PLUMBLINE -- Editor, Wayne Coats

Volume 5 Number 5, December 2000

Did you know that David Lipscomb started a new church? Perhaps one in ten-thousand people might possibly read about brother Lipscomb and his church if one can be as ignorant, deceptive, and ridiculous as some of the shallow liberals would have us to be. When the Gospel Advocate papers were put on microfilm for Lipscomb University, a short preface was written by Bob Hooper and the scribbling of Hooper was made a part of the microfilm.

Please note that Hooper has been the chairman of the History Department of Lipscomb and he is also a Bishop at Rubel Shelly's Church in Nashville. That qualifies him to distort the facts and insert his own foolishness. Hooper wrote, "In 1906, in response to liberal theology among Disciples of Christ, David Lipscomb led Churches of Christ into a separate religious fellowship." I find it hard to believe that the liberal smatterers feel comfortable in rewriting history. The preceding effort of Hooper belongs in the same category as the foolish assertion of Doug Foster who attributed the words of John R. Graves, a Baptist preacher, to brother Lipscomb. Twould be interesting to see an honest liberal.

There are any number of brethren who know as much and more as Hooper knows about the efforts of David Lipscomb. It is contrary to the facts and simply not true to say that Lipscomb, "led churches of Christ into a separate religious fellowship." Where is the proof of such insane ideas? The source is Rubel's Bishop. Will Hooper explain what he means by the expression, "liberal theology?" What did the "liberal theology" accomplish? What were the changes, if any, which were brought about by liberal theology? Does Hooper know about the liberals and their theology prior to 1906? We would like to subject Shelly's Bishop to a few simple questions, but of course we never expect sensible answers from liberal professors.

Will Bob Hooper tell us who the liberal theologians were prior to 1906? If there was "liberal theology" there had to be liberal theologians! How did liberal theology differ from the teachings of Tolbert Fanning, E. G. Sewell, David Lipscomb and others who made strong pleas for the ancient order of things? Surely Bob Hooper must know a little about those old brethren. He should be able to tell us who instigated the theology of liberals. Even a ninety-day wonder could discern the facts in this matter. Honest people would present the facts.

It appears that Bob realizes the difference in liberal theology and that which David Lipscomb believed and taught? There were differences as wide as the chasm between truth and error.

The Restoration movement had been highly successful in renouncing denominational doctrines and uniting upon a "thus saith the Lord." The grand theme of those old brethren had been the unity for which Christ died. Brethren dwelt together in unity for a number of years. I challenge any man to disprove these facts. In the course of time, somebody concocted the missionary society at Cincinatti, Ohio, in 1849. Has Bob Hooper ever heard of the divisive missionary society? Will he tell folks how much trouble the society caused? Will he tell us who caused the trouble? Were the trouble-makers the folks who introduced the society or were the culprits those who opposed the innovation? We would be extremely cautious as to any answer from Bishop Hooper--if such were given.

Were those who opposed the innovations, leading the church aside into a different religious fellowship? Does it hurt us to be honest and objective?

When the liberal digressives concocted the American Christian Missionary Society, the United Christian Missionary Society and the Louisville Plan, strong opposition was later voiced through the pages of the Gospel Advocate. Tolbert Fanning, David Lipscomb, E. G. Sewell, James A. Harding and a host of faithful brethren began a steady battle in defense of the truth as they opposed, exposed and debated the liberal element. There are over five-hundred articles in the Gospel Advocate which deal with the missionary society and which Bob Hopper can read if he wants to. He might be able to learn who led the church aside into Digression and apostasy. If further information is needed, the 1905 issue of the Advocate discusses the church lawsuit at Newbern, Tennessee, and the decision of the courts as to who had departed from the original doctrinal position of the church. Brother Lipscomb was a witness in that court case. The liberals were thieves, rogues and outlaws when and if they could get by with their dirty schemes.

The perusal of the old papers reminds one of a funeral dirge with numerous stanzas--"The Digressives Take Another House." Such is the report of Brother Odeneal in 1909. The rough-shod tactics of the old digressive liberals were too sorry for decent people to even mention. To tell people that David Lipscomb led the church aside into a separate religious fellowship is pure poppycock. If I ever get to the point that I print such fairy tales, my brethren can agree that such would be the result of meanness, ignorance, and downright literary deception.

