

Some, like the Baptist denomination, have tried to throw off the concept of the church universal for a time, and insist upon strict congregational polity. Yet they invariably thought in terms of the church universal and established associations which soon began to dictate to the local churches, a prerogative that belongs only to Christ.

In the restoration movement, brethren thought in terms of the church universal, and with that concept formed a Missionary Society. Looking back on this history, as we can now, who can fail to see that this Society became the master, and soon dictated to the churches; a prerogative which belongs only to Christ.

The only church organization known to the New Testament is that of a local church, not the church universal.

(Frm. "ANCIENT ORDER" by West; II, 55f)

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.II No.V Pg.7

June 1965

Queries And Answers

Robert F. Turner

Bro. Turner:

Dancing is "a series of movements executed by the body, or limbs, or both, in rhythm" (Webster). Can you honestly say that this is wrong?

Reply:

Drinking is "to swallow (a liquid) to receive, as a fluid, into the stomach" (Webster). Now get yourself a glass of milk, and pat your feet as you swallow. You may spend the night "drinking and dancing" and I won't raise a line of type.

If you can read while "drinking and dancing" you might consider two scriptures that couple "drinking" and "reveling": ROM.13:13 and GAL.5:21. The "drinking" under consideration is something more than "swallowing"; and the "dancing" (which dear Mr. Webster uses in defining "reveling") is a shade stronger than foot-patting, or even a stately minuet; but by now you may have gathered that I am writing about what is actually done today under these headings.

A free translation of "komos" (KJ, "reveling") is "let yourself go" or "celebration without restraint". The wild excesses of the dance -- the abandon with which opposite sexes mix -- the exhibition of bodily movements designed to excite passions -- these are the ingredients of "reveling" and are clearly designated as "works of the flesh" (GAL.5:19-21). Paul says, "they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God". The necessity for specific prohibitions relative to dancing has always seemed out of place -- especially when applied to supposed Christians. If a man is taught to love his brother, must we have specific lessons insisting that he refrain from sticking a knife in his brother's back? Then how can one who is properly taught the meaning of modesty, chastity, and pureness of heart be so needful of proof that the modern dance is wrong?

To name or define our subject is to place it in a realm shunned by all who love the Lord and His ways.

 

Bro. Turner:

If GAL.6:6 teaches the individual who is taught to support his teacher, would not a local preacher have to receive double-pay -- from the church, (PHI.4:15) and from individuals?

Reply:

The obligation to supply the needs of preachers is placed upon saints, acting collectively, individually, or both ways (The apostle Paul received from churches (2CO.11:8) and from individuals (1CO.16:17). The obligation is determined by the need.

The F.F. editor (in Reader's Opinion, 6-1-65) is hard put to get out of his senseless exegesis of GAL.6:6 as a couplet with JAM.1:27. Instead of frankly acknowledging his error, he backs deeper into the mire -- and comes close to saying he set a trap for the brethren he loves so much. If he did, the trap backfired.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.II No.V Pg.8

June 1965

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

On various occasions I have taken part in worship services which are broadcast to a radio audience. Every time this happens I notice the special attention given to the singing, prayer, etc. Just before we go on the air the mothers are cautioned to take their children out if they become noisy; announcements are planned with care; the one to lead in prayer has been carefully selected. Even the preacher puts a little extra spit-and-polish into his sermon.

We are talking to people outside "our" group now -- perhaps this is being recorded -- only the best will do.

Last Sunday we were only worshipping Jehovah God, our Creator.

Perhaps there is some justification for extra quietness, and crisp distinct announcements as we go "on the air" but I suspect we sometimes consider the advertisement value of such programs more highly than we do the worship value. If so, we are defeating our purpose.

I recall accepting a phone call once, which turned out to be an ill-tempered brother with a sharp and nasty tongue. Switching on my magnetic recorder, I made a record of part of his tirade. Then, remembering the law on such matters, I informed him the recorder was running, and asked for permission to use the statements made. Such sputtering!! Finally, he said he supposed it was all right, but maybe I had misunderstood just what he intended to say. He then reworded his statements-- dressing them down to fairly decent conversation. I accepted the revised version, saying I would erase the earlier portion of the tape-- which I did.

But just as we closed our talk I asked him to remember one very important fact, viz., "GOD'S TAPE RECORDER RUNS DAY AND NIGHT." More sputtering!

Most folk are quiet and respectful when someone is praying -- man talking to God; but they may whisper, pass notes, spank children, etc., when the Bible is being read-- God taIking to man. Does this show faith in God ?? ?

When God becomes more real to us; when we really begin to believe in His abiding presence, His all-seeing eye, the freedom of His access to our very thoughts -- then, and not until then, will we truly reverence Him.

 

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.II No.VI Pg.1

July 1965

Purposeful Preaching

Robert F. Turner

Nathan's subject was adultery, murder, and kindred lusts; but he spoke of a little ewe lamb which a rich man took from the bosom of its owner. (2 Sam. 12:) The problem was that of application-- getting the audience to apply to self the standard by which others were readily condemned.

Nathan's audience deplored "sin", and could list many sins. Nathan's courage as a preacher" was little tested by a rip-snorting sermon on, "Adultery"; but when he told the King "Thou art the man"-- aye, here was his moment of truth.

John (the Immerser) could decry the awful sins of the times, and call upon people to "REPENT!"-- out there in the wilderness-- and King Herod be unmoved. But John said unto Herod, "it is not lawful for thee to have thy brother's wife." (Mk. 6:18)

Several years ago one of "our" ultra-liberal preachers criticized John's direct "approach"-- suggesting John need not have "lost his head." In a sense he was right about that. John could have spoken in generalities, kept his head, and perhaps his "job''-- but he would have failed his appointed purpose, lost his soul. Nathan and John used different ways of reaching their targets; and different means of presenting truth are needed today. But both presented and applied the truth. When they were finished the audience knew what was wrong, and felt the sting of rebuke.

Today preachers speak of "sectarianism" without explaining that this spirit lives in the "party" concept of the church. They cry for "unity" but refuse open discussion of issues that divide, with God's word the final authority. This is hypocrisy.

Tell the people they must Do Bible Things In Bible Ways -- and they will love you. Tell them a church-sponsored skating party is not a Bible Thing; and church support of human institutions is not a Bible Way; and you may lose your "job", but you will have served your purpose as a preacher.

Oh John!! Nathan!! Your kind are sorely needed in this generation!!

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.II No.VI Pg.2

July 1965

Words Are Not Enough....

