Truth Magazine

By Steve Wallace

The effort which began in the Spring of this year (1996) has continued through to this present time with various men coming to carry on the work of teaching the gospel in this city. This writer was there from 22 October until 11 November. Tom Bunting, who came with his wife, Shirley, preceded me in the work there, while Doug Hill and Josh Gurtler, who both came in late summer, were my co-workers. Doug returned to the U.S. on 15 November. Josh plans to stay until 23 December. Bill Bynum is presently there for three weeks working with Josh.

Street Work

As is our custom, we continued our practice of setting up a table full of literature in the Lithuanian language on the main pedestrian street in Kaunas, Laisves Aleja. We were blessed with good weather generally and interest at the table was good. There were a number of discussions with people from varying religious or non-religious backgrounds. With Tom and Shirley in Kaunas, Doug and Josh took the opportunity to work the streets in Vilnius for a few weeks. The reaction there was extremely good with people swarming the table. Both men were excited about the number of people who took literature.

Lectures

The attendance at the Sunday lectures grew to a high of about fourteen with six to seven of these being non-Christians. In Kaunas we advertised the subjects, time, and place of the lectures in the city paper and handed out invitations to people who passed by the table in both cities. The lectures in Vilnius had a high of 23 people in attendance. It is encouraging to report that Kestutis Subacus, a native Lithuanian, preached many of the lectures himself. In Kaunas we made overhead charts of our lessons for the lectures which were also copied and handed out to all who came.

Studies

In the past, most of the conversions have come from people coming to the lectures and we have had a difficult time getting private studies with people. This changed radically in both places with studies resulting from both the street work and the lectures. In my time working in Lithuania this was the busiest in terms of private studies. There were two baptized in Vilnius and we have hopes that others with whom we are presently studying will follow. If my count is correct, we have baptized eleven so far this year. While three did not stick, the others have shown very encouraging signs of growth.

The Churches in Kaunas and Vilnius

As is always the case, all the workers involved in the work in these two cities have also worked with the churches in each place. We are continually encouraged by the growth we see in our brethren there. In order to further this we have started setting up Bible studies with individuals or groups of individuals within the church in Kaunas. We have already seen good come from this.

Other Work

In my last report I mentioned a number of books/booklets that we have been working on. At this point Denominationalism and The Church by Larry Ray Hafley and The New Testament Church by Roy Cogdill are almost ready to go to print. Long hours have been spent proof reading Glossalalia, by Jimmy Jividen, with more work yet to be done on it. I drove in with my car loaded down (it bottomed out numerous times) with 386 and 286 computers which were donated by various brethren. These computers have now been set up to work with Lithuanian characters and have been assigned to various translators, both Christians and non-Christians. This will make our job of getting things into final print form much easier.

Can You Come to Lithuania in 1997?

Beginning in January 1997, a further effort to spread the gospel is being planned for Kaunas and, perhaps, other parts of Lithuania. It is planned to continue the whole year. Tracts and lecture halls are available. A number of churches in the U.S. and Germany have shown themselves willing to sup-port these efforts. Workers are needed. Can you come for a few weeks? Everyone who has worked in Kaunas believes in the need for further work to be done there and has found the work something they were able to do. We are seeing the fruits of labors in the number of converts and growth in brethren there. Please contact me for further information about working there.

Guardian of Truth XLI: 3 p. 12-13
February 6, 1997

By Norman Midgette

No, we are not talking about the National Organization of Women, but about 2 Corinthians 6:1, 2. Paul wrote, “And working together with him we entreat also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain (for he saith, At an acceptable time I harkened unto thee, and in a day of salvation did I succor thee: behold, now is the acceptable time; behold now is the day of salvation)… “

This quote is from Isaiah 49:8 and the context shows this to be the message. A time, acceptable to God, would come when the Gentiles would be brought into the fold and there would be, “. . . salvation unto the end of the earth” (Isa. 49:6). At that acceptable time and day of salvation God promised to do five things. That time, Paul says, is now. So what are these five promises of God in Isaiah 49?

God would give help to his people (49:8). And do we need it! There is not a thing we can do about our guilt and sin but live with them unless God will help us. That is what he promises here and now. If we are in Christ, we have this help.

