Truth Magazine

By Wayne Walker

Evolution is a subject which is still being taught in our schools and a topic that is still controversial and worthy of discussion, even though it is not so much talked about now as maybe a few years ago. In this short article I cannot hope to present all, or even many, of the problems which evolution poses to the Bible believer, and which the Bible poses to evolutionists. But I would like to consider one major fault that can be found in the presentation of evolution in academic circles.

My major contention is that evolution, as it pictures the stages of human development from a primeval unicellular organism to man, is based solely on assumption and has never been demonstrated to be true. Thus, it cannot be considered as a fact, although it is many times taught as such to students in the classroom. In order for their theories to be proven, evolutionists would have to find evidence of one long line of gradual changes from organism to organism until finally the level of man had been reached. This has not been done, however, and therefore, these hypothetical changes are referred to as “missing links.” All the evidence that has, been found can easily be explained from a creationist viewpoint as well as from an evolutionary one.

True science, which is simply a systematic body of observable, factual information about nature, and the Bible never contradict each other because the same God established both. Man’s fallible and often faulty interpretation of the facts – science falsely so-called (1 Tim. 6:20) including evolution – often contradict both. The scientific axiom of cause-effect states that something cannot come from nothing. The Bible complements this by revealing that the prime cause of this universe and all that is in it is God. However, evolution teaches that original matter must have appeared out of nowhere or existed eternally. In reference to the eternal matter theory, the second law of thermodynamics affirms that the universe is slowly running down to a total cessation of activity, and indicates that there must have been a starting point from which to do so. The Bible speaks of “the beginning” (Gen. 1:1) and the end (2 Pet. 3:10-11) of the physical order of things. The evolutionary assumption, on the other hand, is that all things are growing bigger and better and will continue to do so eternally by the natural processes now at work.

Furthermore, there is the scientific law of biogenesis, that life can come only from pre-existing life. The Bible informs us that all living organisms were originally created by a living God (Gen. 1:11, 20, 24). To the contrary, evolutionists believe that original life must have come from non-living materials. Finally, a simple observation of the law of reproduction, leads to the. conclusion that like begets like – one does not plant a corn seed and reap a tomato plant. The Bible reveals that it was God who ordained each organism to produce after its own kind (Gen. 1:12, 21, 25). Yet the evolutionist teaches that at some time, some organisms must have borne offspring radically different from themselves in order for the variety to exist that evolution requires to be true. And so it goes.

Organic, naturalistic, atheistic evolution teaches that man is merely a descendant of animal ancestors, though more highly developed, and totally a product of his physical heredity and environment. What does the Bible teach? “God created man in his own image” and “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life” (Gen. 1:2627; 2:7). This is what Christians believe. We cannot prove by factual data that the Biblical record is the way it happened. But, neither can the evolutionists prove by factual data that what they believe is true. It is important for all Bible believers to remember, when considering evolution, that it takes just as much faith, if not more, to believe in the evolutionary theory of man’s existence as it does in the Bible account of the creation of God. “By faith, we understand that the worlds have been framed by the word of God” (Heb. 11:3).

Truth Magazine XXII: 22, p. 363
June 1, 1978

By Jeffery Kingry

During World War II in Britain when armaments were becoming scarce and use of manpower was critical, time, and motion studies were made of gun crews in the artillery. It was hoped that the speed of operating; each gun could be increased. In one such study of artillery crews a peculiar act was noted. At a certain point, just before the firing of the gun, two of the men stood at attention for three seconds, then resumed the sequence necessary for the next firing. This was puzzling. The men themselves could not explain it; it was part of the technique they were taught in gunnery school. Neither could the officers nor the instructors explain it. All anyone knew was that the three second standing at attention was a “necessary” part of the process of firing the highly mechanized piece of artillery. One day an old, long retired artillery colonel was .a shown the time and motion studies. He, too, was puzzled at first. Then his face, cleared. “Ali,” he said; when the performance was over. “I have it. The two, men are holding the horses” (Robert Nisbet, The Social. Bond, p. 318)!