Robert F. Turner

Does anyone really doubt that each congregation should be independent? Well, not many knowledgeable members of the church of Christ doubt this. But many of these members can not give an accurate definition of "independent". If you doubt me, first read a good unabridged dictionary, then check a few.

A great many can not cite scriptures and give a logical reason "why" each congregation should be independent (What are your scriptural reasons?).

And a great, great, great many are unwilling to apply logical scriptural tests to inter-congregational projects. Some will praise the collective action of churches (mistakenly calling it Bible cooperation") even saying it is "independent churches acting collectively". Any good dictionary will show that independent or distributive action is opposed to collective action.

We are wedded to a nomenclature -- words, slogans, cliches -- but we don't get around to understanding them or applying them.

The Jews of Christ's time expected a King, and a Kingdom. But they did not understand their nature, and so rejected both -- while declaring their willingness to accept both. Sometimes I ask a class to give me a scripture that proves congregational autonomy. Usually I get ACT.14:23; PHI.1:1; and/or 1PE.5:2-3. If I am insistent someone will finally explain that these passages show there should be elders in each church. Then I say, "So what?. Presbyterian congregations each have elders, Methodist, Baptist, and other churches have them in each congregation. Do they all practice congregational autonomy?. One gets into some awful arguments this way.

We sorely need a lot of teaching on the very meaning of "self-rule" and "independence,". We need to know that one can give away independence -- and is more likely to do so, than to have it taken from them.

A church in need (state of want) is dependent -- and may receive alms (2CO.8:). But an in(not) dependent church has no need for alms, nor have we authority for sending them.

We will gladly send, without cost, a tract "Organizational Structure of the Church" to all who wish to study this matter further. Brethren must understand -- and apply -- God's truth to be acceptable in His sight.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.II No.VI Pg.3

July 1965

Preaching "Christ"

Robert F. Turner

When Christ preached Himself (LUK.24:27) He expounded the scriptures that foretold his crucifixion and subsequent entrance into glory as our Saviour. The Son of God, clothed in flesh, manifested Himself in miraculous wonders, speaking as one having authority, and finally gave Himself for the sins of the world (HEB.10:10).

No mere "philosophy of Christianity", no formal code of law, can take the place of our personal Saviour. To "preach Christ" we must show people "the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world"

But pointing people to Christ is showing them His character -- to be imitated; His authority -- to which we must subject ourselves; His commands -- to be obeyed. If we have preached these things to the neglect of the person of Christ, it was to combat the popular error that one may "accept Christ" without obeying Him.

Philip went to Samaria and "preached Christ unto them" (ACT.8:5-f). What he preached is clearly shown by the result. "When they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women" (ACT.8:12).

"Things concerning the kingdomap>ot; could include an account of its establishment (MAT.16:19,28 MAR.9:1; ACT.1:8; ACT.2:); the moral character of its citizens (MAT.5:, 6:, 7:, 18:1-f.); the means of entrance (JOH.3:3,5) etc. Preaching this, we preach Christ.

"The name of Jesus Christ" refers to His authority. Saying "Lord, Lord" has no value of itself; (MAT.7:21-f) but we must live at His direction (COL.3:17). To act "in the name" of Jesus, was to act at His direction and by His power (ACT.4:7-12). Thus, salvation is "in His name" and preaching Christ would include preaching His name".

And when Philip preached "Christ" he told people to be baptized into Christ (see GAL.3:26-27). The Samaritans heard the preaching of Christ, and were baptized. Philip preached "Jesus" to the eunuch, "and as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water; and the eunuch said, "See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?" (ACT.8:35-36). Surely no thoughtful student can fail to see significance here.

While Jesus was yet on earth in the flesh He told his disciples that He would send them His Holy Spirit to "guide you into all truth" (JOH.16:12). As His chosen witnesses, they were to "preach Christ" to the world (LUK.24:); to teach "all things whatsoever I have commanded you" (MAT.28:18-f). Those who follow (2TI.2:2) fail in their obligation today if they preach less than the "whole truth".

"A tremendous responsibility!" you say? It is that, -- and sobering. One who regards lightly the "preaching of Christ" -- who neglects study, and substitutes a glad-hand and glib tongue -- is unworthy of the name "preacher".

And what of you, dear reader, who refuse to "accept Christ" in the full glorious meaning of the phrase??

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.II No.VI Pg.4

July 1965

Use Your Bible . . . . . .

Robert F. Turner

JESUS AND THE OLD TESTAMENT, "PACKAGE DEAL" Skeptics are ever with us, and they dwell "among us" more than we like to admit. Attacks on the Old Testament are more frequent than on the New-- perhaps because its antiquity and language makes it more susceptible, and perhaps their N.T. ties are closer and warmer. Also, we have some "traditional" interpretations of O.T. passages that are error.

But Jesus made such use of the O.T. as to make faith in the Christ, and faith in many O.T. records a "package deal." One can not accept the veracity of Christ, and deny accounts He told as factual. 

CREATION OF MAN (Gen.2:7, 18, 21-25) Was it a folk-tale, a legend from antiquity, non-historical? Jesus bases teaching upon these scriptures... Matt.19:4-6 NOAH AND THE FLOOD (Gen.6: 7: 8:) Imaginative story from the oft-flooded Euphrates valley? Jesus used it for a lesson concerning His coming... Matt.24:36-39 FIREY SERPENT ON A POLE (Num.21:4-9) Unreasonable, illogical superstition of old? Accept with same faith that accepts Jesus Christ... Jn.3:14-16 JONAH AND THE GREAT FISH (Jonah 1:17 2:1-10) Surely Christianity doesn't depend upon accepting this? The ONE SURE SIGN of Death, Burial, Resurrection... Matt.12:38-41 NAAMAN CLEANSED OF LEPROSY (2 Kings 5:1-14) Unlikely place, means, and element for such cleansing. Yes, that exactly what Naaman "thought". (Read record carefully.) Jesus uses this to illustrate world-wide salvation... Lu.4:24-27 

JESUS SAID, "BEFORE ABRAHAM WAS, I AM!" JN.8:56-58 Jesus saw past and future as easily as we see present-- for He is not "time bound." How foolish of us to think we can accept any portion of Christ's eternal existance without accepting all of Him.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.II No.VI Pg.5

July 1965

A Horrible Thing

Robert F. Turner

"A wonderful and horrible thing is come to pass in the land--." (Jer.5: 30-31) ("astonishing and horrible" or "awful and appalling"- see foot-note)

(1) "The prophets prophesy falsely". They say "peace" where there is no peace. (6:14) This "preach positive " "on the march" philosophy is not new. Unwilling to face realities (oftimes brought on by their own ambitions) preachers ignore issues, belittle the opposition, and forbid others to read PLAIN TALK or its equivalent. Verily, they have their reward!

