Truth Magazine

By David A. Beck

There are only three ways that I know of to have peace within a congregation of God’s people. As we look around, usually not having to look very far, we find that churches are not at total peace. Some wind up in division; some wind up divided (but determine to stay together), and some wind up running headlong into denominationalism as they try to cover over their problems.

It seems that there is a strong parallel between churches and marriages. Some marriages end in divorce; others decide to stay together to save face (or for the children); and others just totally corrupt the marriage with things like “open marriages,” “wife-swapping,” etc.

This article is not about marriage; it is about church problems. Ideally, churches (and marriages) should be perfect. There should never be any disagreement, and if there is, the party in error should quickly repent. But I don’t know of any perfect marriages, nor do I know of any perfect churches.

So what are these three ways to have peace?

First, we should “all agree, and there should be no divisions among you, but you be made complete in the same mind and the same judgment” as Paul admonished the church in Corinth (1 Cor. 1:10). Each member should be “blameless and innocent, children of God above reproach in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you appear as lights in the world” (Phil. 2:15). There may be some congregations who have achieved this perfect state, and have been able to maintain it. I have never seen it personally, though. That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t always be pressing toward that mark. But what should we do while we are still imperfect?

Many times brethren bring these passages as a simple solution to complicated problems. What shall we do if we disagree on ___________________ (you fill in the controversial topic of your choice)? “It is easy, we must ‘be of the same mind and the same judgment,”‘ they will say. But what if the ones who are “right” can’t convince the ones who are “wrong”? (I am always on the side of the ones who are “right.” Aren’t you?) Again, we must always press toward perfection. But in the meantime we must find a way to remain at peace.

If you are not among those who remain in total agreement on all things then you must be among us who have had to face controversial problems in our congregations. That brings me to the second way that we can have peace.

Just deny that there is a problem. Simply keep “sweeping it under the carpet.” Find any way possible to keep from having to have a confrontation over it. Find all kinds of ways of compromise. (This usually involves the sacrifice of truth.) This is, by far, the easiest way to have peace. It is pleasing to almost everyone. Everyone but the Lord. We can refuse to face our problems, even deny that we have problems, only to find that they not only don’t go away but they fester. Growth, the kind that counts, is thwarted. The congregation is weak, untaught, and many times is swept away into apostasy. Satan wins the victory.

There is a third way to have peace in the congregation. We should all agree, and have no divisions, but be of the same mind and the same judgment. But if we find that we are in disagreement on some topic, don’t “sweep it under the rug” or deny that there is a problem. Instead, kick it out into the open. Each member study and pray about it. Come together and share your study, being unafraid of the consequences. If it remains unresolved, look for ways of compromise where no one is put in a position of violating his conscience. If some brethren demand their way and are contentious, deal with that brother or sister as the Scriptures direct.

One of the weaknesses of this method of peace is that some brethren don’t want to study. We must remember that Paul, through the Holy Spirit, directs us to “be diligent (study KJV) to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, handling accurately the word of truth. But avoid worldly and empty chatter, for it will lead to further ungodliness” (2 Tim. 2:15-16). Some will put up “road blocks” for this reason alone. We must, those who will, continue to study anyway. We must also remember that we are to help these brethren to grow. We can do that by being an example for them, and not letting their feeble excuses stand in our way. Remember, they have learned to be scripturally lazy from others.

Another weakness of this method of peace is that some brethren are just contentious and looking for a fight. But we must remember that these brethren need to repent. God is going to deal with such a one. If we love him we must love him enough to deal with his problem. Read Romans 2:5-8. Paul told Titus that a factious man should be “rej ected after the first and second warning” (Tit. 3:10). This is a sin that must be dealt with like any other. If not, it will go to seed and could destroy the church.

At least one other way, we can see as a weakness in this method of peace. Some brethren don’t know how to disagree and not take it personally. I believe we need more teaching on the commands of God to “love one another” (i.e. Jn. 15:12; 1 Jn. 2:9-11; 3:10-18,23; 4:7-11; 5:1-2, etc.). It is not “just a good idea.” God commands us to love one another; and puts it in the same relationship to our salvation as following his commands.

