Truth Magazine

By Larry Hafley

Introduction

A copy of a tract published by the United Pentecostal Church, P.O. Box 879, Makati Rizal D-708, Republic of the Philippines, entitled, “Mystery of All Mysteries God in Christ,” has been sent to me by a Christian in the Philippines with the request that I review it. The tract teaches that there is only one person in the Godhead, namely, Jesus Christ. This is a basic doctrine of the United Pentecostal Church.

The word of God commands us to “try” or test those who claim to be teachers of God (I In. 4: 1). We must “prove all things” (I Thess. 5:21). Therefore this review is written to determine the truth. Does the Bible teach the one person or “Jesus only” doctrine of the United Pentecostal Church? Let us examine their evidence.

I. “When God Became Man”

The afore-mentioned tract argues under the above heading that, “Since both Old and the New Testament emphatically declare that there is only one Lord, then it is evident that the Lord Jesus of the New Testament and the Lord God of the Old Testament is the same Lord” (p. 2). Numerous Scriptures are then listed which attempt to show “that the Lord God of the Old Testament is the Lord Jesus Christ of the New Testament” (p. 2).

No one denies that there is one Lord (Deut. 6:4; Eph. 4:5). The Godhead, Deity, is one in Lordship, in authority, but this does not affirm that there is only one person in the Godhead. “But to us there is but one God, the Father … and one Lord Jesus Christ” (I Cor. 8:6). “Grace … mercy, and peace, from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father” (2 Jn. 3).

David said, “The Lord said unto my Lord” (Psa. 110:1; Acts 2:34). This prophesies of Pentecost when “God … made … Jesus … both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:34-36). Two persons are mentioned in these verses as in Luke 1: 32 where the “Lord God gave unto him (Jesus) the throne (power, authority) of his father David. . .” The Godhead, Deity, is one Lord, but this does not say that God is one person.

The tract argues from Isa. 9:6, Micah 5:2, and Jno. 20:28 that since Jesus is the Everlasting Father, the Everlasting God, there is only one person in the Godhead (p. 2). Jesus has seed or children (Isa. 53: 10; Heb. 2:13). He is “The everlasting Father,” but He also has a Father (2 Jn. 3). 1 am called “Father” by my children, and I am a son, but I am not my own Father, nor my own son. Jesus is Father to His children, but He is not His own Father. Romans 15:6 refer to “God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Eph. 1:3).

Truly, Deity, God, is everlasting, but this does not say that Jesus is the only person in the Godhead. The Son had glory with the Father before the world was (Jno. 17:5). The Father loved the Son before the foundation of the world (Jno. 17:24). “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (Jno. 1: 1). That Word is the Son (Jno. 1: 14). So, the Son was with Deity in the beginning, “before the foundation of the world.” Jesus could not be the, same person as His Father because He said, “my Father is greater than I” (Jno. 14:28).

II. “When Did The Sonship Begin?”

The tract under review declares that “the Sonship began, when God became a man … There was no Son before Jesus was born in Bethlehem. . . .” The argument is that “In eternity God as an invisible spirit without flesh and bones … who came in the form of man to become mans salvation.” While it is true that God, Deity, was made flesh and dwelt among men (in. 1: 14), it does not prove that there is only one person in the Godhead.

The implication is that Sonship could not exist without the human body, the flesh. But this proves too much. If there was no Son before Christ came in the flesh, then there could be no Son of God after he departed from the flesh. Jesus is not now in His fleshly body (Phil. 3:20, 21). If He were, we would be like Him (Cf. Heb. 5:7; 1 in. 3:2). If Sonship does not exist without “the body of his flesh” (Col. 1:22), then He is not presently the Son of God. Thus, the argument denies the Sonship of Jesus. It forces the Pentecostal Church to affirm that Jesus is not now the Son of God since He is not in His fleshly body. Their doctrine makes them “anti-christs.” “He is anti-christ that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father” (I Jno. 3:22, 23).

Jesus was the Son of God before He was manifest in the flesh, “For God … gave his only begotten Son” (in. 3:16), and “the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the world” 0 in. 4:14). And now “he is the Son of God” (Acts 9:20; 2 Cor. 1: 19).