Horses, of course, disappeared from the artillery 50 years before World War 1I. We may laugh and say that this is one more example of the idiot inertia of the military but the story is no different except in details of the history of many more “progressive” and “relevant” institutions. We have only to look at the place tradition plays in the Roman Catholic Church and some of the older, more liturgical Protestant denominations to see how habit replaces thought among “religious” people. Once “control” is gained through some kind of institutionalization of behavior, no effort ordinarily will seem too great to protect that form of control. The appeal of habit is its ability to suspend conscious thought. The consequence is that few of us can be said to welcome change because change from tradition, habit, or ritual requires thought and effort.

Christianity Means Change

The dictionary defines conservative as “one who adheres to traditional methods and views, a cautious and discreet person.” In one sense, I wish to be identified with other brethren who are conservative in their view of the all-sufficiency of the Word and the church. When it comes to the teaching of the Bible, “be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace” (Heb. 13:9). When it comes to our faith, “Be ye steadfast, unmoveable” (1 Cor. 15:58). But “conservatism” in religion should not mean stagnant, unmoving, unchanging, dead living and service.

Change and conservatism are often thought to be antonymous — but the only thing that is unmoving and unchanging about Christianity is its incessant call for the revolution of the spirit of man. Jesus was a spiritual revolutionary in the full sense, of the word. His attitudes, methods, and words got Him lynched by the religious hypocrites of His day. He was a militant opposer of that brand of religious complacency that put “the way we have always done it” over true service to God. Whether it was His cleansing of the temple (Jn. 2:13-17), healing on the Sabbath (Matt. 12:10-13), or breaking the Jew’s petty rules and regulations (Matt. 12:1-9), Jesus was an iconoclast of the first order. “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace but a sword . . . he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it” (Matt: 10:34,38,39). Jesus demanded that men let their old personality — the old man — die. .The cross is not a symbol of suffering, but of death. Jesus is demanding a death to self that a new life in His likeness might have birth. The call of God is to “newness of life.” The Roman letter was addressed first to Christians: “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). This spirit of change was inculcated in the Lord’s disciples as well. The enemies of Christianity looked in dismay when the evangelist entered town and exclaimed, “These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also” (Acts 17:6)!

Individually, the Bible requires a constant introspection and consequent change to conform to the Lord’s perfect example (Eph. 4:13). Many are content to remain with “first principles” in knowledge and action. But one “first principle” they overlook is that God requires all in His family to grow to their full maturity as His children. “By this time you should be teaching other people, but actually you need that someone teach you over and over again the rudimentary principles of the divine revelation. You have become a people who need a diet of milk and cannot face solid food! Everyone who uses milk exclusively is without experience in the Word of truth; he simply has not grown up. But solid food is for full grown men, that is, for those who through constant practice have their spiritual faculties carefully trained to distinguish right from wrong. So then, let us go on and get past the elementary stage in the teaching and doctrine of Christ. Let us pass on to our full growth, and let us stop continually re-laying a foundation of repentance from a lifeless formality, of the faith that turned us to God, of the doctrine of baptism, laying on of hands, of the resurrection, and of eternal punishment. Advance we will, if the Lord wills” (Heb. 5:12-14; 6:1-3, New Testament From 26 Translations). Jesus died that you and I might not have to conform to our own carnal nature or the worldly enticements of this earth. The truth has freed us to follow God and Him alone. “Be not fashioned according to this world, but by your new attitude of mind be ye transformed so that you may prove in your own life what is good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God” (Rom. 12:2, Ibid.).

Truth or Tradition?

But going beyond God’s call to a revolution of the spirit, the Lord calls us to sincere and dedicated worship and service. Though our worship is unchanging in substance-in spirit and in truth-the forms are as varied as the cultures which follow God’s pattern. Not only do our methods vary from country to country, but even from North to South in these United States. There is nothing particularly condemnatory or laudatory in one way over another, as long as they are in spirit and truth. Jesus and the Apostle Paul kept certain customs and traditions when they were kept as customs. But Jesus flagrantly and openly broke with custom when it became law for those who found it (Matt. 15:7-9).

Brethren would be hard pressed to give scriptural authority for the shameful way they practice “respect of persons” upon preachers. Is the “employer-employee” relationship found between churches and preachers truth or tradition? Where do we find the divine pattern for control of the evangelist’s movements and work by the local church? What management does the church have over the preacher that it does not scripturally have over any other member in the church? That preachers agree and submit to such regulation is not an argument of right or wrong but of tradition. Why is it that the church only exercises her traditional “control” on the “local” preacher, but not on any of the other men she may support in other places?

