Truth Magazine

By Melvin Curry

This is a report on the debate between brother Aubrey Belue, who preaches in Griffith, Indiana, and Mr. J. D. Childress, from Pensacola, Florida, who preaches for the United Pentecostal Church. The debate was held September the fifth through the eighth. The first two nights of the discussion were held in Griffith, Indiana, in the building now owned by the brethren there. The last two nights were in Portage, Indiana, in the United Pentecostal Church building. The question of the Holy Spirit and miraculous divine healing was discussed the first two nights; the Godhead question came under consideration the last two nights.

The Baptism of the Holy Spirit

The First Night. –Brother Belue affirmed the following proposition:

The Scriptures teach that Holy Ghost baptism, as administered on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2, together with the signs and miracles done by the apostles and disciples, as recorded in the New Testament, ceased on or before the beginning of the second century.

The affirmative speech was mimeographed and handed out to the audience before the discussion began. This made it impossible for Mr. Childress to lead the audience away from the main issue. Brother Belue’s definitions of the terms of the proposition were clearly and concisely formulated. For instance:

WHAT IS NOT THE ISSUE:

1. Holy Ghost baptism–I believe in the fact of it as much as he does.

2. Speaking in tongues–I believe it has been done, as he does.

3. The existence of miracles–I believe in them.

4. Divine healing–I believe that all healing is divine; it is a question of miraculous divine healing in our DAY!

5. Whether or not God has power–I believe he can do anything.

Thus, we are not disagreed over whether these things existed, but whether they continue til now. It is not a question of whether God heals, but whether he does it by natural means–or by means of miracle.

Mr. Childress, on the other hand, either deliberately or ignorantly charged that brother Belue forfeited the debate by agreeing with what he taught. But, when a point of order was called in order to correct the false charge, Mr. Childress admitted that he was misrepresenting brother Belue (This point of order held him tight throughout the discussion!). What he would have given for the affirmative not to be mimeographed and in the hands of the audience! All that was left for him to do was either to follow it point by point or else completely ignore it. He chose to do the latter!

The Second Night.–Mr. Childress affirmed the proposition:

The Scriptures teach that Holy Ghost baptism is administered today to all Christian believers in the same manner as on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2, and that the signs and miracles done by the apostles and disciples as recorded in the New Testament, are to continue throughout the gospel dispensation or Christian age.

 

Actually, he had no affirmative speech. He used a chart on the measures of the Spirit that brother Belue had introduced previously and labored the first point on the chart regarding the two instances of Holy Ghost baptism in the New Testament–Acts 2 and 10.

A Victory for TruthThe United Pentecostal Church teaches that there are two baptisms in force today– water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ and Holy Ghost baptism. Two charts answered this contention in such a way that there could be no quibble offered by Mr. Childress. One chart was used to demonstrate that the Bible speaks of many baptisms (Heb. 6:1,2): (1) the baptism in the cloud and sea (1 Cor. 10:1-3); (2) John’s baptism (Mt. 3:10-12; Acts 19:1-5); (3) the baptism of suffering (Mk. 10:38, 39); (4) Holy Spirit baptism (Acts 1:5); (5) the baptism of fire (Mt. 3:10-12); and (6) the baptism of the Great Commission (Mt. 28: 19). Another chart on Ephesians 4:5 showed that only one of these six baptisms could be binding today:

“THERE IS…. ONE BAPTISM” (Eph. 4:5)

WATER  Rem. Of Sins Into Christ Cleanse By Man

DIFFERENT FROM Acts 1:5; 10:47; 11: 15,16

HOLY SPIRIT Comfort Remind Reveal By Christ

 

WHICH IS IT?

Mr. Childress avoided this argument as long as possible, and the only attempt he ever made to answer it was insignificant. It proved to be a great victory for the truth.

Turning an Argument Around

During the course of the debate, Mr. Childress argued that I Corinthians 12:13 teaches Holy Spirit baptism. Brother Belue turned the argument on him effectively. The baptism of I Corinthians 12:13 puts one into the body of Christ. Thus, it is the same baptism as that of Romans 6:3, 4 which puts one into Christ. If one is in the body of Christ, he is in Christ! But the baptism of Romans 6:3,4 involves a burial in and resurrection out of the element mentioned. Of course, this is parallel to the eighth chapter of Acts which teaches that one goes “down into” the water and comes “up out of” the water. But, according to Mr. Childress, the element in which we are buried into Christ is the Holy Spirit. So if he ever had the Spirit he doesn’t have it now; because he was buried in it and raised up out of it. One does not remain in the element in which we are buried into Christ!