III. “Jesus Was Both God And Man.”

The tract under consideration scripturally affirms the humanity and Deity of Jesus, but this does not prove that there is one person in die Godhead. The Word (Christ) was God and the Word was with God and the Word was made flesh (Jno. 1:1, 14). This certainly does not say that Jesus is the only person in the Godhead.

John 10:30 and 14:9 are cited as evidence that Jesus is God the Father. God and Christ are one, but they are not said to be one person. Die Father and the Son are one in work (Jno. 4:34), creation (Eph. 3:9), word (in. 12:49; 17:8), name (authority – jn. 5:43), love (in. 14:23), protection (Jno. 10: 27-30), witness (Jno. 8:18), doctrine (Jno. 7:16), will (Jno. 6:38), and judgment (in. 5:22), but they are not said to be one in person.

Next, the tract states, “At the same time God was manifest in the flesh on earth he remained Spirit in heaven. For that reason Jesus could speak of the Father that dwelleth in me, and also speak of the Father in heaven.” (p. 4). The apostle Paul spoke of Christ that “liveth in me” (Gal. 2:20) and of Christ that was in heaven (Cf. Phil. 3:20, 21; 2 Thess. 1:7). Are Paul and Christ one person?

IV. “Right Hand.”

The tract attempts to explain the statements about Jesus being at the tight hand of God. It says, “The right hand is a symbolic term which means power and authority … Therefore Jesus at the right hand of God, means Jesus has all the power” (p. 4). Jesus has all power, but it was, given” to Him (Matt. 28:18). Who gave it? In Hebrews 1: 3-8, the Father says to the Son, “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever It was the Father who said unto the Son, “Sit thou at my right hand” (Psa. 110: 1). Paul says that God, the Father, “set him (His Son) at his own right hand in the heavenly places” (Eph. 1:3).

Stephen saw “Jesus standing on the right hand of God” (Acts 7:55, 56). Grant that the “right hand” is figurative; it still does not alter the fact that Stephen saw two persons, the Father and the Son.

V. “The Holy Spirit.”

In this section it is affirmed that (1) “God is Spirit.” (2) “God is Holy.” (3) “Therefore God is the Holy Spirit” (p. 5). By this same “logic” one could prove that there are many Holy Spirits. (1) Angels are spirits. (2) Angels are holy. (3) Therefore, angels are Holy Spirits. This would prove that any angel is the Holy Spirit just as quickly as it would prove that God is the Holy Spirit. Christians are to be holy (I Pet. 1: 15). Christians have spirits (2 Cor. 7: 1). Are Christians the Holy Spirit?

The Holy Spirit is Deity (Acts 5:3, 4, 9), but the Holy Spirit is not God the Father because the Father sent the Holy Spirit (Jno. 14:26; 15:26).

VI. “Jesus Is The Holy Spirit.”

The United Pentecostal Church teaches that Jesus is the Holy Spirit because He said He would send the Comforter, and then He said, “I will not leave you comfortless, I will come to you” (Jno. 14:18). Christ came in the power of the Spirit; the Spirit was representative of Christ. This is parallel to Elijah and John the Baptist. John the Baptist came “in the spirit and power of Elias” (Mau. 17:10-13; Lk. 1:17). The Holy Spirit was “another Comforter” other than the Son Un. 14:16). He was no more the Son than John the Baptist was the literal person of Elijah.

Earlier the tract had said “that the Holy Ghost is the father of Jesus, Matt. 1: 18, 20” (p. 5). That statement denies that Jesus is the Holy Spirit. (For investigation of the Father of Jesus, see the information below in another section.)

VII. “The Trinity Theory.”

This section is a rambling series of false accusations and misleading insinuations about the Bible teaching of three persons in the Godhead. For example, “After a raging discussion of centuries concerning the Godhead, a doctrine was finally agreed upon known as the doctrine of the Trinity” (p. 6). This is an assumption, an assertion without proof. Those who believe there are three separate and distinct persons in the Godhead rely upon the Bible as the revelation of the truth and not upon an “agreement” of men.

Further allegations are made which have no real point. (1) “If the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three separate persons, then each Christian has three persons in him” (p. 6). Answer: Jesus said, “If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him” (Jno. 14:23). Note, “we” and our” — one God, but not one person.

