Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

Last week, we introduced the study of Eph. 2:1-10 by noting the universal need of man for salvation. In studying verses 1-3, we showed that all men have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Hence, man is “dead in trespasses and sins” (2:1), doomed to Hell and without hope before God. While man was alienated from God through sin, God acted in the salvation of his soul.

By Grace Ye Are Saved (vs. 4-9)

But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ (by grace ye are saved), and hath raised us up together and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: that in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast.

Having shown man’s lost condition, Paul now shows God’s response to man’s need. Consider carefully the divine attributes listed by Paul which caused God to act to save man. He mentions such things as mercy, love, grace, and kindness. Let us define each of these words.

a. Mercy (eleos). Thayer distinguishes eleeo from oikteiro as follows: eleeo – “to show sympathy with the misery of another, esp. such sympathy as manifests itself in act, less freq. in word; whereas oikt. denotes the inward feeling of compassion which abides in the heart” (p. 203). The noun eleos he defined as “mercy; kindness or good will towards the miserable and afflicted, joined with a desire to relieve them.” This simply states that God felt sorry for man’s hopeless state and acted personally to bring about his salvation.

b. Love (agape). Kenneth Wuest wrote the following concerning agapao: “Agapao” speaks of a love which is awakened by a sense of value in an object which causes one to prize it. It springs from an apprehension of the preciousness of an object. It is a love of esteem and approbation. The quality of this love is determined by the character of the one who loves, and that of the object loved.

Agapao is used in John 3:16. God’s love for a sinful and lost race springs from His heart in response to the high value He places upon each human soul. Every sinner is exceedingly precious in His sight (“Golden Nuggets From the Greek New Testament,” Word Studies in the Greek New Testament, Vol. III, pp. 60-61.).

God saw in man that immortal soul which was created in the image of God; He perceived how precious it was and pried it dearly. This love prompted Him to work toward saving it.

c. Grace (charis). The primary idea of grace is that God acted to do a favor for man; He acted freely and without expectation of receiving anything of equitable value in return. It finds its motive in the bounty and free heartedness of the giver (see Trench, pp. 166-171). “Moreover, the word charis contains the idea of kindness which bestows upon one what he has not deserved” (Thayer, p. 666). When we deserved to be cast into Hell for the wicked, rebellious offences which we had committed, God sent His Son to die on Calvary. That, my brethren, is grace!

d. Kindness (chrestotes). This word is a little more difficult to define. “So far from being this mere grace of word and countenance, it is one pervading and penetrating the whole nature, mellowing there all which would have been harsh and austere; thus wine is chrestos, which has been mellowed with age (Luke v. 39); Christ’s yoke is chrestos, as having nothing harsh or galling about it (Matt. xi. 30)” (Trench, Synonyms of the New Testament, p. 233).

These divine attributes of God were the motivating forces which moved Him to act to save sinful men. There was nothing in man which deserved salvation. We are saved out of the goodnesses of God, plainly and simply.

Jesus Christ: The Expression of God’s Grace

Throughout this context specifically and the book of Ephesians generally, Paul emphasizes that Jesus Christ is the expression of God’s grace. God “hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ” (1:3); “he hath chosen us in him” (1:4); He has predestinated “us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ” (1:5); He did this “to the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved, in whom we have redemption through his blood” (1:6-7); “In him in whom also we have obtained an inheritance” (1:11).

Similarly, chapter two shows that salvation by grace is through Christ. He “hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: that in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus” (2:6-7). “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus” (2:10).

These Scriptures show us that Jesus Christ is the manifestation of God’s grace. The totality of God’s grace for man is summed up in Jesus Christ. We can expect no grace in addition to that which is available through Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is God’s answer, His only answer, to man’s sin problems.

The sending of Jesus Christ, God’s only begotten Son, to die for our sins manifests the greatness of God’s love toward us. Paul mentioned “his great love” (2:4) when He described God’s love for mankind. Frankly, I have trouble grasping the greatness of God’s love. I have two children. I cannot imagine me allowing one of them to die for any reason. However, to imagine sacrificing one of my children to save an enemy is altogether unbelievable from my point of view. Yet, that is exactly what God has done for us. “But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead in sins . . .” (2:4-5). “But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom.5:8).

Hence, God has saved us by grace and that grace is summed up in Jesus Christ. His vicarious death on Calvary’s cross was an atonement for sins. He bore our punishment for us. The prophet foretold the work of Jesus of Nazareth in this fashion:

Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem his stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all”(Isa. 53:4-6).

