Truth Magazine

By Bill Echols

When Obadiah spoke out against Edom he said, “For thy violence against thy brother Jacob shame shall cover thee, and thou I shalt be cut off for I ever.” (Verse 10) A1- so he said, “There I shalt not be any remaining of the house of Esau; for the Lord hath spoken it.” (Verse 18) When God through His prophets speaks concerning nations, the things spoken come to pass. This is true of Edom. Edom as a nation is extinct. Lost from the maps of the world it is a reminder to all that God’s word is not void.

Students of the Bible know that the Edomites were the descendants of Esau, Jacob’s twin. Although twins, these sons of Isaac were opposites in many ways. The differences between the brothers were handed down to their respective descendants, the Edomites and the Israelites. Does history record another set of brothers who each fathered a nation with each nation’s history so interwoven with the other’s? Truly their struggle together in the womb of their mother was continued in the nations they produced.

Before the birth of the twins God told Rebekah, “Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.” ( Gen. 25: 23) The Bible enables us to trace the fulfillment of this prophecy and most of the history of Edom until the words of Obadiah came to pass when Esau was “cut off for ever.”

According to the announcement made to Rebekah, each son was to become a nation. Esau was the father of the Edomites. (Gen. 36:43) The size of the land of Edom varied in different periods of its history. Centered around Mount Seir (Gen. 36:8), it once extended from the Dead Sea to the Red Sea at Eziongeber. (I Kings 9:26) Jacob’s blessing upon Esau promised, “Behold, thy dwelling shall be the fatness of the earth, and of the dew of heaven from above.” (Gen. 27:39) When the possessions of Jacob and Esau became so great that the land of Canaan could not contain them both, Esau moved to dwell in Seir. (Gen. 36:6-8) There the Edomites continued to grow in wealth. Edom was a wealthy nation with kings as rulers while Israel was still in Egyptian slavery. (Gen. 36:31)

The land of Seir lay south and east of the land promised to Israel. This made it necessary for the Israelites to pass through Edom on their way from Egypt to the Promised Land. In Numbers 20: 17, as Israel sought passage through Edom, we learn more of the great wealth of the Edomites. “Let us pass, I pray thee, through thy country: we will not pass through the fields, or through the vineyards, neither will we drink of the water of the wells.” The hillsides were terraced to yield abundantly. Palaces were built in major cities. (Amos 1:12)

Isaac further told Esau, “And by thy sword shalt thou live.” (Gen. 27:40) Edom was possessed with a war-like spirit. (Psalm 137:7) It was by the sword that the children of Esau took Seir from the Horites. (Deut. 2:12, 22) Edom never relinquished the sword. The Chronicler records, “For again the Edomites had come and smitten Judah, and carried away captives.” (II Chron. 28: 17) Such constant warfare resulted in the ultimate downfall of the Edomite nation. (Obad. 8,9) Edom had long considered itself safe in an impenetrable mountain fortress. “The pride of shine heart hath deceived thee, thou that dwellest in the clefts of the rock, whose habitation is high; that saith in his heart, Who shall bring me down to the ground.” (Obad. 3) God showed that all the accomplishments of men couldn’t prevent His judgment arid punishment upon the sinner. Let us not, as individuals or collectively as churches, become proud or think ourselves as beyond the judgments of God. “Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.” (Prov. 16: 18) “God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.” (Jas. 4:6) “Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.” (I Cor. 10: 12)

Edom, according to Isaac’s prophecy, was to serve the descendants of Jacob. “And thou shalt serve thy brother.” (Gen. 27:40) This was fulfilled in David’s time. “And all the Edomites became servants to David.” (II Sam. 8: 14) But Isaac also prophesied that Esau would throw off this yoke. (Gen. 27:40)

Israel’s yoke on Edom was broken when Joram was king of Judah. “In his days Edom revolted from under the hand of Judah, and made a king over themselves.” (II Kings 8:20) This freedom was not long lasting as Amaziah “slew of Edom in the valley of salt ten thousand, and took Selah by war, and called the name of it Jokteel unto this day.” (II Kings 14:7) His son Azariah continued to add Edomite territory to Judah. (II Kings 14:22) Under the reign of king Ahaz, Edom was again free. This freedom was maintained until the time of Judas Maccabaeus who subdued the Edomites and laid waste many of their cities. Edom later lost national identity. Many of the people were absorbed into the Jewish nation. In the New Testament the land Edom once possessed was known as Idumaea (Mark 3:8), but this has long since passed. The land of Edom is “cut off for ever.”

