Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

As modern medicine has worked to increase the longevity of life, some have become concerned with the quality of life which is prolonged. I doubt that any of our readers has any desire to spend the last few years of his life hooked up to some machine which merely keeps him alive. Hence, we are concerned with both the length of life and the quality of life. So was the Psalmist.

He asked, “Who is the man who desires life, and loves length of days that he may see good?” (Psa. 34:12, NASB). Just about all of us desire life and love length of days in order that we may see good. Certainly, none of us desires length of days to endure evil. The method in which one obtains long life and sees good is revealed in the verses which follow in the thirty-fourth psalm, a psalm written in remembrance of David’s providential preservation when he feigned madness before Achish. The answer given is quoted by the Apostle Peter in 1 Peter 3:10-11. Let us notice the different things which David revealed were necessary in order to have long life and enjoy good.

Control Your Tongue

The first instructions which David gave, as he taught us the fear of the Lord (Psa. 34:12), was this: “Keep thy tongue from evil, and thy lips from speaking guile.” There are so many different kinds of sins which can be committed by the tongue; they include each of the following:

Lying Railing Profane usage of God’s name

Backbiting Cursing Blasphemy (against man and God)

Gossip Filthy jesting Whisperings

There is no attempt in the above to make this list comprehensive; however, one can easily see that “keeping thy tongue from evil” certainly prevents one from being involved in a number of different sins.

James taught that the tongue “can no man tame” (Jas. 3:8). Rather than being tamed, as a result of which it can be trusted, one must constantly control his tongue. It is an unruly evil (Jas. 3:8). The man who can control his tongue has gone a long way toward manifesting self-control.

Despite the plain statements of Scripture, I have had occasions to be around brethren who made no effort to control their tongues. I have heard some baptized believers tell some of the filthiest jokes that I ever heard. Some excuse their profanity with such comments as, “Pardon my French.” I am afraid that whether I pardon it or not makes little difference; the sin is not committed against man.

Hence, the Christian must learn to control his tongue, even as he practices temperance in other areas of his life.

“Depart From Evil and Do Good”

There are two things required by this command: (1) to depart from evil and (2) to do good. Let us consider both of them individually.

The Christian must, first of all, learn to abstain from every form of evil (1 Thess. 5:22). He must put away from his character every form of evil condemned in God’s word. Such tables of works of the flesh as mentioned in Galatians 5:19-21, Romans 1:28-32, and 2 Corinthians 12:20-21 are important portions of God’s revelation because they show what things one must avoid in order to be pleasing to God.

In today’s society, there are some who act as if there are no moral absolutes revealed by God. The idea of a religion built out of “Thou shalt not’s” is obnoxious to not a few Americans. Yet, the man who wants long life and wishes to see good realizes that this can only be done through avoiding those things which God condemns. The things which a Christian must avoid are not viewed as opprobrious burdens to be borne; rather, they are indications from God as to the kind of life which is best for man and most pleasing to Him. Every one of God’s “thou shalt not’s” must be respectfully obeyed. Every form of evil must be departed from.

However, a religion which stops at obedience to the “thou shah not’s” will not suffice to please God. David added that the man must not only depart from evil but that he must also do good. In the parable of the Good Samaritan, both the priest and Levite had departed from evil. Neither one of them would have thought about being guilty of what the thieves had done. Yet, neither of these men were pleasing to God because they failed to do good when they had the opportunity to do good.

Christians are to be a people of good works. Jesus said, “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven” (Matt. 5:16). How brightly is your light shining? Would anyone be moved to glorify God because of the good works which you do? When Christians reach the point that they fail to do good works, their avoidance of evil will probably be looked upon as self-righteousness. The good works which a Christian does disarms his critics.

The man who would have long life and see good things must be involved in both of these activities – the abstinence of those things which are wrong and the practice of those good works which the Lord demands.

“Seek Peace, and Pursue It”

Another attribute of the man who would desire long life and to see good things in this life is that of seeking peace. We have seen men whose long life was wasted because of the bitterness of character which they developed because of their many enemies in this life. The Christian recognizes that peace is important and pursues it.