An Amusing Incident

While debating the question of the duration of miracles, an interesting thing happened. Mr. Childress could not escape the fact that his proposition affirmed the duration of “the signs and miracles done by the apostles.” Realizing the dilemma imposed by his own proposition, which would affirm his ability to raise the dead, he attempted to limit the miracles in force today to those of Mark 16:17,18. So brother Belue decided to put him to the test! He proposed to bring some poison the second night of the discussion in order to see whether or not Mr. Childress had enough faith to drink it. After all, didn’t Mark record that “if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them.”What if Mr. Childress did drink the poison and it killed him? This raised the problem of the legality of such an action. Brother Belue consulted a lawyer about the matter. He said that such would be a criminal offence–“aiding or abetting suicide,” he called it. The maximum sentence could be as high as ten to twenty years in prison!

Funny? Yes, indeed! But there is a sobering thought just here. Remember, if you offer someone a deadly poison and he is ignorant enough to drink it in order to prove his point, twenty years is a long time to serve just because you wanted to win an argument. Needless to say, brother Belue didn’t bring the fuming nitric acid, although he did get the point across to the audience by relating his conversation with the lawyer. Besides, there was a cripple brother in the audience who offered Mr. Childress the opportunity to heal him. So brother Belue’s challenge went begging.

Truth Magazine, VI: 3, pp. 9-10
December 1961

By Mason Harris

About three weeks ago it was our pleasure to baptize Sverre Axelsen into Christ. Brother Axelsen first became known t us last spring when brother Salvoni was with us in a meeting. If I remember correctly, he and his wife missed only one night of the meeting. Then we saw no more of them all summer. This fall, Louise and I decided to take one night a week to visit some of the people with whom we have come in contact. The first night we went to visit this family they were not home. We left a card in the door and they came to our next meeting. They invited us to come again the following Friday night. It was a profitable visit, as he was baptized the next day.

Brother Axelsen started to one of our meetings before, but when he heard that we were “Kristi Kirke” he decided we were Mormons and turned away at the door. Now we are wondering how many in the past four years have done the same.

When brother Axelsen told us that he had turned away from one of our meetings over a year ago because he thought we were Mormons, we once again took up the question to see what we could do about this problem. Ever since we have been in Norway we have been regarded by many as Mormons. Two things may be the reason for this: We are Americans who have come to Norway to preach, and there is a likeness in the name we have been using. They (Mormons) are known as Jesu Kristi Kirke av Siste Dagers Hellige, but so often refer to themselves as Kristi Kirke. We have discussed this matter for about three years but could never come to any agreement on changing the name. But learning for sure that at least one person had turned away from our meetings because he feared we were Mormons, caused us to take up the matter again. This time, we agreed that the name should be changed.

The word “menighet” is the Norwegian word for church and refers especially to a local congregation, so it seemed perfectly in harmony with the Scriptures to be known as “Kristi Menighet”–Christ’s Church. The word “kirke” also is a Norwegian word for church, but it is used more in a universal sense. Actually, the term “menighet” is better for our use.

So far, the reaction of the people has been favorable. Most of them who understood our situation were in sympathy witht us. But we can’t change the fact that we are Americans, and in the eyes of many Norwegians, we are heretics trying to overthrow the religion of their fathers. However, we hope that our decision to be known as Kristi Menighet will make our work a little easier.

We understand that the brethren in Stavanger have decided to be known as Kristi Menighet from the beginning of the public meetings. We think it is a wise decision and regret that we waited so long to correct the situation here.

Truth Magazine, VI: 3, p. 19
December 1961

By Bryan Vinson, Sr.

“Wives submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church; and he is the savior of the body. Therefore, as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. Husbands love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word; that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing, but that it should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh but nourisheth and cherished it, even as the Lord the church. For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning CHRIST AND THE CHURCH. Nevertheless, let every one of you in particular so love his wife as himself, and the wife see that she reverence her husband” (Eph. 5:22-33).