These three weaknesses are not weakness of God’s plan. These weaknesses are weaknesses among some brethren. If we study and pray when we have problems; deal with the contentious or factious brother; and love one another in spite of our differences, then Satan is defeated and the Lord is pleased. We can have peace without sacrifice of truth. But we must do it the way the first century church did it. It may not be the easiest way, but it’s the way that leads to eternal life.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 4, pp. 109, 119
February 15, 1990

By Keith Pruitt

As our text, we read two verses from Acts. “When they heard this, they were pricked in their hearts and said unto Peter and the rest of the apostles, ‘Men and brethren, shall we do?'” (Acts 2:37) “And when he heard these things, he brought them out and said, ‘Sirs, what must I do to be saved?'” (Acts 16:30)

The world is confused over salvation. Foreign voices sound unfamiliar sounds. Yet the Bible furnishes the answer to this and other questions of eternal importance (2 Tim. 3:16-17). The occasions of the above references reveal the divine answer to the most important question frail tongue has ever asked. The purpose of this article is to examine and develop both the question and the divinely given answer.

The Question

In examining the question, three very important aspects become apparent. The question asks that which is necessary to be done for one’s salvation. These three key words relay very important understandings.

(1) What must I do to be saved? This question presupposes that there are necessary requirements. Jesus was asked what man must do to please God. He responded, “This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent” Qn. 6:28). God has always required obedience of man since the beginning. Adam was punished for his failure to obey (Gen. 3). Sin left its ugly scars upon mankind, yet God still requires those who love him to follow (Rom. 16:26). The question of salvation acknowledges man’s need for obedience. Sin is caused by disobedience (1 Jn. 3:4). Righteousness is the following of God’s commands (Psa. 119:172).

Love for God demands our willful following of his every command. Friendship with Christ is based upon a trustful submission to his will (Jn. 14:15; 15:14). How could one claim love for one whose will is rejected? Christ declared, “Why call ye me Lord, Lord and do not the things which I say?” (Lk. 6:46)

Christ came to save the lost (Lk. 19:10). His sacrifice was for all men (Heb. 9:28). Man must follow the trail of his saving blood for redemption.

Yet, to follow Christ based upon the teachings of men is folly. The question implies what God desires for us to do. Who should be concerned with the desires and wishes of men, for they are mere bags of dust? Man has not the ability to give eternal direction to a physical existence which is corrupt with sin. God’s ways are supreme (Isa. 55:8-9; Jer. 10:23; Prov. 14:12). The way you follow today, dear reader may not be the Highway of Holiness plotted by the eternal Father even though it seems right (Prov. 14:12; Isa. 35:8).

“What must . . . ” Rest assured. God has required something of you! Will you respond or bid doom be your eternal abode (2 Thess. 1:7-8)?

(2) What must I do to be saved? So often, today’s tele-evangelists invite their listeners to perform all sorts of acts promising salvation to “the faithful.” Among their pleadings, “Pray the sinner’s prayer” or “Put your hand on the radio dial.” Man’s commands nullify the blood of Christ and make void even the worship of those supposing to be the children of God (Matt. 15:9; 2 Jn. 9; Gal. 1:6 ff).

On the day of Pentecost and in a Philippian jail, those present desired to obey God. Salvation is by grace (God’s actions) through faith (man’s obedience) as Paul instructed in Ephesians 2:8. There is something man must do. Faith often expresses the essence of man’s actions because every attempt on man’s part to please God is based upon faith. Faith is the essential ingredient activating man’s responses to God. Why does one confess Jesus as the Son of God or repent of sins? What prompts one to be baptized in water?

Faith is the foundation stone upon which one’s religion is built. Without faith, one cannot please God (Heb. 11:6). The Christian walks according to faith in the revealed will of God (2 Cor. 5:7). This faith lives and thrives in the word delivered (Jas. 2:14 ff). It is established and supported by the command of Jesus (Rom. 10:17).

That something is required of man is surely demonstrated at Pentecost as Peter proclaims: “Save yourselves from this untoward generations” (Acts 2:40). Man must take steps toward God. The Unitarian believes in universal salvation based upon the atonement of Jesus. Were salvation wholly an act of God, then would not all be saved? God desires the salvation of a men (2 Pet. 3:9). But Jesus, Paul declares, is the savior to those who obey him (Heb. 5:8-9). One must call him “Lord” and follow his divine direction (Matt. 7:21-23).