When Rubel Shelly, Bob Hooper, et.al., holds forth in the liberal, modernistic, Woodmont Hills Cultic Church, a number of metro-Nashville congregations of the church of Christ will refuse to betray our Lord and will remain steadfast in the faith. We would not be surprised at all to read where Hooper presently accuses faithful brethren of leading churches of Christ into a separate fellowship. You may trust the liberals, but no thanks--I do not, moreover I have never seen an honest liberal.

--Wayne Coats, Editor

Jesus spoke no greater truth than when He said, "And this is the judgment, that the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their works were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, and cometh not to the light, lest his works should be reproved. But he that doeth the truth cometh to the light, that his works may be made manifest, that they have been wrought in God" (John 3:19-21). The Master again warned, "If the world hateth you, ye know that it hath hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love its own: but because ye are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you" (John 15:18-19). The choice between good and evil is ever before us. We must choose righteousness. We can learn from the warnings that were given to King Herod.

Herod was warned of his sin! John was bold to speak the truth to Herod in saying, "...It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother's wife" (Mark 6:18). An adulterous marriage (used in an accommodative sense) will never be sanctioned by God! This was a day that Herod could have chosen to correct sinful matters and repent of his sin, but he chose to ignore the warning.

People must be warned today. It is a sin to refuse to repent but it is also a sin to refuse to warn (cf. Ezek. 33:1-9)! The apostle Paul was pure from the blood of all men for one reason; he shrank not from declaring unto them the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27). Folks may not accept the truth but such does not lessen our obligation to make them aware of the truth.

Fear alone will not suffice! "Herod feared John, knowing that he was a righteous and holy man" (Mark 6:20), but still could not bring himself to forsake his wicked ways (cf. Isa. 55:7). Fear can certainly serve as motivation to do right, but "fear only" will not save anyone. There are countless thousands today who still fear an eternal hell but such fear does not guarantee complete obedience to God's word.

Herod was enslaved by another's opinion. Herod "laid hold upon John, and bound him in prison for the sake of Herodias..." (Mark 6:17). It is as one has truthfully said, "The voice of lust gets the victory over the voice of conscience and of God."

People today are enslaved by what others say about the Bible or about God. It is still the case that many "love the glory that is of men more than the glory that is of God" (John 12:43). Opinions of men do not matter. It is God's Word that will judge us (John 12:48).

Herod was ensnared by the dance. Herod could have refused to see the dance of his wife's daughter, but he chose to see and the dance "pleased" him (Mark 6:22). It never fails that when one refuses God's warning he finds it easy to indulge in sinful pleasure.

It was surely the "grace" and "dexterity" of the dancer that pleased Herod! We have warned parents for years about training their children in these so-called "social graces." It was nothing short of fleshly lust that motivated Herod to make his infamous promise.

A promise made only because of excitement is never good! It just may be that Herod had "goose pimples" all over and his heart may have gone "pitter-patter" more than once! He said, "Whatsoever thou shalt ask of me, I will give it thee, unto the half of my kingdom" (Mark 6:23). As one has observed, "Sin first interests, then excites, then captivates." The god of pleasure and the goddess of passion continue to captivate the hearts of many today. As the song says, "Yield not to temptation, for yielding is sin."

Herod experiences the barbs of sin! The request was made for the "head of John the Baptizer" (Mark 4:24) and Herod "was exceeding sorry: but for the sake of his oath, and of them that sat at meat, he would not reject her" (Mark 6:26). When one sells himself to sin he becomes the slave of another. The short-lived pleasures of sin now ripen into "bone chilling" demands that one would rather not hear. Too late! The pied piper must be paid his due.

May we be willing to learn from this sad occasion in the life of King Herod. Let us resolve that our allegiance belongs only to God!

5810 Liberty Grove Rd.

Rowlett, TX 75030

We think that if our liberal brothers pray as they teach, they would sound about as follows on a Sunday morning.

"Lord, we beseech YOU, help us. Help the narrow minded conservatives to comprehend the estoric concepts of eschatology. Let them descern the Christological controversy and the epistemological problems of the ages. May our backward brothers become more relevant and seek a more Christian dialogue with our separate brethren in other fellowships. Help the poor unlearned to seek new approaches through the paths of psychology, theology, philosophy, neo-orthodoxy, existentialism and total subjectivity. Help our Bible pounding preachers to grasp the liberal theological perspective and re-evaluate their worship of their paper Pope. May these unfortunates consider the I-thou rather than the I-it. Help them to take a new look at the faith once delivered as they must know that Paul would not preach such a message to the residents of Harlem and such words would make no impression on a nuclear scientist. May all of us know that truth is not static. Deliver us from the dogmas of the apostles and the backward restoration leaders. May those in darkness come to glow in the light of the new intellectualism we have suddenly found. Let our preacher learn to speak the message of civil rights, racial tension, poverty problems and may we listen to such men as those who try to take us into a social gospel field.