God’s answer to man’s sins should have been the firm expression of His wrathful judgment. However, in grace -unmerited favor – toward man, He sent His only begotten Son to die on the cross of Calvary for our sins. Indeed, our salvation is wholly of grace.

What God Does For Us

Here are some of the things which God in His marvelous grace has done for us. I am sure that others could add to this list. However, let us confine ourselves to this text:

1. He “hath quickened” us (Eph. 2:1, 5). The word “quicken” means “to make alive.” We who were dead in trespasses and sins are now “made alive.” The language of our text reminds us of Romans 6:3-4. Compare the following:

Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) and hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus (2:5-6).

Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life (Rom. 6:3-4).

The dead man of sin is buried with Christ in baptism (hence, he dies with Christ) and raised up together with Him to walk in newness of life.

The phrase “to make alive” or to “quicken” is the antithesis of “dead in trespasses and sins.” Whereas the latter phrase means “unforgiven,” the former simply means “forgiven” (cf. Col. 2`.13). This man’s sins have been remitted; he stands before God pure and clean as if he had never violated a single one of God’s holy commandments.

2. Made us sit together in heavenly places (Eph. 2:6). This passage teaches that Christians shall receive a heavenly reward. Epouranios meant “the heavenly regions, i.e. heaven itself, the abode of God and angels” (Thayer’, p. 247). We are given spiritual life and an eternal reward of heaven. God’s grace is further exemplified in the precious promises which He holds out to His saints. It is not enough that He merely forgives men of their trespasses; He also gives them heaven.

Conclusion

in our consideration of salvation by grace through faith, we have seen man’s need for salvation. We noticed that all men are sinners and doomed to eternity in hell, not for the sins which someone else committed, but for the sins which each man commits. In this article, we have seen what God has done to save us from our sins. We have seen the divine attributes of God (mercy, love, grace, kindness) which motivated Him to send His only begotten Son to die on Calvary for our sins. We have seen that all of God’s grace for the salvation of man is in His Son Jesus Christ. Be with us next week as we continue this study by noticing the conditions for receiving salvation by grace.

Editor’s Note

Beginning on page 6 is an article by Bruce Edwards, Jr. and a reply by Steve Wolfgang. After months of self-imposed silence, Bruce has finally decided to say something about the grace-unity issues. He sent me a fifteen-page article. I replied to him that I thought that this was too long but he insisted that it be published in its entirety. Lest someone think that Truth Magazine has a closed door policy which does not allow those reviewed to reply to their critics, I decided to go ahead and print this material, although I do not think that Bruce warrants that much space. Hence, I compromised by printing this article in eight point type. It is here for those who desire to read it; those who have no interest in what Bruce is writing can simply skip over it.

The main characteristic of this article by Bruce is that it answers no questions relevant to the issues of grace-fellowship. Read the article and then tell me whether or not Bruce accepts the following: (1) a distinction between gospel and doctrine; (2) the imputation of the perfect obedience of Jesus to the believer; (3) that things taught by example or inference can be made tests of fellowship; (4) whether the fellowship of the saints should be broken over the usage of mechanical instruments of-music in worship, church support of human institutions, church sponsored recreation, and other such departures from revealed truth. These and many other questions go unanswered in order that Bruce might harangue about brotherhood politics. Some of us are getting rather tired of hearing this garbage and are anxious to see Bruce (and others holding this position) grapple with the relevant issues. When will we see him do that? Read the material for yourself and form your own judgments. You can tell how well Bruce addresses himself to the issues the same as I can.

I want to thank Brother Steve Wolfgang for his good review of this article. As he stated, few people realize the effort involved in reviewing the writings of someone like Bruce. The personal feelings which one has for an individual must be laid aside in the interests of truth. We appreciate the fine spirit in which this review has been written.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 26, pp. 419-421
June 28, 1979

By Larry Ray Hafley

Question:

From West Virginia: “We have a problem in the church where we worship. There are two elders that are not working together. One apparently wants to do what the Bible says, the way it says. The other one is liberal. They do not work together. Is there any command or example where members are supposed to carry the Lord’s Supper to the sick or shut in? One of them does that and says he is doing a good work. “

Reply:

About The Elders

Christians, let alone elders, ought to be able to work together. When there are doctrinal differences, the problem is intensified. Elders need not be carbon copies of one another. They should, however, mutually seek the best interests of the church which they oversee. Some of the best elderships in this country are composed of men of diverse backgrounds, personalities, and approaches. Their varying strengths, talents, and weaknesses are counterbalanced by one another. Their goal is the glory of God; their care and concern is for the flock of God which is among them. So, their personalities are joined in a single, united effort. Like different parts of a puzzle, they fit and work together to accomplish a complete picture. That is as it should be.