(3) What must I do to be saved? Salvation is the need of every man because sin’s ways have overcome us all (Rom. 3:23). None can stand before God righteous of his own accord (Rom. 3:10). All would face the penalties of sin and death were it not for the atonement of Jesus Christ (Rom. 5:15).

Sin separates one from God’s divine favor. As was Adam when driven from the garden, so are all men: tainted by the hideousness of sin (Gen. 3; Rom. 5:12). Man’s unwillingness to follow after truth causes continued enmity with God.

The Answer

Thus far, we have defined the question as being that of understanding the will of God for man’s obedience relative to man’s need for forgiveness and eternal redemption. The gospel is that which furnishes the answer of good news: one can be saved. Here’s how!

On Pentecost, Peter told the Jews, “Repent, and be baptized, everyone of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). Faith, obviously manifest in the asking of the question, needed to exercise itself in a turn from sin. Repentance, while often neglected in today’s preaching, is required for one to become a Christian (Lk. 13:3,5).

Peter also commanded, in a manner of equal importance with repentance, and for the purpose of accomplishing the same result, that his listeners be baptized. One cannot deny successfully what God has required in regards to baptism. it is for salvation (1 Pet. 3:21). It is commanded (Acts 10:47-48). It washes away sin (Acts 22:16). Baptism puts one in Christ (Rom. 6:3-4). Since all spiritual blessings are in Christ (Eph. 1:3), to refuse to be baptized into Christ is to be void of the blessings that are spiritual

Conclusion

When man comes to a knowledge of sin and is touched by his need of a savior, he will ask what God expects of him. In doing so, he acknowledges that God has a plan that man must obey to enjoy the blessings of forgiveness and the hope of eternal life.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 4, pp. 110-111
February 15, 1990

By Mike Willis

The book of Exodus contains the Ten Commandments, one of which is the commandment to observe the Sabbath day. The Lord commanded:

Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor and do thy work: but the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it (20:8-11).

Additional revelation was given regarding the observance of the Sabbath day. The Sabbath observance was commanded to provide a rest for man and animal from their labors (Exod. 23:12). Not even the busy times of the agricultural season, earing and harvest, were justification for not observing the Sabbath (Exod. 34:21). The repetition of the Sabbath commandment in the context of instructions pertaining to the building of the Tabernacle points to the conclusion that the urgency in building the Tabernacle was not justification for neglecting the Sabbath (Exod. 31:1217; 35:1-3).

Punishment of the Sabbath Breaker

God ordained that the man who violated the Sabbath was to be punished with death: “Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death” (Exod. 31:15).

During the wanderings in the wilderness, a man broke the Sabbath law by gathering sticks on that day. The record of his sin was given to illustrate presumptuous sin. Regarding presumptuous sin, the Lord revealed,

But the soul that doeth ought presumptuously, whether he be born in the land, or a stranger, the same reproacheth the Lord; and that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Because he hath despised the word of the Lord, and hath broken his commandment, that soul shall utterly be cut off; his iniquity shall be upon him (Num. 15:30-31).

Immediately following these verses which describe the punishment for presumptuous sin, the record of the Sabbath violator is given.

And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation. And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him. And the Lord said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses (Num. 15:31-36).

To some people the death penalty for violation of the Sabbath law seems too harsh. Should we never understand why the death penalty was demanded, we should have enough reverence for the Lord’s revelation not to criticize the Lord’s judgment. However, the reason for the death penalty can be better understood when we recognize the seriousness of the offence. Writing in the Pulpit Commentary, George Rawlinson described the seriousness of the sin and God’s justice in making the punishment so harsh:

The penalty of death for breaking the sabbath seems to moderns over-severe; but the erection of sabbath-observance into the special sacramental sign that Israel was in covenant with God made non-observance an offence of the gravest character. The man who broke the sabbath destroyed, so far as in him lay, the entire covenant between God and his people – not only broke it, but annulled it and threw Israel out of covenant (Exodus, p. 318).

The Sabbath breaker showed a willful disregard for the Sabbath day, the covenant which God had made with Israel and the God who made the covenant. This was a presumptuous sin punishable by death.

Are There New Testament Parallels?

The Sabbath, along with the rest of the Law of Moses, was nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14-17). Christians are not bound by the Law of Moses to observe the Sabbath, the claims of Seventh Day Adventists to the contrary notwithstanding. This is not to imply that there are no covenant requirements equal in importance in the New Testament.