"May we listen to the voices of concern and let us hear also the voices of Barth, Kierkegaard, and Neibuhr. Let our men sit at the shrines of Harvard, Princeton and Chicago where most of them will find themselves in the main stream of ecumenical search. Help us to cease our instant hostility to our brothers in other groups. May we abandon legalistic rule keeping and know the freedom of intellectual search. Let us be more Christ like in our attitude toward other groups--other than our own groups.

"May we know Christ experientially and then we will not be wedded to the concepts of the restoration movement. Help us to teach our boys how to march, crusade, build a house of the Carpenter and seek ways to get the government to help us in such programs. May our young theologians know how to organize, dramatize, humanize, fraternize and above all to finally CAPSIZE the non-intellectuals and those who still believe in giving Bible teaching for what we do.

"Lord, we do not want to become too ritualistic, so we just ask you to think it over and send YOUR HOLY SPIRIT to help us with anything we have not been able to read in the Bible." Amen.

SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 25

9:30am "Mormon Doctrine of Apostles" Daniel Denham

10:30am "God's Infallible and Only Source Book for Man's Salvation is the Bible" Keith Mosher

4:00pm "Direct Revelation of God is Unnecessary Today" Jason Rollo

5:00pm "We Love the Mormons, but Oppose their Fundamental Doctrines" Michael Hatcher

6:00pm "The 'Two Sticks' of Ezekiel Thirty-Seven"  Clifford Newell

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 26

9:00am "The Account of the Origin of Mormonism Proves it False" Jim Nash

10:00am "Sidney Rigdon and Mormonism"  Paul Vaughn

**10:00am "Keep Yourselves in the Love of God"  (Jude 21) Anita Hochdorf

11:00am "A Review of the Gatewood-Farnsworth Debate" Lester Kamp

1:30pm "A Study of Joseph Smith" Jesse Whitlock

2:30pm "Literary and Historical Characteristics of the Book of Mormon" Gary Summers

3:30pm "A Study of Doctrines & Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of L.D.S." Tom Wacaster

DINNER BREAK

6:30 P.M. CONGREGATIONAL SINGING

7:00pm "Mormon Doctrine of Miracles Versus the Bible" Michael Wyatt

8:00pm "Mormons and Plural Marriages (Polygamy)" Don Walker

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 27

9:00am "Mormons and Zion" Wayne Blake

10:00am "Mormon Doctrine of the Priesthood Versus the Bible" David Baker

**10:00am "Snatching Them Out of the Fire" (Jude 23)  Anita Hochdorf

11:00am "The Mormon View of Eternal Life Versus the Bible" Michael Light

1:30pm "Miscellaneous Mistakes of the Mormons"  Darrell Conley

2:30pm "The Absurdities of Joseph Smith's Prophecies" Gary Grizzell

3:30pm "A Study of Brigham Young" Noah Hackworth

DINNER BREAK, 5:00pm SBI BANQUET

6:30pm CONGREGATIONAL SINGING

7:00pm "The False Claims of Mormon Inspiration" Paul Sain

8:00pm "The God of Mormonism" B. J. Clarke

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 28

9:00am "The Bible Warns Against False Teachers"  Monte Evans

10:00am "Mormons and Baptism for the Dead" Marvin Weir

11:00am "A Review of Mormonism Exposed by G. B. Hancock" Don Tarbet

1:30pm "A Study of the Pearl of Great Price" Kenneth Ratcliff

2:30pm "Mormons and the New Covenant"  Eddie Whitten

3:30pm "The Virgin Birth and Mormonism"  Danny Box

DINNER BREAK

6:30 P.M. CONGREGATIONAL SINGING

7:00pm "The Mormon Doctrine of Man, Sin and Salvation Versus the Bible" Jason Roberts

8:00pm "God's Temple versus the Mormon's Temple"  Bobby Liddell

**Ladies Only

In a recent issue of the Christian Chronicle, Howard Norton penned what has become a very well-known statement among the church changers. He said, "Some congregations are dying today because they will not say good-bye to the methodologies of the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s, that do not fit the cultural patterns of urban America in the 1990s." We now have the diagnosis and the remedy right out of the Chronicle.