Paul wrote, “If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men” (Rom. 12:18). I suppose that it is possible to be at peace with a great many more men than we normally think so. Earlier, Paul had instructed the Corinthians regarding brother going to law with brother before unbelievers; in the course of that chapter, he stated, “Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?” (1 Cor. 6:7). The man who is willing to be abused rather than have enmity between him and his fellow man is indeed “seeking peace.” I wish that there were more among us who sought peace in this fashion.

Recently, I visited Amish country. During one discussion which I heard, the peacefulness of the Amish people was emphasized. The man, an Amish lawyer, discussed how Amish people would handle a property dispute. If one Amish farmer thought that another farmer had his fence on his property, the second farmer would reply, “Brother, let us go walk through the field and you show me where you think the fence ought to be and we will put it there.” Usually, the one claiming that the fence was in the wrong place would be so moved by this attitude that he would drop his claim.

Although I am not so naive as to believe that all Amish people act this way, I commend the attitude related in this discussion. If all of us sought peace with our neighbors to this extent, the court load in this country would be drastically reduced. For the sake of our reputation as Christians in a given community, brethren must be peace lovers and peace makers.

Some have pressed this point to such a degree that they have erred tremendously. Understanding the beauty of peace, some have pursued it all the way into the pasture of compromise. Desiring unity and peace with their religious friends and neighbors, some have compromised principles of divine revelation, sacrificing them on an altar to a distorted god called “Peace.” Jesus recognized that peace could not be had with all men. He Himself revealed, “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household” (Matt. 10:34-36). Hence, Jesus recognized that there would be necessarily divisions brought about through the preaching of the gospel.

I can have no peace with those who forsake the commandments of God, other than the normal peace granted to one’s neighbors and fellowmen in general. However, I cannot be at peace spiritually with the man who forsakes the gospel of God for the traditions and commandments of men. Jesus set the standard for religious people: all of those who love God and obey His commandments can have peace with each other. There can, however, be no religious peace betwe-n a man who loves God and tries to obey His commandments with one who does not love the Lord enough to walk in His commandments.

Peace can be had with only those who continue to walk in the light. It cannot be had with those who have forsaken the light to grovel in darkness. The conflict which Christ has with Satan extends to the children of each; the children of God are at war with the children of Satan. Hence, there can be no peace between the two!

The application of this to issues which have divided God’s people is not one which some among us are willing to make. However, even the most blind person among us surely recognizes that the divisions which have occurred in the church in recent years has not been occasioned through an absence of the normal attitudes which make it possible for men to live with men peaceably. The divisions of which I have had knowledge did not occur because of sinful attitudes; they occurred because men started practicing things in religion which were not authorized in the scriptures. Consequently, God-fearing, conscientious brethren who could not go along with these innovations were forced to pull out. On the other hand, those who were liberal among the churches with which I worked have left because of disagreement over doctrinal positions, not the absence of moral attributes regarding seeking peace.

I say this to emphasize this fact: to say that the divisions which have occurred among us can be healed through love and proper attitudes is ridiculously naive. We did not divide because brethren did not love each other enough. Quite the contrary! On most occasions where divisions occurred, hearts were rended because love which existed between brethren who disagreed on what the Scriptures authorized. The disagreements occurred regarding what the Scriptures authorized, not because of an absence of brotherly love. Hence, any solution for peace which suggests that our divisions have simply occurred because there was not enough love among brethren is obviously false. All of the brotherly love in the world will not erase the doctrinal disagreements between the atheist and the theist, the Jew and the Christian, the modernist and the fundamentalist, or parties to any other doctrinal divisions (whether they be church supported recreation, the sponsoring church arrangement, church support of human institutions, or instrumental music in worship).

“The Eyes of the Lord”

David continues in this psalm by stating that God’s providential care extends to take care of those who are seeking to do what is right. He said, “The eyes of the Lord are upon the righteous, and his ears are open unto their cry. The face of the Lord is against them that do evil, to cut off the remembrance of them from the earth” (34:15-16). God loves those who control their tongue, depart from evil, do good, and seek peace.

It is, indeed, a comforting blessing to know that God pays attention to our prayers and watches out for us. Indeed, with David, we can say, “Oh how great is thy goodness, which thou hast laid up for them that fear thee; which thou hast wrought for them that trust in thee before the sons of men” (Psa. 31:19).