(2) "The priests bear rule by their (false prophets) means," (Literally, "at their hands"- meaning, at their wave or nod.) In Judaism the prophets taught; the priests functioned at the altar. Today this may loosely correspond to elders who function only as pawns of the preachers. Policies are often determined at "luncheons" "lectures" or in popular journals; and, with a wave of the hand, elders jump to carry out this "advice".

But the thing that compounded the horror in Jeremiah's day, and ours: (3) "My people love to have it so." We shirk our responsibilities, and so sanction the ungodly works.

Some years ago, following trouble in a local church, a young preacher asked, "How can a few men run a whole church, casting out those who offer resistance?" My answer -- "The people love to have it so." To this my visitor objected, saying that many knew the truth, and did not agree to the actions taken. CORRECTION, PLEASE!! They may not have agreed WITH what was done, but they agreed TO it, or it could never have taken place. When the Corinthian church was divided (1 Cor.3:) Paul placed responsibility upon members who followed men. "Let no man deceive himself. Let no man glory in men." (3:18, 21) This does not free a false leader of guilt, but leaders must have followers, by action or submissive agreement.

As Paul foresaw trouble in Ephesus he warned not only the elders, but "everyone, night and day with tears." (Acts 20:31) Writing to Timothy, who was in Ephesus, he said, "Some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits-- etc." 1Tim.4:1-) The false teachers were at fault, but so were those who gave heed to them.

In 2 Tim.3: Paul describes the proud, boasting, trucebreakers who would "lead captive silly women."(v 6). In the Greek this refers to "little" women -- little in character -- something less than the mature character Christian women should have. It is "little" "silly" women -- and men - who are led astray. They have not the courage to say "NO!" Their "little" minds grasp for "peace, where there is no peace" for they have not the fiber to stand for the right, regardless of cost. May God have mercy on their poor withered souls!

The church, home, nation -- our society suffers because of oft-called "good" little people -- who sit meekly by and allow evil to dominate. But God's word holds these spiritual cowards to account. Maybe this will stir some -- TO THE SAVING OF THEIR SOULS.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.II No.VI Pg.6

July 1965

Is This Burnet Co. History?

Robert F. Turner

The following is taken from "HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH" by T.-p

Fisher p. 56, Read it carefully!

---------------------------

"The first three centuries witnessed the gradual growth of a hierarchical organization. In this, as in earlier Church arrangements, secular and political models had a large influence. The spread of the sacerdotal idea, and, along with it, the tendency to imitate the Jewish system, were not without a strong effect.

Country churches, formed under the auspices of a neighboring city church were affiliated with it, and had for their pastor a presbyter from the parent church, subject to its bishop.

Rural churches planted independently had, each of them, its own bishop. The country bishops, for a considerable time, kept up their independence; but most of these churches, before the beginning of the fourth century, were subordinated, like the class of rural churches first mentioned, to the neighboring city community.

Thus each city bishop had a jurisdiction covering the town and the vicinity. At first the clergy of the principle church in a town officiated in an appointed order, in the several places of worship. At a later day it became common to assign a presbyter to each of them as a permanent pastor, subject, of course, to the bishop of the town, whose special connection was with the principle church.

The bishop of the metropolis of each Roman province naturally acquired a precedence over other bishops within its limits. This was owing to the rank of the city, for, generally speaking, it was this consideration, more than any other, that determined the relative dignity of bishops. Another consideration was the fact that, not infrequently, from the provincial capital the gospel was planted in many other places.

The metropolitan arrangement was slow in being introduced in the West, because in that region the cities were comparatively few. The prerogatives of metropolitans were for a long time undefined. The theory of the equality and independence of bishops continued to be held, and on occasions was boldly asserted."

------------------------------

Note two things in particular! The tendency of large city churches to dominate country churches -- especially when the city church had something to do with the beginning of the other. The "mother" church conception, with her "mission points", had its beginning here -- not in the scriptures.

Second-- "the theory of equality and independence" continued to be held and- boldly asserted, long after independence was no longer a fact. It is so today! Burnet county preachers seek to cancel meetings of smaller country churches, and otherwise dictate their policies -- all the while asserting their belief in and adherence to "independent church" principles. Must we blindly repeat history? PLAIN TALK is our way of saying AWAKE all those who love the truth.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.II No.VI Pg.7

July 1965

Queries And Answers

Robert F. Turner

Dear Bro. Turner:

One of our members engages in a practice which I believe is wrong. I have told him how I feel about this, but he says he does not believe it is wrong, and so continues to do it. Should he not cease this practice on the basis that it offends me, and several other members, 1CO.8:13.

Reply:

1CO.8:13 reads, "If meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend".

It does not say "offends" in the sense of "hurting his feelings", but "cause him to offend" or "stumble". Read American Standard.

The point is that if my doing something (right within itself) is going to cause a weak (poorly taught) brother to do that which he thinks is wrong -- (cause him to stumble) it is better that I sacrifice my own rights (refrain from doing that which I know is acceptable) until I can teach my weak brother more perfectly.

Eating meat (that had been offered in sacrifice unto idols) was not something that had to be done to serve God. On the other hand, there was nothing wrong (of itself) in eating (1CO.8:8). This is not parallel with things wrong within themselves (such as ungodly conduct, which neither the "weak" nor the strong brother has the right to do) nor is it parallel with things commanded of both the "weak" and strong brother -- such as worship.

Inherent in this Corinthians passage (and in ROM.14:) is the teaching that we should never violate our conscience. When the brother who thinks it is wrong to partake of the meat is encouraged (by your example) to disregard his conscience and eat, he sins -- not because it is wrong to eat, but because it is wrong to disregard one's conscience (ROM.14:23). Please note, I am to so regard my own conscience only. I am not to allow myself to be ruled by your conscience ("Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind" (ROM.14:5).

One thing more. The things under consideration here are not of such a nature that one man's actions necessarily commit another to the same action -- as in the case of things we do collectively, as a local church.

 

Bro. Turner:

Is there any difference in sins? Are there "big" and "little" sins?

Reply:

All or any "sin" condemns, as the transgression rejects the authority of the law giver (JAM.2:9-13). In this sense all sins are alike.

