Truth Magazine

By James P. Needham

In November and December of 1977, I spent 30 days working among American Christians in the country of Iran, which approximates the ancient kingdoms of Babylon, Assyria, and the Medes and Persians. This trip was made at the invitation of the American brethren in Shiraz (a city toward the Southern part of the country), and I spent most of the time there, but was able to arrange short meetings in Tehran (the Capital) and Isfahan (a city about midway between Tehran and Shiraz). The trip was jointly financed by the Palm Springs Drive church in Altamonte Springs (metropolitan Orlando, FL) where I work regularly, and brethren in Iran.

The Situation In Iran

Some readers might wonder why there are so many American brethren in Iran. As you know, Iran is one of the richest oil countries of the Middle East (though experts say its oil will be depleted in the near future). It is a strong ally of the United States, and occupies a strategic location insofar as Russia is concerned. Also, it is strongly anti-Communist, but its neighbor, Iraq, has fallen into the Communist camp. This makes for a tense situation, and Iran has heavily armed itself with sophisticated American military hardware. Yet, the level of modern technology in the country cannot even begin to operate and maintain such complex machinery which involves engineering, electronics, computer science, etc.

Consequently, Iran has contracted with the American Government and American corporations to operate and maintain this equipment while teaching native Iranians to do the same (it is called counterpart training). There is also a movement to industrialize the nation. Many native Iranians are trained in engineering and other science-related fields in other industrialized nations like West Germany, France, the United States, etc. The 1975-76 academic, year found 179,000 Iranian students in foreign colleges and universities, Of this number 19,630 were in American schools (the largest number in any one foreign country). (Source: Institute of International Education). But President Carter stated recently that there were 30,000 Iranian students in the USA in 1977, and 40,000 Americans living in Iran! (President’s speech welcoming the Shahanshah and Impress Farrah to Washington, D. C. on Nov. 15, 1977).

This accounts for the presence of so many Americans in Iran, as well as many citizens of other countries. One can hear a half-dozen languages being spoken orr any, given day in the market places of Iran. As stated earlier, there are some 40,000 Americans there, and by 1985 it is estimated that there will be between 80 and 100,000.

Naturally, among so many thousands of Americans, there will be a certain percentage of Christians. I am not sure anyone knows how many Christians are in Iran, but I met about one hundred in three congregations meeting in three of the major concentrations of Americans in the country. It is highly possible that there are others, but I did not hear of them, and no American Christians I met knew of others. If anyone happens to know of others than those mentioned in this article, I would be happy to hear about them. I shall now give a summary of the works in the localities I visited:

Shiraz

The work at Shiraz goes back about 5 years. The Frank Herrlein family went there with the Westinghouse corporation and began meeting, as a family, in their home. Then, two years ago the Marion Grants (who were charter members where I work regularly) took a foreign contract with Westinghouse in Shiraz. They soon met the Herrleins and began meeting with them. Soon thereafter the George Snyders took a Westinghouse contract in Shiraz, and began meeting with the group, though Mrs. Snyder was not a Christian at the time. (She was baptized during my work there.) Then just recently the Harold Hollands came to Shiraz. Brother Holland is a Professor of Library Science and is teaching at the Pahlavi University in Shiraz. He is on a year’s leave of absence from the University of Missouri.

In the course of time, Marion Grant began teaching and preaching for a Baptist group with no strings attached, in addition to his work with the brethren. He and the other brethren influenced many from the Baptist group, and others, to attend the services of the local church. Sister Grant began teaching a children’s Bible class in a Presbyterian group. Opportunities to preach the gospel multiplied

The Grants approached the group in Shiraz about having an American preacher to come over and work with them for a few weeks and survey the situation, not only in Shiraz, but throughout the country, to evaluate the feasibility of perhaps moving a preacher there to work on a more permanent basis. The decision was made to do this. When the Grants came home for a leave, they asked me if I would be willing to make this trip. I agreed to do so, and we began making plans.

I arrived in Shiraz on Saturday, November 19, and was met at the airport by Marion Grant and Frank Herrlein. We went to the Grant’s house and visited a few minutes before they had to return to their employment. (The work week in Iran is Saturday through Wednesday. Our Thursday and Friday are the Muslim’s days off, their “week end.”) That evening the men assembled at the Grant’s home for a get-acquainted session, and some planning for the first gospel meeting to begin the next evening in the home of the Frank Herrleins.