Truth Magazine XXIII: 38, pp. 611-613
September 27, 1979

By Raymond Harris

In the title of this article we are using the ward “Fellowship” in an accommodative way. All who have carefully studied the New Testament use of the word Fellowship know that the word ALWAYS applies to spiritual sharing or partnership. All who have bothered to check the verses and the contexts where the word “Fellowship” is found in the New Testament know that it is NEVER used or found in a command, approved example or necessary inference authorizing church social activities. Hence, to try to justify church social activities by calling them “Fellowship” is a flagrant and inexcusable misuse of the term. It is parallel to calling sprinkling baptism. Yet we find the rebellious and self-willed doing both!

In this article we want to briefly point out how rapidly the facilities to accommodate the food, fun and games craze have increased. Back about 1940 a few brethren began to insist that we should put a sink and refrigerator in the basement of the church building so communion utensils could be washed and supplies could be kept fresh. And we wouldn’t have to carry all that paraphernalia back and forth. It was then suggested that surely no one could be so heartless as to deny the mothers use of the refrigerator to keep the babies’ bottles fresh. Then came World War II with gasoline and tire rationing. In large cities and in other areas where people had to come a long distance to services, it was suggested that if there was added a stove in the basement, some could remain at the building, warm the lunch that they had brought along, and stay over for an early evening service. Next came the coffee urn and then a mouse proof kitchen cabinet, it which to store various and sundry food supplies.

Then the war ended and everyone wanted a new building. By now brethren had gotten used to seeing the stove, sink, refrigerator and cabinets. So, the next step was to suggest that in the new building, a room be left large enough to accommodate the congregation. Those big pitch in dinners that were held during gospel meetings down at the park shelter house could be held right in the church building. It was pointed out that we could have total control of the affair and we wouldn’t have to compete with the sectarians for use of the shelter house. Besides in some climates the unheated park facilities were just not satisfactory. At this point few seemed to notice or care that what had been incidental use of the building and what had been individually planned and promoted social activity had now become church action. Few asked for scripture to justify that which seemed to be such a pleasant and natural thing to do. But at that point they had gone from a second-hand refrigerator in a corner to a modern kitchen and dining hall that added thousands of dollars to the cost of the building. Money was misappropriated and misspent without Bible authority.

Then elders, sensing that they were to oversee all church property, found themselves having to decide if the kitchen and dining area could be–used -for, wedding receptions and teen parties. Again few asked for scripture to authorize such. How could such a pleasant and natural thing be wrong?

Through the years some questioned the churches providing such elaborate facilities for social activities, and so in a lame effort to justify them they came to be “Fellowship Halls.” As the years went by, game rooms were added and the “Fellowship Hall” became quite popular and the most used part of many church buildings. Everything from class parties to baby showers, to elders meetings are now held where coffee, cokes and snacks can be served up at a moment’s notice.

And now the ultimate! You watch it. We predict that with inflation being as it is, soon some churches will have “Family Life Centers” that cost more than their places of worship. Now churches all across the country from Tennessee to Texas are building facilities that resemble a cross between the country club and the Y.M.C.A. They call them “Family Life Centers” and they include basketball gyms, sauna rooms, game rooms, craft rooms, etc., etc., etc.

Yes, many have come a long way from the dingy old sink and refrigerator in the basement. And it shows just how far they have evolved into the Social Gospel and how they have totally lost sight of what the Church is and what its mission is.

Woe be to the Shepherds of Israel!

Truth Magazine XXIII: 38, p. 610
September 27, 1979

By H.L. Bruce

The subject of the tithe is one that makes its way into numerous religious discussions. Some have used the idea of tithing to extract money from the public in general as well as to increase the contribution in churches throughout the land. Many assume that they know what the Bible teaches about the tithe while disseminating improper information with regard thereto.

The custom of giving the 10th part of the products of the land and of the spoils of war to priests and kings (1 Macc. 10:31; 11:35; 1 Sam. 8:15-17) was a very ancient one among most nations. That the Jews had this custom long before the institution of the Mosaic Law is shown by Gen. 14:17-20 (cf. Heb. 7:4) and Gen. 28:22. Many critics hold that these two passages are late and only reflect later practice of the nations; but the payment of the tithe is so ancient and deeply rooted in the history of the human race that it seems much simpler and more natural to believe that among the Jews the practice was in existence long before the time of Moses.