Countless sermons have been preached and articles written on the subject above stated, and the language here cited from Paul’s letter to the Ephesian church has served as the basis for such lessons. The timeliness of such teaching has always been present, and is now as urgent as anytime heretofore. There is no relationship that has ever been established between people as close, as sacred and as blessed as that between husband and wife. It is the basis of human society, and its formation and functioning constitutes the legitimate source for the propagation of the species. Any corruption, perversion or renunciation of the proper and lawful existence and safeguarding of this Divinely established institution cannot but result disastrously for those so doing, and, to what ever extent such prevails, be subversive of society in general.

The apostle, in the above language, acknowledges the exceptional intimacy of the marital state and affirms the relation of Christ and His church, as illustrated there” by, to be a “great mystery,” that is, the relation of Christ and His church is such as to be not discoverable by man apart from being revealed by God. Hence, whatever we may learn about either Christ or the church, or the relationship as obtaining between the two, is to be ascertained by the study of the scriptures. The emphasis here to be noted is the love of Christ for the church in giving himself for it, and what he purposes in respect thereto, and the authority that he rightfully exercises over it. All of these enter into and create the closeness and justifies the intimacy as is to always exist.

The sublime teaching thus incorporated in this passage forbids, for those who have received it, any severance or divorcement of Christ and his church at any time and in any respect. On the principle of thought of “the association of ideas” in activating the human memory, the mere mention of Christ brings to mind the church, and, conversely, any thought regarding the church immediately projects to the forefront the Christ in all His regal splendor and matchless majesty. For anyone to endeavor the evaluation of either apart from the other is to reach false conclusions. That many have so done is indisputable; and that what some have done others may do is obvious by reason of the universality of human fallibility. Truth resting on evidence for its support is more difficult to ascertain and thus secure than error, because the latter is so readily accessible and requires no effort to embrace it. Its arsenal is founded on ignorance and filled with the implements of pride, passion and prejudice, manufactured in the forges of selfishness and worldly interests. Truth, redeeming truth, is the content of Divine Revelation, and enjoined upon all is the obligation to search, study and meditate on its sublime utterances as therein embodied. Thus is explainable the prevalence of mistaken ideas regarding Christ and the church.

It is apologetically expressed quite commonly that the church is of no vital worth in the salvation of man; that we need to be converted to Christ, and that this does not essentially include any conviction respecting the importance of the church; that one may become a Christian without being a member of the church, and hence membership in the church is optional on the part of the Christian, and consequently incidental rather than essential in its character. Therefore, rests the assumption of the freedom of choice as to what church one may become identified with, for, if being a member of the church is optional and non-essential, it necessarily follows that it is immaterial as to which church, out of the many existing, that one belong to. The statement that Christ is the Savior of the body, and the head of the church, in this passage, together with the clearly established truth that the church is the body and the body is the church (Eph. 1:22; Col. 1:18) confirms forever the fact that membership in the church is vital to being identified as one of the saved of the Lord, for such he adds to the church (Acts 2:47). Hence, for anyone to identify any church as being unrelated to and non-essential in the salvation of man, is equal to acknowledging that the church of which he speaks is not the church of which Paul spoke, the church of the Lord.

A respect for these truths requires one to defend the church against its detractors both without and within its holy precincts. We cannot but expect such from those without; but it is heart-rending to witness the injuries wrought against the church from those within. That such is knowingly and intentionally done is not charged, but that it, nonetheless, is being done is evident to those who know what the scriptures reveal as touching the church and intelligently appraises the developments that are current. The tragedy is intensified when it is realized those so doing are animated by a zeal to save the lost. This is laudable, and its absence in the purposes and efforts of any reflects a state of spiritual impoverishment. But to allow one’s self to be carried away from a becoming regard for the teaching of the Word of God by an unrestrained zeal is neither wise nor safe.

We have received word from different sources regarding a brother-team of evangelists who aspire to evangelize America within the next decade. They have secured a large tent, and are conducting meetings of several weeks duration in different cities. As reported, they are following the policy of keeping the church in the background in an effort to by-pass the prejudices of the popular mind. I wonder how they can faithfully preach the gospel without preaching the “things concerning the kingdom of God?”