(1) “If there are three persons each raised Jesus from the dead. Acts 13: 30; Rom. 8: 11; Jno. 2:19” (p. 6). Answer: The persons of the Godhead act as one. What one does the other does. Jesus said, “The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things so ever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise” (Jno. 5:19). The Father begat Christ through the instrumentality of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 1: 18,20), and He raised His Son from the dead in like manner (Rom. 1: 4). See 2 Cor. 4:14 cf. Jno. 6:44; 2 Cor. 1:8

(2) “If Christ and God are two separate persons there are two separate churches because the Church is called the church of God and is also called the Church of Christ” (p. 6). Answer: The church is the church of God because Christ is Deity or God. Acts 20:28 speaks of “the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.” Who purchased the church “with his own blood,” the Father or the Son? So, the church is “the church of the Lord” Jesus Christ (Acts 20:28-American Standard Version). The “church of God” or the “churches of Christ” are scriptural designations of the church. It is worthy to note that the church is never called the “United Pentecostal Church.” No mention is made of it in the word of God. If it were named, I suppose that would make three churches according to their reasoning!

(3) “If the Holy Ghost and God are two separate persons then Jesus has two fathers” (P. 6). Answer: God is “the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom. 15:6; Eph. 1: 3; 2 Jn. 3). He acted through the agency of the Holy Spirit in the conception of Mary (Mau. 1: 18, 20). Jesus knew and recognized the difference between His Father and the Holy Spirit. “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost whom the Father will send in my name, he shall bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you” Un. 14:26). The comforter, the Holy Ghost, was sent “from the Father” Un. 15:26).

(4) “If there are three separate, distinct persons there should be three separate, distinct names, whereas there is only one name” (p. 6). Answer: The Godhead is one in name or authority, but not one in person. Name, singular, often refers to names, plural. In Isa. 9:6, “his name (singular) shall be called Wonderful, Counselor,” etc. Here His name included a plurality of names. Gen. 48:16 says, “Let my name be named on them and the name (singular) of my fathers. Abraham and Isaac . . .” So, name (singular) may refer to a plurality of persons. See Jno. 5:43.

Rev. 14:1 shows a plurality of persons with “a Lamb … and with him an hundred forty and four thousand having His Fathers name written on their foreheads.”

VIII. “Anti-Christ.”

“I Tim. 3:16 says God was manifest in the flesh and I John 4:2 says Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. Harmonizing these two scriptures we find that Jesus Christ was God who came in the flesh and to attempt to place him on a lower plane than the Mighty God and Lord of all is to An ranks with anti-christ forces” (p. 7). Deity, God, was manifest in the flesh in the person of Jesus Christ, but this does not prove that the ~on and the Father are the same person. John he Baptist manifested Christ to Israel (Jno. 1:31). Does this mean that he and Christ are he same person? Paul manifested the knowledge of Christ (2 Cor. 2:14; Col. 4:4). Does that mean that Paul, was the knowledge or Mystery of Christ? Jesus was Deity manifested 1 the flesh. But before this, He was Deity or rod, and He was with God the Father (Jno. 1:1).

I Jno. 4:2 does not teach that the Father and the Son are the same person or else John contradicted himself in such passages as I Jno. 4:14 and 2 Jno. 9 where he mentioned “both the Father and the Son.”

Conclusion

We have been limited by space to a brief view of the arguments set forth by the United Pentecostal Church. However, we would welcome further opportunity to study the word of God with any who believe we have advocated false doctrine. The meetinghouses of churches of Christ are open to study with representatives of the United Pentecostal Church. If the United Pentecostal Church believes it has the truth, why does it not open its buildings to an honest and honorable discussion? Truth does not fear investigation. Only error suffers from examination. I and my brethren stand “set for the defense of the gospel” (Phil. 1: 17). Remember, Jesus said, “For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God” (Jno. 3:20, 21).

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 34, pp. 8-11
June 29, 1972

By Cecil Willis

In the previous articles in this series, we have shown that the basic fallacy of digression is its denial that the New Testament was intended by God to reveal a binding pattern for the church to follow for all time to come. We have discussed the positions of the Disciples of Christ, then the positions of Ketcherside and those who parrot him, and in the last article we discussed the modernism being advocated by writers in Mission magazine. In this article I want to discuss the position of some who might well be represented by the Gospel Advocate, and others who share the brand of institutional liberalism which the Advocate promulgates.

