Preface

      This paper has been written as a labor of love, as the opening paragraphs explain. It began as a talk at the Christian Scholars' Conference held at Pepperdine in 1998, by invitation of Hans Rollmann and Michael Casey. They are publishing the talks from that conference in book form; stay tuned to Hans' website for information about that.

      Later, after a few changes and additions, my talk became a series of articles in Word and Work magazine--which Boll edited for 40 years. (Its ministry continues still.) Now, with a few more additions, it is presented once more to anyone interested in a man who was gripped by God's grace. It may seem overly complimentary. Perhaps love blinded me to his faults. I'm sure he wasn't perfect, but he didn't have to be, for he served a Savior who uses imperfect people. Aren't we glad!

Introduction: My personal relationship with Boll

      R. H. Boll preached in Louisville for 32 years before I got to hear him. But that wasn't my fault. They tell me I was about a month old when I first attended the Portland Avenue Church of Christ and did hear him. So I drank in Bible teaching from "Brother Boll" along with my mother's milk.

      Our family heard him not only on Sunday mornings but also Sunday nights and in his Friday night Bible classes. And a highlight of each summer was "tent-meeting time," when he would preach six nights a week for one or two or three weeks (or even more). We read the Word and Work too, which he edited. Yet little did anyone dream that when Brother Boll died in 1956 (I was a college freshman then), my dad--a businessman and church elder--would succeed him in the pulpit. Or that 28 years after that, I would become the preacher there, and later on the editor of the Word and Work. Excuse these references to our personal experiences, but that's the only kind we've had.

      Is it possible for someone with that background to write about this controversial man objectively and impartially? You must be the judge of that. It may help you to know that the present writer doesn't agree with all that Boll believed (and he wouldn't get uptight about that). He took the dispensational premillennial view; I take the historic (or "post-tribulation") premill position. If you ask me, I could list some other points as well on which we differ. But though he's not my pope, my indebtedness to him is incalculable.

      Now on to our subject: R. H. Boll as a writer, editor and Christian.

I. BOLL'S ATTITUDES IN WRITING AND POLICIES IN EDITING

      Before 1916 Boll wrote numerous articles in various publications: the Gospel Advocate, The Way, Christian Leader and The Way, the Gospel Review, and Word and Work.¹ He also gained editorial experience with three of those journals.² From 1909-1915 he wrote the important front-page column for the Gospel Advocate. When he left that position, he was offered space in five other papers, but chose to become the editor of Word and Work.³ He continued in that post for forty years, from 1916 till his death. Besides his voluminous editorials and articles in that magazine, for decades he wrote a Sunday School quarterly for adults. In addition, he wrote twelve and a-half books, plus a number of booklets and pamphlets.

      In what he himself wrote, and how he wrote it, and in the writings of others which he included in his magazine, seven characteristics seem especially impressive. First, his attitudes: he held strong convictions, yet valued doctrinal freedom for all. Also, he was positive in emphasis, gracious toward those who differed from him, broad in fellowship within the limits of the Gospel, and spiritual in character. Second, in method he was mainly expository. Let's take these up one at a time.

      He was not wishy-washy, but stood firmly for the truth of God's Word as he understood it. The depth of his convictions is obvious, for through decades of strong opposition he taught and defended what he believed. As a German ex-Roman Catholic himself, he held Martin Luther in high regard. Early in his ministry, before controversy swirled around him, Boll penned these prophetic words:

      You must lay aside all that preoccupies your heart and your mind, and go straight to God's Word. There listen, there learn, and obey, no matter where it may lead. . . . But if you follow that principle, you will have occasion to face enemies and say, as Luther once said, "Here I stand--God help me! I can not do otherwise."⁴

      Being committed to Scripture, Boll opposed what he believed were unbiblical practices and beliefs. He warned his readers against both moral evils and doctrinal errors. For instance, it was his belief that Christians who fought and killed in their country's wars were wrong, and he said so more than once.⁵ In fact he came under government investigation for several months during World War I because of what he wrote in that regard.⁶ At least once in his writings he denounced abortion, a practice not often dealt with in those days.⁷ He spoke out strongly against modernism with its denials of the supernatural. He exposed the false doctrines he himself had been taught growing up in Roman Catholicism.

      And he warned his readers against the cults. For example, in the Gospel Advocate he wrote, "It is because of our great ignorance of things prophetical that often simple Christians . . . are fascinated and taken in by Mormons, Adventists, Russellites [Jehovah's Witnesses], and other isms that make great stock of prophecy."⁸ Indeed, Hans Rollmann concludes from his research that during Boll's "tenure as frontpage editor of the Gospel Advocate from 1909 to 1915, for example, he wrote no less than 10 articles directly against Russell [Charles Taze Russell, founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses]. . . . In fact Boll was the most persistent and prolific critic of Russell in the GA. . . . "⁹ This is ironic in light of insinuations made by several of Boll's later critics that his prophetic views were in some ways shaped by Russell.

      For a while Boll was a columnist for the Gospel Review. Every other month his column was entitled "In Defense of Truth." In the intervening months it was called "Homiletic Paragraphs."¹⁰ Probably he enjoyed writing the latter more than the former. Establishing the veracity of the faith was important. But explaining the contents of the faith was more important. We shall pursue that thought when we get to section C below.

      Boll might aptly be called a "freedom fighter." He had left a religion in which the hierarchy dictated what the members had to believe. Such a system discouraged the individual from studying God's Word for himself. Unthinking obedience was required. To Boll this was totally contrary to the Berean attitude which Scripture commends (Acts 17).

      He was determined to follow what he thought God's Word taught rather than follow any group's party-line. He valued his freedom more than popularity or riches. And he sought to extend such freedom to others too. He claimed he never forced his own strongly-held beliefs on others. Was that true or not?

      Notice first his claim. When in the Word and Work he announced his "winter course of Bible classes" for 1916-17, he explained "the nature of the Bible work":

      . . . . The members of these classes, both the teacher and the taught, are free under God. The teacher counts his liberty in Christ precious. By liberty he does not mean license, . . . nor irresponsibility, nor a disregard of love and righteous restraint--but the liberty of the children of God, which includes the privilege of studying, believing and teaching all the Word of God with all faithfulness, no man forbidding. . . .

      The students are just as free as the teacher. They search and study as unto God. If any fact or truth is pointed out and the student sees it for himself in God's Word, he is free to accept it. If he is unable to see it, he is free (and even obliged) to reject it, and that without fear of affecting our mutual love and fellowship.¹¹

      That was Boll's stated goal. Did he accomplish it? The edition of Word and Work which was published the month after his death contained a number of "Tributes from Friends." One was by Howard Marsh, long-time preacher in Sellersburg, Indiana. He wrote,

      To me there was one thing that stood out in the life and work of Brother Boll. He never forced or even asked anyone to agree with him in his teaching, but left us free to examine God's word. I spent seven years in his classes, and not once during this time did he ask me to accept what he taught us unless we could see clearly that it was what the word of God taught. Neither did I hear him ask anyone else this question.

      Another preacher, Gaston Collins, stressed this fact in his testimony too:

      It seemed to me that he was always willing to let me be responsible for my own faith--not once did he (nor those associated with him) ever try to get me to sign on the dotted line, or sound me out to line me up on any peculiar item of faith or doctrine, to commit me to their views. To me . . . this idea of freedom in Christ . . . grew to be very precious.¹²

      Hans Rollmann points out that during Boll's dispute with the Gospel Advocate in 1915,

he made the freedom of the Christian a main point in his discussions and considered his views on prophecy to be included in such . . . freedom. He saw that freedom vanishing when only one party line was being propagated. Thus he defended his articulation of eschatological views with reference to a wide spectrum of millennial thinking in the past. He wrote in a letter of 26 May 1915 to J.C. McQuiddy:

      "If old Bro. J L Martin can publish the Voice of the Seven Thunders; Johnson his Vision of the Ages; A M Morris his Prophecy Unveiled; if the Standard can give Battenfield's book [as a series of articles] to its readers and no one fear any divisions of Churches from these causes, why should my humble teaching cause it? Unless, indeed, some should rise up in unbrotherly intolerance and by unbrotherly practices try to force a division; but in that case, those men would themselves be the dividers, and the Lord will hold them to account."¹³

      Years later, as various leaders' attempts to silence Boll got worse, not better, he sounded the following alarm in a letter to N. B. Hardeman.