When Jesus instituted the Lord’s supper, taking the fruit of the vine he described the cup as “my blood of the new testament” (Matt. 26:28). He commanded Christians to remember his death for sin by partaking of the Lord’s supper saying, “This do in remembrance of me” (1 Cor. 11:24). The Lord’s supper was observed regularly (Acts 2:42 “they continued steadfastly”) and was observed upon the first day of every week (Acts 20:7; cf. 1 Cor. 11:20; 16:1-2).

The man who willfully misses the first day of the week assembly to remember the Lord’s death shows a disregard for the covenant and him who died for that covenant to be established. For him to place temporal matters (such as work, recreation, sleep, family, etc.) above the covenant shows a contempt for the Lord who made that covenant.

The forsaking of the assembly is treated as a most serious offence in Hebrews. The writer commanded the Hebrew Christians not to forsake the assembly saying, “Not forsaking the assembly of ourselves together, as the manner of some is” (Heb. 10:25). (Some have equated “forsaking the assembly” with total apostasy. That this is not the meaning of the phrase is evident from the fact that “forsaking the assembly” can become a habit. When it becomes a habit [custom], then total apostasy has occurred. Forsaking the assembly is, therefore, missing the assembly, not total apostasy.) Following the command not to forsake the assembly, he added,

For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins. But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? (10:26-29)

Forsaking the worship of the Lord and the observance the Lord’s supper, is a serious offence – a presumptuous sin – a showing of disregard for the covenant and the God who made it!

Conclusion

We dare not imply that Christians are bound by the law of Moses. However, we would do well to remember that “whatsoever things were written afore time were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope” (Rom. 15:4). We can learn from the sin of the Sabbath breaker to show a reverence for the covenant and the God who made it.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 4, pp. 98, 118
February 15, 1990

By F. Furnan Kearley, Editor of Gospel Advocate

I read with interest your article in the Guardian of Truth, June 1, 1989. It was quite amusing and humorous in a number of ways. If the issues were not so serious it would be funny.

I concur with the contradictory position in which brother Jackson places himself and the inconsistency of it. However, I am sure that all of us have a number of inconsistencies, but I do belie e that you and those of your position also are caught in the same position of saying bathrooms, paved parking lots, etc. are alright, while rejecting a kitchen or fellowship hall as well as the gymnasium.

Since you presume to know what I believe and put two paragraphs of words in my mouth to brother Jackson, I thought I would take the time to try to share with you my true beliefs. By the way, I do believe that brethren should be very careful in trying to represent someone else’s position and putting words into the mouth of another. I hope you will consider publishing my own views since you have presumed to put words into my mouth and represent me as saying things I did not say.

Concerning the issue of the work of the church and what it may or may not do, I believe that we all are agreed that the work of the church basically consists of the three areas of evangelism, edification and benevolence. Worship, which includes edification, might be further subdivided as to a separate category of activity of the church.

I think we also agree that we determine what God has bound upon us by commands applicable to Christians, by approved examples woven together with commands and necessary inferences which lead to a clear, obvious and necessary conclusion that they are binding on Christians. (Of course, in this area we might have a great deal of difference as to exactly which examples are binding and which inferences are necessary. We agree in principle, but differ in some specific interpretations.)

Further, I believe we are agreed that some commands are generic and some specific. The command to observe the Lord’s Supper is generic and we may use our wisdom as to what kind of containers and how many containers to use. The command to sing is specific and excludes playing. In this conjunction, we are also agreed that we must honor and respect the silence of the Bible. Silence at times permits but at other times silence prohibits. Silence as to owning property and building church buildings is in the area of expediency and permits the owning of property and building of buildings. Silence as to bread and peas with the Lord’s Supper or instruments of music with singing is prohibitive.

It is, of course, in the area of deciding exactly what falls into the category of expedient, what is automatically included and what is automatically excluded that we have our great problems of difference. Due to the history of these problems it behooves all of us to be very tolerant and gracious to the other in discussing and applying these matters.