It is most interesting to note how some brethren are giving the same spiel about the dying church. They have grandiose schemes for changing the church, and when you hear one of them, you hear the same speech from the rest who clamor for change.

Brother Norton sees some congregations dying, and I see the same. On this we agree, but as to why congregations are dying we might not agree. He thinks churches are dying because they will not say good-bye to the methodologies of past decades. In other words, congregations are dying because of methods. I keep reading and hearing from brethren who say that we must change the methods but not the message. Like brother Norton, not one of them has explained just exactly which method must be changed. The old ship of Zion is leaking, tilting, gasping, afflicted with dry-rot and tradition. In order for it to survive something called "method" must be thrown overboard. We may never know what needs to be heaved over the side, but let's grab a method and fling.

I plead with the liberals who keep hanging on to get down to some serious business, stop their clatter, and tell us what method needs to be changed for the church to survive. Liberals have at least one thing in common. Talk is exceedingly cheap.

We are well acquainted with the "methodologies of the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s." To be sure I was a part of that decadent culture which the Johnnies-come-lately like to poke fun at, lambast, and ridicule. I just figured back then that preachers needed to have enough sense to do what the Lord said and go ahead preaching the Word. Looks like we did a pretty fair job without all the expertise of the modern church changers.

I'm sure there were "culture patterns" back then. They probably differed in many areas, as I remember we didn't need to study a gang of wacko sociologists and psychologists in order to go out preaching the Word. Somewhere along the line our brethren have had their minds embalmed with sociology and psychology to the extent that the Bible, the church, the worship and all the rest has to be interpreted in keeping with culture. With a few family therapists, child abuse therapists, women abuse therapists, and sex therapists filling pulpits, editor's chairs and serving as advisors, perhaps the kingdom will not rumble for a little while. I really did not know that the "cultural patterns of urban America in the 1990s had supplanted the word of God, but that is exactly the implication of brother Norton. He would have us to believe there is a cultural pattern of the 1990s and the church that does not conform to that cultural pattern is destined to die. Therefore, there is just no hope without conforming to that cultural pattern. The Word of God must be looked at through culture.

Of course the implication is patently absurd, but liberals thrive on absurdities. I have studied culture, patterns, and urban society in a rather prestigious university on the graduate and postgraduate level, so just maybe and perhaps, I can understand about, "culture patterns in urban America."

It would be downright hilarious if we were not dealing with such a serious subject. We will be tickled to study the "cultural patterns in urban America" with brother Norton or anyone else. Please specify, describe, delineate, and identify all of those cultural patterns of urban America. As many thousands of miles as I travel, I must know exactly how to deal with each cultural pattern in which I might find myself attempting to preach the Word. I must take all of my sociology books with me when I lecture, and, perhaps, I could take an updated Bible along.

If the occasion should arise, I might be invited to preach the gospel in a large urban-area congregation. If I do not conform to the cultural methodology of the city, it could be that after quoting Scripture and reading selections from the Bible, the church would dry up and die. We must never kill a congregation by saying what God has said.

Adolph Hitler reportedly said that if one tells a lie often enough, eventually people will believe it. Apply that to the clamor of liberals to change the church by changing its methods. Have you noticed it is not the method, but it is the message which the liberals are bent on changing? They couldn't care less about methods. What difference does it make whether the collection for their pay is taken in a tub or a barrel? We know what they have said and are saying, and, of course, their speech betrays them. We beg, plead, implore, and, yes, we will bribe them to come out and have their speeches examined.

Like the old-time digressives, the liberals are not happy with the restrictions imposed by the Word of God. Some of them with a mite of integrity have, "gone out from us," rather than hang on and divide churches. Some had rather stay, receive pay, and talk about changing the church.

When the liberal writer or preacher gets on his soapbox and clutches his security blanket, he can really sound off about the conservative congregations who will not say good-bye to yesteryear. The liberals all make the same speech. They copy from other liberals and denounce the conservatives.

Would brother Norton please inform us as to what extent the Methodists, Presbyterians, and Episcopalians have said good-bye to the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s If he doesn't know, do not disturb him. Those denominations have lost members at an alarming rate. Why? Everyone knows that those liberal groups have tried every conceivable gimmick, plan, and program that could be concocted, yet they continue to dwindle in membership. They have managed to turn loose the old methodologies. Get brother Norton to tell us, please, whether they are growing with their all-new methods. They have tried what our liberal brethren want to try in the church, and yet they keep losing members. Liberalism with its social gospel is not the answer. The liberal Methodists can tell us about losing one million members in the last 10 years while trying to "fit the cultural pattern of urban America." No, I do not think brother Norton and those who think like him will listen, and they won't talk in places where they can have their foolishness answered.