      Permit me to voice this warning to my brethren: that if we are unable to handle such a difference as this without division or disruption of fellowship we must evermore cease to preach unity to the denominational world; and if we make our prophetic views . . . an article of faith, to be subscribed to in order to fellowship, we forfeit the right to the name of the simple church of Christ, and must . . . adopt a sectarian designation to indicate that fact that we are Christians of a certain sectarian creed.¹⁴

      It is obvious that RHB thought that Christians could maintain both freedom and fellowship, that there could be unity along with diversity. And I can testify that he practiced what he preached--and it worked! For the last ten years of Boll's ministry at the Portland Avenue church, my father was one of the four elders there. We saw earlier that Boll opposed Christians serving as combatants in war. My dad was a captain in the field artillery! Boll also took the view which David Lipscomb espoused in his book, Civil Government, that Jesus' disciples should not run for political office, nor vote in elections. Dad and at least some of the other elders regularly voted! Yet Dad thought the world of Brother Boll, and Boll had a great respect and love for Dad. I don't believe so much as an angry word ever passed between them. Their unity in Christ was greater than their differences in belief. That was loving, responsible freedom.

      Here is another striking example. Boll's associate editor E. L. Jorgenson told of the following incident (without mentioning the person or the date):

      An aged brother, whom we love for his work's sake, at one time asked for permission to speak in Portland Avenue Congregation where Brother Boll is minister, stating that he wished to set forth his views which were contrary to the way Brother Boll saw the prophecies. His request was granted and for three nights he spoke and was heard patiently by the congregation. Not a word of antagonism was spoken from the floor, and the brother was treated with kindness and courtesy before and after the meetings. This is a demonstration of the fact that such men as Brother Boll are willing to differ on the matters of prophecy and still to receive one another. But if any man is factious concerning these matters, pro or con, he will stir up trouble in the church and should not be encouraged. Those who are at agreement concerning fellowship should set an example before other brethren by fraternizing one another in an active way.¹⁵

      Though Boll opposed what he believed was evil or erroneous, as noted earlier, he did not major on such themes. The main focus of his writings was on what is true and upbuilding. Warnings were made when and as needed. But his delight was to present the breath-taking Good News of God's grace, and the riches of His provisions for our growth in love and all-around holiness.

      He did not enjoy controversy. True, he refused to back off from writing and preaching about endtime prophecy after that became a bone of contention. Some faulted him for that. But he tried not to over-emphasize eschatology nor to neglect other aspects of Biblical truth. And his attitude affected not only what he taught, but how. Earl West comments, "It was one of [Boll's] convictions to be gentle. He observed that one could not keep a horse by whipping it; one must feed it, so he believed preaching [and writing--AVW] should not concentrate on negatives."¹⁶

      Boll was reluctantly willing to engage in written debate when he felt it was necessary, but even then he sought to be constructive and loving.¹⁷ He felt that when differing views were compared in a loving manner, truth-seekers could benefit from it. But if harshness prevailed, all were losers. Here is how he expressed it in 1938:

      That differences of views and doctrines should exist in the church of the Lord is not strange. Nor is it in itself bad. When free brethren study God's word independently it is to be expected that on one point and another they will arrive at different conclusions. Where brotherly love rules, these different . . . findings and the discussions that follow, are mutually helpful. Where motives other than love control, differences result in dissension, strife, bitterness, sectarian parties and partisan hate. The blame in such a case, however, does not rest on the differences themselves, but on the spirit and attitude of those who differ. The wrong comes in when lines are drawn, when brethren are branded, ostracised, disfellowshipped.¹⁸

      When in 1927 he engaged in a written debate with H. Leo Boles regarding endtime prophecies, the latter remarked in his concluding statement, "I have had many discussions and many kinds of opponents, but I have never had a more courteous and brotherly opponent than Brother R. H. Boll. . . . Our differences and a discussion of them do not keep me from esteeming him very highly as a brother in Christ Jesus." Boll replied similarly to brother Boles.¹⁹

      Boll deplored and avoided the combative attitude which became popular in many Church of Christ publications. In his first editorial for Word and Work, he wrote, "The first thing we want to say about the new Word and Work is that it goes out on a mission of peace and good will. . . . It is not designed to compete with any other publication. . . . It is our chief aim to produce a clean magazine: . . . free from objectionable controversy, from personalities, and bitter sayings. . . ."²⁰

      He seemed to fulfill that aim. During the 1940s a librarian at Harding College more than once told some students that if they were tired of magazines that argued and fought all the time and wanted to find something positive and upbuilding, they should read Word and Work.²¹

      Related to his positive approach was Boll's graciousness of attitude toward others. This was seen both in his writing and his editing. He would be the first to say that it is God's grace to us that stimulates our graciousness to others.

      Though for decades he faced opposition that was often fierce, he infrequently referred to these matters in his magazine, and hardly at all in his sermons. I would guess that a sizeable number of people who heard him preach regularly had not the slightest idea that he was the object of sharp attacks. The inner core of the congregation knew about this--in a general way from reading Word and Work, or in a more detailed way from the various papers of "the other side," as we termed the editors who opposed Brother Boll and "our" churches. And those in his regular classes might learn of such matters from questions sometimes raised by students regarding disputed doctrines or accusations which had been heard. But in the numerous classes I attended (at least six years of Friday night classes, plus two years of Monday-Wednesday afternoons), I never remember his slurring his detractors nor even mentioning them by name. He considered them brethren, and would not drag them down. In warning against fundamental errors like modernism he would caution us against writers who were dangerous--like Harry Emerson Fosdick. But in teaching about differences among people who were truly committed to God's Word, he would discuss issues (like legalism, sectarianism, or watering down God's promises) rather than personalities.

      In January 1934, Word and Work publisher E. L. Jorgenson, probably Boll's closest friend, wrote these remarks as part of an article introducing the new year: "As to any personal reflections and aspersions directed our way, such scribes are to us, in this character, as if they did not exist. The editor of W. & W. rarely reads their fulminations. His message could well be: 'I am doing a great work, so that I cannot come down.' (Neh. 6:3.)"²²

      Another example of this magnanimous approach is found in a statement Jorgenson made twelve years later. He mentions that a series of articles in Word and Work had been strongly opposed by some writers. He and Boll had "disregarded" those criticisms "for the reason that they have generally come from harsh and 'extreme' sources"--people who were drawing lines and causing divisions. "But now there has appeared a long article from a man that we respect and esteem; a brother in the Lord that we have long thought of as wishing to be fair--namely, Brother G. C. Brewer." Then comes this significant sentence: "We call no names unless we can commend."²³ Jorgenson then presented Brewer's criticisms and replied to them.

      Yes, Boll (and his associates) called names when commending others, but not when replying to belligerent accusers. The latter he would ignore if he knew his replies would only be twisted and abused. Or, if his antagonists seemed to be honest seekers for truth, he would deal with issues and defend his position. But he chose not to vilify anyone.

      Due to this policy, some of his aggressive opponents felt he was a wimp. His most caustic attacker from the early 1930s onward was Foy E. Wallace, Jr. (I would follow Boll's example and omit Brother Wallace's name, except that you could find it anyway in the endnotes! And almost everyone knows of his opposition to Boll.) Richard Hughes writes,

      In the very first issue of the Bible Banner, [Wallace] complained that 'a general softness is pervading the church. . . . Plain preaching . . . [is] now yielding to the persuasions of the plush-mouthed and velvet-tongued moderns.' He blamed this decline . . . on 'the Bollistic blight [that] has been a malignant growth in the body of Christ' and on 'the spirit of pacifism. . . .' He called instead for 'militant preaching . . . that defends the truth against all errors, teachers of error and institutions of error by name, make, model and number.'²⁴

      Another preacher echoed those sentiments, writing "There are those among us who believe in being soft, noncontroversial, nonfighting. But the old Book still tells us to fight the good fight and to put on the whole armor of God." His major targets in this regard were the Truth-Seeker, published at Harding College, "which is determined to be sweet-spirited, never pugnacious," and Boll's Word and Work, which "does not mention names of those it attacks."²⁵

      Another writer we all know wrote these words: "The Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead he must be kind to everyone . . . not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct (2 Tim. 2:24-25)."²⁶ Say, that sounds good to me; what about you?