The apostles did not, neither could they as guided by the Holy Spirit (Acts 1: 3; 8:12; 19:8; 20:25; and, 28:31). To reason that such a policy is prudent is to reflect, therefore, against the Holy Spirit, and the Christ who sent him. The apostles always drove straight to the affirmation respecting the resurrection of Jesus, and this was a most distasteful and repugnant doctrine to many of those to whom they spoke. The Samaritans were baptized when they believed Phillip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Christ, whereas these brethren, apparently design to baptize folks who believe what they preach apart from any preaching on the kingdom of God. Inspiration joined the kingdom of God with the name of Christ, and identifies both as properly incorporated in preaching Christ! Shall we deviate therefrom? I devoutly pray that we shall not, and that this is either a misleading report, or, being true, that they shall alter their course.

The relation as established between Christ and the church is such that to disparage either is equal to discrediting the other; no man can esteem Christ above the degree of esteem he holds for the church of Christ as He established, ordered and directed its character and functioning in the performance of its mission here on earth. He is the head of the church, and “as the church is subject to Christ, so, let the wives be to their husbands in everything.” This teaches that the church is subject to Christ in everything. And as the church is the “fullness of him that filleth all in all,” we cannot be true to Christ in any particular wherein we fail to be true to the church. Just as the Bible “as God gave it is adapted to man as God made him,” even so is the church adapted as Christ made it to accomplish the ends for which he made it. Let it be held forth in all its pristine purity and apostolic sufficiency as the divine instrumentality to manifest to all intelligent creatures the manifold wisdom of God.

The Word of God is the seed of the kingdom, and the seed cannot be sown without the kingdom becoming known. Furthermore, the word of God being the seed of the kingdom, the preaching of the word, and it only, never can produce or result in the establishment of anything else or other than the church. This will never produce any human institution, religious, educational, eleemosynary or otherwise as its legitimate progeny. Certainly, human institutions independent of any religious connection or character may be legitimately established as worthy instruments of human wisdom for human needs and purposes, but such is not the direct offspring of the gospel of Christ, the word of truth. The relation of the gospel of Christ, the power of God unto salvation, to the church, or kingdom of Christ, which is the body of the saved, is direct, immediate and indissoluble. The sufficiency of the one is a guarantee of the sufficiency of the other.

Any attitude of a lack of appreciation of the church is but an identical lack of respect and reverence for the Christ, and constitutes a repudiation of equal degree of his word. Every alteration of the church is our attitude, attachment and action is but a rejection to that extent of Christ as head of the church and the Savior of the body. Herein is perceived the real gravity of the offences being perpetrated against the church today by many who are members of it. It is basically a shift from the wisdom of God that is to be beheld in the church to the wisdom of man; it is the cultivating of a spirit of glorying in the flesh rather than glorying in the Lord, unto whom is to be glory in the church throughout all ages world without end.

The church is the Divine Creation for the accomplishing of His Will on earth7 and we are creating our own organs of operation as substitutes therefore, and in so doing we are modifying the character of the church from that of the creature to that of the creator in elation to the accomplishing of the divine purpose among men. A man was struck dead for putting unauthorized hands on the Ark of the Covenant, and the lesson preserved for us is that we should not lay unauthorized hands on the divine creation to alter or modify its form or function.

The developments in process among us today will inevitably, if persisted in, so alter the divine economy as touching the church to ultimately destroy its divine identity. The processes of apostasy, which were beginning before the days of the apostles ended, resulted in such a corruption of the church as issued into something other than the church. The digression of the past century led those victimized thereby entirely beyond the point of being the people of God, and thus constituted another religious body than his. May many yet awaken to the wisdom and safety of “letting the church be the church,” and those who are Christians being such and nothing more, Christians and nothing less.

Truth Magazine, VI: 3, pp. 13-15
December 1961

By Daniel G. Brown, PH. D.

Why Are Fathers So Necessary?

