Truth Magazine

By Hoyt Houchen

Question: Please give your understanding of 1 Corinthians 7. 10, 11. I do not feel that Paul meant that one has the right to separate just because he does not want to live with his spouse any longer.

Reply: In this section of Paul’s first letter to the church at Corinth, he is dealing with some matters about which the Corinthian brethren had written to him (7:1). Specifically, he is dealing with some inquiries regarding the marriage relationship.

The verses under consideration read: “But unto the married I give charge, yea not I, but the Lord, That the wife depart not from her husband (but should she depart, let her remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband); and that the husband leave not his wife” (1 Cor. 7: 10,11).

This is a direct simple charge from the Lord. The wife is not to depart from her husband. This is the general rule which is explicitly laid down and must be obeyed. The idea is that marriage was never intended to be on a “trial” basis, separation allowed for any reason upon which the parties may agree. The seriousness of marriage is emphasized. Two people have made a commitment to each other for life and these vows are to be honored. A wife who simply decides to walk out on her husband and no longer fulfill her marriage contract is forbidden to do so in these verses. The wife is not to depart from her husband.

The first part of the next sentence is parenthetical, (“but should she depart, let her remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband”) and then follows the rest of the verse, “and that the husband leave not his wife.” The general teaching of not separating applies to the husband as well as the wife. It is “a two way street.” Jesus had repeated what is said in Genesis 2:24 when He asked, “Have ye not read, that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh?” (Matt. 19:4,5). So, the parallel of this basic principle of marriage is simple. The wife is not to depart from her husband and the husband is not to depart from his wife.

The parenthetical clause of verse eleven presents an exception, but Paul in no way is encouraging separation without a cause. Marriage is not always without difficulties; but, when both marriage partners are Christians, they have a common tie. They are both children of God, who can pray together and have the word of God to guide them. When each partner has the proper attitude, problems of the most difficult kind can be solved. Too many married couples fail to respect the teaching of God’s word on marriage. They either fail or refuse to recognize that marriage is for as long as both shall live. “For the woman that hath a husband is bound by law to the husband while he liveth . . .” (Rom. 7:2). So, the exception in the parenthetical clause of verse eleven is to the basic or general principle of marriage. If, for instance, the marriage should reach such incompatibility (severe physical abuse, etc.) that it could no longer be peaceful and harmonious, one may resort to departing; or both parties may agree to separate. However, separation itself does not give either one a scriptural right to remarry. To simply separate and remarry would constitute adultery. The marriage is not dissolved by mere separation. Civil law allows divorce and remarriage for incompatibility and other causes than adultery, however Jesus gave but one exception: “And I say unto you, whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery” (Matt. 19:9). In the event of separation, Paul declares, “let her remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband” (1 Cor. 7:11). She is not to marry someone else. The same applies, of course, to the husband. It is either live a single life or be reconciled.

The idea of the two verses (1 Cor. 7:10, 11) is not to condone the idea of separation simply because one marriage partner decides that he does not wish to continue living with the other. Many marriages fail because couples first think about separation as the solution to their problems instead of first trying to work out their problems and be reconciled. Every effort should be made to continue the marriage, and separation should be only the last resort after all efforts of reconciliation have failed. If this procedure were followed, no doubt many more marriages could be saved.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 15, p. 453
August 2, 1984

By Emerson L. Flannerv

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” These sixteen words in our Constitution were unique and have proven to be most beneficial to both church and state for 200 years.

One great American jurist, David Dudley Field, in 1893 wrote: “The greatest achievement ever made in the cause of human progress is the total and final separation of church and state. If we had nothing else to boast of, we could lay claim with justice that first among the nations we of this country made it an article of organic law that the relations between man and his Maker were a private concern, into which other men have no right to intrude. To measure the stride thus made for the Emancipation of the race, we have only to look back over the centuries that have gone before us, and recall the dreadful persecutions in the name of religion that have filled the world” (“American Progress,” Jurisprudence, New York, Martin B. Brown, 1893, p. 6).

From ancient times the priests and kings jostled for top position, for total power over the inhabitants. It was a battle in which first one then the other held the upper hand. Times were most dangerous to the citizens when there was a “marriage” of priest and king (church and state), where the state carried out the will of the church. This can be clearly seen in the history of Egypt, Mesopotamian empires, pre-Christian Rome and following civil governments.