In the Pentateuch we find legislation as to tithes in three places. (1) According to Lev. 27:30-33, a tithe had to be given of the seed of the land, i.e. of the crops of the fruit of the trees, e.g. oil and wine, and of the herd or the flock (cf. Deut. 14:22-23; 2 Chron. 31:5-6). As the herds and flocks passed out of the pasture they were counted (cf. Jer. 33:13; Ezek. 20:37), and every 10th animal that came out was reckoned holy to the Lord. The owner was not allowed to search among them to find whether they were bad or good, nor could he change any of them; if he did, both the chosen and the one for which it was changed were holy. Tithes of the herds and flocks could not be redeemed for money, but tithes of the seed of the land and of fruit could be, but a 5th part of the value of the tithe had to be added. (2) In Numbers 18:21-32 it is laid down that the tithe must be paid to the Levites. (It should be noted that according to Heb. 7:5, `they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood . . . takes tithes of the people.’ Wescott’s explanation is that the priests, who received from the Levites a tithe of the tithe, thus symbolically received the whole tithe. In the time of the second temple the priests did actually receive the whole tithe. In the Talmud it is said that this alteration from the Mosaic Law was caused by the sin of the Levites who were not eager to return to Jerusalem, but had to be persuaded by Ezra – see Ezra 8:15.) The Levites were to receive the tithes offered by Israel to Jehovah because they had no other inheritance, and in return for their service of the tabernacle (Numbers 18:21-24). The tithe was to consist of corn of the threshing floor and the fulness of the winepress (v. 27), which coincides with seed of the land and fruit of the trees in Lev. 27. The Levites, who stood in the same relation to the priests as the people did to themselves, were to offer from this their inheritance a heave offering, a tithe of a tithe, to the priests (cf. Neh. 10:39), and for this tithe they were to choose the best part of what they received. (3) In Deut. 12:5, 6, 11, 18, (cf. Amos 4:4) it is said that the tithe is to be brought `unto the place which Jehovah your God shall choose out of all your tribes, to put His name there,’ i.e. Jerusalem; and in vs. 7, 12, and 18 that the tithe should be used there as a sacred meal by the offerer and his household, including the Levite within his gates. Nothing is said here about tithing cattle, only corn, wine and oil being mentioned (cf. Neh. 10:36-38; 13:5-12). In Deut. 14:22-29 it is laid down that if the way was too long to carry the tithe to Jerusalem, it could be exchanged for money, and the money taken there instead, where it was to be spent in anything the owner chose; and whatever was bought was to be eaten by him and his household and the Levites at Jerusalem. In the third year the tithe was to be reserved and eaten at home by the Levite, the stranger, and the fatherless and widow. In 26:12-15 it is laid down that the third year, after this feast had been given, the landowner should go up himelf before the Lord his God, i.e. to Jerusalem, and ask God’s blessing on his deed . . . .

There is thus an obvious apparent discrepancy between the legislation in Leviticus and Deut. It is harmonized . . not only theoretically but in practice, by considering the tithes as three different tithes, which are named the First Tithe, the Second Tithe, and the Poor Tithe, which is called the Third Tithe. According to this explanation, after the tithe (the First Tithe) was given to the Levites (of which they had to give the tithe to the priests), a Second Tithe of the remaining nine-tenths had to be set apart and consumed at Jerusalem. Those who lived far from Jerusalem could change this Second Tithe into money with the addition of a 5th part of its value. Only food, drink or ointment could be bought for the money (cf. Deut. 14:26). The tithe of cattle belonged to the Second Tithe. In the third year the Second Tithe was to be given entirely to the Levites and the poor. But according to Josephus the Poor tithe was actually the third one. The priests and Levites, if landowners, were also obligated to the poor tithe” (I.S.B.E., Vol. 5, page 2988).

Contrary to what some have thought, the Jews did not pay one tithe from which was extracted their many taxes, religious and secular. Their multiple tithe plus fractional tithes would easily elevate their overall religious and secular taxes to the excess of thirty per cent of their gross income. Their resourcefulness and liberality was certainly to be commended and admired.