      In the memorial issue of Word and Work, published the month after his Home-going, this trait of Boll's was mentioned by several of his friends in their tributes to him. For example, L. V. Houtz wrote that Boll's life

taught the lesson that the great man of God has no time to defend self. For those who maligned him, Brother Boll had only the kindliest of words. When one of his erstwhile enemies would be called from this earthly scene of action, Brother Boll would write a kindly tribute to the life of the departed brother. I am sure that now, as he shakes hands with them on the other side, the kindly feeling is mutual.²⁷

      I myself was deeply touched several years ago when browsing through the Dec. 1937 Word and Work. Its "News and Notes" section contained reports sent in from churches in many parts of the country. One of them said, "Horse Cave, Ky.: Ancient gospel preached at Green's Chapel by Brother Foy E. Wallace Jr. of Denton, Texas. . . . Many heard, believed and were baptized. The Lord added daily to the church such as should be saved. Church strengthened and edified. Wallace . . . endeared [himself] to us.--R. L. Dunagan."²⁸ That report had crossed Boll's desk. Perhaps Jorgenson asked, "Should we run that in Word and Work?" I am guessing that Boll replied, "Yes, why not? We hold no malice in our hearts."

      Ten months later, in the Oct. 1938 Bible Banner, "Wallace declared premillennialists and their sympathizers no longer members of Churches of Christ."²⁹ Nonetheless, Boll continued to apply the words of Paul we quoted above. He felt Edwin Markham's poem summarized it well:

      The circle Boll drew did shut out those who denied the Gospel, as Paul did (in Gal. 1:6-9, for example). But it took in those who believed the Gospel, as Paul did (in 1 Cor. 12:21-22; 15:1-5; Rom. 14:1-15:7).

      For example, though he himself did not condone instrumental music in church meetings, for some years he taught daily Bible classes at conferences of the conservative "Christian Churches" held in Cedar Lake, Indiana. Jorgenson explained,

      By the courtesy of those good brethren, and on their initiative (not by any demand from Boll), no "music" was used when R.H.B. spoke. But when it came his turn to sit, while others who used it were speaking, he listened with interest and raised no fuss or protest. After all, it was their meeting. . . . Here was the spirit of Romans 14 . . .--fellowship in spite of an unresolved difference. These men loved our brother for himself, and for his humble attitude, and he loved them dearly in return.³¹

      Boll's vast knowledge coupled with his gracious attitude gained him invitations from many different churches. And he often accepted such invitations. He gave a lecture at Louisville's First Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) at least once; my mother attended it. He led a series of classes (based on a Moody Bible Institute correspondence course) at Warren Memorial Presbyterian Church. One year he even taught a special series of Bible classes at the Second Presbyterian Church--during Lent! That doesn't mean he condoned any errors which may have been taught in those churches. He didn't. But when he had opportunities to share God's truth with those who hungered for it, he gladly did so without compromising his own beliefs.³²

      He usually didn't publicize those talks, probably for two reasons. First, he knew that some Church of Christ magazines, if they learned of his speaking in such churches, would hotly attack him and try to create a scandal. Second, perhaps he feared that immature members of his congregation might conclude that he endorsed all the teachings of those denominations. Some of them were modernistic; and he didn't invite such ministers to preach in his pulpit. Yet those who heard his teaching heard the real Gospel.

      While on principle Boll opposed denominationalism and thus denominations, ³³ that did not at all mean he believed "we" were the only Christians and all members of "denominational churches" were lost. Richard Hughes writes that Boll rejected "the sectarian exclusivism of Churches of Christ when he routinely ran articles from . . . early fundamentalists . . . in the pages of his journal Word and Work."³⁴ My own research shows that in 1916, the first year he was editor, he included articles written by D. M. Panton, G. H. Pember, Charles Trumbull, Philip Mauro, and James Stifler. None of them were from restoration movement churches (though of course he ran articles from such men too--A. Campbell, Scott, Harding, Lipscomb). Also included was a letter about demon-possession, written by a missionary identified as a Presbyterian. And the magazine carried recommendations of books written by such men as R. A. Torrey and James M. Gray, both of whom were presidents of Moody Bible Institute. Boll recognized that God has lots of children in lots of places.³⁵

      Again, consider an article he wrote entitled, "The Place of Prayer in Mission Work." In it he quoted or mentioned with approval missionaries William Carey, John Paton, Samuel Zwemer, and Hudson Taylor--he lavished praise on Taylor especially.³⁶ Yet he well knew that none of those men were from "our" churches.

      Of course in this attitude Boll was saying nothing new. Barton Stone, Thomas Campbell, Walter Scott, and especially Alexander Campbell commended men like Luther, Knox, Bunyan, Wesley, Newton and others. They might on occasion point out their faults and errors (Boll did that too), yet they acknowledged them to be not only Christians but outstanding servants of the Lord.³⁷ Yet Hughes observes that "many viewed Boll's fraternization with fundamentalists as nothing short of scandalous."³⁸ Maybe it's safe to acknowledge such outsiders as brethren only after they have died!

      His inclusive position led him to allow some of his books (I don't know how many) to be translated by a Pentecostal missionary into Portuguese. They were then circulated in Brazil--in Pentecostal and Evangelical circles. Here's the background to that: In the late 1920s O. S. Boyer and several co-workers were sent to Brazil by Churches of Christ. They were zealous and bold amid ferocious persecution. As time went on, they experienced some unusual circumstances. In a letter Boyer "unintentionally [used] a misleading phrase" about the Holy Spirit, resulting in a "barrage of vicious, bitter, condemnatory criticism" of him in several papers--though they never gave him a chance to explain himself. Through a chain of events stretching over several years, Boyer and a few others ended up affiliating with the Assemblies of God.

      This broke Boll's heart. As the situation had unfolded he had written several articles showing Scripture's teaching on the Holy Spirit and refuting the Pentecostalist positions. He also carried on "long and patient correspondence" with Boyer. But, Boll believed, in the end the extremely censorious reaction by church leaders in the U.S. drove the missionaries away from us and into the arms of Pentecostalists. "One extreme tends toward another," he concluded.³⁹ Later, Boyer (who developed a farflung literature ministry in Brazil) wanted to translate some of Boll's books for use there. Boll consented.⁴⁰ If God's people would be blessed by them, he was pleased. He never trimmed his message because of his audience. But he firmly believed, "Judge me by what I say, not by where I say it."⁴¹

      Even some writers who strongly disagree with Boll's beliefs have testified to his deep spirituality. Earl West wrote, "Boll was modest, sincere, thoroughly in love with Christ. . . . With tender-hearted love he presented his message. . . ."⁴² Robert C. Welch writes quite caustically about Boll's teaching and blames him for fomenting division among the Churches of Christ. But he also mentions his "gentle graciousness" and "dignified graciousness."⁴³

      Boll's generosity and humility were demonstrated when he allowed others to publish a very popular tract he wrote without crediting him as its author. I learned of this in 1963 when I visited the Abilene Christian College bookstore. There I was amazed to see for sale the wellknown tract Boll had written decades before, "Why Not be Just a Christian?" But it didn't have his name on it; no author was indicated. I feel quite sure that no company would have published his tract without his permission. And I feel very sure that he would have given permission to print it without his name--for many people would not have bought it if they knew he was its author. To spread the truth was important to him; to get credit for it was not.