To become more specific concerning what I believe about the work of the church and what it may or may not build, I believe the elders of the church must ask and answer scripturally the following question before they ever spend a dime of money contributed by those supporting the work of the church: “What is the purpose for which this money is to be expended? Will it contribute significantly to the evangelization work, the edification work, the worship activity or the benevolent work for which the church is responsible?” If the studied answer is, “Yes, it does contribute significantly to these,” then I believe it is permissible for the leadership of the church to expend the money for that item or project. If the answer is, “No, it does not,” then the church and its leaders should not expend any money or energy for that item or project.

The church and its leaders should never expend money and energy for something simply because, “We always have,” or out of mere tradition.

I am enclosing a piece, “The Parable of a Lifesaving Station. ” This parable discusses the, progression of a station whose purpose was to save the lives of struggling, shipwrecked seamen as it made its transition from a lifesaving station to a yacht club or a social club. The analogy concerns how churches can loose their first love and first mission and purpose. They can gradually make a shift from being a soul saving body of Christ and become a social club or organization of religious people who have lost sight of the real meaning of Christ, the gospel and the purpose of the church.

I do not believe that this transition from soul saving to social club is made by the specific items for which the church spends its money or its time and energies. The transition is in the minds and hearts of the members and in the purpose for which they build or obtain these things.

Unless I am sadly mistaken, you approve the use of church funds to build a church building, to put in it bathrooms, maybe a nursery or cry room, to buy toilet tissue, paper towels and other amenities. You justify all of these on the basis that they make a contribution, yea, a significant contribution, to worship, evangelism and edification. I agree fundamentally provided the attitudes of the leaders and the members involves them in the necessary activities of worship, evangelization and edification. However, the moment a church quits really reaching out to save lost souls and do evangelistic work, the toilet tissue is no longer making any contribution to evangelization because the members are not evangelizing.

We could make a laundry list of items found on the expense sheets of various churches and these would include light bulbs, fertilizer for the lawn, air conditioners and many other things. There is no way of composing a list of material items the church might or might not buy until, first, the question is asked, “What is the purpose or use to which this item is to be placed? “

Consider the case of a paved parking lot at the church building. I believe that I have seen non-cooperative congregations with paved parking lots and cooperative congregations have paved parking lots, so I assume we agree that it is scriptural to build them. The justification, of course, would be that they make a significant contribution to worship, evangelism, edification or benevolence. I go along with that and would not seriously challenge it. Though, practically, the church where I preach did not have but a gravel parking lot for thirty-three years. Two years ago we paved the lot and I am certain that I cannot point to a single soul we have baptized since then for whom the paved parking lot over the gravel parking lot was a significant contribution to their decision to obey the gospel. I think we really built it for esthetics and our own members’ convenience. A few more people may come to Bible study and worship on rainy days because there is not as much mud, but, fundamentally, we have the parking lot because the members wanted it and could afford it and it is in keeping with the culture and community in which we live.

Let me contrast two situations and suggest which one might do the most good for evangelization, edification, benevolence and worship. First, a church buys a city block for $100,000, builds a 100’x 200′ building containing 20,000 square feet for $1,000,000. The church uses this building an average of six hours per week for Bible classes and worship plus a few offices every day. This totals about 312 hours for religious purposes for the year.

The same church (and I have a specific congregation in mind) buys 100 acres of land for $50,000 and builds camper cottages, bathhouses, a dining and rec hall and several other facilities for $450,000 for a total of $500,000, one-half the cost of the church building in town.

In these latter facilities they conduct a Christian camp 12 weeks during the summer and ten weekends in the spring and ten in the fall. During the summer the campers average seven hours per day in chapel, Bible class, singing training ‘ devotions and other direct evangelistic and edification activities. This totals 42 hours per week and 504 hours for the summer. The 20 weekends have 12 hours of direct spiritual activity for a total of 240 hours.

The Christian camp over a one year period accomplished two and one-half times as much teaching, edification and evangelization as the church building located in town. It cost only half what the church building in town did. Which is the best use of the Lord’s money? Both of these are operated completely by the church and are completely under the control of elders. No para-church is involved.