Varieties in Liberalism

Liberalism presents itself in various shades and hues. Not all liberals are liberal to the same degree. Some accept the basic premise of liberalism, but will not accept as yet all of its conclusions. Liberalism has positions on various essential points of Bible teaching. Hence, one might speak of liberalisms view of God, Christ, miracles, the Bible, or the Church. Some of the liberals among us who have spoken regarding the church and the Bible have not yet had their “say” regarding God and Christ. I wish they would speak up and tell us what they think of God and Christ. Perhaps this shocking bit of information might awaken a few of our brethren. But the time is not yet quite right for the liberals to tell us how the concept of God has “evolved,” or for them to re-write the sacred account of the miracles. They are now reluctant to deny the virgin birth of Christ, or to disclaim His bodily resurrection. The liberals now are speaking mainly regarding the Bible and the church. But their entire speech is not yet before the brethren.

One liberal brother has told us what be sees in the Bible. He does not view Holy Scripture as most of us in the past have viewed it. To Brother J. P. Sanders, this is how he views the Bible: “In the Bible I see some exquisitely religious lyrics, some repugnant and nationalistic verse, some incomparably beautiful erotic poetry, some profound mythology, some colorful and at times amusing folk lore, some legends and fables, some great rules for community life in ancient society, some tiresome regulations of ritual and diet, some dazzling — if not schizophrenic — visions, some dull didacticism, some dynamic and moving preaching. Nowhere-nowhere-do I find a consistent diagram or blueprint of what life should be or what the church should be. I see in it mans sorrow and anguish, his despair and hope, his loving and living, his hating and dying — but I do not find a schematic program of salvation” (J. P. Sanders, Restoration Review, March, 1967, p. 51).

Some of the liberal brethren will not now go quite as far as does Brother J. P. Sanders. Perhaps I should here call attention to the fact that there are two brethren named J. P. Sanders, and to state that the one quoted is not the one who for many years was associated with David Lipscomb College. The J. P. Sanders being quoted is the one who preached for the Rockford, Illinois Church of Christ, and who since has found his rightful place in the Christian Church. Before he left the church, he was mouthing the basic sentiment of the Christian Church. The fundamental principle of Digressivism, as I have sought to show in this series of articles, is its denial that the New Testament reveals a once-for-all binding pattern. Note again Brother Sanders statement: “Nowhere-nowhere-do I find a consistent diagram or blueprint of what life should be or what the church should be.”

There are many liberal brethren who will not now voice some of the sentiments expressed by Brother Sanders regarding what he thinks the Bible to be, but who share at least to some degree his sentiment that the New Testament does not reveal a blueprint for the church.

“Mainline” Churches

Some have come to refer to churches, which hold the position of the Gospel Advocate or Firm Foundation (and I might add, it is impossible to hold the position of both, for they hold diametrically opposed positions) on institutionalism and sponsoring church-ism, as “mainline” churches. The Mission magazine writers consider those who stand where most of the Gospel Advocate writers stand to be hidebound traditionalists. They might even label them opprobriously as “biblical fundamentalists.”

But the men who have taken the lead in contending for the sponsoring church, indirect support of gospel preachers, and the church support of human institutions (whether benevolent, educational, or evangelistic) have been forced to adopt the basic tenet of digression in order to contend for the position they have taken. The leading institutional defenders have been forced to admit that gospel preachers were directly supported in the New Testament (see Phil. 4:10-18). They have had to admit that local, churches can, and did, care for their own (see Acts 2, 4, 6). They have been forced to admit that they can find no example in the New Testament of anything like 3,000 churches functioning through one eldership (as is done in the Herald of Truth).

The only way they have been able to make any semblance of defense for these digressive practices has been by adopting the basic premise of liberalism: namely, that the New Testament does not reveal a binding pattern.

The logical necessity of taking such a position has embarrassed some of the institutional defenders. For example, Brother Clifton Inman, in my debate with him in Parkersburg, West Virginia, felt the necessity to spend much time trying to show that the New Testament does reveal a binding pattern on some things. He merely contended that there was no pattern regarding how churches could cooperate. I tried to make Brother Inman see that if there is no divine order, then there can be no disorder. If nothing is revealed about how churches may work together, then any cooperative of churches, from the missionary society on down, would be permissible.