      Then there was his prayerfulness. A student in a mainline Church of Christ college had heard some premill friends mention R. H. Boll several times. So he chose to write a research paper on him. One book he read was Boll's Lessons on Hebrews, in which the author ended each chapter with a prayer. For instance, at the end of his lesson covering Heb. 5:11-6:20, he wrote:

      Our Father, we know thy promises are sure and steadfast and our hope is secure. But our zeal flags, our energy fails, our faith grows weak and our assurance faint. We need thee every hour. We believe that thou art able to keep that which we have committed unto thee; yet protect thou us from our own selves, lest we abandon the attitude of faith and patience and drift back when we should go forward. . . . May thy solemn warnings and tender admonitions and encouragements, thy exceeding great and precious promises and the knowledge of thy perfect faithfulness, inspire us to patient perseverance in the way and the aim to attain to Christian perfection, that every one of us who has this hope set on him may by thy grace purify himself, even as Christ is pure. Amen.⁴⁴

The student had never read such prayers, especially in a commentary or study-book. He felt Boll must be sincere and godly. Thus later, when he heard that some people strongly opposed him, he wondered why.

      Boll not only wrote such prayers, he also wrote articles exhorting to prayerfulness. And he practiced what he preached. That fact (and some others) is shown by an incident which Leroy Garrett shared with me from his student days at Freed-Hardeman College in the early 1940s. A wellknown Bible teacher there "considered Boll a heretic and false teacher." In a class which Garrett attended, that teacher

told of a friend of his who had had RHB in his home. The friend said that RHB must be a man of prayer and deep spirituality, for when he went upstairs to call him to breakfast, he noticed through the slightly opened door that Boll was on his knees praying. The host backed away, leaving him undisturbed. He came back some minutes later, supposing he could now tell him that breakfast was ready, but he was still on his knees praying.

      The host insisted to Garrett's teacher that RHB must be very pious to be praying for so long on his knees in the early morning. But the teacher then said to us (and perhaps to his friend upon being told of the incident) that he wondered why Boll had his door partly open! I got the distinct impression that he would not put it past the likes of RHB to set up that sort of presumed piety.⁴⁵

      Brother Garrett continued, "It was subtle innuendoes like that that got me off to a wrong start in those early years. Graciousness would have us put the best interpretation on such incidents, but we impugned motives, especially the motives of our 'enemies,' who were actually our dear brothers in the Lord."

      By this we mean that he much preferred to study and explain protracted Scripture passages than to reach doctrinal deductions by taking a verse here, another one there, and a third one from back yonder and fitting them all together. The latter approach can be dangerous unless done very carefully, so he emphasized the former. For example, of the twelve books he authored, seven are expositions of books of the Bible (and he was working on an eighth at the time of his death).

      Boll deplored the common tendency to become firmly loyal to one or another school of theology--Calvinist, Arminian, Campbellite, amill or premill. He believed that when that is done, people close their minds and jump to conclusions about Bible texts without careful personal study.

      His critics called him a theory spinner. If he was, he did it unawares; for he repeatedly opposed such a practice. He wrote, "There are few things that hinder the truth more, that darken counsel, warp the eye, and sustain error so effectually as theory spinning and system building." He went on to give a vivid description of what he meant:

      A passage here and a passage there--the two fit admirably. Another passage or two--that is enough for the underpinnings. Upon that we build. Sleepers and joists of plausible conclusions and logical deductions come next. We reason of what can and cannot be, granted this and that. On hypothetical premises we rear proud structures of absolutely certain conclusions. It could hardly be claimed that the building goes forward without sound of saw or hammer, for there is much work to be done. Contrary texts have to be spliced or sawed off, according as they are too long or too short to fit; rebellious passages must be hammered into submission. . . . That which God has not joined together must be united with the glue of human reasonings . . . and that which God has joined together must be put asunder. . . .⁴⁶

      I personally believe he overstated his case against "theology." The practices he condemned are common enough, sad to say, and ought to be thoroughly deplored and avoided. But he seems to imply that it is always wrong to try to "build a system" of doctrines or to fit beliefs together into as much harmony as possible. But does not every Christian who knows something of God's word have a theology? It may be good, bad or in between, but it exists, like it or not. Ask him how a sinner may be saved. His reply is his theology of salvation. Ask him why we don't always get what we pray for; his answer, especially if he seeks to harmonize two or more texts, reveals his theology of prayer; etc. Contrary to what Boll appears to say, "theology" seems unavoidable; and potentially it is good. But, as he wrote, to allow any doctrinal system to hinder our open-minded study of passages which pose problems to our viewpoint--that is extremely dangerous.

      Brother Boll also deplored the way listeners often pigeonhole preachers into this or that school of theological thought--and thus approve or disapprove of their sermons without giving them a fair hearing. In an article he shared an example of this from his own experience:

      When expounding Romans 5:1-11 in a western city it chanced that I heard of three different comments on the lesson by three different men. One said, "He is a once-in-grace-always-in-grace man." Another sized me up as a "faith only" preacher; while a third was sure I must be a "holiness" advocate. [He was none of these in the meanings intended.--AVW] Yet I had only endeavored to bring out the meaning of Paul's inspired words in this passage. Whatever inferences, false or true, may be drawn from it, the words of the text are God's words, faithful and true. We shall do well not to becloud it with captious questions, or lose its precious teaching by having our attention diverted from it to doctrinal polemics. Let us take it all as it stands--not to the exclusion of other truths of God's word--but let us take this, believe it, treasure it, and rest our hearts upon it.⁴⁷

      His beliefs on these matters influenced his approach to Bible study and also preaching. Here is his advice on those subjects:

      The fundamental method of Bible study is the reverent, patient reading (and re-reading) of its books and its chapters in order and connection, always with prayer and a heart surrendered to do the will of God. And the sort of preaching . . . which will best bring hearers into contact with the mind and truth of God and the real teaching of His word, and which will do most to build up Christian faith and to break down sectarian prejudices and barriers, is the careful, faithful expounding of the scriptures in their connection. There is great need of that sort today."⁴⁸

      Having seen Boll's attitudes and policies in writing and editing, we now move on to the content of his teaching. We shall examine some of the subjects he emphasized, and what he taught about them.

II. SOME SUBJECTS BOLL EMPHASIZED

      To Boll, God is big and active. He is not God, emeritus. The Bible reveals His wonderful deeds in the long ago. But in it He also declares, "I the Lord change not" (Mal. 3:6). Yes, His methods of working change as He chooses--we now don't feed on manna. But His character is immutable. He is still the living God, as church history and personal experience demonstrate.

      Two of Boll's favorite modern-day heroes were James A. Harding, who taught him in Nashville, and George Muller of Bristol, England. Both trusted the Lord to the utmost, and both experienced wondrous answers to prayer. Their influence--by contrast--can be sensed in the following statement by Boll.

      What a God some Christians have! A God who does not know them or care for them in particular; a God who cannot or does not interfere on their behalf; a God who can do no good or harm, except as the laws of nature bring it about in the course of cause and effect; a God not to be reckoned with--a dummy, a figurehead; a God named "Father" who leaves them mere orphans; a God who cannot fulfill his promises, whose love we have to buy with good works and service; a God who bids us go through the motion and mock performance of prayer, when it is understood that it can have no vestige of effect anywhere, except on the one who offers it; a God unfaithful, untrustworthy, malicious; a God who, if we were a man, would not pass for a gentleman! No wonder they do no more for him! The wonder is they do as much as they do. How densely, deeply ignorant we are of him, because we "know not the Scriptures, nor the power of God;" no, nor yet his goodness, love, faithfulness; his dread holiness on the one hand, and his tender compassion and grace on the other. For to know him aright is eternal life; to know him is to love him, and to love him is to serve him, and to serve him is peace past all understanding and joy unspeakable and full of glory.⁴⁹

      In his recent biography, Thomas Bradshaw wrote that RHB firmly believed that "one who rejects Jesus has no one else to turn to, because He alone has the words of life. . . . No other religion can provide a Savior." To illustrate this point, Boll used a parable written by a Chinese student:

      A traveler in the night lost his way and fell over a precipice, and lay mortally injured and broken at the bottom. Along came Gautama Buddha--a kindly, sympathetic soul, and said to him, "Son, it grieves me to see you in this miserable state. But all I can tell you is that you must gather yourself together and climb up out of this pit; then take the path that leads to yonder blue hills faraway, and ascend them step by step. When you have reached the highest crest, you will pass into Nirvana, where never pain shall trouble you again nor fears molest. Behold, that is the way of the Karma. Good bye." Next came Confucius. He is a dry and dour sort. "Ah," he said, "I see what has happened to you. Did I not warn you of this? If you had followed my teaching, you would not be where you are. Well, son, you have made your bed, and now you must lie in it. Good bye."