I have another point for those who are inebriated with the culture-pattern hogwash. We, all know that the Holy Rollers are growing all over the nation. Maybe brother Norton would favor us with an editorial about the mad scramble of the Holy Rollers to "fit the cultural patterns of urban America." That would give us something else to laugh about. The ultraconservative Pentecostal groups are not dying out. Many of their preachers could not even spell "culture patterns." They are conservatives, and they are not anxious about culture patterns and methodologies. Why do they grow?

The liberals are dead wrong in their assessment, but being wrong doesn't bother liberals. They claim the church is dying because it will not abandon something called method. They really mean that the message must be changed, altered, revamped, and reshaped. That is what they are saying, and we challenge them to deny it. They lampoon the conservative church and picture it as being afflicted with the dry heaves. In that case we beg and plead with them to please explain why the conservative Holy-Roller church is growing so rapidly. The liberals would have us to believe that the church must adapt the viewpoint of liberals if we are to survive. If that be the case, please explain why the liberal sects are dwindling away at such a rapid rate. It wouldn't cost very much to just print the truth. Sometimes fiction makes for a better editorial. It has not been my purpose in this paper to dissect all the problems in the church, but the greatest problem is the increasing encroachments of liberalism as seen among some editors, and schools, and compromising preachers.

Yes, the church is not growing in many areas and, brother, the answer is often found in modernism and liberalism. I believe brother Norton might be an instructor in a college or university. I would like for him, or someone, to tell me the total amount of money which has been poured into the coffers of such schools as Pepperdine, ACU, Harding, Freed-Hardeman, and Lipscomb within the last 40 years. When that astronomical figure is made known, then I will add another chapter to my book entitled Why the Church Is Dying.

The liberals and modernists have been creeping into the college classrooms with undercover tactics, and young liberals have hatched out like nests of buzzards. I'm not the person who boasted about being a liberal before a college class. The schools attempt to control the church, and, like parasites, the life of the church is slowly sucked away by the schools. The pity is that most everyone knows this is true, but most everyone is too shaky to say anything about it.

There is a great difference in method and message. It is interesting to notice how the liberals begin to write and talk about method, and in a very adroit manner they jump over to message. The message is being changed. Why deny it? Why try to cover it up? Why attempt to use a pretrial diversion? Do you need a page filled with liberal quotes showing changes in the message? Any book filled with such statements would hardly impress the liberal-minded people. They can always retort, "You just misunderstood." Well, of course, we are too dense to understand about changing the message, but we are expected to read articles and understand them regarding methods. Yes, yes indeed!

--W. Wayne Coats

The thing I am writing about in this article has grieved and tormented preachers and others for many long years. It is a thing that has to be faced quite frequently and occasionally it strikes mighty close to home. And that makes our attitude toward it different in some ways. However, the truth is not determined by what happens to others or even to us. It is determined by what the Bible says. The thing I have in mind is divorce. Some say there is no cause for divorce--ever. Others say that any cause is sufficient. The noted historian Josephus, talks about how "I put away my wife who had borne me five children because she displeased me in the preparation of my victuals." Moses because of "hardness of hearts" permitted some to put away their wives, but Jesus said that "from the beginning it was not so" (Matt. 19:8).

Josephus wrote his own law which he had no authority whatever to do. Many today write their own laws and do whatever they please regarding this matter. Several years ago I performed a ceremony for a young couple. I had known the boy and his family for many years. The marriage didn't work out. The father commenting on it to me later on said, "That marriage never was a marriage anyway." Which caused me to think, "well now brown cow," just why wasn't it a marriage? The couple went together for quite a while--went to the courthouse and took out a certificate of marriage--stood before God and me and a company of people, and vowed to "live together until death do us part." The license was then duly enrolled at the courthouse and returned to them. Why were they not married? Because the boy's father said they weren't. His saying meant nothing at all. But evidently the boy was made to believe that the first marriage was no marriage at all, and he could go out and contract another one if and when he pleased. Who knows? Maybe she displeased him in the preparation of his "victuals" too. Or in some other way.

There are times when divorce seems to be unavoidable. And it seems to hit nearly all families sooner or later. The Bible gives two reasons for remarriage--unfaithfulness to the marriage vows (fornication) and death (Matt. 19:19; I Cor. 7:39). If the Lord will make any other exception that is his business; however, we do know what the safe course is and that we have to teach. He will render final judgment, and how glad I am that it will not be left up to me!