Note how Brother Inman denies the New Testament reveals a pattern: “The assumption is made that Philippi sent this money directly to Paul rather than to the treasury of any church in Thessalonica or elsewhere. The accuracy of this assumption we cannot tell . . . It seems very unlikely therefore that they were following any pattern, or setting any pattern, of how money was to be sent to preachers” (Bible Herald, March 15, 1957, p. 2).

The only difference between Brother Inmans position, and the position of the digressive Christian Church, is one of degree. Brother Inman denies that is a pattern for congregational cooperation; the Christian Church denies there is a pattern at all. Mack Langford denies there is a pattern for “worship, polity and missions.” Inman denies that there is a pattern regarding how churches may work together. Yet Inman, and others of the institutional liberal faction, hilariously castigate unmercifully men like Mack Langford as dangerous liberals.

Other Pattern Deniers

That noble warrior (pardon me while I laugh) of liberalism, Guy N. Woods, said: “Besides, there is no exclusive pattern of church cooperation taught in the Bible” (Cooperation in the Field of Benevolence and Evangelism, p. 7). If one will read current issues of the Gospel Advocate, he will find Guy Woods “tearing his shirt” as he fights liberalism. (Perhaps I might more appropriately have said “splitting his pants.”) I wonder if it never occurred to Brother Woods that he might be one of the primary sources of the liberalism now so very prevalent among the churches where he preaches. For fifteen or twenty years, Brother Woods has done his very best to show “there is no exclusive pattern of church cooperation taught in the Bible.” I cannot see why such a man would be so upset if Mack Langford would want to go a step or two further and declare, “There is no such thing as a final pattern for worship, polity and missions. . .” But my Brother Woods can get righteously indignant at men like those pattern deniers in Mission, or a Mack Langford. Those liberal brethren ought to feed Brother Woods out of his own liberal spoon. Perhaps they can teach him what some of his “Anti” brethren could not teach him: namely, that he has joined the digressives when he starts down the road of No Patternism.

Nearly twenty years ago G. C. Brewer, whom historians are apt to call the Isaac Errett of the Twentieth Century (if Goodpasture does not win that label), began to pitch his battle for sponsoring churches on the ground of pattern denying. Brewer said in the good old Gospel Advocate: “My whole contention was that the exact method of cooperation was not revealed and that we do not have a blueprint, therefore, by which to go.” Even Highlands employee, E. R. Harper, made the same basic digressive thrust. Referring to a statement made by Yater Tant in which Tant said “The Scriptures authorize a pattern for congregational cooperation,” Harper said, “This we shall prove is not true” (Harpers Answer to Tants Booklet, p. 3). Brother Harper then proceeded to deny that the New Testament reveals a divine pattern of congregational cooperation.

Now Brother Harper has out a new book in which he is crying like a baby about the young generation of liberals that has arisen in “mainline” Churches of Christ. Even B. G. Goodpasture, who published Brewers pattern-denying statement, now, affects to be strongly opposed to liberalism, and like Guy N. Woods, assays to smite the liberals “hip and thigh.”

Conclusion

In this series of articles, I have tried to show that the basic error of the digressive in every generation is his denial that the New Testament reveals a divine and binding pattern. I have documented the pattern denials of liberals past and present. I have shown that those aligned with the Gospel Advocate and Firm Foundation are only a little less liberal than the liberals they pretend to be opposing so strongly.

There should be a warning in all of this for us all. Perhaps this warning is best stated in Hebrews 8: 5, “See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern.”

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 34, pp. 3-5
June 29, 1972

By Garreth L. Clair]

The subject under consideration here is the hour of the observance of the Lords Supper. By hour we mean the time of the observance, not the day, as Acts 20:7 settles the day eternally. We will consider the hour acceptable by God for the observance of the Supper.

1. In the absence of a specified hour (time of the day), it seems that any hour contained in the twenty-four hours of the first day of each week would and must be acceptable.

2. To bind a specific hour to the exclusion of ail others is fallacy, to say the least. If we should adopt a specific hour to the exclusion of all others we would surely condemn those who partake of the Supper at a different hour of the day. Therefore, we must not bind tradition upon anyone who has different customs in this respect. The hour is purely a matter of expediency that may vary from congregation to congregation.