      Then came Mohammed and viewed the wreck. "Too bad, too bad," he said, "but it could not be helped: it had to be so. That is Kismet (which means Fate). Good bye."

      At last came the Lord Jesus Christ, and saw the wretched, helpless victim. He tenderly lifted him and healed his wounds and bade him stand upright, then led him by the hand and set his feet upon firm ground and lovingly said, "Come follow me." None other can do that, but He can and does, and a myriad of witnesses do testify to the fact.⁵⁰

      Here is another highly significant statement about the Lord Jesus. Boll did not author it, but he included it in his magazine. It is by his co-worker Jorgenson, and perfectly expresses Boll's convictions too:

      Among the many heresies, there is "the heresy of emphasis," wrong emphasis; and of this heresy, too many Christians of our kind have been guilty. If we aspire to be "New Testament Christians," a people after the pattern of Paul and Peter, James and John, we must put the emphasis where they put it. Christ is central. Jesus Christ Himself--HE is our main concern. It is quite possible, in fact easy, to become taken up with "movements" and subjects good as they may be, more than with Him, our only Lord and Savior.⁵¹

      The subject of the Holy Spirit was not ignored in the Stone-Campbell movement throughout the 1800s. But discussion centered for the most part around the respective parts played by the Spirit and/or the Bible in the conversion of the unsaved. This was due to the widespread reliance people placed on unusual experiences--dreams, visions, etc.--interpreting them as evidence from the Holy Spirit that they were saved. In rightly debunking such views and stressing people's need to hear and obey God's written Word, many of our preachers over-reacted and minimized the Spirit altogether. By and large He was the forgotten member of the Godhead. This was true during the early 1900s too. If He was mentioned at all, it was mainly to refute the teachings of Pentecostalists. Quite a few taught that the Holy Spirit simply is the Bible.

      To the contrary, Boll taught much about Him. In 1927 alone, in addition to running an article by another man on this subject, RHB himself wrote the following: "The Promise of the Comforter"; "Who Receives the Holy Spirit?"; "How May I Know that I Have the Spirit?"; and "What the Indwelling Spirit Does for Us." In the last-named article, he mentions these specific blessings: (1)The indwelling Spirit makes a God-pleasing life possible, for (2)He alone can produce in us the Christlike life. (3)He endues us with inner strength. (4)He imparts boldness, and (5)wisdom, and (6)He intercedes for us.⁵²

      In another article, writing about Paul's command, "Be filled with the Spirit" (Eph. 5:18), Boll comments,

      Evidently, it must be one thing to have the indwelling Spirit, and another thing to be filled. For he speaks to Christians who were already in possession of the Spirit, and exhorts them to be filled with the Spirit. Let us note now a few truths involved in that exhortation. 1. It must be possible--for God would not urge it upon us if it were not for us to attain. 2. Manifestly it is God's will: He wants us to be filled with the Spirit. 3. It is clear that this filling is not dependent exclusively on God; it must depend on some step or attitude of ours. The command is addressed to us. . . . 4. It follows that if it is possible, if God wants it, and if it devolves on us whether we are "filled with the Spirit" or not--it is a great failure for a Christian to go through life without it. 5. . . . Where the Spirit does not hold full sway, the flesh holds place. Half-hearted, double-minded, lukewarm, weak and unreliable conduct follows. But in the man who is filled with the Spirit, the abounding fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22) will testify that he is indeed a child of God.⁵³

      The heartbeat of Boll's life and the mainspring of his service was the grace of God to undeserving sinners like us. He never got over it! Love divine was the theme of his song. He delighted to preach and write about it. A former student commented,

      R. H. Boll . . . first taught me that the Gospel means grace, and when it becomes law it is no longer Gospel, no matter how "conservative" or "Biblical" its dress. . . . As Brother Boll used to say, "The hardest thing to believe about the Gospel is not the virgin birth, the resurrection or the miracles of Jesus, but the fact that it is simply too good to be true."⁵⁴

      When Church of Christ people hear Boll's name mentioned, the first thought to come to the minds of most of them is probably, "Prophecy." But his longtime co-worker, Stanford Chambers, believed that in the long conflict that went on "the real issue [was] . . . not prophecy but grace." After quoting that statement by Chambers, Richard Hughes writes,

Chambers was right, for no one in the history of Churches of Christ possessed a keener sense of divine grace than did R. H. Boll. Divine grace, in fact, was the central feature of Boll's theology, and his pre-millennial outlook was but a pale reflection of it. Put another way, the idea of the premillennial second coming of Jesus underscored for Boll the helplessness of humankind: we would all be doomed apart from divine intervention.

      On the other hand, many in Churches of Christ . . . had nurtured for years a confidence in human potential and a legalistic understanding of the Christian faith that rendered them inevitably hostile toward Boll's message.⁵⁵

1. Grace and Salvation

      A fellow-preacher and longtime acquaintance of Boll testified, "He told me one time that when he learned the true significance of the grace of God it changed his whole life as much as any other one thing. If one had asked him the secret of his power, his love, his humility, his gentleness, and his reverence for the word of God, I believe his answer would have been, 'I am what I am by the grace of God.'"⁵⁶

      Boll found in God's undeserved favor a resting place when difficult questions arose. He had left Roman Catholicism after having been brought up in it. But his mother remained a devout Catholic as long as she lived. When he mentioned this publicly, people often asked what he thought was her destiny. The conversation would be something like this:

      "Do you believe that your mother was saved?"
      "No, sir."
      "Do you believe she was lost?"
      "No, sir."
      "Now, she had to be one or the other."
      ". . . I leave that whole thing in the hands of God. And He is too wise to make a mistake, too good to do a wrong, and He loves my mother better than I loved her and whatever sentence or judgment He'll pronounce will be absolutely right. But if I would walk in her path with what I have learned, and what God has shown to me, I would be lost." . . .⁵⁷

2. Grace and Christ's Return

      W. Robert Heid, who grew up under Boll's ministry, rightly observed that "No matter what subject Brother Boll started preaching on, he always ended up on the grace of God."⁵⁸ It was like a magnet that drew him constantly.

      This appears in his teaching about prophecy too. In an article, he quotes a letter someone sent him. "I want Christ to come, but I expect I would be frightened. I am afraid He will not be pleased with me, and my doom will be eternal punishment. . . . I am afraid He will find too many faults in me. . . ." For two full pages, Boll administered the medicine of grace to this person and the many other believers with similar fears. He said, in part,

      We not only were saved by grace in the first place, but we "stand in grace" (Rom. 5:1-2). And not only that but there is more grace coming--at the coming of Christ. "Set your hope perfectly on the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ." (1 Pet. 1:13). In the meantime there is constant healing and cleansing; there is ever-ready mercy and grace to help us, also along the way (Heb. 4:16). And this is the inspiration to us unto a life of obedience, holiness and good works. (1 Pet. 1:14-16)⁵⁹

      Many folks, especially in the Stone-Campbell movement of those days, needed such blessed assurance. For it was a time when legalism poured forth from most pulpits in the mainstream Churches of Christ as well as elsewhere. There were notable exceptions, such as K. C. Moser, G. C. Brewer, and J. N. Armstrong. But they seemed to be voices crying in the wilderness. Boll's preaching, editing, and writing helped the premillennial churches, by and large, to be far more grace-centered than most mainstream Churches of Christ during his lifetime. Of course a number of fellow-workers joined him in this emphasis.⁶⁰

      Believing in God's grace means relying on Christ's cross, for that is what allows God to be both just and the justifier of sinners (Rom. 3:26). So naturally Boll dwelt much on Calvary.

      This becomes clear in a moving article he wrote about foreign missionary work (another subject that was very dear to his heart). Notice the prominence he gives to this theme of redeeming love.

      The Cross of Christ dominates the missionary work of the church from beginning to end. Only as the Cross is understood and believed in can there be true missions. This will be seen from the obvious facts that,

      1. The Cross is the Reason for Missions.
      2. The Cross is the Message of Missions.
      3. The Cross is the Method of Missions.

