Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

In recent years, the divorce rate in America has continued to skyrocket. The number of people being divorced is rapidly growing in such proportions that many of those with whom we associate and whom we try to convert to the Lord have been divorced and remarried. Christians are, consequently, forced to deal with the subject of marriage, divorce and remarriage as it relates to leading people to Christ who are in second and third marriages. In addition to that, as the world has become more inclined to divorce and remarriage, members of the church have become more involved in divorces and second and third marriages. Because of this influence of our society upon us, we need to understand what the scriptures teach regarding marriage, divorce and remarriage.

One of the real dangers which faces Christians is the tendency to have its moral standard dictated to it by the world rather than reaching its conclusions about morality from the Bible. At the present, the morals of America are in a transition period. Things that ‘were. considered immoral a few years ago are now accepted and blatantly practiced. We see this happening with reference to homosexuality, gambling, drinking, fornication, and other sins condemned by God’s word. The warning which Paul gave in Romans 12:2 is therefore quite apropos for a discussion of marriage, divorce and remarriage. In Rom. 12:2, Paul wrote as follows: “And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.” We have got to be careful that we do not allow what the society around us legislates and accepts become our moral standard with reference to marriage, divorce and remarriage. We must not be conformed to this world but rather we must be guided by the revelation of God.

The fact that we must not allow society around us to govern what we teach on marriage, divorce and remarriage has been shown to us repeatedly in some of the work which gospel preachers have done in societies where polygamy is accepted. As they went into those cultures with the gospel and taught people what the Bible said about marriage, they were forced to teach what the scriptures taught about one man being married to one woman for life. No doubt it was painful for some of those who were involved in polygamous relationships to break those associations. However, God’s standard of right and wrong could not be determined by what any particular culture taught at any given time. Rather, the revelation of God went against the grain of that culture; they were forced to teach the truth of the Scriptures relative to marriage regardless of who was hurt or suffered because of past disobedience.

We who are in America today are going to have to be careful that we do not allow our culture to determine what we preach on the subject of marriage, divorce and remarriage. Some in our culture are looking at the number of divorces and loosening the standards which they teach on the subject of marriage, divorce and remarriage. Because that is happening on such a wide-spread basis, it is imperative that we go back to the revelation of God to find out what the scriptures teach on marriage, divorce and remarriage.

Jesus’ Teaching on Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage

The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it–was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be – eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it let him receive it. (Matt. 19:3-12)

And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; and they swain shall be one flesh; so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together let not man put asunder. And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery. (Mark 10:2-12)

These parallel statements of the question which the Pharisees asked Jesus contain the most detailed teaching which Jesus gave with reference to the subject of marriage, divorce and remarriage. We need to examine the teaching of Jesus in this section to find out what was taught.

The Historical Context

The question which the Pharisees came to ask Jesus was, “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?” The question is certainly as pertinent to twentieth century man as it was for first century Jews. If that same question were asked in today’s society, practically every person in the land would say, “Yes, it is lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause.” Our society has become so liberal in its divorce laws that we presently have what is called “no-fault” divorce – divorce which can be granted without placing blame on either party. A person just has to state that he and his wife have irreconcilable differences and that they no longer desire for the marriage to exist in order to obtain a divorce. Then, the persons freed by these divorces go out and remarry. They are accepted by society and, unfortunately, by many in the church as if their marriage was approved of God. Because of the present-day situation being so nearly like what it was in Jesus’ time, we need to notice His answer to the question posed by the Jews.

The Jewish schools of that day were divided into two opinions over the interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1. ` There Moses wrote that a man could put away his wife for uncleanness. The school of Hillel interpreted uncleanness to be virtually anything. For example, they believed that if a man found another woman that was more appealing to him than the one to wham he was married, he could divorce his wife and marry someone else. On the other hand, the school of Shammai, interpreted uncleanness to refer to some act of lewdness. Thus, they were divided into two groups along these lines. The question which they presented to Jesus, undoubtedly, was going to cause a conflict with one group or the other. No doubt, this was the reason that they came to Jesus and asked that question, tempting Him (Mk. 10:2).