Let us consider now a few reasons why fathers are so necessary, particularly from the standpoint of child development and child psychology. In the first place, the character that a child develops is often a direct reflection of the values of the parents. A child comes to think and feel and act in terms of right or wrong, and good or bad, largely based on how the parents think and feel and act about what is right or wrong and good or bad. If, for example, there is little or no emotional attachment between father and child, then that child simply does not have the opportunity to get the guidance, values, and sense of direction in life from the father. And one possible consequence of this in the case of sons, for example, is boys who grow up to have consciences that are deficient and characters that are defective, boys who become chronic delinquents or antisocial personalities, etc. Cal Farley, founder of Boy’s Ranch, has observed that 90% of the youngsters who come to Boy’s Ranch are the products of homes where there was little or no father influence. Similarly, Father Flanagan reports that in the background of almost every boy offender is a story of shocking neglect and that between 80 and 90% of the boys at Boy’s Town who get into trouble, come from homes broken by divorce, separation or death, or from homes in which the boy’s chance for normal adjustment is reduced to a minimum by the clash of personalities in parental preoccupation with interests outside of the home. And in this same connection, Healy and Bronner, in a study of 143 male delinquents, found that only one in five expressed any love for father. Finally, Judge Leibowitz, of Brooklyn’s highest criminal- court, has concluded that the number one factor in the background of delinquents was an insufficiency or inadequacy of; father. There is thus striking agreement among all of these authorities, even though they come from different professions and institutions: namely, the lack of psychological fatherhood in the development of delinquency.

In addition to the development of delinquency and anti-social patterns, there is another problem of considerable magnitude, although it is seldom discussed outside of Psychiatric-psychological channels. This problem concerns sexual deviations, particularly male homosexuality, transvestism and sex-role inversion. There is now a rather convincing array of evidence suggesting that boys who do not have a male figure at least some of the time in early childhood with which to identify are susceptible to sex-role disturbances and are more prone to develop sexually deviant behavior in adulthood. This likelihood is increased in boys who are emotionally smothered by their mothers and emotionally starved by their fathers. There no longer seems to be any doubt that considerable risk is involved when the father is physically absent or psychologically distant from the son during the critical period from infancy to the third or fourth year. Passive, feminine male homosexuals typically have childhoods in which there was an abnormally close mother-son relationship, where the mother and son were over attached, physically and emotionally, to each other, while the father-son relationship was one of indifference, non-existence, or rejection, and there was no adequate male substitute.

Thus, not only does the son’s character development, in part, depend on an adequate father or male figure relationship, but, in addition, that son’s very masculine development and chances for a normal sexual life would appear to depend, in part, on adequate fathering in childhood.

But it is not simply to avoid having a son grow up to be a misfit, or a deviant, or a delinquent, or a criminal that fathers are needed. There are positive aspects to this business of being a father, benefits and rewarding experiences for both father and child. In the case of a daughter, the father is often the first “boyfriend” in the little girl’s life. Her first “romance” usually occurs at the age of three or four or five with her father. And what kind of man her father turns out to be in her life will exert a very formative and lasting influence on her attitudes and feelings toward other members of the male sex. In this connection, a recent issue of Newsweek magazine contained an article on Caroline Kennedy who, it was pointed out, enjoys a warm and close relationship with her father. “The first things she does when she jumps out of her miniature four-poster bed in the morning is to scamper to his room, pop her dark blond head in the door, and call: ‘Hi Daddy.’ Sometimes when the President is working at his desk he will look out the window and spy Caroline romping on the south lawn. If there are no important visitors on hand, he will walk out into the rose garden and clap his hands. It’s a secret signal of their own and Caroline always comes running.” Caroline is fortunate indeed to have a father who, though the busiest man in the world, finds time to be a father.

In the case of a son, the father is or should be his most important model, an example after which to pattern his own behavior. For a boy to have a warm, close, genuinely affectionate, mutually respectable relationship with his father probably contributes as much as any other single factor to that boy’s psychological development and emotional maturity.

It might be noted, in passing, that fathers may also exert far reaching influences in the cultivation of abilities and talents in their children. Take, for example, some of the greatest names in music: Mozart, Beethoven, Liszt, Bach, Brahms, etc . . . all from early childhood taught music by their fathers. And many other notable examples could also be mentioned, James and John Stuart Mill, Henry and William James, etc.