What lessons can we learn from this nation that was but is not? We have already observed that pride was part of the cause of Edom’s fall. Her treachery was another. Obadiah stated specifically that Edom was to be cut off “for the violence done to thy brother Jacob.” (vs. 10) The first record of such violence was the refusal to allow Israel to pass through Edomite territory. (Num. 20: 14-22) Later when Judah was oppressed by the Philistines and others. Edom joined the oppressors. (II Chron. 28:17, 18) “Edom shall be a desolate wilderness, for the violence against the children of Judah, because they have shed innocent blood in their land. ” (Joel 3:19) Can we today expect less when we “bite and devour one another?” (Gal. 5: 15)

From this study it is obvious that God does not approve people of violence and vengeance. God’s people must manifest no desire for vengeance. “Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.” (Rom. 12:19) We are often made to wonder if some of our brethren’s actions are not prompted more by a desire of vengeance than a love for the truth. The only warfare God requires of His people is spiritual. “For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds.” (II Cor. 10.4)

From this study of Edom we can also see the fulfillment of God’s promises. Obadiah said to Edom, “As thou hast done, it shall be done unto thee, thy reward shall return upon shine own head.” (vs. 15) We have found things to be just as he said. Thus we can know that those things spoken concerning the end of time and eternity will also be as God has spoken. “Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.” (John 5:28, 29) “Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.” (Rev. 2:10) Let us learn that the Word of God endureth forever.

“Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee” (Psalm 119:11).

Truth Magazine, VI: 6, pp. 5-7
March 1962

By Aude McKee

We have now been in Nigeria four months and the dry season is upon us. The temperature is much hotter now than in the wet season. December and January are said to be the two hottest months of the year. Here in Lagos there is a breeze most of the time and that helps to make the heat less disagreeable. Our last report was I written on September 24th, and since that time several things of interest have taken place. In October the Surulere church conducted a gospel meeting with different speakers each night. Brethren Bill Hall and Sewell Hall and I each spoke on three different occasions but perhaps providing transportation for the members of the other congregations rendered our greatest contribution to the meeting. The other speakers were E. J. Ebong, D. D. Islong Uyo, Raphael Williams, Abimbola, Solomon Etuk, and E. Ekanem. In addition to these native preachers, two members of the Surulere church spoke. Each night there was a 30-minute singing class, two sermons, and a question and answer period that lasted from 15 to 30 minutes.

On October 30, Bill Hall and I went to Sapele, 350 miles to the east of Lagos. There is a congregation of about 40 members in Sapele, and small groups meet in Warri, Overside, Agbarho, and two other villages in that section. It encourages the churches much for a white missionary to visit and preach for them. In addition to visiting the churches we both preached on the streets twice each night. We would find a place where people could assemble out of the hot sun at 5:00 p. m. and then we would move to another location about 7:00. By taking two automobiles we both had public address equipment and we were able to be in different towns each night. While we were there Bro. Edet Inyang, who preaches for the Warri church, and Bro. E. Ekanem, who preaches for the Sapele church, assisted us much in the work. Over 50 people were baptized into Christ on this trip.

31 miles to the north of Sapele is Benin City–an important city in that section of Nigeria. Bro. Hall and I had planned to spend at least half of our time in Benin in an effort to establish the church of the Lord there. But after arriving in Benin we learned that living accommodations must be reserved some time in advance so it was impossible for us to stay there and preach. Then we gave consideration to driving up from Sapele each night but there is a huge river at Sapele that must be crossed and the ferry stops operating at sundown each day. So, the Lord willing, we plan to go back to Benin in February and stay two weeks. While we were in Sapele we encouraged those brethren to make an effort to start the work in Benin and if they are successful we will do what we can to strengthen the work when we go in February. But if they have not been able to begin that work we will lend our efforts in that direction.