Why is it that the Bible tells us that the “elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor (reckoned worthy of a double stipend-jwk) especially those who labor in the word and doctrine. For the scripture with, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn, and, The laborer is worthy of his hire” (1 Tim. 5:17,18). In how many churches are the elders, even one elder, counted `worthy of his hire”?. 1 have heard from men of experience for years that most problems in churches are a result of “do-nothing-elders.” An eldership that does naught but choose preachers and decide where to spend the treasury does not need or deserve financial support. The fact that God envisioned the eldership as a work that needed financial support gives us an insight into the quality and the quantity of the work of the eldeis.’Why are our elders not supported out of the treasury? Manifestly the brethren do not see that the work being done is deserving of support. Many elderships are ignorant as to what “feeding the flock among you” consists of! Is our concept of the work of the eldership truth or tradition?

What about our views on “personal work”? That the New Testament evangelist taught and converted people., no one will dare deny. But the growth of the New Testament church was not in the work of one man or several men, but in the work of the church: “at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were scattered abroad . . . therefore they that were scattered abroad went everywhere preaching the word” (Acts 8:1-4). How many churches “die, on the vine” ; because they are. without a. “minister”? These churches feel that if they could just raise some money and entice a preacher to come “work for us” everything will be alright. Anything a preacher can do in a community to preach the Gospel, the church can do, and do it more fruitfully in direct proportion to the number of brethren who are preaching the word. A preacher might do a better and more efficient job, and spend more time at it, but by himself he will never accomplish as much as a dedicated, zealous, working church can. Is our concept of personal work truth or tradition?

The examples could be drawn out endlessly, but the thesis of this article has been supported. Just as tradition produced “eyes that will not see, ears that will not hear, and “hearts waxed gross” even today much of what we do is lost in ineffectuality just because we have permitted habit to suspend conscious thought. Change for change’s sake is senseless, but refusal to change for fear of losing vain tradition is even more senseless.

Truth Magazine XXII: 22, pp. 362-363
June 1, 1978

By Earl Robertson

Anyone familiar with the writings of Augustine, fully utilized by John Calvin in his Institutes of The Christian Religion, and parroted by many denominational preachers and some of our own brethren, knows something about the doctrine of predestination. Calvin wrote, “By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death. This God has testified, not only in the case of single individuals; he has also given a specimen of it in the whole posterity of Abraham, to make it plain that the future condition of each nation was entirely at his disposal” (Institutes, Book III, Chapter 21).

The doctrine says God did eternally beforehand fix the individual destinies of each person. Some he predestined to heaven and others to hell and neither can do anything about it to change it. Who can believe such? One Baptist preacher recently wrote, “First, the word predestination means prearranged destiny” (The Christian Baptist, February, 1978, p. 4). He further wrote, “Predestination does not mean part of the way, but all the way to heaven.” This predestination is, they say, “unconditional election.” One wrote, “. . . if any are saved God must choose out those who shall be the objects of His grace” (The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, p. 95). Frank B. Beck wrote, “There is this great difference in the election of the saved and the rejection of the rest of men. In electing the saved God encounters them and regenerates them according to His own sovereign will (John 1:13; Jas. 1:18), apart from their will (Rom. 9:16-18). A Divine interference!” (The Five Points of Calvinism, p. 21).