Jesus’ Answer

In Jesus’ reply to the question which He was asked, He referred the Pharisees to the book of Genesis. There He said,

Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife and they twain shall be one flesh, Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God bath joined together, let not man put asunder (Matt. 19:4-5).

There are several things learned from this quotation by Jesus which need to be observed. They are as follows:

1. God’s arrangement of one male and one female shows God’s desire for the marriage relationship: There are a number of sins which exist today, and in societies of the past, which are shown to be sin from God’s positive arrangements in creation. We see, for example, that homosexuality is sin by the fact that God made a man for woman and a woman for man. God did not make a second Adam for Adam or a second Eve for Eve. Had He wanted the homosexual relationship, He would not have made Eve for Adam but would have made another Adam for Adam. Hence, the divine disapproval of homosexuality is seen by the original provision of God and also in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and Romans 1:26-27. Furthermore, we also see that other relationships such as polygamy, polyandry and successive fornication relationships are all disapproved of God for the simple reason that they are no more what God originally intended than homosexuality is.

2. We see that marriage involves leaving father and mother, cleaving to one’s wife and becoming one flesh. Those who are contemplating marriage would do themselves a favor if they would study each one of these ideas. Young married people need to leave father and mother. Untold numbers of arguments have existed in marriages newly formed because of arguments relating to the in-laws of one or the other of the people in the marriage relationship. Secondly, the person ought to cleave to his wife. He ought to try to become as intimate with her as he possibly can.

3. They shall be one flesh. Of course, this refers to more than the sexual relationship. It refers to the manner in which personalities and goals and intentions in life are merged in the two people.

We see the divine sanction upon this relationship in the statement, “What therefore God hath joined together . . .” God unites the man and his wife. That is important to observe because some leave the impression that if man decides to break a relationship, he can break it regardless of what God thinks about it at all. Consequently, we have such things happen as a man and woman being married to each other in a relationship which God considers to be adulterous (see Rom. 7:1-3). Hence, in order for a marriage to be acceptable to God, it must be a marriage that is meeting God’s approval. Man’s tampering with marriage is a violation of the Lord’s will. Hence, we need to give some more attention to this area of study. (Continued next week.)

Truth Magazine XXIV: 13, pp. 211-213
March 27, 1980

By Ron Halbrook

The Madison (Tennessee) Marcher for 19 September 1979 reported that the “Sunday School Round-Up” the previous week was a success with 3,349 attending. The “Round-Up” was a drive to increase attendance at Sunday morning Bible classes by inviting everyone to “the annual Treasure Hunt and Sunday School outing” which followed the services. Among “the two hundred and seventy-five prizes” given away were a puzzle, a new lamp, country hams, a Bible, and “the grand prize” – a new ten-speed bicycle donated by Ira North. Appropriately, the Bible was not the grand prize. Actually, the grand prize should have been the city ham – Ira, that is.

Getting back to country hams, all these prizes would have sweetened the pot when Editor Ira wrote his “Come Home” article to the “Antis” a few weeks ago in the Gospel Advocate. All seriousness aside, the smell of country ham in the church kitchen – now that’s a home coming that would be mighty tempting! I think I will mark my calendar for the next rodeo . . . circus . . . er, round-up, that’s is.

Oh, I forgot to give the Scripture authorizing all these shenanigans in the name of religion. Checking the bulletin again, I find Ira did quote the following passage in his weekly editorial: “Because thou sayest, I am rich and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked.” Yes, Ira said that the church can at times “nauseate the Lord” and make “Him sick at His stomach” because brethren forget the necessity for observing the Bible as “the standard” in all things. It would appear that Ira says that the Lord is so disgraced and disgusted by Madison’s carnival atmosphere that He has decided to have nothing to do with the place.