God will preserve his people (49:8). No one will be able to snatch us out of his hand if we want to stay there (John 10:28). Security is so important to peace of mind and contentment. We need it and with God we have it.

God will feed us and remove our hunger and thirst (49:9, 10). We are filled when we have Christ for he is the fulness of God and we are complete in him (Col. 2:8-10). According to verse 12, we enter Christ by baptism.

God will lead us and guide us (49:10, 11). Sounds like the good shepherd to me. Psalm 23 comes to mind and the little wayward lamb in the arms of the Savior paints a graphic picture (Matt. 18.12). The Bible contains it all (2 Tim. 3:16, 17; 2 Pet.1:3; Jude 3). God promises to lead us and show us the way and has done that through the Bible.

Finally he will comfort and have compassion on us (49:13). After a hard day, the comfort of home and family is so important and helpful. After a hard life battling evil and sin, the rest and comfort of a home and family in heaven will be wonderful (Heb. 4:1-11). But, that comfort and compassion begins now. That is what God is saying in 2 Corinthians 6:2. Now is the day of salvation when this can begin for you.

But, you know what the problem is? People want to wait. They want a better day or time. They think up every excuse under the sun to keep from coming to God, now. Why? Just give credit where credit is due: it is the Devil.

God says now is the day, now is the time, now is the moment. Seize it! Make it your time. If you have been saying, “later,” stop it! Repent and be baptized for the re-mission of your sins today (Acts 2:38). There was a time when you could not. What a privilege to live at a time now when you can.

Guardian of Truth XLI: 2 p. 15
January 16, 1997

By Mike Willis

From the time that my mother taught the book of Acts to the children’s class at church, I have been impressed with the Apostle Paul. I can distinctly remember how close to tears I came when I learned that he was beheaded by Nero. Most of us have been impressed by the life and work of this godly man.

However, Paul’s life was not without his critics. Had we lived in Paul’s time, some of us might not have appreciated him so much as we appreciate him today. Wherever he preached, trouble and confusion followed close behind. Paul was right in the middle of the conflict that occurred in the church over whether or not Gentiles should be compelled to be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses in order to be saved (Acts 15; Gal. 2). When the church at Corinth had trouble, Paul was right in the middle of it, writing letters and making visits to correct the problems there (1-2 Corinthians). A riot broke out in Ephesus because he was converting so many people to Christ that the local merchants thought their business of making images to Diana would be destroyed (Acts 19). Indeed, Paul was a controversial per-son in his day. We may honor his name today, but some among us would not welcome such a man into the pulpit of our local church.

Criticisms Against Paul

Paul established the church in Corinth and worked with it for eighteen months (Acts 18:11). When trouble came to the church while he was preaching in Ephesus, he wrote 1 Corinthians to address the problems there. Sometime during his stay in Ephesus, he made a trip to Corinth to help solve their problems (2 Cor. 12:14; 13:1). After this second trip, men began working in Corinth to destroy Paul’s reputation. Second Corinthians records much of this conflict. Here are some of the criticisms that were made about Paul’s work:

1. He is fickle. This charge is implied in the statement in 2 Corinthians 1:17  “When I therefore was thus minded, did I use lightness? Or the things that I purpose, do I purpose according to the flesh, that with me here should be yea yea, and nay nay?” Because Paul changed his plans about when he would come to Corinth, those who were trying to undermine his work charged him with fickleness, attributing motives for changing his plans that were untrue. He changed his plans to “spare them” (2 Cor. 1:23) and to avoid a second visit that would be painful and full of sorrow (2 Cor. 2:1-4).

2. His bodily presence is weak. Many of us admire men with a personal charisma that draws others to them. But this was not Paul’s character. His “Charges Against Paul” continued from page 2 bodily presence was weak. His critics said he was “base” and “weak” when present (2 Cor. 10:1; 13:1).

3. He writes terrifying letters. In contrast to his bodily presence, Paul’s letters were “bold” (2 Cor. 10:1). They charged that he “terrified” them with his letters, “for his letters, say they, are weighty and powerful; but his bodily presence is weak and his speech contemptible” (2 Cor. 10:10).