The new congregation established in the Shomolu section of Lagos is making progress. Last Sunday morning 30 Nigerians were present. In the two months of its existence a number have been baptized into Christ from that section, but perhaps the most promising individual was converted just last week. A man in his early fifties, who has his own church building on one of the best streets in Shomolu, heard a street lecture, attended services the following Sunday, and then after several teaching sessions in our home both he and his wife were baptized for the remission of sins. The building referred to is a good metal building that will seat between 50 and 60 people and was constructed by this couple for the purpose of instructing children. He gathers neighborhood children in on Sunday afternoons and teaches them songs and stories from the Bible. Last Sunday Verna and I visited the service and we were amazed at what he had been able to do with them. Five years ago he and his wife broke away from a popular denomination and had not joined another because they had not found one they believed to be right.

The street preaching continues to be interesting and profitable. Each session is divided evenly between preaching and answering questions. Many of the things that trouble people here are about the same as in America, so many of the questions are those that you would expect to hear from a man on the street in Texas or Indiana. “Why are there so many denominations?” “Which church is right?” “Do we know that Jesus was born on December 25th?” “Is baptism sprinkling or immersion? ” etc. But then conditions here raise a number of questions that are not common to America. “Why do the wicked prosper?” is often heard. “What about polygamy? Can a man be a Christian and have more than one wife?” “Is it right to take medicine?” (Often the word “medicine” is used for Ju-ju) “Can a man be a Muslim and still go to heaven?” The people here appreciate you speaking plainly and, contrary to conditions sometimes found in America, they do not consider it an insult when you call names and point out specific errors. They want the truth and the plainer you speak it the better they like it so long as you are kind in your presentation.

For the past two weeks Sewell Hall and I have had a series of classes in our house each morning from 8:30 to 12:00. Some of the Nigerian men are without employment and some have working hours that allow them to attend. We have taught classes in the Old Testament, the church, assorted Bible topics, and the book of Acts. In addition, 30 minutes have been given each day to instructing the men in making outlines and in actually making talks. Shortly after the first of the year we plan to begin classes like that at night and we hope to conduct them much of the time we are here. It is our conviction that gospel preachers in every foreign mission field should work themselves out of a “job” just as soon as is possible. This can only be done by establishing churches and encouraging them to become self-supporting and self-perpetuating. The Great Commission did not make the “missionary” a permanent fixture in a strange land, but rather he labors under the responsibility of teaching those who have been taught and baptized to “observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” Certainly a part of the “all things” is to go and teach and baptize.

Caneta Hall and Verna have had a class for the past three months for the ladies of the Ajegunle church in Apapa. As many as 17 women have been attending. Some weeks ago Caneta began a similar class in the Mushin church and this week Verna begins a class for the ladies of the Shomolu church. There is more difficulty in teaching women than men here. Most of them are not as well educated and thus do not understand English as well, and at the time the men learn the truth at the street lecture the women are home or on the street selling. We have found that the best way to reach the women initially is for our wives to teach them in their homes, and then they are happy to attend special classes.

Again we express appreciation to all who have made it possible for us to come, and to those who continue to support this work so that we may have the money for tracts, transportation, interpreters, etc. We will include a financial statement with this report in order to make the financial reports coincide with statements from the bank.

We continue to ask for your prayers that the Lord will deepen our concern for the souls of men and that He will bless every righteous effort in which we engage.

Truth Magazine VI: 5, pp.20-21
February 1962

By Connie W. Adams

The debate is over. Looking back over what transpired, several interesting things developed. The time of year no doubt hindered many from coming both locally and from a distance. Yet the attendance was good and the interest keen. Considerable numbers came from this area and many from over the country. Good order prevailed on the part of the audience.

More representative men could not have been selected to do the debating. For several years now Guy N. Woods has been recognized as the champion of the institutional movement among brethren. He is well known not only as a debater, but also for his part in preparing the Gospel Advocate literature. Roy E. Cogdill is known as preacher of great ability, having conducted meetings for many years throughout the country, as has Brother Woods. He is the author of “THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH” which has sold through several editions. His debating has been much more limited than Brother Woods’ efforts in that field.