Christianity Oppressed

In its early history, Rome exhibited a great tolerance to religions. Worship of state gods was expected of its citizens; but in addition, private family cults were tolerated, as long as they did not intervene in the political arena, where the state religion enjoyed a monopoly. But by the time emperor-worship was fully established, much of this tolerance had disappeared. The Roman rulers, noting the Jews’ adherence to monotheism, burned their cities, destroyed their places of worship, and scattered them throughout the empire. Eventually they softened a bit, saying the Jews need not pray to the emperor, but only pray for him.

The early Christians, too, suffered much at the hands of the Roman rulers. Nero persecuted Christians as arsonists, but by the time of Trajan, simply to be a Christian was a criminal offense – the name itself constituting the offense! Under Valerian the church was declared to be an illicit corporation. Its property was confiscated, its meetings forbidden, its “clergy” declared guilty of conspiracy to commit treason. Finally, the Edict of Milan, 312-313 A.D., declared that “liberty of worship shall not be denied to any, but that the mind and will of every individual shall be free to manage divine affairs according to his own choice.”

The Church Becomes The Oppressor

Within seven years of the Edict of Milan the pendulum was swinging the other way, and the “church” became the oppressor. The “clergy” was freed from public burdens. They got the state to forbid heathen sacrifices. Two years later they got the state to declare the “Christian Sunday” a legal holiday, and urban citizens were forbidden to work on that day. In the year 346, all non-Christian temples were ordered closed and the death penalty was meted out to all who offered sacrifices. The “heretics” (those who do not agree with the “church”) could not build church buildings, hold religious assemblies, or even teach their doctrines privately. “The principle that religious unity ought to be imposed in one way or another dominates the whole of the Christian Middle Ages, and finds a concise and rigorous sanction in civil as well as in ecclesiastical legislation” (Francesco Ruffini, Religious Liberty, London, Williams and Norgate, 1912, p. 36). This position was pushed by Augustine, who stated, “When error prevails, it is right to invoke liberty of conscience; but when, on the contrary, the truth predominates, it is just to use coercion” (M. Searles Bates, Religious Liberty: An Inquiry, New York, 1945, p. 139).

What Augustine was saying is that in countries where the Catholics are in the minority they should be granted religious freedom because of their conscience; but in countries where they are in the majority (say Italy or Argentina) religious freedom should be denied to the minority on the grounds they arr. in “error” and that this minority should meet with coercion. (The late president Franklin D. Roosevelt believed and said the same thing, asking fundamentalist evangelists to come home from Argentina.)

Some Problems As To Separation Today

In drawing the line of separation between church and state, there are some “gray” areas – some matters of difficulty as to who has the jurisdiction. Our civil authorities observe the results of Jonesville, the falsifying by certain cults, children dying because their parents’ religion forbids blood transfusions, innoculations, radiation treatment, etc. Does “religion” have the right to force on minor children a practice that will lead to the death of the child? Has it not become a “civil” right in such cases? If so, the state should interveNow, religion has done so, and some are still doing so. But if religion should be dealing with spiritual matters, should not the discipline (punishment) be of a spiripal nature? We personally believe (and we take the New Testament as our standard in religion) that no religion, no congregation has the authority of capital or corporal punishment. The state should interfere with any religion, any church, that sought to do so. Freedom of religion does not mean the church may ignore the building codes enacted for the safety of all. The fireman should have the right to check church houses to see that they are meeting the fire codes. It seems to me, since the church benefits by police and fire protection, by streets leading to our meeting house, that we should pay our fair taxes to the state for these services. Otherwise we are preaching “separation of church and state” while asking the state to give these services as a donation to the church. As Jesus said, we must “render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and to God the things that are God’s (Matt. 22:21).

Civil Government Is God-ordained

Christians ought to have a respect for civil government for it is God-ordained. Paul wrote the Christians in Rome (58 A.D.), “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God; the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power (government), resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same; for he is a minister of God to thee for good. . . ” (Romans 13:1-4a). It is good to have civil government! Civil government was meant by God to be a terror to evil men, and a praiser of those citizens who do good. But to exist, civil government must have taxes, soldiers, policemen and civil servants. Christians ought not to oppose the government in these things, but cooperate in every way they can.