Concerning the gymnasium, about which you talked so much in your article, I have never stated a position publicly orally or in writings so far as I can remember. This is simply because it has never been an issue with which I have been concerned or where I have been and no one has asked my views concerning it. Since you attribute to me views about it without knowing what they are, I thought I would tell you. Before I would take a position on whether it is right or wrong, good or bad, to build a gymnasium, I would need to see a thorough justification paper indicating clearly what the purpose for this was, how it was to be intended to be used and what was hoped to be accomplished. I would like to see some evidence from a similar program and how many have been led to Christ in obedience to the gospel, how many people have been retained in the church and how they have grown spiritually as a result of the use of the gymnasium. If I could be convinced that the gymnasium makes a significant contribution to the worship, edification and benevolent program of the church, I would be for it. I would not at all be surprised but that a good, well planned program conducted in one could make it more valuable than our paved parking lot which cost $20,000.

Furthermore, I do consider fellowship to be a part of the work of the church. I know that we agree that disfellowship is a part of the work of the church. However, there can be no disfellowship unless there is first fellowship. Now, obviously, I know that fellowship is a sharing in Christ Jesus, but it does include growing to love, appreciate and care for one another. This cannot happen sufficiently with people looking at the back of one another’s heads in a formal worship service or in a Bible class where a teacher is lecturing and again people are looking at the back of one another’s heads. Genuine Christian fellowship comes when people are involved in one another’s lives or working side by side and shoulder to shoulder in the cause of Christ, but fellowship does include getting to know each other, sharing our work, our hobbies, our families and other interests and activities. It is only when people really grow to love one another that they are going to miss one another enough for disfellowship to have any meaning. Fellowship, then, in the full total sense of the word, including friendship and brotherly love which is one of the Christian graces, is a part of the work of the church.

I certainly am on no campaign for churches to build gymnasiums. The campaign I am on is for churches to use their buildings to the glory of God more than four or five hours per week. I believe it is a sin for a church building to sit 95 percent or more empty 162 hours per week. Church leaders will have to give answer to God in the judgment for having wasted the Lord’s money in building costly edifices and refusing to use them.

I believe the churches should be conducting daily Bible schools. Some might use the term, “Childcare institutions,” but by childcare I do not mean the secular type. I mean a situation where the church takes advantage of the opportunities provided by our culture and offers haven to children from 7:30 in the morning to 5:30 or 6:00 in the evening. During this time the children should be told Bible stories, shown video cassettes of Bible lessons, played audio cassettes of Bible lessons. They should sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. They should memorize verses. They should learn, learn, learn all they possibly can about the Lord Jesus Christ, salvation and his church. They should learn to love one another and have the love of Christians showered upon them.

Then I think it would be good when the children are age six for the church to use its church building to continue to operate a Christian school and to watch in behalf of the souls of the children by teaching them all subjects from a Christian standpoint of view rather than turning them to the public schools that are filled with atheists and infidels and many ungodly, immoral people. (I am delighted for every Christian who is teaching in the public schools, and we need more and more, but I know from study and experience that there are far too many teachers who are exerting a wrong influence on children, teaching them evolution, humanism, materialism and other forms of ungodliness that undermine the faith of the children.)

Hebrews 13:17 says that leaders in the church watch in behalf of the souls of children and must give account for them. Leaders of our present generation have watched many a child have his faith destroyed by evolution while saying it is a sin for the church to teach the child science. It is far better for the church to teach the child science from a Christian point of view and help the child develop a good trade by which to make a livelihood in a Christian environment along with Bible teaching then to send the child into an environment that destroys his faith and soul.

Now, brother Hafley, you know a little bit more about what I believe. Obviously, these matters are very complex and still I believe it would be difficult for you to put words into my mouth and fully represent what it is that I believe, teach and practice.

While I did enjoy some of the humor in your article, I do want to mention that I think your reference to brother Guy N. Woods was not in good taste. I will assume you meant it as a humorous one, but I believe that it is not appropriate humor for a Christian to think that it would be just as well for another Christian to be dead.

May the Lord bless you abundantly in your studies and may we all study together to love the truth, seek the truth, find the truth, know the truth, obey the truth and be united in the truth.

You may know brother John T. Lewis and brother Ed Holt who are two of my most beloved mentors. I had total respect for them and have every reason to believe that they will be in heaven and, therefore, I certainly extended to them the right hand of fellowship. I am afraid that before their deaths they did not extend to me the right hand of fellowship, but I extend to you my right for you to believe and practice as you do, following your conscience. I hope that you can grant me the same as a brother.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 3, pp. 77-79
February 1, 1990