Speaking of getting sick at the stomach, try to bear with me for this last announcement from the Ringmaster’s editorial:

From every practical standpoint, we appreciate the fact that the church has emerged from the days and conditions of penury, and is shining its light in premises that we deem more worthy of the One these temples are supposed to honor. But what is the true value of architectural masterpiece so designated – and all of the attendant beauties and distinctions – if the central figure and purpose be not Jesus Christ and His healing power for a sin-sick world?

I think this means that another thing about Madison which disgusts Christ is that they have spent thousands upon thousands of dollars for premises” which include temples, architectural masterpieces, and gymnasiums with the silly notion that Christ is at the center of it all.

By, the way, Cecil Wright says that Madison is “conservative to the core” with”its “super salesman and promoter”. preacher (Gospel Advocate, 6 September 1979, pp. -566-67). Guy N. Woods, North’s co-editor in the Gospel Advocate, assures us that North is “in every instance. . . as anxious as I to maintain” purest New Testament teaching (GA, 4 January 1979, p. 2). No doubt, conservative-to-the-core Woods means that he and North are equally anxious to hunt treasure, eat ham, and perform gymnastics in the name of the church purchased by the Savior’s blood. We hereby offer brother Woods an invitation, embossed in twenty-four carat gold, to publish in our column the Bible authority for all this. R.S.V.P.

Preaching the Fundamentals

Brother Roy E. Cogdill was scheduled for September 1979 gospel meeting with the Knollwood church of Christ in Xenia, Ohio, but sickness intervened to deny us the privilege of hearing his fundamental lessons on The New Testament Church. Since brother H.E. Phillips was to speak at about the same time at the Thayer St. lectures in Ajcron, he was able to rearrange part of his schedule so as to preach at Knollwood. His lessons were some of the best we have ever heard, concentrating on such fundamentals as The Bible as God’s Word, Faith, Repentance, Baptism, Youth’s Need of God, The Importance of the Family to the Church, Be Thankful, and The Judgment. These excellent lessons – as well as the ones at Thayer St. on Imputed Righteousness – were taped and can be ordered from The Spoken Word, P.O. Box 127, Greenville, Indiana 47124.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 13, p. 210
March 27, 1980

By Eugene Crawley

Often when people refuse to hear and obey, or just flatly reject, the teaching of God presented by a faithful proclaimer of the Word, they seem content to say, “Well, that’s just his idea, and mine is as good as his, and after all I know a preacher who doesn’t agree with that anyway.” Such a conclusion is reached, not by a thorough investigation of what he has taught in light of the inspired record, but by what “seems” to the person to be good. There is, in the world today, too many who reach their conclusions about religious matters by what their “favorite” preacher says about it, or what they “think” is all right, or they can see no “wrong” in. While this is not the proper way to reach the scriptural and, thus,, right conclusion, some in the church seem perfectly content to “follow suit.”

This is of great concern to those who stand firmly for the faith, and they regret to see those who one time stood for the truth (or apparently did) turn aside to something else. But, we need to remember that it is not us that they have rejected and refuse to follow. The record of Israel, when Samuel became old and his sons did not rule honestly and righteously in Israel, illustrates this quite well. The people came to Samuel and said, “Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations. But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the Lord. And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not rule over them” (1 Sam. 8:5-7). The same principle is true today when people refuse to hear the word of God and follow Him. Samuel thought that it was he who-Was-being rejected, when actually it was God. Jesus said, “He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me” (Luke 10:16), and, “He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me” (Matt. 10:40).

People need to realize that it is not simply a matter of taking what someone, preacher or whoever, says about it, but being certain that they take what the Lord says about it. They need to realize that when they refuse to hear the truth, even reject God’s word, it is not simply a matter of refusing to hear the preacher, for he is just a messenger of the word. On the other hand, when one accepts the teaching, he needs to realize it is not the message of the preacher (if he is faithfully proclaiming the word) but it is the will of God, and obey it as such. For after all, our obedience is to be from the heart (Rom. 6:17, 18), and unto God (Matt. 4:10) to be accepted. We need to study diligently the word of God so that we not reject him, lest we be lost eternally (John 12:48).