4. He is not a good speaker. Some found Paul’s pulpit preaching lacking. They said that “his speech is contemptible” (2 Cor. 10:10) and that “he is rude in speech” (2 Cor. 13:6). Apparently, Paul’s opponents were not impressed by his pulpit delivery and used that to undermine his work at Corinth.

5. He doesn’t accept support. One of the things that Paul was criticized for at Corinth was his refusal to accept sup-port from the church at Corinth. Paul was not against preachers being supported from the church treasury, for he had argued for this right in 1 Corinthians 9:1-15. While he labored in Corinth, he supported himself by tent making (see Acts 18:3) and received financial support from other churches on sporadic occasions (2 Cor. 11:8; Phil. 4:15-16). Instead of appreciating Paul’s sacrificing so that the gospel might be preached among them, the Corinthians condemned Paul for not taking support from them. The exact nature of this criticism is not known. Some think that it came because itinerant philosophers were usually supported by their disciples. Others think that Paul’s refusal of support from Corinth was interpreted as an indication that Paul thought himself lesser than the Jerusalem apostles. However, it was interpreted, there can be no doubt that he was criticized for not taking their support (2 Cot 11:7-9; 12:13-15; etc.).

6 He used others to take money from the Corinthians. When his opponents could not criticize Paul for taking money, they charged that the funds raised by Titus for the poor among the saints in Jerusalem was really Paul’s craftiness in deceitfully taking the Corinthians’ money for himself (2 Cot 13:16).

7. Paul is beside himself. Some appear to have made the charge that Paul was so caught up in what he was doing that he was a “zealot” who had lost all balance  that he is “beside” himself (2 Cor. 5:13).

He was dishonored, had evil reports spoken about him, and was charged with being a deceiver (2 Cor. 6:13). Some charged that he had wronged, corrupted, and defrauded brethren (2 Cor. 7:2). They charged that he “walked ac-cording to the flesh” (2 Cor. 10:2).

Paul’s Self Defense

Paul found repugnant his having to defend himself. He said, “I am become a fool in glorying; ye have compelled me: for I ought to have been commended of you” (2 Cor. 12:11). In his self-defense, he repeatedly described his relating his conduct as “speaking like a fool” (2 Cor. 11:16-17, 21, 23; 12:6, 11). He was embarrassed that he had to write about what he had done to demonstrate to the Corinthians that he was an apostle of the Lord Jesus and had conducted himself honorably. The Corinthians had known Paul long enough that he did not need an epistle from or to them (2 Cor. 3:1-2). Why should he have to defend himself to them? Nevertheless, he was compelled to do so because his opponents were undermining his work.

Why Were These Men Attacking Paul?

What was at stake in Corinth that Paul felt the need to address the charges against him? There was much more involved than false charges being made against an innocent man. The false charges were motivated by a rejection of the Lord’s gospel and the preaching of another gospel. Paul’s opponents at Corinth were Judaizers (see 2 Cor. 11:22). The doctrine that was at stake was that discussed in the Jerusalem conference (Acts 15; Gal. 2) and in the books of Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews. That issue was this: “Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved” (Acts 15:1). The reason that these false apostles in Corinth attacked and undermined Paul’s reputation was because they rejected the gospel that he preached! Because they did not believe that a person could be saved by faith in Christ Jesus without keeping the Law of Moses, they at-tacked the man who was preaching salvation by faith in Christ. Paul charged that they preached “another Jesus,” received “another spirit,” and preached “another gospel” (2 Cor. 11:4). They were “false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ” (2 Cor. 11:20). Whatever charges these false teachers had to make to undermine his influence they were willing to make be-cause they hated the gospel message that he preached. The issue was not the moral character of Paul but which gospel would prevail!