The Church Is Ordained Of God

In the spiritual realm, Christ purchased the church with His blood (Acts 20:28), and He Himself became the head of the church, having all authority (Eph. 1:20-23). His church was to be directed by elders (we speak of the local congregation) who met the qualifications He Himself laid down in His word (1 Tim. 3, Titus 1). Their oversight was limited to the one congregation that had selected and appointed them (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:2). Christ instructed the elders to feed the flock (church). They were to maintain the moral purity in the congregation by withdrawing fellowship from members who violated Christ’s teaching. Paul wrote, “It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife. And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you. For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath done this deed, In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus” (1 Cor. 5:1-5). And in this same chapter Paul continues, “But now I have written unto you to keep company, if any man that is called a brother (in Christ, ELF) be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one, no not to eat . . . . Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person” (1 Cor. 5:11-13). So elders and congregations have been ordered by Christ through the inspired apostles to discipline members who have become “wicked persons”, and he has stated what constitutes wickedness.

Conflicts arise between church and state when either invades the realm of the other. When the state leaves the realm of civil government and gets into moral issues; approving what the New Testament condemns – abortion, homosexuality, atheism, etc. – the state cannot silence the church by claiming these are political matters, an arena the church should not enter. These are spiritual and moral matters, the very arena the church must enter and fight with all her might. When the church leaves the realm of spiritual matters and enters the realm of the political and state, then the church is out of place and a conflict is bound to occur.

Recent Lawsuits Against the Church

Did the state of Oklahoma interfere in church matters recently when the courts of that state rendered a judgment of $390,000 against the elders and the members of the Collinsville Church of Christ for withdrawing from a member who confessed to being a fornicator, according to a report in Time (March 26, 1984, p. 70)? Marian Guinn, who filed the suit, objected to the elders reading a letter to the congregation stating why she was being withdrawn from, charging it was “an invasion of her privacy, intentionally causing emotional distress and shattering her “whole world!” It is well to remember the elders dealt with a congregational matter. They did what the New Testament teaches a congregation must do in such cases (see above). It was, actually, none of the state of Oklahoma’s business, for Mrs. Guinn’s civil rights were not infringed upon. Any embarrassment she suffered was caused by her own actions. The elders had to take the action they did or disobey Christ’s teaching.

Here is the letter the elders at Collinsville mailed to Mrs. Guinn, as reported in Weekly World News (April 3, p. 5): “It is with tremendous concern for your soul and the welfare of the Lord’s Church that we exhort you to consider the impact of the results of the course you have elected to pursue. We have, and will continue, to follow the instructions set forth in the scriptures in dealing with matters of church discipline . . . We have confronted you personally; however, to date you have not responded, so you leave us no alternative but to ‘tell it to the church.’ If by the close of the worship services Sunday morning, Sept. 27, you have not indicated a penitent heart by public acknowledgment of your sin of fornication, a statement will be read aloud to the congregation, with an exhortation for each to make contact with you for the purpose of encouragement, that you might ‘hear them’ and repent. If you so choose not to heed these exhortations, by the close of the worship services Sunday morning, Oct. 4, a statement will be read by the elders, to exclude you from the fellowship of the Body of Christ, and notify sister congregations, which means not to associate with you . . . Our purpose in exercising this discipline is to “save your soul.”‘

The only punishment by the congregation was the excluding from fellowship of a member who was a fornicator and who admitted it. That is the only punishment a church can ever use in withdrawing from an unfaithful or wicked member who will not repent. Albert Barnes commented on 2 Thessalonians 3:6, which tells us to “withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly,” as follows: “We cease to have fellowship with him. We do not regard him any longer as a Christian brother. We separate from him. We do not seek to affect him in any other respect; we do not injure his name or standing as a man, or hold him up to reprobation; we do not follow him with a denunciation or a spirit of revenge; we simply cease to recognize him as a Christian brother, when he shows that he is no longer worthy to be regarded as such. We do not deliver him over to the civil arm; we do not inflict any positive punishment on him; we leave him unmolested in all his rights as a citizen, a man, a neighbor, a husband, a father, and simply say that he is no longer one of us as a Christian” (Barnes On The New Testament, 2 Thessalonians 3:6, p. 99).