The first three nights Brother Cogdill affirmed that it is “contrary to the Scriptures for churches of Christ to build and maintain benevolent organizations for the care of the needy such as Boles Home, Tipton Home, Tennessee Orphan Home, Childhaven and other orphan homes and homes for the aged that are among us.” He began by showing how scriptural authority is established. There must be a direct statement, approved example or necessary inference. In the absence of such, a practice is contrary to scripture. Brother Cogdill showed that in the work of relieving, the organization God authorized is the local church. He then showed that the benevolent organizations of the proposition were different from both the church and the home in origin, nature, form and function. These organizations are not a home; they are chartered to “provide a home.” To me, the most forceful part of Brother Cogdill’s presentation was his list of charges against the practice mentioned in the proposition, charges which were never even mentioned by Brother Woods, though he claims to answer everything, “item by item, statement by statement.” Cogdill charged that these organizations are: (1) Transgressive in that they go beyond the divine pattern in relief. The benevolent organizations are coordinate with the church and therefore additions to the word of God. ( 2 ) They are unholy, not sanctified by the blood of Christ. The New Testament was sealed by the blood of Christ, and anything practiced without New Testament authority is not cleansed by blood. (3) They are presumptive since there is no assurance that God accepts them. (4) They are irreverent in that they impeach the wisdom of God. Their existence is a tacit admission that the church as God purposed it is not adequate to fulfill its mission and human wisdom can improve upon his eternal purpose. (5) They are lawless in spirit. The word “iniquity” means without law. Since the New Testament does not authorize them, they are lawless. (6) They are sectarian in nature. While claimed as “expedients” they are made the test of fellowship to which brethren either submit or must get out. (7) They are Pharisaical in that they count themselves righteous, say “look what we are doing, what are you doing?” (8) They are unrighteous for God’s righteousness is revealed in the gospel, and these are not. (9) They are perverse in that they divert the church from its true mission and plunge it into secular business. ( 10) They are wasteful in that about 40% of funds raised goes for management and not actual care.

Brother Woods argued that the church could not be over a home, but could send money to a home. He said the organization constituted a “restored home.” He cited some passages, which concerned private duties of Christians and had no bearing on the responsibility of the church. For the most part his time was spent trying to show Cogdill inconsistent, raising sophistical questions, saying that Cogdill had changed, that the Newbern church had changed, and in appealing for the sympathy of the audience. After three nights had passed, and serious charges had been made against the scripturality of churches of Christ building and maintaining benevolent organizations for the care of the needy, we were never treated to the passage that so authorizes the practice. If anybody could do it, Brother Woods could, but in three nights he did not produce it.

The last three nights Woods affirmed the scripturality of the Herald of Truth. He started with the great commission and said that such a task required the cooperation of all congregations to realize fulfillment. He said that in New Testament times one church sent help to another for benevolence, and then reasoned from that that it could do so in evangelism. He introduced the “total situation” argument, in which he asserted that the whole is equal to the sum of its parts, that each part of his situation was scriptural, therefore his proposition stood. Cogdill showed that he had only asserted some of his fundamental essentials. He pressed him for the passage that says that one church ever sent funds to another for the purpose of evangelism. That was never produced. Woods wanted to know if one church could send a New Testament to another. Cogdill showed that for this to be parallel to the Herald-of-Truth arrangement that one church would have to receive funds from many churches in order to become a New Testament disbursing church overseeing a brotherhood work. Woods again charged that Cogdill had changed, that the Newbern church had, showed a chart with a picture of Cogdill (supposedly) driving the wedge that split the log. Cogdill showed that he had changed, was not ashamed of it, but that Woods had plainly changed and yet had never admitted it. Cogdill showed that in the work of the church, each congregation had an equal relation to the work of preaching the gospel and that the New Testament did not authorize a centralization of funds as in the Herald of Truth. He showed that each congregation consisted of members, resources, worship, work and discipline, and asked if one church could turn over part of its resources to another then why could it not delegate the oversight of some of its members, its work, worship or discipline. He showed that the Herald of Truth is separate from the Highland church, that Highland contributes to it like other churches do, that it has a separate mailing permit from the Highland church, has its own employees, offices and equipment, and issues its own financial report. According to their own published financial report for 1960, it took 56″ of every dollar contributed to grease the machinery. The debate ended without Woods ever reading the passage that authorized one eldership to become a brotherhood eldership, or that justified such a centralized agency as the Herald of Truth.