Our querist should talk with the elder that is “liberal.” In a spirit of meekness and humility, discuss his liberal tendencies. Also, he should discuss with these men what he has revealed in the question and comments above. The difficulty cannot be arbitrated on these pages. (In the letter that came with the question above, the writer suggested that comments be made in Truth Magazine about this matter.)

About the Lord’s Supper

I know of no “command or example where members are supposed to carry the Lord’s Supper to the sick or shut in.” By studying Acts 20:7 and 1 Corinthians 11:18-29, one can see that the Lord’s Supper was taken when they “came together” “into one place.” One of the purposes of coming together is to “break bread.” I know of no Scripture that indicates that those who cannot attend on the first day of the week should be taken the Lord’s Supper.

But the one who does it says he is “doing a good work.” That is how a Lutheran justified infant baptism to me. He admitted that it was not in the Bible, but he said he would retain the practice because it was “a good work.” One lady attended a midnight, Catholic Mass at Christmas time. The organ music was “so inspiring,” she said, that it “had to be a good work.” Now, answer those arguments while making the one about taking the Lord’s Supper out to the sick and shut in. I will be watching to see if you blink or swallow.

This thing about “a good work” has been used to justify everything from,-benevolent societies to church sponsored ball teams. A work is not a “good work” unless appointed and ordained by the word of God (Eph. 2:10; 2 Tim. 3:17; 2 Pet. 1:3). Whenever a thing is labeled a good work, a good response might be, “A good work, huh? Says who?” Smile and wait for a Scripture.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 26, p. 418
June 28, 1979

By Steve Wolfgang

During the week of February 26 – March 2, Brother W.C. (Billy) Ashworth of Dickson, Tennessee met Jack Rudd in a debate on the following propositions. Ashworth affirmed

“It is unscriptural for churches of Christ to build and/or maintain benevolent organizations for the care of the needy, such as Tennessee Orphan Home and homes for the aged”

the first two nights, with Rudd denying. This proposition was discussed at the New Hope Church of Christ, ten miles east of Dickson. The last two nights, Jack Rudd affirmed

“It is scriptural for churches of Christ to contribute funds from their treasuries in support of Herald of Truth Radio and Television Program, conducted by Highland Church of Christ, Abilene, Texas (Sponsoring Church)”

with Ashworth denying this proposition. This portion of the discussion occurred in the meetinghouse of the Tennessee City Church of Christ, seven miles west of Dickson. This discussion came about as a result of several private discussions -between two members of the New Hope and Tennessee City churches respectively, who asked the two disputants to enter into this discussion. This writer moderated for Billy Ashworth; Don Hinds, from the San Francisco Bay area, moderated for Jack Rudd.

This debate was the first such discussion in a quarter century on these issues in Middle Tennessee. (A misprint in Brother Ashworth’s bulletin preceding the debate left the impression with some that it was the first debate anywhere in twenty-five years, and provided much of the substance for the remarks in Rudd’s first several negative speeches.) Brother Rudd included these comments in his first night’s speeches:

“If you want another debate, or if any of your brethren want a debate . . . brother Don Hines, who’s my moderator, told me he would be glad to take any of you to San Francisco and engage in a debate in that area. So I don’t believe you’re going to have any trouble getting a debate from any of us . . . No one’s afraid. We’ll debate you any time, any where, and if you want a debate, get the propositions made up, and I’ll get you a debate in almost every state in the union, and we won’t have to wait very long to do it.”

Since Brother Rudd so quickly volunteered his moderator to debate these same issues, this writer, as the other moderator, just as quickly accepted that challenge in the closing remarks the first evening. Correspondence has been exchanged with Brother Hinds relative to conducting such a public discussion in the San Francisco Bay area in the fall of 1979; announcements will be forthcoming as details are finalized.

It is not the purpose of this review to rehash the substance of the debate; Brother Ashworth did an excellent job in both expounding and defending New Testament teaching regarding the work of the church and needs no “scotching” from this writer. Of course, since this writer is his son-in-law, some might detect some justifiable pride on my part! For those who are interested, verbatim tapes of the discussion are available. Also, printed copies of most of the overhead projection transparencies and charts used by Brother Ashworth may be obtained by writing to the above address. Interested parties may wish to study or hear the taped debate themselves rather than rely on this writer’s judgment. However, there were some interesting occurrences during the debate which may be of some interest and worthy of report here.