So according to this doctrine one’s salvation is “unconditional”; it is “apart from his own will” and is “according to God’s own sovereign will.” “Divine interference” indeed! This would entirely remove man from the realm of choice, and God gives man the power to choose (John 5:39, 40; Matt. 11:28-30). Man chooses his own destiny; God does not arbitrarily fix the individual destinies of men. If He did there would be no reason to preach the gospel (God’s power to save the believer, Rom. 1:16) to anyone; yet, Christ commanded it preached to all and promised to save each one who believes it and is baptized (Mark 16:15, 16). The creeds of men propogating the doctrine that God did eternally decree some individuals to eternal life and some to eternal damnation and that nothing can be done to alter the decree, does indeed circumvent the power of choice vested in each responsible individual by the Lord. According to their doctrine it will do no good to preach the gospel of Christ to anyone. S. T. Tolley, Editor of The Christian Baptist, recently wrote, “I certainly agree with the evangelist (Billy Graham, EER) that there are many from among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and peoples who will be saved from their sins-even those who have never heard him, or any other man try to preach the gospel of Christ,-but it won’t be because any of the poor sinners said ‘yes.’ Because Christ paid the debt sinners owed and couldn’t pay, and..,because God the Father accepted the payment Christ made as full and complete redemption for the sins of His people.” He further wrote, “Primitive Baptist. have always believed that it was unnecessary for the gospel of Christ to be preached in order that sinners be saved from hell” (January, 1978, p. 12).

So it is a “prearranged destiny”; “a divine interference” of the sovereign will arbitrarily acting upon the sinner in his “unconditional election”! This number is “so certain and definite, that it cannot be either-increased or diminished” says the Philadelphia Confession Of Faith.

Since it is not God’s will that any should perish (2 Pet. 3:9), and this creedal system says that God has from eternity decreed some to hell, we must conclude that both God and man can not be right on this matter! Who is telling the truth? Friend, you do have a choice right here! Since man teaches one thing and God another on the subject of predestination, it becomes a question as. to whether you want your trust in God or man.

God says, “And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his: Son . . .” (Rom. 8:28, 29). God’s “purpose” (prothesin) is His placing men before His mind so as to distinctly see then. God ‘did not have to foreordain what a man’s destiny, would be in order to foresee . it; He could foresee the destiny of a free agent just as freely as He could foresee the end of one without volition. All things involved in man’s redemption were set before God, and’ among these was that man should be called by the iospel. The Bible says, “Whereunto he called you through our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Thess. 2:14). Such “obtaining of.glory” is because one has been “conformed to the image of his Son.” God foresaw that He would save this way.. He foresaw all that would accept salvation thus offered.

Truth Magazine XXII: 22, pp. 360-361
June 1, 1978

By James P. Needham

Should American Preachers Move to Iran?

That is a moot question in many ways. Certainly, we should preach the gospel to every creature (Mk. 16:16), but circumstances must be taken into account in all cases. It is easy to say that American preachers should go to Iran, but it may be something else to put one there. Here are some things to consider:

1. The Religious Situation: The populace of Iran is almost 100 % Muslin, or Mohammedan. To call it a closed society is not far wrong. It is estimated that one in every 15 citizens is involved in some kind of police work! A secrete policeman kept almost daily surveillance of my activities, The American community feels that this is true of all Americans in the country. Some Americans have been sent home at the whim of informers. The Islamic religion is interwoven in the fabric of Iranian culture: the religion is part of the culture, and the culture is part of the religion. Officially, there is almost no tolerance of any other religion. The local priests (Mullahs) wield a great influence over the people. In days gone by they practically ruled the country, but their power has been curtailed in recent years-The Shah is the absolute monarch today! But the priests continue to keep local citizens in line religiously, and will intimidate anyone who violates Islamic tradition, and persecute any who seek to lead them astray. There is a great deal of talk in the country about these priests having murdered such persons, and many feel they would do so now! One only has to study the history of Mohammeddanism to see its violence. Indeed, it was imposed upon the middle-eastern countries by the edge of the sword!

I have been told that it is illegal for anyone to enter Iran to do religious work among the natives; that a visa for such a purpose would not be issued. One of the brethren in Isfahan enquired about this at the American consulate and was told that it is not illegal, and that such a visa could probably be obtained, but such a person would have no standing before the law! If the local priests persecuted him, or even killed him, the government would do nothing. He strictly would be on his own! Believe me, that would be a very precarious position in that country! It would be like a suicide mission for Christ!

For instance, for a time the local authorities in Isfahan prohibited the church’s meeting for worship, calling it an “illegal assembly.” This was all worked out in time, and they now have a permit to meet for worship, but they underwent some trying times.