This report of the debate will not please Brother Woods. All through the debate he made remarks to the preachers present about how they would “write it up.” Let it not be denied that Brother Woods is skilled on the polemic platform. He knows debaters’s trick in the book, and used many of them in these six nights. He made assertions instead of proof. He switched terms to make play on words. He sought to load Cogdill with many questions read so hurriedly the audience could not very well follow them. He sought to draw Cogdill into side issues. He made emotional appeals to the audience. Yet, many of his partisans went off telling what a fine job he had done, when they could not tell if their lives depended on it, what passages he offered that really had any bearing at all on either proposition.

At all these discussions there are people whose minds are open and who honestly seek truth. There were some present for this debate of that mind. Already doors are opened for further study with various ones from this area. The church here is stronger as a result of it. The elders are well pleased with the work Brother Cogdill did in contending for what we believe to be the truth. There ought to be more public debates on these matters. Lies have been whispered in the darkness, unnecessary suspicions have been aroused; prejudice has clogged the minds of some. Such public discussions tend to clear the air with those who want the truth. We appeal to all who came, study your Bibles for yourselves, take no man’s word. Accept only what God said. “If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God.”

Truth Magazine VI: 6, pp. 17-19
March 1962

By Bryan Vinson, Sr.

The subject of congregational cooperation; that is, cooperation between a plurality of congregations as distinguished from that between the members of one congregation, has been, and is, a very live one today among members of the Lord’s church. This interest has been provoked by the developments within recent years, and the controversy over what the scriptures teach as touching this matter. Charges have been made frequently and fiercely to the effect that some do not believe in the cooperation of congregations in the accomplishment of their mission. This is unfair because untrue. If true it would be eminently fair to so charge, but it is never fair to misrepresent the position of another. Despite the denials that have been made the charges persist, and many have been deceived thereby.

It is a curious thing to behold the uncooperative spirit and action of congregations who are so devoted to what they call congregational cooperation. Except a congregation cooperates the way they prescribe it shall be done, they, in turn, not only are very uncooperative but engage in a course of intense opposition to such a congregation. Thereby are they demonstrating themselves to be the ones who do not believe in cooperation as attested by their course of opposition to, rather than cooperation with, these congregations thus opposed. In the absence of establishing their particular type of cooperation to be the exclusively scriptural one there can be no justification for this course of the proscription of dissenting congregations. And this has not even been claimed much less established. To predicate the recognition of a congregation on the condition of meeting a humanly devised system of cooperation as between congregations is to create an ecclesiastical law of their own. The New Testament scriptures afford no directive or example of such a relation in the operation of congregations, as is currently being practiced and insisted on by the promoters among us.

That congregations did in the days of the apostles cooperate is recognized by all, but that they cooperated in the way that is being done now is the thing denied by many. To assume that such a form of cooperation is allowable does not entail the obligation nor license the treatment being accorded those who do not see fit to so function. Having “no pattern” as thus claimed by them forbids them making one which is being forced on the

churches of the Lord as essential to acceptance and recognition. May it be emphasized that only on the premise that there is a pattern, and it is the one which they are following can such action begin to be justified on their part. So, therefore, from their own position, they stand condemned by this proscriptive course.