When divorce is inevitable there should be a period of mourning--so says a noted psychologist and expert recently. In a way, divorce is a death, and death must never be taken lightly. This internationally famous "expert" is right on this. He is not a member of the church as far as I know, but he is right. If heavy "courting" begins too soon after divorce it can create suspicion, and sometimes the innocent can suffer.

I heard about a woman who buried so many husbands. She got to where she could cry out of one eye and wink out of the other at the same time! Some seem to be about that bad when it comes to divorce too.

Nope! As stated in the beginning title--a funeral is no pleasant thing. Nor is the breakup of a marriage--even when it seems to be the only thing left to do.

This incident will find a place in, "The Garden of Nuts." An elder of the church was teaching a class and he read where Jesus said to Peter, "He that is bathed needeth not save (pronounced salve) to wash his feet, but is clean every whit." "That simply means that Peter's feet were not dirty enough to require salve or soap to get them clean. He had been bathed and didn't need salve (soap) for his feet." Tis amazing how wise brethren can become when they desire to become teachers of that which they neither know or understand.

Recently, the seminar "Black church and Human Sexuality," was held at Vanderbilt Divinity School. "Forrest Harris, director of the divinity school's Kelly Miller Smith Institute argued that the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuals." It matters not how moronic an issue might be, there are some clergymen who will argue for its acceptance.

Do you want to know what your spiritual business is? We are told by an AIDS activist that, "nowhere does Jesus ask, 'How did you get sick?' That's not your spiritual business. Your spiritual business is providing that haven, that place of love" (Source Nashville Tennessean). This is but another example of Social Welfare do-gooders which my brethren are copying.

When people become so spiritually deprived as to not know or care about the saving of lost souls, then most any kind of fool notion will be substituted. Jesus shed his blood for the remission of our sins. He did not establish a Social Welfare system to accommodate the physical needs of society.

You will notice the schedule on page 6 of the Spring Bible Institute Lectures, which we have been asked to print. I cannot emphasize too much the importance of improving our knowledge during the year 2001. Let us resolve to study more.

Many brethren will be grieved in heart to know of the passing of brother Russel Artist who was a very faithful and dedicated Christian. Brother Artist was a teacher of Biology at Lipscomb for many years. He was a courageous defender of the truth and stood against the evolutionary theory and liberalism which has crept into our (??) schools. We desperately need good men like Russel Artist who will stand in the gap.

In reply to another reader who is faced with a serious problem and one that is very difficult. The congregation has sold out to the devil in the form of liberalism with all kinds of innovations. What to do? First, I will advise what not to do. You must not support, encourage, help and fellowship false brethren. Read Ephesians 5:11. If the brethren will not listen to your pleas, it is obvious they have no regard nor respect for what you say or who you are. What can you do? You can shake the dust off of your feet (Matt. 10:14). You can meet in your home for worship. See Colossians 4:15. For Bible lessons, there are still sixty-six books that can be read. Hundreds of tapes can be purchased and listened to as faithful preachers teach the truth. Do not be discouraged if, "ye shall be hated of all men for my sake..." (Matt. 10:22).

God is not too engrossed with the affairs of the universe to call even the weakest believer by name. What a joy to be able to say with the Negro saint, in Frank L. Stanton's poem:

I jes' don' know if de cohn'll grow,

But I plants it jes' de same;

I jes' don' know if de win'll blow,

But I watch an' pray, an' I reap an' sow,

An' de sun he rise an' de ribber flow,

An' de good Lawd know my name.

I jes' can't tell if de cotton sell,

But I toils on jes' de same;

De birds dey build whah de spring sap swell,

An' dey know enough foh a rainy spell,

An' dat's losts more dan dey gwine to tell,

An' de good Lawd know my name.

--From "Now."

"Oh, if I was ever lucky enough to call this estate mine, I would be a very happy man," said a young fellow of my acquaintance.

"And then?" said a friend.

"And then? Why, then I'd pull down the old house and build a regular palace, have lots of prime fellows around me, keep the best wines and the finest horses and dogs in the country."

"And then?"

"Why, then, I suppose, like other people, I should grow old and not care so much for these things."

"And then?"

"Why, then, I suppose, in the course of nature, I should leave all these pleasant things and--well, yes--die."

"And then?"

"Oh, bother your 'thens'! I must be going."ad