This meeting got under way on Sunday evening (since Sunday is a work day in Iran as mentioned above), and lasted through Wednesday night. It was well attended by the four families that make up the Shiraz church, and many of their friends, both American and Iranian. Upon more than one occasion the majority of the audience was made up of non-members: Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Muslims, etc. (It is amazing how the Americans can lay aside their traditional religious prejudices when they are separated from family and community pressures! This within itself makes Iran a very fertile field of labor.)

Following a 3 or 4 day interim, we had a second meeting in the home of the Grants. It began on the following Sunday evening and went through the following Thursday. While it was attended by some outsiders, it was mainly supported by the local members.

The lessons were well received in Shiraz. The local Christians were greatly edified, non-members were impressed with the simplicity of the gospel, and some Muslims spoke favorably of the preached word. One American lady, Mrs. George Snyder, was baptized. A later report is that the effort is still bearing fruit.

It was a real joy to be associated with these wonderful people. It was a special joy to live in the home of the Marion Grants with whom we have been associated in gospel work for many years. They made my visit most pleasant and, profitable from a personal standpoint.

Tehran

Tehran is the Capital of Iran, and a thriving city of some 8,000,000 souls. There is a large concentration of Americans there, and the church in Tehran goes back several years and has ranged in attendance to as many as 80. The number stood at about 40 while I was there.

I made contact with the Tehran church through John Nix, a brother I had known for several years, and a son-in-law to Brother Robert Bolton. At that time he was an accountant for Blount Brothers Corporation in Iran.

I flew from Shiraz to Tehran on December 2, and was met at the airport by John, and made my home with him while there. I began a short meeting with the Tehran group on the night of December 4, and ended on the 7th. The meeting was fairly well attended in view of the fact that it came on such short notice. (Communication in Iran is very poor. There are telephones,but one may spend 2 or 3 hours making a long distance call, and then be cut off in the middle of the conversation, then spend that much more time calling back!)

Isfahan

The work at Isfahan also goes back to 1976. Bell Helicopter is a big contractor in Iran and much of its establishment is in Isfahan. Many Isfahan brethren are employed at Bell. The church there numbers 35 or 40, but has been as high as 60. The tremendous fluxuation in membership is due to the transient nature of the members. Contracts are for 1, 2, and 3 years, and many do not renew. Some Americans like to live in Iran, but many do not like it at all!

I had difficulty contacting the brethren in Isfahan. I spent the entire two weeks- at Shiraz trying to make contact with them, and finally succeeded just before leaving for Tehran, but it was too late to avoid going to Tehran then back-tracking to Isfahan. Thus, I went to Tehran for the meeting, then flew back to Isfahan for a short meeting the next week end.

(Concluded next week.)

Truth Magazine XXII: 21, pp. 348-349
May 25, 1978

By Raymond Harris

Yes, the plague of the bus ministry, with the accompanying reward motivation, children’s Bible hour and puppet ministry, seems to be dying out here in Northwest Alabama. Here in one of the places where the bus ministry was first promoted among churches of Christ, the church bus population is dwindling. It appears that in the not too distant future we may have about as many active Joy Bus Programs as we have hula hoops. It took about five or six years for the fad to run its course.

The bus ministry cycle is quite interesting. Most bus ministries around the country that are still flourishing were promoted two, three or four years after they began here. The life span of most bus ministries will be determined by the tenacity of the local preacher. However, most bus ministries will finally have almost identical histories.

The bus ministry almost always starts with a preacher. Yes, with few exceptions it was an aggressive, promoting preacher who pushed, pressured and demanded that elders accept the bus ministry! Elders and others who resisted were shamed as being lazy, without vision and insensitive to the needs of the lost. So, in order to initiate a bus program it was essential to line up the elders and gain access to the church treasury.

From that point forward the story is almost always the same. Buy the buses, train the workers, work the routes and haul in the kids. At first there is always the excitement and enthusiasm that the activity and the bigger crowds will spawn. Next comes the building program! With dozens more attending it is supposed that the church needs a new building with a larger auditorium and more classrooms. Then comes the reality! The mortgage payment is staggering. The confusion at services is unbearable. The continual week after week work load on the bus workers and drivers is exhausting. The buses get old and the maintenance cost soars. The damage to the building and the discipline problems are unbelievable. Tempers flare and patience wears thin. Bus riders quit in droves. And finally when everyone has about reached the breaking point, the buses are sold — and there is a sigh of relief.