Where does all this leave us? Are we to conclude that we are to imitate the Jew? Are we to preach tithing? If a person fails to tithe are we to keep after that person until they give up and start tithing to get us off their back? Thoughts along this line indicate that tithing is not in perspective in our thinking.

Brother G.C. Brewer, with but few exceptions, expressed this writer’s sentiments when he wrote, “In an effort to get Christians to give of their means to carry on the work of the Lord, some preachers insist that the Law of the tithe is binding upon us – that is, that the Lord requires us to give one-tenth of all we make. They point out that this law antedated the Mosaic code and was not, therefore, abolished with that code. It is true that Abraham gave a tenth, and this may prove that the custom then prevailed, but we do not need to argue about whether or not this was abolished with the Mosaic law . . . We are not treated as slaves, but as sons. We serve not through fear but through love. Our gifts are not extractions, but free-will offerings, cheerfully given. We give not a meager percentage of our income, but we give ourselves, soul and body. The limit of our service is not the limit of the law’s demands, but the limit of our ability. The very fact that we argue about tithing shows that we do not know the gospel or that our hearts are not in tune with its principles. If a man does not give and sacrifice for the cause of the Lord, he does not need an application of the law of tithing. He needs to be converted. When people first give themselves to the Lord, they will then give their money to support his cause according to the will of the Lord (2 Cor. 8:5).

“Those who contend against tithing in order to defend or justify parsimonious and covetous brethren in doing nothing worthy to be called giving are worse deluded than the man who preaches the law of tithing. The man who preaches the tithing as a law is guilty of error; but the man who preaches against it for the above purpose is guilty of the blood of his fellow men. They are all condemned along with murderers and drunkards” (Gospel Advocate, April 14, 1932).

In answer to “How Should a Christian Give?” Brother Batsell Baxter gave this answer: “`And ye are not your own; for ye are bought with a price’ (1 Cor. 6:19-20). Christians are `stewards of the manifold grace of God’ (1 Pet. 4:10). ‘Ye are Christ’s; and Christ is God’s’ (1 Cor. 3:23). `Let a man so account us, as ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God. Here, moreover, it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful’ (1 Cor. 4:1-2). Does someone say that Paul is speaking only of himself here? Continuing the same trend of thought, he says in verse 16: `I beseech you therefore, be ye imitators of me.’

“How did New Testament Christians give? Concerning the plea of Agabus for the famine-endangered Christians at Jerusalem, `the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren that dwelt in Judea’ (Acts 11:29). `He that giveth, let him do it with liberality’ (Rom. 12:8). Speaking about the collection for the poor saints in Judea; `Upon the first day of the week let each one of you lay by him in store’ (1 Cor. 16:1-2). Concerning the same collection: `Let each man do according as he hath purposed in his heart’ (2 Cor. 9:7)” (Gospel Advocate, April 21, 1932)

We urge our readers to read the New Testament for instruction as to how to give. It contains the teachings of Christ. For by it we will be judged when the Lord comes again.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 37, pp. 603-604
September 20, 1979

By Raymond Harris

When I was a boy it was common for traveling circuses to come to town about every year. Some years might see two or three such shows come through. In the main they were much like the traveling carnivals – they were all pretty much the same. Most every circus had a respectable collection of wild animals, some trapeze acts, a freak show, some exotic dancers, and an abundance of clowns. And so there was the saying (especially if money was extra scarce), “You don’t need to go . . . if you’ve seen one circus, you’ve seen them all.”

As we consider the ever expanding “Soul Saving Workshop” craze, we’re convinced the old saying regarding the-circuses now applies to the workshops.–Yes, if you’ve seen one, you’ve seen them all!

The “Workshop” seems to be the real “In” thing right now. No longer are the institutional brethren all that excited about “Big Day” at the orphans home. No longer do they beat the drums and stir the brethren so much with state-wide campaigns for Christ. Even the college lectureship has fallen to an “I can take it or leave it” status. Now everybody who’s anybody, is buzzing about the “Great Soul Saving Workshops”!

The International Bible College of Florence, A.1., claims to have spawned and originated the workshops among churches of Christ. Their workshops go all the way back to about 1972. I did not know about or attend the earliest workshops, but by 1974 they were truly comparable to a three ring circus. In those days the little school with the pretentious name “International Bible College” didn’t have any facilities in which to hold such a “spectacular.” So, about twice each year they would commander two or three local church buildings, advertise nation-wide and when the crowds gathered, the clowns would do their stuff. The workshops in Florence ARE now held in the facilities of LB.C.; but, they are wearing a little thin here. For some time now most of the attendance and attention at the Florence workshops comes from out of state.