The suit of Marian Guinn for $1.3 million in which the courts granted her a settlement of $390,000, is a blatant crossing by the state into church affairs. This has already spawned other suits. Such decisions will cause the churches that practice New Testament discipline among its members to lose its property, its income, its ability to function in the work of the church. A congregation cannot function without discipline. A state cannot continue to exist that does not or will not protect the civil rights of its citizens. It would not deserve to continue. There are some gray areas concerning the separation of church and state and these should be pursued. But the congregation action of withdrawing from an ungodly member is not one of the gray area issues. Let us maintain separation of church and state.

We are pleased to report $1 million will have been contributed by May 6th to enable this Oklahoma case to be appealed to the Supreme Court by the Collinsville church, and several good attorneys, some of whom are Christians, have

volunteered their services in this appeal. Let us hope (and pray) the appeal will be a successful one.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 15, pp. 451-452, 470
August 2, 1984

By Allan Turner

This special issue on secular humanism proves, if nothing else, that those who have been speaking and writing on this subject no longer sit as “lonely birds on the roof.” I am happy to share with you the fruit of my study of this subject. It is inevitable that any study of secular humanism would cause us to think about the influence it may be having on our government. I think you may find that it has had a much stronger influence than you had suspected.

When we think of the federal government, we normally think of a vast bureaucracy; so vast, in fact, that it is almost beyond comprehension. But, in reality, we are only talking about 537 elected and 9 appointed men and women. Surprised? Well, let’s count them: I president, I vice president, 100 senators, 435 representatives, and 9 Supreme Court justices. As ours is a democratic republic, these 546 people are the government; the vast bureaucracy, in theory, simply supports these 546 people in doing whatever it is government is supposed to do.

Traditionally, government (at least our government) has been thought to exist for the “common good” of the citizenry. Obviously, if government is to provide for the common good of the people, then it must have an opinion as to the substance of that common good. As secular humanism has become quite pervasive in our society, we should expect to see conflicts arising in government as it attempts to provide for the common good of a people who are sharply divided between a biblically based world view and a secular humanist world view. When we use the term “world view,” we are speaking of the grid through which we view the world. Naturally, there will be a sharp contrast between these two world views when the government attempts to legislate morality (i.e., homosexuality, abortion, marriage, divorce, capital punishment, pornography, infanticide, euthanasia, etc.)

It is my opinion that the conflict between these two world views is the most fundamental and decisive issue of our time. The issue is one quite common to New Testament Christians, who seek after the New Testament order, for it is one of authority: Is God still ruling in both the religious and secular affairs of man, or is man totally autonomous, answerable only to himself and the institutions he has created? These two alternatives underlie most of the major and minor conflicts of our day. Contrary to what some may think, secular humanism is not the “brand name of some organizationally identifiable movement. It is, rather, an ‘ideology’, i.e., an all-comprising, all-permeating world view, ethos and attitude. It is the antithesis to religion” (Klaus Bockmuehl, “Secularism and Theology”, Crux Magazine, June, 1983, p. 7).

Let us get, then, to the subject at hand. The first and last paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence speak of God. U.S. Supreme Court Justice, William O. Douglas, as recently as 1952, said: “We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being” (Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306). 1 believe it is beyond dispute that our legal system in America has traditionally reflected biblically based principles. But this viewpoint is quickly changing. So quickly is the change occurring, that some have insisted that the “anti-God religion of Secular Humanism” is already the favored religion of the state (Claire Chambers, The Siecus Circle, Statement appearing on the flyleaf by Charles Rice, Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law School).

Thinking of secular humanism as the official religion of this nation may not be as far-fetched as it may, at first, seem. In 1961 in the case of Torcaso v. Watkins, Justice Hugo L. Black observed: “Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others.” In this case the Court declared itself neutral of any religious influence when it said that “neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs. “This newly found “neutrality,” or tightrope act, has forced the Court to pretend that the existing legal system is not subject to any religious influence.