God’s word is true regardless of who preaches it or fails to preach it, and regardless of who believes it, or fails to believe it. We will be judged by it in the last great day (Rev. 20:10-12). Let us be certain that we rely more upon God’s word, and not upon men (1 Cor. 4:6), and understand that when we fail to listen to His word that we reject Him!!

Truth Magazine XXIV: 13, p. 209
March 27, 1980

By Steve Wolfgang

Mike Willis’ request for this article arrived as I was departing for a meeting in Grinnell, Iowa, where this is being composed. I applaud Mike’s desire that Truth Magazine contain more material of this nature. As he said in the letter requesting the staff writers to submit such articles, the authors of these “field reports” may run the risk of being accused of “tooting their own horns” or incurring the ire of some brother who may not like what another writes about the work in a given location. I found this to be true regarding the reaction to a series of three articles which appeared last year in this paper (“The Lord’s Church in the Upper Midwest,” April 12, 19 and 26 issues of Truth Magazine). Though the reaction to those articles was generally favorable, I did receive a number of criticisms from various brethren. Some of it was perhaps justified, but I felt much of the criticism stemmed from the simple fact that some did not happen to like or agree with my assessments of the situation at several points. I expected just such criticisms, but did not allow that anticipation to deter me from writing the articles (though while reading some of my mail afterward I often resolved never again to write any more such articles!). However, I do feel keenly that great good can be accomplished by keeping the brethren generally informed about encouraging work being done in other places, as the majority of my mail response to those articles clearly indicates. Brethren are interested and want to help! It would be best if the men actually working in areas of this country such as the Upper Midwest or Northeast would write such articles themselves, but many of them seem disinterested or have outright refused to do so. Thus, it seems to be left to younger or brasher “visitors” to write such reports.

My local work for 1979 involved two congregations. We concluded 4’h rewarding years with the Expressway church in Louisville, and began work in the fall with the good church in Danville, Kentucky. Since this paper carried our report and accompanying picture of the Expressway work only about a year ago, we will not go into detail again, except to say that Expressway is a truly outstanding congregation of 200 + members. It was doing much good work before we were associated with it, and we know that work will continue long after our departure. We count it a singular honor and a great pleasure to have worked during most of this period in tandem with Connie Adams. Expressway also has three active and diligent elders who were a joy to work with and be under. Expressway sends significant support to men in Iowa, Japan, Italy, as well as men in various places in Kentucky, including the black congregation in Louisville. One of the most rewarding aspects of the Expressway work was the special series of classes conducted for several months each winter. These were designed to edify the members and as well to train some of the young men there who expressed intentions or desire to preach the gospel in future years. During the winter of ’79, we taught 13 of these young men in a course on the preparation and delivery of sermons, as well as more general courses in Biblical history and geography and church history.

It was just such a special training program, though a more extensive one, which caused us to sever a most pleasant relationship at Expressway to move to Danville, in the Bluegrass region of Kentucky, 35 miles south of Lexington. Truth Magazine readers have no doubt seen the descriptions of the Danville preacher-training program which have appeared in the paper periodically. The Danville program consists of a two-year curriculum involving classes which meet regularly from late August until early June, five days per week, three hours per day. The curriculum is designed to include study of every biblical book and additional areas such as church history, evidences, sermon preparation and delivery, and the study and refutation of various false doctrines. It was designed and conducted for several years by Kelly Ellis, an elder at the Danville church, and by Royce Chandler, the local preacher whom I followed in the work here when Royce moved to the Franklin Road church in Nashville after more than seven years in Danville. Brother Ellis, a retired school teacher and guidance counselor who now serves as a fulltime elder, is the author of God’s Perfect Plan (published by Cogdill Foundation) and provides valuable experience and insight for the training of young men in the program. Kelly has been preaching and holding meetings during his summer school vacations for several decades, and is an invaluable resource in such a training program.