But it is foolish to contend that all sins are alike in every way. Two distinct types of sins are "deliberate" or "presumptuous" and "unwitting" sins (Read NUM.15:22-31; DEU.17:8-13, 18:18-20). (We may characterize these as sins of the flesh, and sins of the heart; although this needs more explanation than space permits.)

Be thankful that God will judge!

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.II No.VI Pg.8

July 1965

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

When Johnny wants to chew on the "' The electric cord, mother says, "No. 220 volts are a bit strong for Johnny's constitution; and besides, he might short-circuit the air cooler.

Johnny stomps and cries. (He is in training for college sit-down strikes) but mother is adamant. There is more than parental authority at stake. The over-all good of the family must be protected. Whether Johnny knows it or not, that "over-all" good includes Johnny's welfare too. He is protected by the law and order against which he vents his spleen.

Neither might nor majority make right. In Wild-West days, so goes the tale, a frontier town was so filled with lawless men that fair trials and justice were possible only through the presence of a bold, fast-drawing Texas Ranger. Then some coward shot the Ranger in the back.

Lawless "buddies" of the assassin threw a drinking party to celebrate; and as the party grew wilder, staged a mock trial of their "deliverer." To make it real--all in fun of course-they decided to hang the murderer. The man had killed the only person in town who could have prevented such a party, so soon the hapless fellow was swinging from a cotton-wood tree. Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Chas. E. Whittaker said recently, "Minority groups, in preaching and practicing defiance of the law, are in fact advocating erosion and destruction of the only structure that can ever protect them from discriminations and abuses by majorities."

Human laws, being subject to error, may need changing. If we respect and are loyal to our country, with its governmental processes, we will seek to change laws within the framework of legal process. To seek to change laws by sheer weight of violation is to deny the merits of government, and adopt the revolutionary process. This will destroy the Ranger we need to protect us from other "stompers."

Government-- not a certain form, but the idea of orderly government, is of God. (Rom.13: 1-7) Paul did not sanction Roman abuses when he wrote this; yet he could say, "Whosoever resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God." There is basic immorality in the f

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.II No.VII Pg.1

August 1965

"So Run ---"

Robert F. Turner

"Know ye not that they which run in a race run all; but one receiveth the prize?" (Read 1 Cor.9:24 27) Paul calls attention to the fact that allrunners put forth great effort, first in their training program, and then in the race itself. Yet, only one may win -- only one receives the prize.

Some exegetes seem to think Paul wishes to emphasize that all Christians could win the Christian race - as opposed to the limited opportunity in the Grecian races. But I believe the context calls for another thought. 

"SO RUN ---" (24b) That is, you run the Christian race as though only one could win. ("Thus" or "So" meaning "after this manner.") The thought is not to make Christianity a competition between Christians, but to urge each to run as though only one would finally be saved; hence, to do away with complacency, and make each of us aware of the need for greater effort. 

In the following verses Paul notes the self restraint necessary in training, and the singleness of purpose the athlete must manifest if he is to be successful: "So fight, I, not as one that beateth the air." We must know what the fight is all about; we must have a target, a purpose, and strive meaningfully for the crown. 

Paul said, "I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to other, I myself should be a castaway." (vs. 27) If Paul could say this about himself, how can we coast along the Christian race track as though all are going to win anyway, so what's the use of pushing?

But Paul said to run as though ONE and ONE ONLY would win. This is the proper attitude to have -- and how it would change our lives. I believe we would begin to raise some dust on the track. There would be no more of this "let someone else do it" talk. We would realize that each must fill his own place, or suffer loss. 

And it might help to remember that we shall be judged severally, as individuals. (Rom. 2:6) Those who win the prize will be those who pressed hard, every step of the way.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.II No.VII Pg.2

August 1965

Firm Foundations Reprint -

Robert F. Turner

ON CONGREGATIONALISM

(The following is an article by bro. Eldred M. Stevens, published in F.F., Aug. 3, '65. Read it carefully! THINK!)

"The day of real independence and dignity of the local congregation is almost over. There has been so much material written and spoken in defense of "congregational cooperation" that most churches can think only in terms of cooperative work; cooperation is not only scriptural in the handling of certain vital works that are too large for a local congregation, *(see footnote, rft) but it has become almost necessary to any undertaking! Few congregations will venture out on their own in anything, from buying tracts to building buildings, to sending out preachers.

A congregation sponsored a booth at a fair. The entire cost was less than $500, not one-fourth the weekly contribution of the church. Great pains and much expense were expended to spread out the cost among some twenty or thirty churches so that there could be cooperation and so that non-cooperating groups could be identified and criticized.

Recently a preacher called to solicit some inquiries, he revealed that a strong congregation had agreed to "sponsor" him if he could raise the money. The way that many "wideawake" churches with "strong leadership" have developed great mission programs with the monies of other congregations is a bit ridiculous. It is regrettable that so many churches feed this tendency by preferring to scatter small monthly contributions to dozens of places rather than stand solidly behind anything. A local church alone cannot even have a great gospel meeting any more. It has been told that "the day of great meetings is over." However, if that church will find one or two more congregations to cooperate in a "campaign" to be financed by the cooperation of many churches, the picture changes. This is particularly true if arrangements are made for a brotherhood public relations firm to do the ballyhoo and handle the promotion. This author was recently shocked (to put it mildly) to learn the cost of postage and promotional commissions involved in some well-known cooperative "campaigns." We are traveling rapidly toward the need for turning over some tables and driving some money-changers out of the temple!

The local congregation has lost its appeal to preachers. We cry about our preacher shortage. Local preaching no longer challenges. It is only for one who is too limited in talent and void of ambition to break in at the higher levels, particularly the promotion of projects that are too big for the local church.

In recent years, the old-fashioned idea of a Christian's giving as he has been prospered on the first day of the week at his home church, with confidence in the judgement and oversight of the local eldership in the expenditure of the funds, has been junked. We have developed area-wide and brotherhood-wide directories and mailing lists so that Christians may be solicited directly to make regular gifts and pledges to other congregations and works, by-passing the local church and the oversight of the local eldership.

We speak much of the scripturalness of our congregational autonomy; however, let a congregation try to exercise it and see what happens. Watch how quickly it is labeled and gets into trouble. Several congregations have revealed the pressures put on them to include at least token contributions to various cooperative works or else. They must do such in order that the "brotherhood" (actually, certain powerful brotherhood planners and leaders) may know where they stand! Some who resisted the pressure suffered rather tragic consequences.