In order for a preacher to work with even an American group in Iran, that group must be registered with the government, receive a charter (which for all practical purposes will be written by the government) and the preacher must obtain a “work permit.” While such a charter contains some questionable provisions, it would be possible to work within its stipulations by being very careful. One such provision is that, if the group disbands, all funds remaining in its treasury must be given to charity. The solution would be to dispose of all funds before disbanding, etc.

In Iran, nearly the entire populace is made up of “believers” (Muslims). Women wear Chadors (a large cloth, usually black) that veil their bodies including their heads and most of their faces. (In stricter Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia, the women wear a black cheese-cloth type veil over their faces making it all but impossible to identify them. One would have trouble recognizing his own wife!) Men carry a string of beads in their hands which they constantly fondle to keep them conscious of “Allah” (God). All good Muslims pray five times a day, bowing toward Mecca. (They are supposed to wash themselves before every prayer.) In every city there are beautiful, ornate and expensive Mosques where prayers are supposed to be offered on Fridays (the Muslim day of worship answering to our Sunday, or the Jewish Sabbath-Mohammed wanted to be different). In most Mosques an Iman (important religious leader) is entombed in an ornate crypt. I saw Muslims kissing the crypt and rubbing their faces against it, and throwing in large amounts of money.

I have said all that to show how ingrained is Muslimism in the fabric of Iranian culture. It approaches fanaticism, and it will not be dislodged without great effort and tremendous sacrifice on the part of all who attempt it.

Muslims believe in one God whom they call “Allah.” According to their doctrine, He has had four prophets: Adam, Moses, Christ and Mohammed, but Mohammed is the greatest of them all, say they. (You see, Cassisus Clay got it honestly!) They do not deny Christ, and they even admit His virgin birth, but deny His Messiahship. In common with Jews and Christians, they claim an Abrahamic origin, but Mohammed traces his religious heritage through Ishmael rather than Isaac! For instance, while I was in Iran, they supposedly celebrated the day when “Abraham offered Ishmael” (rather than Isaac, as the Bible says). It seems that Mohammed took off from Abraham and concocted a religion for the Arab world, copying much of it from the Jewish religion, but being very careful not to copy it too closely. In that sense, he reminds one of Jereboam. Mohammedans will not eat swine flesh and continue to practice animal sacrifices, just to name a couple of Old Testament tenants they observe.

In view of the above facts, it seems to me that the best approach to the Iranians is for American preachers to enter the country to serve the American community. Let the American Christians invite their Iranian friends and neighbors to the services. Have Bible classes for the younger ones, as well as others. Gradually, this will break into the entrenched Muslim society. This would be safer because the progress would be so gradual that it would not raise nearly the excitement that going there to “convert the Muslims” would gender. In fact, ‘this process has begun already. We had several Muslims to visit our services in Shiraz, and there is at least one Iranian national who is a Christian in Tehran.

It seems to me that the safest and surest method–of taking the gospel to Iran is to allow it to work like leaven; quietly and inconspicuously. Any sudden, pushy moves will bring down the wrath of the Mullah’s on our heads and that will defeat our purpose. Jesus told His disciples to be “as wise as serpents and as harmless as doves.” The kingdom needs to come “without observation” (gradually and quietly) to the Islamic world.

2. Transportation: Transportation is a major problem for Americans in Iran. The cheapest automobile one can buy (a compact) costs about $6,000, but then driving it on the streets and roads of Iran is a nightmare! There are almost no traffic rules! Everyone drives as he pleases! Traffic lights, signs and speed limits are ignored at will. One way streets become two-way streets, and four-lane streets become eight-lane streets if there is just barely enough room to get in; then, if there is not, they use the side walk! (I was literally brushed by a fastmoving car on a sidewalk in Tehran). Painted traffic lanes on the streets and roads are for cowards, but I did not see any! It is every man for himself!

Now, all that is bad enough, but just wait until you have an accident! They often put you in jail without a hearing until they decide if you are at fault (which Americans almost always are). And they do not get in any hurry about deciding if you are guilty. Then, when it comes to settling your liability, the family of the injured decides how much you will pay! There is an average of five traffic fatalities per day in Tehran alone! Consequently, many Americans in Iran choose not to own an automobile. They walk or use local taxis for transportation. Without an automobile, a preacher’s work would be quite limited in the country-not completely nullified, but severely limited. I am not saying he could not or should not have a car; many Americans do, I am just pointing out a few facts.