Let us take these up in order.

The OBLIGATION of the Cross

      The Cross of Christ necessarily demands missionary work. It would not be conceivable that the faith in the Cross should be non-missionary. The Cross is the supreme manifestation of the love of God in the presence of man's utmost need. . . . On the cross the Lord Jesus gave Himself and His all for all mankind. . . . (1 John 2:2.) In this fact lies the necessary reason for the work of missions. . . . The very love of Christ constrains us. . . .

The WORD of the Cross

      . . . . In "the word of the cross" centers the power of God unto salvation. The messengers of God . . . preached "Christ crucified." . . . By this were men begotten unto a new life, by this were they redeemed and saved. The resurrection, of course, is the necessary complement of the cross, validating . . . its all-sufficient Sacrifice. But on the cross love's great work for us was done: in it therefore lies the . . . power, the remission, the hope, the acceptance, the end of the old and the beginning of the new, for all men who receive it. . . .

The WAY of the Cross

      The Cross must also be the method of the missionary enterprise. This is a critical point. The cross . . . is the symbol of self-giving love. The principle of it must be exemplified in the missionary himself . . . No man can truly and effectively preach the gospel message from the standpoint of racial or national or social or personal superiority. The missionary's labor among the people to whom he is sent, is patterned after his Lord's who came "not to be ministered unto but to minister and to give his life a ransom for many." He is the burden-bearer and the foot-washer, for love's sake. . . .⁶¹

      While Boll emphasized the grace of God as much or more than anything else, he did not at all believe in "cheap grace"--or as it is sometimes called, "easy believism." And he certainly did not believe in universalism--that due to God's grace everyone will be saved in the end. Paul said, "God commands all men everywhere to repent," and that settled the matter for RHB. He wrote a leaflet, "True Repentance." (It was a sermon originally.) He also wrote a pamphlet, "Real Repentance." He stressed that there is no remission of sins without repentance from sin.

      But he believed we must not preach repentance as though it is a work earning God's favor. "Real" repentance is not self-reliant reformation. So we must stress that it is a fruit of faith. Though he was misunderstood for it, Boll did not shy away from saying, "We are saved by grace only," and, "We are saved only by faith" (his emphasis). He went on to explain,

      There may be (and indeed there is) something we must do to apprehend that grace. It is impossible to bestow a free gift upon a man unless he takes it; and if there is a God-appointed way to take it, thus must it be taken. But that is merely the acceptance, and contributes nothing toward the gift, nor does it pay for it or produce it. . . .

      The reason God demands [faith] . . . is that faith is the one, only thing that is non-meritorious. "Therefore it is of faith that it may be by grace" (Rom. 4:16). . . . Faith affords no grounds for boasting. For faith is reliance upon another. It is in very nature a giving up, a surrender and submission, a looking to another for help. . . .

      The natural tendency of our perverted minds is to glory in works and to trust in what we have done. . . . We are nothing--only lost souls, dead in trespasses and sins. We can do nothing--only flee to Jesus and rely helplessly on Him. As for baptism--it is in no sense a work: it can barely be called an act. God would not let man baptize himself, lest he might think he had done something. Another must baptize him; he can but yield himself to be buried and raised. It is not by . . . the sacramental virtue of a rite or ceremony, but purely as His appointed expression of faith that baptism is at all valid with God. But this is valid and indispensable.⁶²

      In Truth and Grace Boll wrote a perceptive article entitled "Present Needs." There he revealed valuable historical perspective about preaching the gospel and preaching the sinner's response to the gospel:

      Some of these days we will realize that we have not exactly the same class of people to deal with [that] the pioneer preachers had, and we will try to meet the needs of actual prevailing conditions. . . . The bulk of the hearers now is composed of men who need to be convicted of sin, whose consciences need awakening; men hardened, indifferent, or conceited, or entirely ignorant of all that pertains to God. . . . Instead of detailed and polemical discussions of the "plan of salvation," these need to be taught of God; made to realize their individual responsibility to him and their personal relation to him. Christ needs to be held up before them. . . .

      There is too much taken for granted. Men hear of, get interested in, dispute about, items in the scheme of salvation, who have no conception of God, or of the Christ that stands behind the "scheme" and gives it meaning and power. Some of the preaching is hardly calculated to bring these sinners face to face with God, or to awaken humility, contrition, and true repentance, and loving trust toward him, and fear of his holiness and reverence and awe. Now if instead of that these hearers get a . . . rattling of dry precepts and empty directions that have no motive back of them, Christianity tends to become a "process," a dead wheelwork of regulations, a philosophy that busies itself with abstract arguments . . . while God is left out of view, Christ taken for granted, life and love and power lacking. Lord, deliver us!⁶³

      If preachers in Churches of Christ had heeded those wise words, our history during the 20th century would have been far different--and better.

      Boll wrote an article of three pages, "The Question of Eternal Security." He also wrote a 23-page pamphlet with the identical title. Here are some excerpts from the former.

      There are passages in the word of God which, taken by themselves, make the impression that the Christian's keeping . . . is wholly in God's hands, and that He who is faithful will see us surely and safely through. There are passages on the other hand which, taken unrelated, teach that the matter is wholly in our hands, and that our ultimate salvation is correspondingly problematical. It is the sectarian way to uphold one or the other wing of doctrine, and hold it up as the Bible-truth, while ignoring, or "explaining away," the seemingly contradictory passages. It is the Christian's way (or should be) to take both sides in relation to each other, and to give to each its due weight of meaning, and to seek for the common basis of harmony which belongs to both. . . .

      Thus Boll proceeds, presenting Scripture's teaching on each side. "Blessed assurance" of salvation is indeed possible and should be normal. Yet presumption and carelessness can be disastrous and spiritually fatal. We can know we are saved, forgiven by God's grace, indwelt by His Spirit, restored by grace when we slip. Yet we can rebel, and walk away if we so choose. "The question, 'Will ye also go away?' is ever to us. Like Abraham and his pilgrim sons--if we are mindful of that country from which we went out--opportunity is ours to return (Heb. 11:15). . . . The secret of the matter . . . is this, that God keeps us by making us careful, by making us watchful."

      So, as he often summarized the issue in his preaching, Boll urges us to both "believe the promises and heed the warnings," without ignoring either part of God's truth.

      We have already seen what Boll taught about the source of our power for obedient, fruitful living. It is the indwelling Holy Spirit. But to benefit from His presence we must keep trusting and obeying.

      Boll was careful to balance God's part and ours in this matter. Like Paul, he taught both that God is at work in us and that we must work out our own salvation (Phil. 2:12-13). Either fact without the other would be inadequate. In an article entitled "Achieving Comes After Receiving," he compared Christian living to Israel's conquering the Promised Land. Israel's armies had to march in and fight the enemies. Without that they would not have gained even an acre. More important than that, however, was the fact that the Lord told them beforehand, "I am giving you this land." Apart from that promise, and the faith and courage it inspired, they would never have dared to enter. They would have wimped out, like their fathers.

      So Israel fought the battles, but God gave them the victories--by defeating their enemies who were much stronger than they. In the same way, we must obey by faith in order to win the victory over the world, the flesh and the Devil. But we should focus on the fact that we can obey--by faith--for we can do all things through Him who strengthens us.⁶⁴

      Richard Hughes' Reviving the Ancient Faith is an impressive work of scholarship in many ways, though I join several historians in demurring on some important points.⁶⁵ I appreciate Brother Hughes' presentation of Boll and the premill movement--it is thorough, accurate and much more favorable than most other historians' coverage. But I must strongly disagree with his glossary's definition of "dispensational premillennialism," especially the part that says, ". . . God sought to set up his kingdom or universal reign through the ministry of Christ, but when human beings rejected Christ, God settled for the church as second best" (my emphasis).⁶⁶ Though I take the historic premill view, fairness requires me to say that I believe 99.9% of dispensationalists would consider the wording of that definition a gross caricature of their belief.