When one digs beneath some surface superficiality, he wonders if the average church among us enjoys any greater independence than the average congregation within some of the denominations, which are admittedly episcopal in government. Pressures upon and control of the local church are pressure and control whether exercised "officially" through some type of organizational super-structure or unofficially through various other avenues. What was it that Mr. Shakespeare said about something smelling the same even though its name is changed?

It is reported that Alexander Campbell significantly and accurately said once, "The New Testament church moved in its congregational capacity alone." In our restoration of the original pattern, we long adhered to that point of view. Who can question that we are presently allowing ambitious men to use an abuse of scriptural cooperation **(footnote, rft) to lead us into another day of political control, brotherhood-wide in its scope? Why can't we remember what happened in the third and fourth centuries? How can we close our eyes to what happened within the ranks of our disinherited kin, the Christian Church?" 

----------------------------

If the local congregation is God's plan for organization (as bro. Stevens is convinced) then there is "vital work" too big for God's plan to handle. God's way is complete. With this "too big" fallacy, and the obvious truth that preaching to the world is a "vital work," Campbell and others "cooperated" a missionary society into existence.

Scriptural cooperation (sending "alms" by concurrent independent action to a dependent church) does not require collective action. (Send for free booklet on Church Organization.)

We do not "abuse" scriptural cooperation when churches operate collectively -- we leave the scriptural plan for one which has no divine authority. Intercongregational collective action has no more place in scriptural organization, than has piano playing in scriptural worship.

Bro. Stevens' courageous article is sincerely appreciated. Identity of the N.T. church is at stake. May our practice match our brave preaching!

 

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.II No.VII Pg.3

August 1965

Simple Truths Re. Church

Robert F. Turner

There are hundreds of churches in our land, and most of them claim some relation to the church of the New Testament. Yet, oddly enough, there seems to be a reluctance to consider obvious truths set forth in the N.T. about that church. Let's note a few.

THIS CHURCH BELONGS TO CHRIST. He said so, when He promised to build it. (Matt. 16:18) He purchased it with His own blood; i.e., its members occupy their position by virtue of His sacrifice on their behalf. (Acts 20:28) He gave Himself for it. (Eph. 5:25)

It is not MY church, and it is not YOUR church either; so we should never take liberties with another's property. This one fact alone, remembered and respected, should keep us from many religious errors.

CHRIST IS HEAD OF HIS church. His word is authority; all things relative to the church are at His feel. (Eph. 1:22-23; Col. 1:13-20)

Its characteristics must, therefore, be Christ-determined. Questions must be Christ-answered; and problems must be Christ-solved. This clearly rules out synods, conferences, rule of majorities, tradition, etc., in determining matters of faith. If it is important enough to be an issue, it is important enough to let Christ settle---i.e., there must be authority for our conclusion in the N.T.

CHRIST IS THE WAY, THE DOOR. Only those who come via Christ may enter this church. (Jn. 10:7-f.; Jn. 14:6) It is Christ's prerogative to say what one must do to be acceptable, and my feelings, what your mother said, and what thousands of others believe has nothing whatsoever to do with gaining entrance to Christ's church. Christ sent the Apostles out to bring people unto Him; and he told them to preach faith, repentance, and baptism. (Matt. 28:19-; Mk. 16:15-; Lu. 24:46-f.) When Peter used the keys to Christ's kingdom (Matt. 16:19) he told people to "repent and be baptized.....for the remission of sins." (Acts 2:38) Now if you have not gone through this door, you haven't entered Christ's church. It's just that simple ((Note Gal. 3:26-27)

CHRIST IS THE FINAL JUDGE. Men may tell you that these matters are of no great importance, but Christ will make the final judgment, and He will do that on the basis of the words He has given us. (Jn. 12:48-50) We are to be doers of the law, not judges (Jas. 4:10-12) In setting these things before you, I am only doing what Christ would have me to do (2 Tim. 2:2) for I am interested in your soul's salvation. "Am I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth?" (Gal. 4:16) What I think about the matter is of little consequence; but Christ's instructions are all-important. I want you to follow Him.

N.T. CHURCH IS CHURCH OF CHRIST. Is this such an odd conclusion? I do not mean it is MY church, I mean it is HIS church---the church that belongs to Christ. What possible objection could one have for calling it His church? Are you interested in being a member of the Lord's church?

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.II No.VII Pg.5

August 1965

Is It "Just Personalities?"

Robert F. Turner

For fifteen years or more certain "issues" have been prominent among brethren of this generation, and have resulted in divisions in hundreds of congregations. In the early days of this problem many sought to escape their responsibilities to study such matters by saying, "It is just preacher fuss;" or "just personalities!"

No doubt there were, and will ever be "preacher fusses" and "personal differences;" but only deliberate unconcern or blindness could hide the fact that fundamental principles of truth are involved in current issues.

Each congregation is INDEPENDENT with respect to its work and the oversight thereof, or it isn't. Congregational independence is an identifying characteristic of the N.T. church -- i.e., each church operates independently or it forfeits its right to be considered a N.T. church.

If it becomes merely a contributing church to evangelistic and benevolent societies or to a "sponsoring" church, independence is violated. Collective action is OPPOSED to independent or distributive action, as simple definition of terms will show. Men may get "worked up" while discussing this, but as long as a church takes a part in unauthorized organizations there is something more than "just personalities" involved. The church is a spiritual, not a social institution. Church sponsored banquets, fishing carps, secular schools, homes for un-wed mothers, etc., do NOT belong in its budget. A valid issue also exists where elders forbid the preaching and discussion of

such errors. (Matt. 12:30)

As long as such conditions exist, we are "whistling in the dark" to say "The problem is just personalities." In truth, the one so blind becomes a part of the problem. Congregations are top-heavy with people who have "joined" a party. They had "Church of Christ" ancestors, liked the preacher, had friends there, or perhaps learned just enough "first principles" to be baptized; but have done little toward spiritual growth since then.

They give little heed to policies and practices of the church -- except, perhaps, where their personal likes or dislikes are involved. They know little or nothing of general developments elsewhere. Little wonder they see "nothing but personalities" in a church problem -- with them, this is all it is. Such folk should realize, while there is yet time, that we all shall be judged by God's word, not by our personal feelings.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.II No.VII Pg.6

August 1965

Use Your Bible ......

Robert F. Turner

Christ, The Divider!!

Christ is called "Prince of Peace" ISA.9:6.

But "Peace" without righteousness, is no peace JER.6:14.

(a). Take time to study EZE.13:8-16.

"Suppose Ye That I Am Come To Give Peace On Earth?"

Jesus said: "I tell you, Nay; but rather division "LUK.12:51-53.