3. Cost of Living: To put an American preacher in Iran will require a sizeable outlay of cash. Round trip ticket will cost about $1,300.00 per adult. Rent on a two-bedroom apartment will cost about $400 per month. Food is terribly expensive, especially if one eats western type foods since they have to be imported. Western beefsteak will cost about $9 per pound! American children have to attend an American school which costs from two to three thousand dollars per child per year! (This is paid by American corporations for their employees.) Thus, it would be much preferable for an American preacher going to Iran not to have children in school. One brother commented that no American preacher should attempt to work in Iran for less than $20,000.00 per year, and that would be a minimum for a person without school children. A couple of children in school within itself would be five or six thousand dollars per year! Americans working in Iran earn about twice as much as they would earn at home and companies pay their school bills.

4. Medical Care: Medical care for an American living on the local economy ranges from fair to really bad. It would be also very expensive. This is another reason why it would be preferable for a preacher not to have small children. The medical care would be somewhat inadequate for them. Some of the American corporations have their own American doctors, so their employees have ,it better. Those working for the American Government receive excellent care.

5. Transient Membership: An American preacher working in Iran would have to deal constantly with a transient membership. As the reader can see in the early part of this article, congregations in Iran have ranged from 80 down. One might have 80 one month and 20 the next! Since Americans living in Iran earn very good salaries, the churches there are quite capable financially, and could contribute substantially to the support of a preacher, but he would need an underwriting church or churches in the States, or he would stand the risk of being stranded financially. Some church or churches in the States, or in Iran would have to agree to keep enough money in reserve to bail him out in case of drastic changes in membership.

Iranian Churches Wanting Preachers

So far as Shiraz is concerned, the decision was made that it is better for an American preacher to come over periodically and work with them on a temporary basis, rather than getting someone to move there. The local brethren are carrying on in a good way, and it is thought that since there are only four families and three of their contracts will expire within a year unless they are extended, it would be wiser to carry on as in the past for the moment.

The Isfahan church is very interested in getting an American preacher to move there to work particularly with the, local people. They feel they are capable of taking care of local preaching and teaching so far as Americans are concerned, but would be very interested in talking with any American preacher who would be interested in coming to work with local Iranians. To do this, one must take into consideration the tremendous language barrier. Iranians speak the Farsi language. (It uses an Arabic-type alphabet. Arabs can understand it, but can not read it.) It is a difficult language, but not impossible. I saw several Americans who were quite fluent in it. If any brother would be interested in trying to move to Isfahan to work, I would be glad to put you in contact with the brethren there, and give whatever assistance I can.

Tehran also is interested in securing the services of an American preacher. They have had one already, but some problems developed, necessitating his returning to the States. I do not know the details, but I know that one problem was the school expense.

There are many employment opportunities in Iran. There are U. S. Government jobs, ranging from school teachers to technicians of all kinds. There are many American corporations which are looking for men and women to fill various positions. While some brethren in Iran question the ethics of Americans taking jobs in foreign countries as a basis for religious work, I cannot see the, problem. As long as one gives his employer an honest day’s work, what he does on his off time is strictly his business. He would not be exploiting the government or the private corporation by doing gospel work in Iran on his off time any more than one would if he did the same in the States.

How To Contact Churches In Iran

One of the problems in Iran is a lack of publicity of the churches meeting there. As stated earlier, I spent two weeks trying to make contact with the church in Isfahan. There has been a terrible lack of publicity given to these churches in American papers and this has resulted in many American Christians in the country who have been unable to find the groups now meeting. I hope, as the result of my trip and knowledge of the work there, that I can remedy this situation. More and more Americans will be going to Iran in the months and years to come, and we need to make sure they know exactly where the brethren meet.

Since the places of meeting often change, I will list only contacts in the three localities where the brethren are now meeting. Those interested in the exact localities where the saints meet should contact me for the latest information.

Shiraz:

Marion Grant

Frank Herrlein

George Snyder

Isfahan:

Jack Morgan

Wesley Scarbrough

Joe Mulkey

Tehran:

Lane Cubstead

Bob Downing

Truth Magazine XXII: 22, pp. 358-360
June 1, 1978