There are currently ten men enrolled in the Danville training program, ranging in age from early twenties to late thirties. They come from Danville and as far away as Canada (2), as well as from Indiana, Ohio, West Virginia, North Carolina, Alabama, and Florida. Most if not all have regular appointments to preach at the invitation of various smaller churches within driving distance of Danville, and thus are able to gain valuable practical experience in addition to classroom studies. Men who have already completed the two-year curriculum at Danville are preaching in Kentucky and other states, and one, Efrain Perez, has returned to his native Chile and is establishing churches there and has also begun a training program (one day per week, I believe) for some of the new converts and potential preachers in that country.

A number of the young men currently enrolled have expressed a desire to work either in foreign cultures or needy and neglected areas in the North, East, and elsewhere in this country. The two young men from Canada (David Spiece and Chuck Bartlett) are planning to return to provide needed manpower in their native land., Though not especially large (about 165 members), the Danville church has exerted much good influence for a group’ its size. Through the correspondence course here, and the untiring efforts of several members, Royce Chandler, and Bob Crawley (preacher at University Heights in Lexington), Carlos Restrepo was converted several years ago. He has now returned to his native Colombia to begin a work which consists now of about 75 Christians meeting in Bogota. It may be possible for some of the members here and myself to visit the work in Colombia (as brethren Chandler and Crawley and others have done periodically) to render what assistance and teaching we can. It is indeed refreshing and invigorating to be associated with such a group of Christians.

Ten meetings and one debate (for which I moderated, as reported in an earlier edition of this paper) took me literally from Maine to California in 1979. As always, I was impressed and encouraged both by growing and prosperous churches on the one hand and by strength and resolve in the face of adversity in other cases. After moderating in the Ashworth-Rudd debate near Dickson, Tennessee, I was with the Englewood church, near Dayton, Ohio, in March. Englewood is a growing young congregation, begun just a few years ago. They had just occupied a new building adjacent to I-70 northwest of Dayton. Composed largely of active young couples, this church faces a bright future. In April, I was with Steve Ballou in a meeting in Milbridge, Maine, and then in Milton, Vermont. Owen Beal preaches for the Milbridge church in addition to laboring daily as a lobster fisherman, interesting but demanding work. The church there is small but composed of hospitable brethren existing under circumstances which would likely discourage less hardy christians. In Vermont, Keith Clayton is doing commendable work; it was a pleasure to become better acquainted with Keith and his good family. I look forward to being with the brethren in Maine and Vermont again in 1982.

In May, I held meetings in St. Paul, Minnesota, and Ft. Collins, Colorado (Foothills). The Summitt & Grotto church (St. Paul) is an older and well-established church, racially integrated, which is seeking to assist in establishing congregations in other areas of Minnesota where no church now exists. This church, again, consists of a number of talented and active young couples, such as those recently described by Ed Harrell in Vanguard. Ron Howes continues to do a good work with this congregation. The Foothills church has been without a full-time man for two years, since John Flannery moved to labor with a new work in Exton, Pennsylvania. Since that time, Mark Qualls (one of the Foothills members), has “inherited” the preaching duties at Foothills. Mark has done yeoman service for several years, driving about 75 miles round-trip from his farm near Longmont (which he operates in his “spare time” while holding down a full-time secular job). Feeling that this sort of arrangement put too much of a burden on Mark, the brethren at Foothills have been searching for someone to move there to work on a fulltime basis. There is another faithful congregation in Ft. Collins, the Downtown church where Johnnie Horton has labored faithfully for several years.

June took me (again with Steve Ballou) to Milwaukee, Wisconsin for a meeting with the church in West Allis. David Girardot, a Milwaukee native and convert from Roman Catholicism, is working patiently to strengthen the church and cause it to grow. This church, as with the St. Paul church and others in the upper Midwest, has benefited in years past from the work of Leslie Diestelkamp and members of his family.