Spiritual and Carnal Things Involved

That congregations in the first century cooperated is evident by the fact that they rendered assistance, materially, to those in a state of need. The apostle, in Romans 15:26-27, says: “For it hath pleased them of Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor saints which are at Jerusalem. It hath pleased them verily; and their debtors they are. For if the Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things, their duty is also to minister unto them in carnal things.” Ordinarily in the scriptures when the term carnal is employed it is used in an unsavory sense as contrasting that which it imports with the spiritual (I Cor. 3:1-4, II Cor. 10:4, Romans 8:7). Here, however it is not so used. The contrast is there, but in no way constitutes a reflection against the things carnal. The things that are carnal here are those physical and material necessities supplied for the succor of the poor saints in Jerusalem. Please note that the Gentiles (those in Macedonia and Achaia) had been the beneficiaries in things spiritual, which had come to them from the Jews. This is true by reason of the fact that the Jews first received the gospel; the apostles were Jews, and Christ, the author of the gospel, was also a Jew. The gospel did not originate with the Gentiles. Hence, the sense of indebtedness felt by the Gentile Christians on this score, arose from the duty created by having been thus favored in receiving the gospel. They did not, then, extend this material assistance as a form of evangelism, as some are mistakenly asserting today, but for the purpose of supplying a need from a sense of duty and gratitude. Those to whom they sent it were saints, and thus not in need of being converted.

But noticing the statement that these Gentile saints had been made partakers of their (the Jews) spiritual things, we raise the question: how was this done, or what is the proper distinction in this connection between things spiritual and things carnal? Certainly the things spiritual are not things material or carnal. They are the things of the Spirit, proceeding from the Holy Spirit to the human spirit, as distinguished from that which is material or fleshly. They consist of thought, ideas and knowledge as embodying the Truth as it is in Christ. Such things are immaterial. Thus they were partakers of these spiritual things by the means and through the medium of communication of thought. They had learned the truth, and become heirs together with the Jewish Christians. Thus the contrast is between things spiritual and carnal, immaterial and material; and the partaking of the former lessens not at all the possession of such by those they proceeded from whereas the latter did involve a parting with that communicated to the recipients of the material things. With respect to the former there is no church cooperation, inasmuch as the gospel was delivered to individuals by individuals: in the latter there was.

Another passage where the terms spiritual and carnal are employed similarly is found in I Cor. 9:11. Here we read: “If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?” The context reveals that Paul is speaking of the point of being sustained or supported by them while engaged in preaching the gospel to them. He had not sought nor secured such from the Corinthians, yet he was defending his right to have been so sustained by them. Here it is a case of an individual functioning in the act described as sowing spiritual things. As a matter of fact, no church can sow spiritual things; such is always to be defined as individual action in its final analysis. Certainly, in a qualified sense, a church can, but only in the sense that it is sustaining the one, or ones, who by the devotion of their time and talents are actually accomplishing such action of communication of truth either orally or in writing.

Today we are hearing the charge repeatedly hurled that some brethren do not believe it is scriptural for one church to send a copy of the New Testament to another congregation, supply a tent for a gospel meeting, or cooperate in assisting in any respect another congregation in any endeavor designed to promote the furtherance of the gospel of Christ. Don’t they know that everything which one church can extend or give to another church is physical, material or carnal? A copy of the New Testament, a tent, a songbook or anything else that can be procured, and even the money used to secure such things are all material. There is no human need which can be met by man on this earth, either for himself or as supplied by others, that is free of a material connection or dependency. When the gospel was in “earthen vessels” and not in writing, there was a degree of separateness and independency of the spiritual from the material, which does not currently obtain. Today we have the written Word, and everyone, therefore, is dependent on it, and thus the materials employed–paper and ink–are essentially related to the communication of the truth, or things spiritual. Therefore, it is but a resort to the obviously sophistical to quibble about whether a copy of the New Testament, a tent for a gospel meeting, etc., constitutes the supplying of physical or spiritual things when provided by one church for the need, or meeting the need, of another.

Whatever the material may be needed by one congregation which it is unable to supply for itself as being legitimate in meeting its own responsibility certainly may and should be supplied by those who are able. But this isn’t the issue, and all the sophistry which ingenuity can employ will not deceive the thinking and discerning among us. The issue is – can one church assume to do the work of the churches generally, and rightfully engage in it, and become the receiving church of funds of many in order to accomplish this assumed undertaking? This we affirm is destitute of any scriptural authority, and that such arrangements and operations rest solely on human wisdom. Furthermore, it constitutes a transgression of the legitimate province of the elders of a congregation to so function (Acts 20: 28; I Pet. 5:1-4). When any congregation, or its elders, assumes the oversight of the work of a television program elsewhere and calls on churches generally to support it, there is a transcending of its proper province of functioning.

Truth Magazine VI:5, pp. 15-17
February 1962