Brother Rudd very early in the debate took the position that a single individual (he used himself as an example) was an “organization.” Attempting to bolster this position, he held up one of Brother Ashworth’s bulletins, published and mailed by the Oak Avenue church where Brother Ashworth preaches, and maintained that it (the bulletin) was “an organization” because it had the words “non-profit organization” written in the space describing the postal permit. Ashworth, a Postal Service employee for many years (including more than eighteen as a Postmaster), had some fun explaining to Brother Rudd the difference in the permit issued to an organization (a church), and the organization itself, or the organization’s publication. Rudd’s insistence that a mailing permit constituted a separate organization came back to haunt him the last two nights when he had to confront the fact that the Herald of Truth, allegedly a work of the Highland church in Abilene, has its own separate mailing permit!

When confronted with the question of how he could be consistent in opposing the missionary society but uphold benevolent or educational societies or an arrangement like the Herald of Truth, Brother Rudd made the following comments:

“I will make one statement and that will take care of the missionary society. The missionary society is wrong because it doesn’t teach the truth . . . . So the missionary society is wrong because it displaces, it takes the place of the church. In other words, it’s just another church. That’s what’s wrong with it, and it doesn’t teach the truth.”

Other such statements which hardly need to be answered for anyone able to think clearly included assertions such as, “the church supports the government when it pays taxes” (used by Brother Rudd to “prove” that the church could therefore “support” Tennessee Orphan Home by making monthly donations to it); and “1 Timothy 5:16 authorizes church donations to any kind of home.” Brother Rudd was given the following written question (among others), to be answered on Friday night: “Is it scriptural for a congregation of the Lord’s people to send money to a Baptist church for evangelism?” Here is the answer given by Jack Rudd, in his own writing: “I thought everyone, even anti preachers would know that was alright.”

In regard to the tone and decorum of the debate, the answer to the question just quoted, will give the reader some indication. Brother Rudd repeatedly made demeaning personal references to his opponent and the elders of the Oak Avenue congregation where Brother Ashworth preaches (and also serves as an elder), and in many ways turned the discussion to issues of personality and irrelevant matters, Tuesday evening being perhaps the worst in this regard. On Thursday evening, his first night in the affirmative, Brother Rudd did not even attempt to define the proposition he signed his name to prove, forcing Ashworth to define the terms of the propositions in his first negative speech. While it is not always easy to sit through this sort of personal abuse and refrain from replying in like manner (one’s seat does indeed become a veritable “hot seat” after a while), Brother Ashworth did a remarkable job of restraining himself and keeping reply to this sort of thing in the background while attempting to focus on the issues expressed in the propositions. I was reminded of the Texas preacher J.D. Tant’s remarks, made in conjunction with a debate in the Dickson area earlier in this century, that “a man can no more meet” such an opponent “successfully and occupy a high plane than one could kill a polecat with a yardstick and not smell bad” (Gospel Advocate, March 12, 1908; see J.D. Tant, Texas Preacher, p. 305).

Nonetheless, though a certain degree of this sort of irrelevant issue perhaps needs some minimal reply lest some in the audience think reply is impossible, Brother Ashworth did a creditable job, in my opinion as one who sat next to him on the platform, in “keeping his cool” and bringing the audience back to the issues at hand. Discussion of the issues that divide brethren cannot help but be a healthy enterprise, and there were a good many young people (as well as some not so young) for whom this was the first exposure to a public religious debate. Thanks should go to Brother Ashworth for preparing and executing his portion of the debate, and I should also like to take this opportunity to thank brethren Howard See, Donnie Rader, and Jim Caplinger who were especially helpful during the week in reviewing the tapes of preceding sessions and preparing charts and other materials. Though most of his charts and arguments were lifted directly from Guy N. Woods’ debate with Roy Cogdill, Brother Rudd is to be commended at least for his willingness to defend his practices, which is more than can be said of most other preachers who are of his persuasion on this issue. Contact this writer for details regarding the tapes or other materials germane to .this discussion.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 25, pp. 410-411
June 21, 1979

By Donald P. Ames

Last year we submitted a review of the various VBS materials being offered and received an excellent response to such an action. Thus, we are again glad to have this opportunity to submit such a review in the hopes it will encourage and help brethren to select good and sound material, with as few objections as possible, and perhaps avoid some major disappointment.