"I came not to send peace, but a sword "MAT.10:34-39.

We must not confuse peace with God, with freedom from Christian warfare.

Becoming a Christian, we "go to war "EPH.6:10-f. 1TI.6:12 2TI.2:3

Why Must Christ Be A Divider??

1. Because He is absolute monarch. MAT.28:18 1TI.6:15.

He does not "share" allegiance. MAT.6:24,15:13-14.

2. He judges every man individually. ROM.2:6-11 MAT.25:14-f.

Difference in good and bad must be recognized.

3. Evil, uncurbed, spreads like leaven. 1CO.5:6-8.

Must amputate, to save the good. MAT.5:29-30 2CO.6:17.

4. Truth, by its nature, is uncompromising. MAT.12:30.

Light and darkness incompatible. JOH.1:4-5 1JO.1:5-f.

Christ, in order to remain consistent with these divine truths, must be a divider

.

Christians (?) who desire peace (?) and unity (?) which:

(1) Allows a mixture of God and Mammon, service to two masters;

(2) Establishes false hope in individuals by "group" judgement;

(3) Weakens moral fiber of church by countenance of sin;

(4) Compromises the truth of God;

Are untrue to Christ, and will be divided against.

Christ Will Be A Divider In Final Judgement:

MAT.25:31-f. The sheep from the goats, everlastingly.

2TH.1:7-9 In flaming fire, taking vengeance.....

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.II No.VII Pg.7

August 1965

Putting On Christ

Robert F. Turner

God purposed to save a certain class of people, i.e., those who will conform to the image of His Son (ROM.8:28-30). Meditate upon this profound truth -- let its significance sink in.

Our acceptance with God hinges not upon our likeness to other people, or association with a certain party, but upon our likeness to Christ.

"That He might be the first-born among many brethren" (ROM.8:29). Christ is not content to alone have glory, but would "bring many sons unto glory" "sanctify" and "call them brethren" (HEB.2:10-f); all of which demands recreation, transformation, change on our part, that we may be like Him.

In 2CO.3: Paul magnifies the work of NT ministers because they proclaim a more-glorious message than did Moses, portraying the glory of the Lord, so that people may be "changed into the same image". The gospel is called "the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ;" i.e., if we would know God -- and become Christ-like - it must be through instructions found in the word of reconciliation (2CO.4:1-f.5:17-21).

Peter says we are given great and precious promises through the knowledge of Christ, that we might be "partakers of the diviIMG ature," (2PE.1:3-4). Don't hurry over that!! God has given us "all things that pertain unto life and godliness" and expects us to develop God-like characteristics. Isn't that worth a few moments serious reflection? Does my life exhibit God-like qualities?? If it does not, it is not for lack of concern and preparation on God's part. Christian means one who is an adherent, or follower of Christ; hence, a "Christ-like" person. Certain acts of procedure, per se, (including submission to baptism) do not make one a Christian. These acts are significant only when the submission is to Christ, done "in the name of the Lord Jesus" (ACT.19:5). This is not a verbal formula, but is descriptive of conformation -- putting on Christ (GAL.3:27).

The Lord's church (ekklesia) consists of those who are Christ-like; members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones (EPH.5:30). Some are babes in Christ, having newly begun the changing process; and some are more mature Christians; but all are seeking to conform to His image, are set aside to this end, partaking of the divine nature. There is no room here for "party-joiners".

Servants of the Lord came to Antioch, preaching the Lord Jesus. Certain ones there believed, and turned unto the Lord. Barnabas exhorted them all to cleave unto the Lord. Others were subsequently added unto the Lord. Thus, the church came to Antioch -- a "called-out" group of Christians (see ACT.11:20-26).

The human sectarian conception of Christianity and the church thrives in direct proportion to our neglect of these obvious divine truths. Many are trying to "save the church" when they should be trying to turn people to the Lord who alone can save those who call on His name.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.II No.VII Pg.8

August 1965

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

Someone has said, "Big people talk about ideas; mediocre people talk about things; and little people talk about people." Well, that's good enough to give us something to talk about, if we can measure up to it.

The word conversation as used in the KI Bible meant "manner of life." We have both the early and later meaning of the term in mind when we say, the caliber of a man may be measured by his conversation; but we lean heavily toward the idea that his speech betrays the rest of him. Jesus said, "Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh." (Matt.12:34)

Big people talk about ideas. This is not to say they have no concern for their fellow-man, nor for everyday affairs of life; but they have learned to be objective. They are motivated by high ideals, and pattern their lives by noble principles. These require understanding, and translation into workable programs. They meditate on these ideas, talk about them with others, and study their application to past history and to the present. Perhaps they, are not so much interested in what happened, as to why. Their view is wide, hence they see themselves very small.

Mediocre people are bound in a maze of things. Cumbered about much serving; their's not to reason why, but to do, and die. I suppose the world owes much to the mediocre, but they exact a fearsome toll. Their vision limited to immediate circumstances, like sheep without a shepherd, they wander aimlessly. They are "too busy" building barns to contemplate the value of the soul. They find a measure of comfort in being "average" and criticize the climber because he rocks their boat. Here are the masses of "good" people who allow evil to triumph because they "Keep quiet," or talk about other things.

But little people just talk about people. Their world is purely personal, and everything and every body is measured by the effect upon oneself. There are no principles involved in their own thinking, hence, they can not imagine others standing up for principles. They have never felt compelled to act because of ideals, so they impugn the motives of others. Ask them who took the city of Jericho and they'll declare they didn't, and then say that you accused them of it.

Poor little dried up souls, with a big big debt to pay on judgement day.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.II No.VIII Pg.1

September 1965

The "Good" In King Herod --

Robert F. Turner

We have heard it said, "There is so much good in the worst of us -- ". Do you suppose we could find some "good" in the King Herod, who beheaded John the Immerser? Read MAR.6:14-f.

When the news of Christ's great miracles began to spread abroad Herod heard of them, and thought Jesus must be the resurrected John (MAR.6:14,16).

Herod had imprisoned John because his wife (?) insisted upon it (MAR.6:17). However, he had refused to have John killed, despite his wife's plea (MAR.6:19). Even though John charged Herod with immorality, Herod respected John. In MAR.6:20, we read, "For Herod feared John, knowing that he was a righteous and holy man, and kept him safe. And when he heard him, he was much perplexed ('did many things' KJ; and heard him gladly" (ASV).