In declaring themselves free from any religious influence, they have opted for the self-autonomous religion of secular humanism, and have discarded any notion of a Law above the law. On its face, this is a clear violation of The First Amendment, which prohibits the establishment of a state favored religion, if “religion” in the amendment means “ideological system,” as the secular humanists argue it does. Of course, the use of the term “religion” in the First Amendment has been explained by those who framed it as a prohibition against a national religion or the placing of any one religious sect, denomination, or tradition into a preferred legal status. And as recently as 1961 it was understood by the Court that way. This was articulated by Justice J. Frankfurter, who said “the immediate object of the First Amendment’s prohibition was the established church as it had been known in England and in most of the Colonies” [emphasis added] (McGowen v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 465). It is interesting to note that in the 1963 Schempp case, which outlawed the reading of the Bible, or its use as a religious document, in the public schools, the Court said that the use of the term “under God” could continue to be used in the schools as long as everyone understood that it actually has no “religious purpose or meaning.” The term “under God” in the pledge of allegiance, according to Justice William Brennan, “may merely recognize the historical fact that our Nation was believed to have been founded ‘under God… [emphasis added] (School District of Abington Township, Pa. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 303-04). At the beginning of this rather long paragraph we mentioned that the founding fathers recognized this nation’s dependence upon God. We have now arrived at a point in this nation’s existence where its historical founding “under God” is considered by the United States Supreme, Court as nothing more than an antiquated shibboleth to appease the masses.

The legislative branch of our government has been charged with policy making, the executive branch has been charged with carrying out those policies, and the judicial branch as been charged with making sure the other two branches do not go beyond the Constitution in creating and implementing those policies. Nowhere in the Constitution is the Supreme Court given the authority to make policy, but this has been occurring now for a generation (ever since Earl Warren became Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court). Instead of a democratic republic, for all practical purposes, we are a people ruled by judicial fiat. What some who sit on the Supreme Court seem to think is their right to carry on their own “Constitutional Convention,” we, the people, recognize as nothing less than tyranny.

Felix Frankfurter, who himself became a Supreme Court Justice, wrote to Franklin Roosevelt in 1937 what we all now know. “People,” he said, “have been taught to believe that when the Supreme Court speaks it is not they who speak but the Constitution, whereas, of course, in so many vital cases, it is they who speak and not the Constitution. And I verily believe that that is what the country needs most to understand” (Max Freedman, ed., Roosevelt and Frankfurter.- Their Correspondence, 1928-1945, p. 383, 1967). Justice William 0. Douglas recounted that when he came to the Court, Chief Justice Hughes “made a statement to me which at the time was shattering but which over the years turned out to be true: ‘Justice Douglas, you must remember one thing. At the constitutional level . . . ninety percent of any decision is emotional. The rational part of us supplies the reasons for supporting our predilections’ . . . I knew that judges had predilections . . . But I had never been willing to admit to myself that the ‘gut’ reaction of a judge at the level of constitutional adjudications dealing with the vagaries of due process . . . was the main ingredient of his decision. The admission of it destroyed in my mind some of the reverence for immutable principles” (William 0. Douglas, The Court Years, 1939-1975, p. 8, 1981). In other words, he was converted to the secular humanistic concept that there are really no immutable or absolute laws. As Frederick Moore Vinson, former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, is reported to have said: “Nothing is more certain in modern society than the principle that there are no absolutes” (Quoted by Francis A. Schaeffer in How Should We Then Live?, p. 217).

The humanist world view is being forced on the rest of us by a few unelected individuals on the U.S. Supreme Court (remember it only takes five of the nine justices to rule). Whether or not they are admitted humanists, or even aware of their humanistic tendencies, is really of little significance. The main thing is they have encompassed the ideology and are acting, either knowingly or unknowingly, as the High Priests of this “new religion”; a religion which is, in fact, really quite old. Humanism is as old as man. Sacred as well as secular history is replete with man thinking it possible for him to direct his own path. All such endeavors have ended in failure, and left those who espoused such in despair. Man is not now, nor can he ever be, his own savior, and thinking he is, or can be, is one of the great follies of humanism.