The Cogdill Foundation submitted requests for VBS kits to: (1) Sweet Publishing Company, (2) Gospel Teacher Publications (3) Lambert Book House and (4) Quality Publishing Company. These four publish the most widely accepted VBS literature among brethren, and thus are our major concern.

Sweet: “Rejoice And Praise The Lord”

More and more in recent years, the material from Sweet has taken on an inter-denominational flavor, as if trying to appeal to the Christian Church as quickly as to brethren. The VBS material this year leaves one with the impression this goal is clearly in mind. The theme of the material is “Worship as Praise to the Lord,” and the adult class is encouraged to plan and lay out a worship service for the following Sunday. Some good points on the right attitude for worship are included, but again the material relies heavily on additional resources from the Moody Press (Baptist) and Concordia (Lutheran). It is also of such a nature that it requires much additional purchasing of equipment and materials from Sweet to complete.

Promotionalism is more than evident throughout the material. Advertising is included in all student booklets for T-shirts and iron-ons to be purchased with the VBS theme on the front – from Sweet, of course. Teachers manuals (especially in the lower grades) also contain promotions for day schools, mission VBS, etc. Puppets are pushed as an opening act daily, and they in turn promote Kool-aid as a central point to look forward to. Projectors and tape recorders are also needed (extra) for the suggested daily film strips related to the lesson. And, the suggested guide for organization looks more like the charter for the U.N. than a simple VBS!

Their cut-outs are die-cut (partially cut out, punch out the rest), which saves the teacher a lot of time and work in class – and helps the student who participates. Although the RSV is quoted in the text, answers can be easily found in the KJV as well (but the TEV is quoted in the lower grades, without any disavowal of the many perversions found in this mis-translation). The Senior High student book could throw you if you have not used their material before, as it is laid out in sections to be removed daily. Hence, half of the first lesson is in the front, and the rest is found on the other half of the same page in the back of the booklet (pages are marked to help in this skipping around).

There are some serious objections to this material, in addition to the heavily promoted T-shirts and other Sweet publications – some of questionable reliability. Although music in worship is discussed (as an act of worship), it is treated so vaguely that one using the instrument in worship would never be moved to question the scriptural authority for such additions. For the adult class, a special book (13 chapters – obviously too much to be covered effectively) is to be used, written by Wendell Willis (no relation to our editor, I hope). This book denies that the collection taken up by Paul for the needy saints in Jerusalem was to meet any need (a point he contradicts a few pages later), but rather that it was merely a voluntary sharing of love and fellowship among fellow Christians as the mood moved them. He also points out that food was offered as a contribution as well in early churches and was then used by them in their benevolent work (hence the implication is left that the same substitution is perfectly acceptable today as well).

Doctrinal truth is not upheld as that which is the Law of the Lord today. Instead of serving as a guide-line for doctrinal purity, the truth is set forth as a “confession of faith” on the part of that particular writer, and many such “confessions of faith” exist throughout both the O.T. and N.T. Although these “confessions of faith” sometimes separated the Christian from the erring, and caused those of like convictions to pull together, they “were not imposed on believers . . . were not used to attack other Christians, nor were any intended as exclusive” (p. 87). Thus, the gospel is upheld simply as a means to “tie us together,” and not as the instrument of God also for purity, rebuking of error, and exposing of false brethren (Jude 3; Gal. 1:6-8; 2 John 9, etc.).

Although baptism is also mentioned, it is treated as an act of “worship,” and not as obedience to the commands of God. A vile sinner may be baptized to free himself of his sinful past, but those raised in the church are usually baptized to “dedicate” their lives to God! One is baptized out of a desire to be “in Christ,” a part of the body of Christ, and then “exhorted” to cease from sinning from that point forward. It follows faith “naturally,” and is a point of dedication – but the point that God commands it for the remission of sins and that the sinner must be convicted of his sinful way of life is glossed over. The teachers manual does mention a few scriptures that could be used to illustrate the point, but the 13-chapter book does not see fit to dwell on the point.

I believe most brethren would be sadly disappointed if they purchased and used this material with the promotionalism, general tone, and unsound teaching therein.

Lambert: “I Choose Jesus”

I must admit this material is very attractive, very appealing, and inspirational – at least to me! An adult class is also included, and the student is encouraged to select Jesus as his Savior, Lord, Teacher, Friend and King. Some good (and needed) material is contained showing that obedience to the commands of Christ is not “legalism” and also in refutation to the false theory of premillennialism, which is sneaking back in some places unawares. Cut-outs for the lower grades are not die-cut, but are well adapted for the lessons. A number of songs are also included in the back of the lower grade class booklets for kids to sing, and the theme of choosing Jesus is well presented.