      Boll would. For instance, here is part of his comment on Eph. 3:6. "The Church was not ('as we are slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say') an after-thought on the part of God (much less 'an accident')." And in a later note he speaks of "the high calling of the church" with these words:

      In the nature of the case no class of the redeemed can ever stand so high, or be so near to Christ (and therefore to the Father) as the church. As Christ's Bride and Wife, she is one with him, in the closest of all bonds. As His Body over which He is the Head she is part of Him. (1 Cor. 12:12; Gal. 3:28.)⁶⁷

      Again, in an interview Boll was asked, "The impression has gotten out, in the minds of some, that you teach that the church . . . is a mere 'happen-so.' Is that what you teach?" He replied, "I believe and teach that the church is the outcome of God's eternal purpose, and was planned of God from eternity." He then quoted Eph. 3:8-11, where Paul says, "Unto me . . . was this grace given, to preach unto the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ . . . to the intent that now . . . might be made known through the church the manifold wisdom of God, according to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus."

      The interviewer then asked, ". . . Didn't you write an article in which you referred to the church as a 'contingent.' Doesn't 'contingent' mean 'accident'?" RHB answered,

      . . . Years ago in an article I spoke of the church as "a new spiritual contingent." Some one who apparently did not know his English very well concluded that a "contingent" was the same thing as a "contingency," or something doubtful or accidental. But the word contingent, when used . . . as a noun, of a class of human beings, means simply people of a certain kind, as, for instance, we speak of the democratic contingent in our neighborhood. . . . The idea of accident does not enter into the meaning of the noun "contingent."⁶⁸

      Despite all his disclaimers, such accusations continued throughout his life.

      The existence of the modern state of Israel is no surprise to us today. There it is, and has been for fifty years now--despite powerful opposition from without, and struggles and mistakes from within. But anyone merely observing world affairs sixty or eighty years ago, or more, would have found it laughably incredible if someone had predicted what has happened.

      When the modern state of Israel was born in 1948, Boll wrote the following:

      The new State of Israel is an accomplished fact. . . . So after almost 2000 years the Jews take their place again as an autonomous nation in the old "land of Israel"!. . . .

      When the Lord brought the people out of Egypt He gave them possession of the land and they were permitted to dwell in it, on condition that they keep His covenant and obey His commandments. But God strictly gave them to understand that the land belonged to Him, and that they were but tenants . . . in it. (Lev. 25:23; 18:24-28). But it was also promised them that in those latter days, when after much bitter experience they shall have returned to the Lord, that He would plant them in their own land, and they should possess it, and be moved no more for ever. (II Sam. 7:10; Jer. 30:3; Amos 9:15.). . . .⁶⁹

      [Other passages Boll would base this last sentence on would be Gen. 12:1-3; 13:14-17; 17:1-8; Jer. 23:3-8; 30:10-11; 31:31-37; Zech. 10:6-12. Note that Zechariah wrote after the return from Babylon, so cannot be referring to that restoration.--AVW. Boll continued:]

      The prophetic scriptures make it clear that, preliminary to their final repentance and restoration, Israel will re-gather to their land in unbelief and in defiance of God. . . . In Ezekiel's vision of the valley of dry bones, two steps are seen in the revival of the nation--the first, the great stirring when bone is gathered to its bone, and the skeletons are clothed with sinews, flesh and skin; but as yet no life is in them; the second, when the breath of life enters them, and they stand up, a great living host before Jehovah (Ezek. 37). The former appears to be coming to pass now. The people of Israel are going back in unbelief, dead in their trespasses and sins. They go back for trouble--such trouble as never they experienced before and never shall see again; but the nation--a remnant--shall be saved out of it (Jer. 30:7).⁷⁰

      Mark that he said that Scripture taught that Israel would regather to their land, but in unbelief--not trusting in Jesus as Messiah, nor even rightly believing in the God of their fathers. (The majority of Israelis today are either agnostics or atheists, by the way.) Notice carefully two points about his statements. First, he did not say these things merely because they had just occurred. Rather, this had been his teaching for decades, long before they took place. In his written debate with Leo Boles during 1927, Boll had declared,

      We have seen from the testimony of the Scriptures:
      1. That the nation of Israel scattered by God's hand shall by his hand be . . . regathered and restored to their own land.
      2. That they shall accept their Messiah, be converted and saved.
      3. That all the blessing and promises shall come unto that people just as surely and as literally as their predicted punishments have come upon them.
      4. That once so restored, they shall never again fall away or be removed from their land.
      5. That their national conversion and restoration will be a blessing to all the world.⁷¹

      The second point to notice is that Boll was not at all the originator of this viewpoint. In the Stone-Campbell movement alone, we can mention examples of others who long before him taught more or less similar views: J. W. McGarvey as early as 1881,⁷² J. T. Barclay in 1861,⁷³ Alexander Campbell in 1849 and earlier,⁷⁴ and Barton Stone in 1844.⁷⁵ Boll may have emphasized it more than the others (except Barclay, with McGarvey not far behind), but they all believed in Israel's spiritual and geographic restoration.

      Another matter deserves clarifying, for many even in the premill churches do not realize this fact. In the Boles-Boll debate, RHB complained that Brother Boles falsely and without evidence accused him of teaching that during the millennium the law of Moses would be restored -- carried out by the Aaronic priesthood and including animal sacrifices in a temple rebuilt by God's order. Boll asked, "Where is his proof . . . that I teach such things? I invite him to present one iota of evidence. . . ."⁷⁶ Boll did believe that the Jews, once restored to their land but before their conversion to Jesus, would build a temple again and carry on Judaism's rituals there--as some Israelis currently wish and are preparing to do, by the way.⁷⁷ But their doing so would not be by God's ordaining nor with faith in Jesus as Messiah.⁷⁸ And these events would not be during the millennium but before Christ's return in power and glory, which precedes the millennium in his interpretation. Boll's presenting the beliefs just mentioned is doubtless what led Boles to think that he believed in a restored, God-ordained Judaistic worship during the 1000 years. Some dispensationalists (for example, Walvoord, and Lindsey) do hold this latter belief, but Boll did not.

      However, he felt deeply that God's purposes for Israel and His dealings with them were pregnant with lessons for Christians. Once when concluding a sermon on this topic, he proclaimed, "Behold the Jew--and believe: God's covenant is sure! Behold the Jew--and tremble: God's judgment is sure! Behold the Jew--and rejoice: God's promise is sure!"⁷⁹

      When it came to eschatology, Boll's opponents often called him a "speculator" and other such terms. But his deepseated desire in teaching Biblical prophecy was always to promote practical trust and obedience. He constantly emphasized that Bible doctrines, all of them, serve as motivation for duties--for faithfulness in conduct, in service and amid suffering. He wrote,

      Doing one's duty is a first necessity, to be sure; but who can work and keep on working without constant motive and inspiration, without assurance that it will count in God's plans, and that our labor is not in vain in the Lord?. . . . There is, furthermore, a world of warning and encouragement in these unfulfilled prophecies, which enable us to meet the changes . . . of the times.⁸⁰

      Again he wrote, "Unless what we learn of prophecy, of the Lord's coming, of the age to come, as well as any other truth, makes us more humble, more obedient, more loving and Christlike, we have indeed learned in vain."⁸¹ This was his approach from his early years as a teacher. Hans Rollmann concludes from his research,

      I . . . think that Boll's premillennialism originally arose from pastoral and practical concerns. . . . He felt that a living eschatology was necessary for the religious life of the Christian. Here is an interesting early quote from his column in The Leader and the Way of 20 Sept. 1904, p. 5. Boll writes: "Our steadfastness and perseverance depend on perpetual expectation of our Lord's return."⁸²

      RHB expanded these thoughts in the Gospel Advocate of Jan. 20, 1910. He claimed, "One of the marks of the apostolic churches, in every way as essential as any other characteristic of worship or doctrine, was their constant expectation of the Lord's return." To support that statement he quoted or alluded to eleven passages from various epistles, and then said:

      "This much is evident: that much mention is made of the coming again of our Lord; that great weight was placed on it; that it furnished the basis and motive of all faithful Christian life . . . and that all [those] churches . . . were in an attitude of constant expectation of the Savior from heaven. No church or Christian that has lost view of, or ignores, this doctrine, fills the true pattern left to us in the New Testament. . . . It is high time to study and preach and teach this . . . neglected portion of God's holy truth.⁸³

      He continued, in that long article, to admit that the prophecies are at times difficult to harmonize. But this need not strip them of moral value.