But when the daughter of Herodias danced before Herod and the friends who banqueted with him, Herod was "carried away" with festivities. He "put on the dog" before his guests, and promised the young dancer "whatsoever thou shalt ask of me" (MAR.6:22-). The daughter was persuaded by her mother to ask for John's head upon a platter. King Herod did not want to do this. Apparently he recognized his own sin, and knew John was doing his duty as a holy and just preacher when he spoke out against such wrongs.

"But for the sake of his oaths, and of them that sat at meat," he had the infamous act done (MAR.6:26).

"Good" ol' Herod would feel right at home among many brethren today. So many of them know they can not find Bible authority for their practices. Secretly they may even admire those who battle for sound, conservative doctrine, and try to keep the church pure (They'll listen on the radio, if no one catches them at it.). But if "certain ones come from James" (GAL.2:12) -- if it appears their sympathy for truth may classify them with that "little bunch of antis" -- they switch their cud, and talk out of the other side of their mouth. "Good" people, too much "afraid" to go to heaven.

Under proper circumstances, they would put John's head on a platter.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.II No.VIII Pg.2

September 1965

I Am Not Surprised!!!

Robert F. Turner

I once preached for a church whose charter members had family and social ties with the Christian Church of the city. Some had left that group to begin a "loyal" church; and were acutely aware of their "goings on." I distinctly remember one elder mentioning their support of a "church camp"-- how awful!! -- and another, the treasurer, said that the day "this" church sends support to some institution to do its work, he was walking out.

Today (13 years later) I see their Treasurer's Report shows support of several inter-congregational projects, support of a benevolent institution, and $50. for "Camp Expenses." Their bulletin announces there will be no mid-week services for two weeks due to "Northern Arizona Bible Camps."

I am saddened, but not surprised!! Some of those elders were wedded to Abilene (ACC) in past "lectures" and "work shops" and evidenced a fancy for pride-flattering "put the church on the map" projects. Perhaps some felt a deep seated resentment at being "that little bunch" of "non-progressives" and longed for the day when they could "take their place" in the world. Anyhow, they didn't seem to mind sound preaching that warned of digressive trends among churches of Christ until they realized that the majority of churches were on the bandwagon, and they were being called "anti" etc. That was a bitter pill. The "final straw" came when liberal churches from a "big city" prepared to establish a liberal church near them -- unless they would "co-operate." The "deal was made, tacitly if not otherwise, and the drift toward liberalism began to cut a path. "Area-wide" youth meetings, inter-church TV, and the rest followed swiftly. Yes, some left to meet with a conservative few, but most either couldn't see what was happening, or hardened their hearts.

Preachers they once loved became anathema. As Paul said, "Where is then the blessedness ye spake of? For I bear you record, that, if it had been possible, ye would have plucked out your own eyes, and have given them to me. Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" (Read Gal. 4:9-20)

And the end is not yet. The petty personal differences that accompany doctrinal differences will drive some to extremes. Others, lulled to sleep, or blinded by BIG preachers who warn them against the "anti-s", will take whatever "marching" churches dish up. Once "brotherhood practice" takes the place of Bible authority one need not be surprised at anything.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.II No.VIII Pg.3

September 1965

The "Image" Of Christ

Robert F. Turner

Putting on Christ means we must conform to the image of the Son of God (ROM.8:29). When church membership and conformation to brotherhood practices take the place of development of the "divine nature" (2PE.1:4) we have become sectarians, not Christians.

But what is the "image of Christ"? We have little or no information re. His physical appearance; and what we have says, "He hath no form nor comeliness; and when we see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him" (ISA.53:2). Christ is "attractive" in character -- and even here He attracts only those who are "fit" (suited) to the kingdom of God; (LUK.9:62) only those who will be "taught" (JOH.6:45).

There is no "short cut" to understanding Christ's character. Men have written books on the subject, but most of these stress one facet of His image to the neglect of others. The "whole truth" is woven into the fabric of the Bible, and must be "found" there. It lies in His life, death, and resurrection; and in the meaning of these, as seen in the whole NT.

Since all recognize (nominally) the importance of conforming to the image of Christ; and since we must "see" a pattern or model in order to conform to it; one may think much of our study would be devoted to determining Christ's character. Such is not the case (Now think with me!).

We do comparatively little study or preaching from the "gospels" (We push these "little stories" into the children's classes, where they can cut paper dolls about them.). Further, our use of the Epistles is largely a search for arguments on some particular doctrine, instead of a search for the basic principles of Christianity that makes the doctrine important. If we can not agree on the particular doctrine (nor do I question the essentiality of this) we come apart at the seams. Why? Could it be that we have not really learned of Christ, nor put on His image? We are depending on the particular to hold us together, and failing to develop the principles of Christ-likeness which gives the particular its meaning.

To illustrate what we mean by the "image of Christ" we give a few examples: (hoping you will add more).

Complete dedication to the work of the Father; LUK.2:49; JOH.9:4; JOH.17:4

Utter humility; MAT.11:29. MAR.10:14-f; JOH.13:3-16. PHI.2:5-f

Honestly frank, candid; MAT.15:1-14,26-28; JOH.4:19-24; JOH.19:9-11

Compassion for the lost; MAT.9:36; LUK.15:1-f; JOH.8:3-11; MAT.23:37-39

Obedient; MAT.26:39,42; HEB.5:8-9

Read such passages with a view to "seeing" Christ. What kind of person would do and say such things? Here is sermon material for on and on; or how about a Bible study series aimed at cataloging Christ's characteristics, with appropriate examples, and urging brethren to develop like character.

Putting on Christ is long overdue!

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.II No.VIII Pg.4

September 1965

Use Your Bible

Robert F. Turner

Is the Bible "hard to read"? Many people seem to think so. They open the book (actually, a library) and try a verse or two, wherever the eye chances to fall. Yes, it is very difficult. Makes no sense at all.

The normal difficulties of grasping the setting (2000 yrs. ago) and context, are complicated by 17th. century language styles in the K.J. version. Yet thousands of people do read and understand the Bible. (Their differences are from failure to accept the authority and sufficiency of the Bible, rather than from failure to understand.) Normal difficulties of interpretation are overcome by those who really want to know the message.

Previous articles on "How to Study" have emphasized the make-up of the Bible, and importance of "context." (Apr. and June issues) _If you really want to understand the Bible. but the "read a suggest:

(1) Increase your reading habits -- with Reader's Digest, or other wholesome secular material. In these T.V. days some have grown lazy. Their reading speed slows, and they cease to improve their vocabulary. All reading becomes "hard" under these conditions.

(2) Do your reading when you are most alert. For some this is early in the morning -- for others, later in the day when they are wide-awake. The Bible should not be used as a sedative -- to "put yourself to sleep."