The ministers of Jesus Christ are the objects of slanderous, personal attacks from time to time. This has been true since the days of the apostles and continues to be true to-day. Those associated with Guardian of Truth have been maliciously attacked just the same as Paul. We have been charged with showing respect of persons by covering up known sins of those associated with us, lying, keeping files on brethren for malicious purposes, writing a creed, acting like buzzards, and many other slanderous words. Those who speak such slander assure us of their unfeigned love. But, what lies behind these charges? Is it a genuine concern for the souls of men who have stumbled into sin, who are leading others to commit the same kinds of sins, and are defending those sins as righteous deeds? Not at all. Rather, the charges are being made by malicious men because they reject the gospel which is being preached. There are men who want fellowship broadened to include men who preach a different gospel. Specifically the issue is focusing at this moment in time on receiving those who are teaching a contrary doctrine on divorce and remarriage. Some who teach the truth on divorce and remarriage wish to extend the right hands of fellowship to those who teach error on the subject. The reason that they make personal attacks is because they reject the gospel that is being preached  the gospel that says that those who preach false doctrines on divorce and remarriage should not be fellowshipped (Matt. 19:9; 2 John 9-11). To undermine the gospel, they attack the messenger, just like the Judaizers attacked Paul.

What Should We Do?

We should do exactly what Paul did. Paul was resolved to continue preaching what he believed whether or not the false teachers in Corinth ever respected him. He was deter-mined that “every word should be established at the mouth of two or three witnesses” (2 Cor. 13:1). Those who were guilty of sin would not be spared (2 Cor. 13:2). Unless the Corinthians repented of their sins and changed their ways, there was going to be a great confrontation when Paul arrived.

Paul did not say, “We should allow local church autonomy to prevail. If there are churches who believe that one should be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses to be saved, let them preach that message. They probably will not be able to fellowship some whom the rest of us could fellowship. Other local churches will preach salvation by grace through faith and receive into their fellowship Gentiles who have not been circumcised and do not keep the Law of Moses. We will just have to respect local church autonomy and agree to disagree.” That ploy to extend fellowship to those who were teaching another gospel did not work in Paul’s day, so why should we allow it to work in our own time?

Conclusion

Do not be distracted by malicious slanderers who try to divert men’s attention from the gospel by attacking the messengers. Cling to the gospel message and those who faithfully preach and live it!

Guardian of Truth XLI: 3 p. 2
February 6, 1997

By Ron Halbrook

A correspondent asks for clarification on who are the “we” reflected in the title of my recent articles entitled, “Are We Doomed to Divide over Every Difference on Divorce and Remarriage?” (Guardian of Truth, August 15 and September 5, pp. 496-98 and 548-50). The reader also requested some discussion of how the “brotherhood” divides, though that term was not used in the articles. Through the years, some brethren have been sensitive to references to such terms as “we” and the “brother-hood.” It is felt in some cases that the terms are used too vaguely, or even that they are used unscripturally in reference to a denominational concept of the church as a conglomerate of local congregations and such service institutions as publishing businesses, bookstores, and schools. It is in order that such terms be properly clarified and that we “speak as the oracles of God” (1 Pet. 4:11).

“We” in Context: Brethren,

Christians, God’s People

“We,” of course, is a pronoun, and its point of reference must be deter-mined by the context. In the articles, “Must We Divide…?”, the word “brethren” is used often, beginning with the first two paragraphs (“we be brethren,” and, “brethren to dwell together in unity,” Gen. 13:8; Ps. 133:1). Synonyms used in the article include “God’s people,” “people” dedicated “to a restoration of the ancient order of things,” and “Christians.” “We” refers to “people” professing to serve God, as in the following statements:

As time goes on, more and more people under the influence of these theories participate in such worldly practices as immodest dress (in mixed swimming and daily dress too), gambling (lottery tickets and Las Vegas too), dancing, and drinking intoxicants (beer, wine, mixed drinks, etc.). This carnality will in-crease. Worldly-minded people and spiritually minded people inevitably separate themselves from each other (2 Cor. 6:17; Eph. 5:11) (GOT, August 15, 1996, p. 498).

The “people” referred to are we who profess to be Christians. If this use of “we” is not scripturally accurate, would someone please point out why or how?