Truth Magazine XXII: 21, p. 346
May 25, 1978

By Donald P. Ames

During the week of April 17-21, it was my good pleasure to attend the debate in Falmouth, Virginia, on the subject of marriage, divorce and remarriage. Originally scheduled between H. E. Phillips and Jack Gibbert, Brother Phillips had to back out under doctor’s orders due to health problems. Brother J. T. Smith was selected as his replacement, and the debate continued as scheduled. Gene Frost ably served as moderator for J. T., assisted by Bill Robinson Jr.; Bob Melear moderated for Jack Gibbert, assisted by Kenneth Cheatham. This meant that able men were present to present with force their arguments on both sides of the proposition. .

Attendance at the debate left much to be desired, perhaps due to the location, though I do not feel convenience of location has been or should be the criterion for learning truth. It was attended by brethren from Indiana and Illinois, so surely others could have been there. Friday night saw the largest crowd of about 200 present, while Monday night began with only about 100 present. Considering the implications of this doctrine and its gradual growth, I was surprised more were not interested in hearing it discussed.

Local events had also contributed much to the atmosphere of the discussion. Brother Gibbert was well known by some in the area, and was respected for the work he had done in the past. However, both Gibbert and Roland Worth Jr. had been dismissed already from their preaching assignments for the endorsement of this false doctrine (Brother Worth had already departed the area, and was not present at the debate). Thus with this background, though many felt sympathy for Gibbert and even for his arguments (how we wish they were Bible doctrine) yet the overwhelming convictions lay with the Bible and the position being defended by Brother Smith.

J. T. did, I believe, a far superior job in defending the truth in this discussion than was evident in his debate with Lovelady. This is not to say there were not blunders of speech and some lack of organization on his part, as well as blunders of speech on Gibbert’s part, which caused some distraction. However he clearly showed where the doctrine is headed and that Gibbert was running out of soap after the first night’s discussion. The final night did not see Gibbert coming anywhere close to defending his proposition, as J. T. pointed out in what was his best night of refutation of this doctrine.

Repeatedly the charges of “dividing the brotherhood” were injected into the discussion by Gibbert, perhaps partially due to his own troubles in finding a job (as if that were J. T.’s fault!). As J. T. expressed regrets that Gibbert’s teaching on this subject was causing him problems, Gibbert promptly accused him of dishonesty rather than accept the fact that his own doctrine was the reason faithful brethren were not interested in hiring him. It was also interesting to note Gibbert was quick to assert neither J. T. nor Brother Frost would be allowed access to his pulpit because of “their attitude” in pressing this doctrine, but that did not seem to apply to his own attitude. It becomes very obvious to me that these brethren will plead for open pulpits as long as it means avenues for them to teach and spread their doctrine. But if anyone brands it for what it is -rotten to the core!-and stands up to it, he has the bad attitude because they have been opposed. The attitude problem was present, but not on the part of Smith and Frost. Let me pause here to say this doctrine is not going away, and it is creeping, out of California. Unless we stand up to it and brand it for what it is and preach against it, we are going to have major problems in the brotherhood in a few years over it, and it is about time some brethren began to recognize such to be so. We have tolerated a bad situation for a long time, thinking it was not spreading, but with the introduction of Bible Forum by these brethren to promote it and their eager desires for debates to publicize it, it is obvious these brethren are on the offensive and do not intend to back off. They are asking for the battle, and it needs to be engaged that their spread of it may be put to an end!

Monday night Gibbert defended the right of the guilty put-away fornicator to remarry again without sin, using the logic that if they were not married to their first partner, they had no mate and hence to forbid them to marry was the doctrine of the devil (1 Tim. 4:3; 1 Car. 7:27-28). J. T. showed this was a clear violation of the very teaching of Matt. 19:9 and 5:32, and noted even Gibbert refused them the right to remarry until fornication had taken place, hence he too was guilty of teaching this “doctrine of the devil.” Gibbert readily accepted the validity of Matt. 19:9b, but sought to put the exception clause in both the first and second part of the passage, which just is not so. J. T. showed that although the innocent was free to remarry, the guilty was bound by the law of God which forbids such. Of course, Tuesday night placed J. T. in the affirmative that the guilty did not have a right to remarry, and the same points were pressed.

Friday night Gibbert was to defend the proposition that one put away for causes other than fornication was free to remarry, if he committed fornication and his first wife subsequently decided to put him away a second time at that point. Hence, regardless of why one may be put away, just run out and commit adultery, have your first wife announce she would not live with you any more (or at least hope she will!), and all can swap partners or whatever and be pleasing to God. Brethren, this doctrine not only makes a mockery of everything taught in the word of God on this subject, it stinks! Though the consequences may be denied, it opens the way for Hollywood style marriages in every sense, and puts a premium on sin to get whatever mate you decide you would like to have for the moment. They do not like the conclusion, but it follows as surely as the doctrine of infant damnation follows inherited sin, and there is no other way to look at it.