But, of course, the whole thing was too novel, too secular, and too exciting to keep it bottled up here in Northwest Alabama. So now the show has taken to the road. You remember in the old days, when the circus played so tong in one town and the interest and attendance began to wane. there was only one thing to do – move on. Even though the circus had a home town to which they returned periodically, through the years their circuit of travels was ever expanding. And so with the workshops. They have now played Tulsa, Kosciusko, MS., Fresno, CA., St. Louis, Indianapolis and Evansville, In., and other places.

Again, much like the circus, at the workshops, the performers and the acts are pretty much the same time after time. Before the handbill is distributed you can be sure the workshop will be promoting the bus ministry. reward motivation, youth church, singles classes, the puppet ministry, Salvation Army type benevolent programs and the every expanding roll of women in the church.

Yes, if you’ve seen one workshop, you’ve seen them all. If you have seen one workshop, there is little point in wasting your time, gas and money to attend the next one. Like the circus of old, they bark and brag that every workshop will be the greatest ever! Yet, if you will save your programs and compare them, you will find that almost every workshop features many of the same speakers, about the same subjects are discussed and they are all staged with much the same hoopla. The performers may change the name of their acts from time to time, but in the final analysis, each time out they say about the same things.

Let me show you what I mean. In the chart on the preceding page, we list a few workshops and some speakers and subjects that have been presented at various times.

Some of the Cast
Fresno	Indianapolis	Evansville	St. Louis	Florence
Albert Hill	Phil Powers	Joe Beam	Phil Powers	Charles Coil
David Powers	Alan Bryan	Phil Powers	Stan Addis	Marvin Phillips
Wayne Monroe	Marvin Phillips	Pat Casey	Stanley Ship	Carl Wade
Carl Wade	John Clayton	Carl Wade	Laverne Wade	Ron Brotherton
Laverne Wade	Ira North	Laverne Wade	Carl Wade	Laverne Wade
Alan Bryan	G.P. Holt	Charles Coil	Joe Beam	John Waddey
Marvin Phillips	Joe Beam	David Mellor	Nick Young	Flavil Yeakley
Ron Brotherton	David Mellor	G.P. Holt	Marvin Phillips	Phil Powers
	Nick Young	Flavil Yeakley	G.P. Holt	Pat Casey
		Jack Exum	Chuck Lucas	Albert Hill
			John Waddey	Alan Bryan
			Elvis Huffard	David Power
				Stan Addis
				Jack Exum
Some Subjects Discussed
Fresno	Indianapolis	Evansville	St. Louis	Florence
Teaching with Puppets	Ladies Ought to Win Souls Too	Sex	Busing for Results	Bus Evangelism
. . . Help Revive a Dead Church	Dying Churches	Bus Breakdown	Planning a Children’s Bible Hour	Hope of the Gospel Through Benevolence
Woman’s Role in the Church	Bus Evangelism	. . . An Evangelistic Youth Camp	The Retreat . . .	Christian Women on the Mission Field
Solving Bus Evangelism Problems	Confessions of a Happy Bus Worker	. . . A Day School in a Small Congregation	Our Responsibility to Christian Education Song	Hope of the Gospel
How To Fill Buses Keep Workers & Pack Pews	Sex			. . . Teaching with Puppets
				Children’s Bible Hour

And finally, what can you elders expect when your young people and your preacher comes home from the circus – er -I mean the workshop? Well, they will be all excited and determined. They will insist, push and even demand that you elders buy buses, start a youth church, mortgage the building, build a family center, start a singles class and in general change the church into a church that resembles a cross between the Salvation Army, the Pentecost Church and the Baptist.

Truly, if you’ve seen one workshop, you’ve seen them all. And if your preacher and your youth are smitten by what they see and hear, within a year or two that little Christian Church out at the edge of town may more nearly resemble the Church of the New Testament, than the congregation where you now attend!

Truth Magazine XXIII: 37, pp. 602-603
September 20, 1979