Wherever brethren come into contact with each other, however they (we) may work together at any time, they (we) will face questions and issues which must be scripturally resolved. For instance, if they (we) are to work together as members of the same local church, they (we) must agree with each other on “the faith of the gospel” in order to strive “together for the faith of the gospel”  they (we) must be united in “one Lord, one faith, and one baptism” (Phil. 1:27; Eph. 4:5). If a local church wants to use a man to preach in a gospel meeting, the same unity must exist between the church and the preacher, even though he is not a member of that lo-cal church. In that case, the church and the preacher are the “we” who will find themselves united or divided. The same is true if a church is to provide financial support to a man to preach somewhere else. In that case, the church and the preacher are the “we” who will find themselves united or divided. If two or more brethren wanted to travel and preach together where there are no churches (as Jim McDonald and I have done alongside Filipino preachers), “we” must be united in the faith of the gospel.

If a couple of preachers wanted to teach some lessons on an individual basis to improve the understanding and skill of younger preachers, the teachers would need to be united in the truth of the gospel. Brother Harry Pickup, Jr. has taught some lessons of that kind from time to time through the years. He does not give the right hand of fellowship to premillennialists or institutionalists to teach “damnable heresies” to these young men, but he brings in people of “like precious faith” to help him teach (2 Pet. 2:1; 1:1). Here is the reason for that, in the form of a rhetorical question: “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” (Amos 3:3). Brother Pickup might say of those who walk together with him in presenting the truth, “‘We’ try to present lessons which are challenging, profitable, and practical.” If he made such a statement in a context referring to himself and like-minded teachers, it would not imply that he conceived of a brotherhood-wide organization of churches and human institutions.

Some false teachers tried to create the impression that Paul was not preaching the same gospel preached by faithful brethren in Jerusalem. This tactic was designed to drive a wedge of division between Paul and the Jerusalem saints. To defeat this tactic, Paul and Barnabas went to Jerusalem, where Peter and other prominent brethren publicly ex-changed “the right hands of fellowship” to demonstrate that they all were united in faith, preaching, and practice (Gal. 2:9). Brethren some-times have in mind local church fellowship when they speak of ex-tending “the right hand of fellowship,” but “the right hand of fellowship” may acknowledge the common faith and practice of any two brethren on other occasions as well.

John’s Use of “We” and “Us”

In the Epistles of John as else-where, careful attention must be given to the point of reference or the antecedent of pronouns such as “we” and “us.” Sometimes, the writer has in mind a more restricted reference and sometimes a broader one. This is true in common with our use of language today. Context is always the guide. In 1 John 1:1-3, “we” is used exclusively of the apostles of Christ as his chosen eyewitnesses, but in 1:6 – 2:6 “we” is used of professed Christians in general. The very nature of some of John’s statements shows that division was inevitable among the “we,” be-cause error and sin were being excused and justified. Two very different mindsets were developing:

Truth and Unity

Error and Division

But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another….If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth.

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us….If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that sayeth, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

These contrasts were not theoretical or academic, but were reflected in the attitudes and conduct of brethren. Some among the “we” or “us” were beginning to advocate and practice the errors described by John  apostasy and division were developing. In warning against these dangers,

John is not speaking exclusively of our efforts as members of one specific local church, but of our lives as Christians in general  in all aspects of our conduct.

In 1 John 2:19 (“They went out from us…”), John in essence explained that people who abandon apostolic teaching sooner or later separate from those who adhere to that teaching. John recognized that when men leave the faith, they leave the faithful. As in Philippians 3:15-19, we not only can recognize apostolic teaching but also distinguish between those who adhere to that doctrine  “walk by the same rule”  and those who depart from it  “enemies of the cross of Christ.” This is true in a lo-cal church or in any other situation where we encounter professed brethren.

In 2 John 9-11, Christians are taught not to “receive” or to endorse by words of commendation anyone not abiding in “the doctrine of Christ.” This principle applies to each of us whether we might contemplate aiding such a man with personal hospitality, or traveling and preaching with him, or agreeing to accept him into local church membership, or working with him in a gospel meeting (even when we are hopeful “he won’t preach his false doctrine here”), or joining our-selves with him in any other spiritual work. We are to recognize and distinguish between those who follow apostolic teaching and those who do not, wherever we may encounter them (Phil. 3:15-19).