I have concentrated on the United States Supreme Court, because at this moment in our nation’s history the executive and legislative branches of government are under the control of the Court. Neither the President nor Congress can do anything without the approval of the Supreme Court. The Court, except within the confines of the church and the home, has completely secularized our society. The Bible is forbidden to be used in our schools as a religious document. It is illegal for school children to be granted even a few minutes “quiet time” to address their Creator. It is illegal for schools to post on their walls anything that refers to the Bible, such as the Ten Commandments. When teachers discuss the highly metaphysical subject of origins, only one theory can be lawfully taught: the humanistic theory of evolution. The murder of some 15 million babies in utero is approved by the Court. Infanticide and euthanasia are both being sanctioned by the judiciary. The Court has involved itself in reapportionment of local government and the destruction of neighborhood schools. There are other things we could mention, but space just will not allow us to do so. All these acts have been done against the will of the executive and legislative branches of the government by, in most cases, five unelected men. For humanism to have such a dramatic impact on current society, it was not necessary for it to subvert a whole government, just five men.

The situation is much more critical than most are willing to admit. In his first speech as a newly declared candidate for re-election, President Reagan said: “How can we survive as a free nation when some decide that others are not fit to live and should be done away with? This nation cannot continue turning a blind eye and deaf ear to the taking of some 4000 unborn children’s lives every day – one every 21 seconds.” The President went on to say: “We cannot pretend America is preserving her first and highest ideals – the belief that each life is sacred – when we’ve permitted the deaths of 15 million helpless innocents since the Roe v. Wade decision” (Address to the National Religious Broadcasters convention, January 30, 1984).

The Chief Executive Officer of the United States is now on record as identifying the abortion issue as the most critical

issue affecting the survival of America. The current U.S. Supreme Court position on this subject is clearly the product of secular humanistic thinking, which selfishly place the whims of the mother over the life of her unborn baby, and shamelessly proclaims a constitutional “right” for the mothers of America to legally kill their unwanted, unborn children.

There must be no mistake about it, if the government of the United States adopts humanism, there will occur a complete transition from the Romans 13 government ordained by God to a Revelation 13 government ordained by Satan. Revelation 1-3 governments are, by their very nature, antagonistic toward God’s people. If, and when, humanism is successful in wresting the reins, you can be assured the church will be persecuted. Are we going to be like those we have criticized and say, “If the Lord is going to save us, He’s going to have to do it all by Himself, because if we help Him, then it’s not totally of grace”? People who won’t do the works commanded by God aren’t worth saving, I know it, you know it, and the Lord knows it.

Therefore, let us “put on the full armor of God, that (we) may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world-forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in heavenly places. Therefore take up the full armor of God that you may be able to resist in the evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm. Stand firm therefore, having girded your loins with truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace; in addition to all, taking the shield of faith with which you will be able to extinguish all the flaming missiles of the evil one. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. With all prayer and petition pray at all times in the Spirit, and with this in view, be on the alert with all perseverance and petition for all the saints” (Eph. 6:11-18).

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 14, pp. 428-430
July 19, 1984

By Wayne S. Walker

To whom it may concern,

The brethren over at Green Meadows asked me to hold a Sunday through Sunday meeting for them and I agreed. The meeting began with two fine services on Sunday. Even if I do say so myself, my sermons on faithfulness and dedication to the Lord really went well. But Monday night, one of our kids had a band concert at school and we just couldn’t miss that!

On Tuesday night, just as I was ready to leave, some. friends dropped in. They stayed around till 8:00 and by then it was too late to make it. Then on Wednesday night we stopped by the school for the kids’ open house with plans to go on to the meeting from there. But a film was being showed that they needed to see so we decided to stay since we felt it was more important than the meeting.

The weather finally broke Thursday and I was able to get some jobs around the lawn done. I worked so h4rd all day that when I came in that evening I was really tired, and oh, how my back hurt. There was no way I could make it to the meeting. (The last time this happened to me, I had the hardest time sitting through my son’s baseball game!) So we went shopping in town instead.

I have a part-time job to help make ends meet, and Friday night the boss called for me to come in and do some extra work. Boy, you can’t turn down that overtime for anything. Saturday night, he asked me if I would make a quick trip out of town to take some papers to a branch office. He had more important things to do but, of course, I didn’t.

Well, I was finally able to get back over to Green Meadows on Sunday morning. Do you know, those brethren had the audacity to tell me that they were not going to pay me for the meeting! Why, the very idea. I had good, valid reasons for not coming every night. By the way, why didn’t you go to the meeting?

signed:

Bro. I.B. Lax, evangelist

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 14, p. 438
July 19, 1984