3. So, we must not become slaves to tradition. We must remind ourselves that we partake of the Lords Supper on a specified hour because we have by mutual consent agreed upon that hour, not because that hour has been determined by divine revelation. Since the hour is an expedient locally, the time of its observance may be changed by the membership any time.

Conclusion:

The Day Is Specific (Acts 20:7). The day specified is the first day of the week (Sunday).

The hour is not specific; therefore the hour is left to the judgment of the local leadership or elders.

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 33, p. 13
June 22, 1972

By William R. John

Last August, I had the privilege of preaching the gospel of Christ before an audience of 42 people on the Lords Day in Haliburton, Ontario, Canada. This was during the progression of a gospel meeting and was one of seven services in which I was able to proclaim Gods word.

One might ask as to why the above statements are at all significant and in order to answer such an inquiry I would have to begin in reference to the September 1969 issue of Truth Magazine. Brother Cecil Willis writes the following as he had just conducted a gospel meeting in Haliburton. “It is now 3:30 a.m., and just a few hours ago I returned from a gospel meeting in the village of Haliburton in Ontario, Canada.” He mentions in the second paragraph that, “Haliburton is a village of 2000 people. There were only four known members of the Lords church there.” As brother Willis relates to us regarding the preparation that was made prior to the meeting, he also states, “There was nothing sensational about the results of this meeting. We baptized two women into Christ, and that is important. We feel that the four members there were immeasurably strengthened by the meeting and by the efforts of all those involved.” The article continues by expressing the details of the Lords work in Canada and in conclusion, an appeal is made to those in this country to support the work in Canada.

From what has already been written, it is easy to see the progress of the Lords church in the Haliburton area of Canada. This progress did not come about without hard work and lots of it. Brother Willis mentions in his article regarding the time that was spent and the work that was done by several men in order to even establish the church in that community. Since the congregations beginning, others have done their part in trying to help the church grow in that area.

The point of this article, however, is to simply mention the willingness of one man to work in Haliburton as I have the hope that other men will follow his example in working for the Lord. Brother Jerry Sayre begins working with the congregation in Halibuxton in January, 1970 and continued working there until January of this year. Now Jerry did not ask me to write this article nor is he seeking any kind of glory, but I hope he will not be too embarrassed by my using his experience so as to encourage others.

Prior to the time of Jerrys departure for Haliburton, he, his wife, and two children lived in New Castle, Indiana. He was buying a house, he was somewhat in debt with other expenses and he was employed (by Chrysler Corp.) like practically every other man I know. However, we surely would agree that Jerry is somewhat different in that he decided to leave New Castle, his parents and his wifes parents; sell his house; quit his job; and move some 700 miles to a place he hardly knew anything about except that the people there needed the gospel. He did this without ever attending college and without a great deal of preaching experience. Those that benefited most by Jerrys decision were those who were converted to the Lord while Jerry was in Haliburton as well as those already Christians when he arrived. Before he left, undoubtedly, there were discouragements that would have hindered him if he had let them. There possibly were people telling him that he should not go, but if there were he did not listen to them.

While Jerry was in Canada, the health of one of the members of his family was affected by the climate, so he decided to return to the States and he is now preaching in Jamestown, Indiana. The important thing is that he is preaching and being fully supported in the Lords work. Before Jerry and his family left Canada, the brethren got together and wished them well. Jerry tells me there were some tears shed. I believe that each tear told him that his decision had been worthwhile.

This month, the Lord willing, another man leaves for Haliburton. He is Jim Hughett from Indianapolis. It is the same story with Jim; leave his family, sell his house, quit his job, no college, and very little preaching experience. The reason is also the same. He loves the Lord and His work.

You see, Canada is a real place with real people. Bill Echols will tell you the same thing about New York and New England. Karl Diestelkamp will tell you the same about Wisconsin. These are only a few of the places where men are needed to preach the word. The people in each of these places need the gospel and more men are needed to take the gospel to them.

I wonder how many men would be willing to do as Jerry and Jim, that is, leave secular employment and be fully supported in the Lords work. Just think, if each congregation in America with an attendance of at least 100 people had just one man that was willing to begin that particular course in life! My brother, it is not too late for you. “The harvest truly is plenteous, but the labourers are few; pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he will send forth labourers into his harvest” (Matthew 9:37-38).

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 33, pp. 12-13
June 22, 1972