What is it that a father can provide that is so important in the life of a little child? Many fathers seem to think that the answer to this question is a “good home,” i.e., good food, a good house, good clothes, etc. But these things have little to do with the emotional needs of the child. One of the best answers to this question is from a book by English and Foster, quoted as follows:

Actually the things that a baby needs most cost very little in terms of dollars and cents. He has never heard of the Joneses. He is unconcerned about whether you have a million dollars or just enough to pay for his arrival. He does not care whether you have a new car or none at all. He can be as happy in a one-room apartment as in a ten-room house surrounded with landscaped gardening. What he wants is love, warmth, and acceptance for himself . . . strong arms to hold him and make him feel safe, smiles and cheerfulness, serenity and a sense of order, someone to come to him when he cries out of his sense of newness and strangeness. He wants you not to be too busy to play with him or too serious to en joy him. He wants you to stir his awakening mind to a joy and interest in the world around him . . . He wants and needs emotional security.

These, then, are some of the things that a child needs from a father. It is in helping supply some of these compelling needs and wants that fathers are so necessary and, not only necessary, but obligated to supply them. Just as a highway sign in Kansas reads, “You are morally responsible for safe driving,” “Fathers are morally responsible for adequate fathering.”

When men fail to supply these fundamental needs of their children, i.e., when men fail as fathers, whatever success they may be in other respects, including eminence in their profession, they have failed in life’s most serious and sacred trust. During the last four or five years, the writer has had occasion to counsel with disturbed military families and there have been a number of instances where the father was basically a failure as far as his children were concerned. Two actual cases may be mentioned briefly: An adolescent boy, son of a highly successful military officer, was referred for psychiatric evaluation because of social maladjustment and juvenile offenses. This boy was unable to recall a single instance, not one, in his entire life when his father expressed any warmth and love to him. This was confirmed by the mother who stated, “My husband never really cared for our son, he seemed to resent him from the beginning, and he was never close or affectionate to him; he did, however, punish him frequently and often severely for any infraction or mistake.” The other case was that of an officer with high level responsibility, with an outstanding military record, who developed emotional difficulties himself and had to be referred to another base for psychiatric evaluation. This man was such a failure as a father that all of his several children expressed their hope to their mother that she would not bring “him” (meaning their father) back home from the hospital when she returned!

 

Conclusions

 

In conclusion, there are two books and a parable that might be recommended to fathers everywhere. The books are: Fathers Are Parents, Too, By English and Foster (Putnam’s, New York, 1951), and Understanding Your Boy by Flanagan (Rinehart, New York, 1950). Any father who would like to make a conscientious effort to develop further his adequacy as a father will find these books very helpful and full of sound, practical father-child psychology. The parable is that of the Prodigal Son as recorded in the Book of St. Luke. Dr. Charles Curran, Professor of Psychology at Loyola University, has referred to this parable as one of the most perfect stories ever written. It is mentioned and recommended here simply because it contains an account of fatherhood at its psychological best.

What kind of life pattern should fathers provide their children? In trying to answer this question, it is especially important for fathers to remember above all that, Children Learn What They Live. How a child lives and what a child experiences is greatly influenced and in part even determined by how his father lives, his father’s values, his father’s character:

Children Learn What They Live

If a child lives with criticism, he learns to condemn.
If a child lives with hostility, he learns to fight.
If a child lives with fear, he learns to be apprehensive.
If a child lives with pity, he learns to be sorry for himself.
If a child lives with jealousy, he learns to feel guilty.
If a child lives with tolerance, he learns to be patient.
If a child lives with acceptance, he learns to love.
If a child lives with approval, he learns to like himself.
If a child lives with recognition, he learns to have a goal.
If a child lives with fairness, he learns what Justice is.
If a child lives with honesty, he le4rns what truth is.
If a child lives with security, he learns to have faith in himself.

If a child lives with friendliness, he learns that the world is a nice place in which to live.*Indeed, children do learn what they live, and fathers, for better or worse, have much to do with the final outcome.

(*Quoted from Hyde Park News, Hyde Park School for the Deaf, Los Angeles, California).

Truth Magazine VI: 2, pp. 11-13
November 1961