“The Brotherhood”: Christians,

Not Churches Combined

Into An Organized Structure

Clarification has been requested on what the “brotherhood” is and how it can divide. 1 Peter 2:17 says, “Love the brotherhood.” This refers to loving brethren in Christ generally  as members of the same local church  as saints in distant places  when we visit them or they visit us  when-ever and however we may encounter them. The suffix “hood” refers to “a group sharing a specified state or quality” (The American Heritage Dictionary, 2nd College Ed., 1991). In this case, it is the state or quality of being baptized believers, professed Christians, brothers and sisters in Christ. The units making up the brotherhood in 1 Peter 2:17 are individual Christians, not churches, and not service institutions operated and utilized by Christians (whether bookstores, publishing businesses, schools, etc.).

“Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter limes some shall depart from the faith” (1 Tim. 4:1). When some among us depart from the faith, there is division. When brethren part ways as individuals, they eventually and inevitably part company in all of the ways they formerly worked and worshiped together  in individual efforts and in local churches. As a consequence of that process, individuals will separate with regard to working together in publishing journals and other religious literature, but stores and businesses are not the brotherhood spoken of in Scripture.

While there is no organization combining local churches into a brotherhood of churches, churches of Christ share a common head and thus a common standard of truth, faith, and practice. Speaking from that viewpoint, Paul said he taught the same thing “everywhere in every church” (1 Cor. 4:17; 7:17; 11:16). Ties of love for the Lord, for the truth, and for each other existed between brethren who worshiped in various congregations from place to place (Col. 2:1-5). Churches sharing those common bonds of truth and love exchanged greetings, information, and varied communications with each other (Col. 4:7-18; Rom. 16:16; Acts 18:27).

When some of those churches departed from the inspired standard and refused to repent, they thus were divided or separated from churches which continued to maintain that standard. Mutual greetings and other communications ceased. Though never joined by organizational ties, they once shared a common allegiance to the authority of Christ and to the task of preaching and practicing his word, but while some churches faithfully maintained that commitment, others lost it. The unfolding of such a division is reflected in the letters to the seven churches of Asia Minor, as recorded in Revelation 2-3. Again, I emphasize, this is not a division of an organization of combined churches, but it is a division of faith and practice which can be recognized between or among local churches.

When individual brethren become divided in faith and practice, eventually the local churches in which they were once united become divided, and eventually entire local churches can be recognized as embracing one faith and practice or another. Such division has occurred over instrumental music, missionary societies, premillennialism, and institutionalism. Churches which become corrupt in doctrine and practice often form organizational arrangements which centralize and combine local churches into some larger structure, some organized brotherhood ofchurches, but churches which maintain the New Testament pattern of faith and practice do not do so (1 Cor. 4:17).

When faithful preachers cry out against rising dangers, they sometimes are charged with harboring the concept of some imaginary organization constituting a brotherhood of churches. Vague aspersions are cast publicly and juicy rumors are shared privately about self-appointed “guardians” stirring up trouble by trying to “run things” and “control the brotherhood.” Generous references are made to “brotherhood directors,” “brotherhood dictators,” “brotherhood watchdogs,” attempts to impose “an official creed on the brotherhood,” and the like.

In the first place, the logic of some among us is curious and convoluted. When faithful brethren use Scripture and moral persuasion to warn about certain dangers, this “proves” they believe in an imaginary brotherhood of churches and are seeking to exercise legislative, executive, and judicial powers in it. But, when their critics cry out against the dangers they see (such as certain supposed brotherhood directors), this “proves” they do not believe in an imaginary brotherhood of churches and they are not brotherhood dictators or even watchdogs. Solomon explained this kind of logic when he said, “The legs of the lame are not equal” (Prov. 26:7).

Secondly, such charges were used as a smokescreen by those promoting and defending false doctrine during the divisions over instrumental music, missionary societies, premillennialism, and institutionalism. Faithful men have always suffered the illogical and inconsistent charges of such critics without being intimidated and without losing sight of the very real doctrinal issues which lay behind the charges. Such charges are being used as a smokescreen now by those promoting and defending false doctrine on divorce-remarriage, fellowship, Romans 14, and related matters. Brethren, let us assess these tactics for what they are and resolve not to be diverted from the very real doctrinal issues which lie behind such charges, “lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices” (2 Cor. 2:11).

Guardian of Truth XLI: 2 p. 16-18
January 16, 1997