(3) Use a Bible with large print-easily readable. The text is the important part of the Bible not the "helps" "maps" or binding. A large print, hard-back N.T. can be had for less than $1. from American Bible Society. Better to "wear out" three or four copies, than to buy a fancy little eye-burner that is more for show than for use. The money some pay for a clumsy "table book" (seldom used) would put a readable testament in every room of the house, and buy other reference books for family library. (4) The New Amer. Standard N.T. is an excellent version for reference or "up-dating" of the language. Charles B. Williams's translation of N.T. is also very helpful for those who find the King James language "strange." We believe many "reading difficulties" would vanish if one would make comparative readings in such books -- verse or chapter at the time. In fact, the study might become so interesting one would forget the Bible was "hard."

(5) Use "common sense" in selecting the order in which books of the N.T. are read. They are not arranged by chronology or ease of understanding; so we suggest: Mark, Matthew, John, and Luke -- in this order. Mark is short and full of action. Luke should be read just before Acts, for continuity of material by same writer. Do not jump into Revelation, Romans, Hebrews, etc., until a general background of knowledge has been gained.

(6) Try making notes on a scratchpad, kept handily beside your N.T. It is not a mortal sin to underline, and jot references in border of testament; for the truth you seek is the sacred thing-- not the paper and ink. Understanding follows study -- lots of it!

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.II No.VIII Pg.5

September 1965

The Unchanging Church

Robert F. Turner

Somewhere there is a church which is not man's church but is the church of (belonging to) Christ. Christ said "I will build my church -- " (MAT.16:18). Christ thought the church important for He purchased it with His own blood (ACT.20:28). Christ is head of His church, His body; and He is head of and purchased only one body, only one church (COL.1:18 EPH.4:4).

Christ's church was established ca. 33 A.D.; the first Pentecost after the resurrection of our Lord; in Jerusalem; by the Apostles; Peter being their spokesman; the H.S. speaking through them (MAR.9:1; LUK.24:46-49; ACT.2:). For the first time, now the church is spoken of as actually being in existence (ACT.2:47). In all kindness -- any church established at any other time, at any other place, or by any other authority is not, nor could it be the New Testament church.

Throughout the NT we find a record of the work and worship of this church. At its beginning those who believed the gospel, repented of their sins, and were baptized, were "added to the church" ACT.2:26-42,47). Then they "continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship and in breaking of bread, and in prayers" ACT.2:42). They "sang praises unto His name's honor and glory" (EPH.5:19; COL.3:16). Thus, their worship consisted of teaching, singing, Lord's Supper, giving of their means, and praying (cf. 1CO.16:2).

Their work was self-edification (1CO.14:4,23-26) benevolence (ACT.6:, 2CO.8:) and spreading the gospel (PHI.1:5,4:15; 1TH.1:8). The polity, or government of the NT church, speaking of the church as a whole, might be called an "Absolute Monarchy". Christ was its head, the King of Kings, and "all power is given unto me in heaven and in earth" He declares (MAT.28:18). This means that when women and men meet together and change or make new laws or doctrines for the church, they are usurping the authority which belongs to Christ. As a single congregation, the church is to have overseers, "elders and deacons" (PHI.1:1) but their authority is never to extend over more than one congregation, and they are subject always to Christ.

As a "creed" or "discipline" the NT church uses nothing more nor less than the NT itself. It will "thoroughly" furnish us unto "all" good works (2TI.3:15-17). It must not be changed, and to do so is to disobey God (cf. REV.22:18-19).

Names for the NT church are given in ACT.20:28; ROM.16:16, etc. The church belongs to Christ, not to the members of it; therefore it should wear the name of Christ, not a name which indicates it is the Christian's church.

At 40th. and N. Capitol Ave. there is a congregation of the church..

The above is a tract which I wrote in 1940, while preaching in Indiana. If that's "anti" or "new" doctrine I can at least claim some consistency. With a few citation changes & using more applicable scriptures) I stand right there today.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.II No.VIII Pg.6

September 1965

Anti Preacher Divides Church

Robert F. Turner

In "History of Churches of Christ in Texas" -- S. D. Eckstein, Jr. gives a brief account of affairs in Longview. We regard this as a tribute to Bro. John T. Poe, pioneer preacher.

------------------

"On June 7, 1875, twenty members dedicated the new edifice. During the next decade, the church grew rapidly until the organ question arose.

Although the congregation did not use instrumental music in its services in 1884, some members indicated their sentiment for an organ by circulating the following advertisement: 'A magic lantern entertainment for the benefit of the Episcopal Church will be given in the Christian Church --- Admission 25c, children half price--- proceeds to be applied toward purchasing a new organ for the Episcopal Church'.

Immediately, minister Poe denounced the advertisement as an endeavor to 'court favor with all the Babylonish sects,' and cried for an Elijah who might give 'thus saith the Lord.' In spite of the resulting controversy, the church increased to about seventy by 1899. However, when L.A. Dale introduced the organ into the church in January, 1895, the inevitable division occurred. The twenty-five anti-organ members, who withdrew under Poe's leadership, termed the majority 'heretics and schismatics.'

Even though the minority group reorganized within a week, the discouraged Poe soon moved away. When he returned in February, 1900, he found only a few still opposed to the organ. Evidencing great tenacity, he gathered seven anti-organ disciples who worshipped together for a year without receiving any additions. When the first convert was added in March, 1901, Poe exclaimed, 'Praise the Lord!' Within six months, the church numbered nineteen staunch members."

---------------------

It is not difficult to "read between the lines" here, for a human interest story, oft-repeated today.

(1) A church divided (though they still met together) with liberal fun and-popularity-loving members, and staunch conservatives.

(2) The preacher's denunciation of the "magic lantern" trick; with his appeal for scriptural authority.

(3) Appeal ignored, organ introduced with majority backing

(4) Minority thus forced out of the building, for conscience's sake.

(5) Charges and counter-charges,. And -- no doubt -- many hard feelings.

(6) The "anti-s" reorganizing, but experiencing early discouragement and losing members. (Personal feelings do not make for loyal Christians.)

(7) After long, hard struggle, the "faithful few" begin to move forward once more.

It may be interesting to ask yourself: "IF I HAD BEEN THERE--WOULD I HAVE STAYED WITH THAT SMALL GROUP OF SO-CALIYD 'ANTI-s' AND CONTENDED FOR A "THUS SAITH THE LORD"???"

Don't kid yourself. Take a look at how you stand today.