However, some draw-backs do exist which the user needs to be aware of. The teachers manuals for the lower grades strongly promotes a bus ministry and pushes the idea of refreshments – even to the extent the teacher is urged to bring them to class even if the congregation does not use them in VBS! Intermediate and Junior classes seem to be a bit simplified, and a lot of the work is placed upon the teacher. Lastly, the teachers manual for the Senior High class recommends K.C. Moser’s commentary on Romans, The Way Of Salvation, which was one of the early leaders of the false teaching on grace-fellowship — though the ideas are not carried over into the class material. Since these are contained in the teacher’s manuals, they ought to be called to the teachers’ attention and avoided.

Gospel Teacher: “Jesus, My Lord”

This series is also good, with the cut-outs for the lower grades die-cut to assist the teachers. It, too, has an adult class, and challenges the student to recognize Jesus as Lord of the creation, of history, of the Scriptures, of the church, and of his own life. Some very good faith-building material on evidences is contained in the teen-age classes, at an age in which many sometimes find themselves floundering on the shores of unbelief.

A class play of the lesson is recommended daily for classes clear up through the Junior level, and without this play, I have serious doubts there would be adequate material to survive a class period of any length. Some overlap exists in the classes, and the material here also would have to be heavily supplemented by the teacher, who has the bulk of the load to carry

Although there is some excellent material in these lessons, it lacks the appeal of Lambert’s; and because of the play, I feel many brethren would find it not what they were seeking to teach as material, but simply teaching as a side to entertainment.

Quality: “Praising Jesus”

This is the third year of a rotating series being developed by Quality Publishing Company, and frankly, I have not been too impressed with the quality of the previous two years. However as the saying goes, “The third time is a charm,” and this year Quality seems to have finally hit on an excellent combination. The material is very well presented and much more acceptable than the previous two years. The theme is praising Jesus – because He made me, because of His love, because of His word, because of His family (i.e., the Church), and through our obedience and loyalty.

Although the RSV is used again, the lessons are laid out so the more popular KJV can be used just as easily, and in fact, one lesson actually includes a Bible drill for both to avoid any problems. In the lower levels, the cut-outs are not die-cut, but neither are they that difficult. The emphasis on refreshments and puppets is not found in this series either. The material is laid out for a two hour class, which means it can be easily adapted to split classes, or parts omitted for different arrangements (such as one evening session). A time-schedule for each activity is printed in the teacher’s manual of the lower grades to aid the teacher in planning his allotted time, and there is plenty to keep the student busy and interested without working the teacher to death as well. Some very excellent material is included in the elementary teacher’s manual for class use on answering questions that arise with church discipline and reactions – which would be good for other classes as well.

This does not mean there are no draw-backs to caution against. A number of songs are suggested to be sung by the lower grades throughout the class, and nearly everyone of them is new. This could pose a problem to a teacher who is not musically inclined, even though a simple tune is suggested. A few alternatives are suggested, and also a plug to make up a few of your own (why not?). One teacher’s manual even suggests sending a cassette tape to one of the churches in Abilene, Texas (address included) which would be glad to have their young people sing the songs on it. This, of course, would require no “last minute preparation,” as sometimes characterizes brethren getting ready.

The Beginners class teachers manual also suggests a class project of making peanut-butter one session which is to be eaten. However, there is enough material this could be dropped without any problem. It also suggests a brief field-trip outside to accumulate things made by God, which could be replaced with class illustrations or as a home-work assignment if the teacher preferred to keep the class more quiet.

There is no adult class in this kit. On the other hand, the Senior High material could probably be used by adults if one so desired.

All in all, I am much impressed with the drastic improvement in quality this year, and very pleased to commend this material to brethren. I would rate it as attractive aE Lambert’s, and much easier to use for longer classes, less play and more study, and less emphasis on puppets and refreshments. Quality deserves a big plus on this year’s material!

Conclusion

It is hoped such a review is helpful to brethren, and thal we might always use the best wisdom is selecting oui material for the good we seek to do in such teaching ses. sions. Kits and other supplies may be ordered from Trutt Magazine Bookstore (Box 88, Fairmont, IN 46928) and are, I believe, already in stock.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 25, pp. 408-410
June 21, 1979