The remainder of the summer occupied me with moving and attendant preparations as well as minor foot surgery, but I was able to do a week’s series on Restoration History at the Valley Station congregation in Louisville. This is the fourth or fifth time within the last year that I have been requested to do such a series, often for day services during a meeting. I am encouraged by the increasing interest in the history of the Lord’s people in the past two centuries, and the desire to learn thereby to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past.

Meetings this fall took me to Susanville, California and Colorado Springs, Colorado. (The proposed debate on the institutional “issues,” scheduled with Don Hinds for October, is now tentatively set for April 7-11, 1980 in San Francisco and Alameda, California). The congregations in Susanville and Colorado Springs are further examples of active churches composed significantly of young couples (though there are enough “older” Christians to provide stability in both places). Both groups meet in commodious facilities, built within the last few years and featured in the past on the cover of Truth Magazine. R.D. Huntley and Gailen Evans are young preachers, both in their first fulltime work; I was impressed with the condition of both these churches and the work of these two men.

My meeting schedule closes for 1979 with the current meeting in Grinnell, Iowa – a meeting scheduled for the week between Christmas and New Year’s partly to attempt to attract some to the services who are hindered by agricultural occupations at other times during the year, and also to permit my absence from the Danville teaching program, which is in recess during the holidays. One has been baptized so far – a former Roman Catholic who had begun studying with Dana Emery, the preacher in Grinnell until recently. This church is now in need of someone to move here and work in what most would consider a “hard area.” I regret that being away from office and files precludes a more detailed “statistical” report of the year in terms of baptisms, restorations, membership figures, contributions, etc ., but I am not sure that a “body count” is appropriate, anyway. In fact, I am convinced that the raw statistics do not tell the whole story in terms of the good which is accomplished in meeting work with small churches, often without a local preacher, which is where most of my meeting work has been done for the last few years.

Two final observations: during March I was invited to present prepared papers on the history of churches of Christ in the early 20th century (which I have been researching for the last several years) at two professional historical meetings (the American Academy of Religion Society of Biblical Literature meeting in Atlanta, and the annual meeting of the American Society of Church History at Southwest Missouri State University at Springfield). I mention this only because of several interesting incidents which occurred at each. Both of the sessions in which I read papers were well attended by members of “Churches of Christ” of varying degrees of liberalism. These same people would not come to hear me preach, of course, but schedule a “paper” for a historical convention, and put it in that context, you might be surprised who will show up. In both sessions there was lively dialogue in the question-and-answer period between myself, the panel of historians, and the members of the audience, including representatives of various “Christian Colleges” and those who have been dismissed from such colleges when their views became “too liberal.” Such instances simply reinforce in my mind the fact that those who begin the long walk away from devotion to Scriptural authority can only end up becoming simply another denomination – or two or three. Some of them have arrived there already.

Finally, I am encouraged by the number of hardworking churches which I have been able to observe and work with during the past few years. There are problems, to be sure, but I am generally optimistic about what the immediate future holds, at any rate. These churches are often composed largely of young couples who have not “grown up in the church” but are converts from all the other religious groups that we are not supposed to be able to convert people from anymore. Obviously they have not heard that we are simply answering irrelevant questions which no one is asking anymore, and certainly they do not know that they are not supposed to ask certain questions. Though they have usually never heard of Campbell, Lard, McGarvey, Whiteside, etc., and have known only denominational study aids in the past, they are hungry for solid, biblical teaching and willing to compare the writings of the above men, and all others, with the standard of New Testament authority. If we can continue to reach and convert those of like mind, the churches will continue to grow and prosper, and be able to face problems as they arise. Though no one can say with certainty what the future may hold, the immediate prospects of these churches look bright indeed. Though my meeting schedule has been certailed somewhat do to involvement with the program at Danville, current plans call for meetings in Texas, California, Wisconsin, West Virginia, and possibly a trip of several weeks work at several places in South America, plus the previously mentioned debate in April in the San Francisco Bay area.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 13, pp. 203-205
March 20, 1980