Thursday evening, J. T. was affirming that the one put away for causes other than fornication had to remain celibate or be reconciled, and noted it was almost identical in wording with Matt. 19:9 and 1 Cor. 7:10-11. Gibbert passed over this issue to return to argue the topic of Tuesday night, and never got anywhere close to affirming his own subject for Friday night. In fact, he sought from the first night onward to remain in the negative regardless of the proposition. “What if” cases were introduced to move away from “book, chapter and verse” and loaded questions were asked and quibbled over. J. T. also pressed Gibbert hard for relying on Matt. 19:9b (and the insertion of the exception clause falsely in this part of the verse) the first two nights and then trying to disavow its validity the last two nights. He furthermore presented material showing it had a right to belong in the text, and that point was dropped.

Several points of order were made to infractions of the rules by the Gibbert-Melear-Cheatham team, including quotes from James Adams in the Gospel Guardian introduced the first night in clear violation of the terms of the discussion. Other infractions were minor and overlooked by Brother Frost until the final night when they were pointed out “for the record.” An orderly discussion prevailed on the subject, with only one real point of friction arising over what I believe was a misunderstanding in the closing announcements Thursday evening, and that was quickly pulled back and settled.

I am glad to see the churches in Virginia taking a firm stand for the truth, and also in North Carolina. I too regret these brethren have a hard time finding a place to preach due to their teaching, but would suggest before faithful brethren can recommend them they are going to have to change their doctrine to harmonize with the word of God rather than reaching a conclusion and then seeking to alter the word of God to suit their doctrine. While some points could still have benefited from better clarification, I believe the truth came through in I this discussion, and admire both Brother Smith and Frost for the fine job they did in defending the truth.

Truth Magazine XXII: 21, pp. 345-346
May 25, 1978

By Larry Ray Hafley

Question:

From Georgia: “I have a question that I would appreciate your consideration of. It is a statement made by a brother in Christ, and I shall quote it as it is stated. 7 believe that 1 (or anyone else) as an individual have the liberty to privately celebrate the birth of our Lord every day or on any day of the year one might arbitrarily decide upon. (Read Rom. 14:5, 6.) In other words Paul seems to be saying that it is not a sin for a brother to observe certain days, nor is it a sin for a brother not to observe these days.’

`Do you believe this to be a correct understanding of what Paul is saying in Romans 14:5, 6? Would it be right for the individual to observe Christmas as Christ’s birthday as long as he did it privately? Or one step further, can the individual observe Christmas or any other day as a celebration of the birth of our Lord as long as he does it privately?”

Reply:

“One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks” (Rom. 14:5, 6).

Paul was discussing personal, conscientious opinions and scruples in Romans 14. Paul mentioned those “weak in the faith.” They held that: (1) certain days were to be esteemed above others; (2) and that they could not eat meat but herbs. These were “weak” brethren. The strong brethren were to: (1) walk in love; (2) not to enter into doubtful disputations; (3) not to condemn; (4) not to put a stumbling block in their brother’s way by causing him to act in violation of his conscience; (5) bear the infirmities of the weak, not pleasing themselves.

Romans 14 deals with the observance of days and the eating of meats which do not matter in and of themselves. They are harmless, private judgments of individuals. The “faith” of the weak brother is not “the faith” of Jude 3 and other passages. Their “faith” is their own private and personal conviction about incidental meats and days. They were not to go against their weak conscience and the strong brother must not do anything to cause the weak to offend or act contrary to what he conscientiously believes.

Paul did not say: “Now, in view of what I have said, you are at liberty to arbitrarily develop a weak faith and select a day to celebrate the birth of Christ.” Rather, “Hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word or our epistle” (2 Thess. 2:15). Disciples are to “observe all things” Christ has commanded (Matt. 28:20). His birth does not fall in that class of commandments. So, we are not at liberty to pick out a day, because of what Paul said, and observe the birth of Christ. Romans 14 does not authorize the capricious desire to descend and develop a weak conscience.

The brother our querist describes does not fit Romans 14. He is deciding “arbitrarily” to set aside a day to observe the birth of Christ. He is not acting conscientiously as per Romans 14 but “arbitrarily,” hence, presumptuously and sinfully. The issue in this case is not privacy, i.e., how privately it is done or not done. The real point is the character of the weak brother in Romans 14 and the arbitrary decision of the brother represented in the question, who merely presumes upon the case of the weak brother to justify what is not authorized by the word of God.

Truth Magazine XXII: 21, p. 344
May 25, 1978