      "We may not be able to combine all the statements concerning this vast matter into one harmonious, coherent, systematic arrangement--likely not. But we are not obliged to. Two things only are absolutely needful: first, to believe just what God has told us, without twisting or quibbling; and second, to seize upon the practical import of this teaching and carry it out in the power of a living faith. Nothing [else] will so change our conduct and life. . . . "

      Then Boll discusses a second essential attitude toward prophecy--the freedom to disagree agreeably. "As for a connected theory of the things pertaining to the coming, I may have one, but I place no weight on it; and I will not quarrel with my brother for having a different idea of the sequence of events." But he immediately goes on to mention an exception to that statement he just made. There is something he will quarrel over, because it robs the believer of that important moral stimulus. Listen to what he writes next:

      What we want is the great truth . . . and the practical lesson of the doctrine. . . . But any theory which would . . . frustrate the practical end God had in view, ought to be abolished. If there is one such practical aim in this doctrine, it is to put us on guard to be constantly ready, constantly waiting, watching, since we know not the day nor the hour. . . . I would thank no man for putting the coming to the other side of a millennium, so that in any case one thousand years must intervene before the Lord comes. For this takes the point out of the doctrine.⁸⁴

On this ground Boll goes on to oppose the postmill view which was very widely held in the Restoration Movement churches at that time.

      As time went on, controversy waxed hotter and hotter. Then, for accuracy's sake, Boll often had to defend himself against false accusations. So, for the sake of clarity (and charity), he sometimes listed what he did not believe or teach:
      . . . May the editor of Word and Work say on his own behalf, that regardless of whatever readers may see or hear to the contrary, it is not true.
      That he believes or teaches "second chance doctrine";
      That he denies the existence of the kingdom now;
      That he denies that Jesus Christ is now enthroned on God's right hand, having all power in heaven and on earth;. . . .
      Or that he has ever taught orally or in writing that Jewish sacrifices are to be brought back;
      Or that he has ever made any of the disputed prophetic teachings a test of fellowship, or has ever disfellowshiped anyone for differing with him in any of the disputed matters.⁸⁵

      The shortest and easiest way to present Boll's beliefs on the millennium is to quote from a 1942 article, "'Premillennialism'--What Is It?" There he listed what he called "the essential points in premillennial teaching":

1. That the Lord Jesus Christ will return from heaven.
2. That, if there is ever to be a time
	--	of the restoration of all things (Acts 3:19-21);
	--	when the old curse shall be lifted and thorns and thistles shall cease (Isa. 55:12, 13);
	--	when the nations shall learn war no more (Isa. 2:4);
	--	when the knowledge of Jehovah shall cover the earth as waters cover the sea (Isa. 11:9);
	--	when the groaning of creation shall cease (Rom. 8:18-23);
	--	when Satan shall be dethroned, bound and imprisoned (Rev. 20:1-3);
	--	when the kingdoms of the world shall become the kingdom of the Lord and of His Christ (Rev. 11:15)--

if there is ever to be such a time as that, then Christ must and will come before that time.

      As all standard church histories, and the encyclopedias . . . testify, so the primitive church in general, from the days of the apostles for 300 years, believed. [A number of] . . . preachers of the Restoration Movement also freely voiced such belief. [He mentions several examples, then continues:]

      David Lipscomb also, in his book, "Queries and Answers" (p. 360) wrote: "Jesus had been to earth and returned to heaven. Heaven must receive him until 'the times of the restoration of all things.' Then 'the times of restoration of all things' must be when Jesus returns again to earth--the restoration of all things to their original relation to God. The relation which the world originally sustained to God was broken when man, the ruler, rebelled against God. . . . The whole material creation shared in the evil. Briars, thistles, thorns grew in the material world, as in the spiritual. Sickness, death, mortality afflicted the material world. When man rebelled against his Maker, the under creation rebelled against man. . . . When Jesus comes again, the will of God will be done on earth as it is in heaven, and all things in the world will be restored to harmonious relations with God, the Supreme Ruler of the universe." [End of quote from Lipscomb. RHB concludes:]

      And it is edifying to note how brethren of the old days, as seen in the Millennial Harbinger, freely voiced their understanding on both sides of this, without even a thought of mutual excommunication.⁸⁶

      Sometimes critics of the premill view claim that it is based on only one brief passage in only one chapter of only one book--and that book is full of symbolism and figurative language. In reply Boll would say something like this: Notice in the above article we have based our conclusions not merely on Rev. 20. There are six other passages mentioned there--three in the OT and three in the NT--and others could be added as well. For example, the following paragraphs which he wrote at another time specifically mention five other texts but omit Rev. 20 entirely.

      The reign of the saints comes after the suffering of this present time, and is part of "the glory that shall be revealed to usward." (Rom. 8:17, 18.) It is a promise given to those who overcome and keep His works to the end. (Rev. 2:26-29.) How then say some that the saints are reigning now? Reigning? Over what? Over whom?. . . . Now is the time for suffering and patience; now we sow in tears; . . . now are God's people tempted and tried, rejoicing only in being partakers of the sufferings of Christ, that at the revelation of His glory also they may rejoice. . . . [1 Pet. 4:12-13]

      "Already ye are filled, already ye are become rich, ye have come to reign without us" says Paul to the self-complacent Corinthians--"yea, and I would that ye did reign, that we also might reign with you." (1 Cor. 4:8.) If the Corinthians had been reigning, the apostle also would have been reigning with them. He would that they were reigning, he says, for then the time of his reign, too, would have come, and he would reign with them. But were the apostles reigning? Far from it. They were as "men doomed to death," "a spectacle unto the world. . . ." "Even unto this present time," he continues, "we both hunger and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted . . . we are made as the filth of the world, the offscouring of all things, even until now." (1 Cor. 4:9-13.) But when the crown is bestowed then all sufferings are past and the reign begins. They only reign who receive the crown; and the crowning-day is not till Christ's appearing. (2 Tim. 4:8; 1 Pet. 5:4.)⁸⁷

III. THE BALANCE HE AIMED FOR

      Boll has been accused of being almost a one-issue teacher, a prophecy addict. One historian writes that by 1912 Boll "saw premillennialism in every parable and lesson of the New Testament." But his evidence to support this charge is not impressively strong.⁸⁸ Another critic says,

      Word and Work was begun by him [sic] in 1916, which has continued to be a paper with the special purpose of teaching on these prophetic visionary speculative theories relating to premillennialism. This paper, as a publishing house, has printed many books and much literature, the majority of which [AVW's emphasis] has had such visionary speculative themes as a major feature. . . . The first edition [of the hymnal Great Songs of the Church, edited by Boll's co-worker E. L. Jorgenson] reeked with premillennialism.⁸⁹

      Even the outstanding missionary to Japan, J. M. McCaleb, chided Boll on this point. Boll and Jorgenson and their congregations, Portland Avenue and Highland, generously supported the McCalebs with finances, prayer and kindness. For years his wife and children lived in Louisville, while Brother McCaleb was in Japan. But when the prophecy controversy arose and continued, McCaleb felt constrained to say, lovingly, that in his opinion "Boll was giving more time and space to the question than it deserved. . . . To prove his point, he glanced through one issue of Boll's paper and discovered that out of twenty-nine pages of reading material, nine of them were on the kingdom, or one-third of the whole. . . ."⁹⁰ To him that seemed out of proportion. He also wrote, "Brother Boll's danger is not in holding the views he does about the prophecies, but in becoming so carried away with them that he neglects the weightier matters of the law to the hurt of his own good influence."⁹¹

      Were these criticisms valid? Perhaps they were at some times. Here are comments RHB made on this matter:

      As to "featuring" the disputed teaching--it is not my purpose to press it unduly or disproportionately, nor to make it obnoxious by undue and offensive emphasis; but only in faithfulness to the word of the Lord, as occasion may require. Also, we recognize the fact that though the Scripture is inspired, our conclusions are not; and our conclusions are, therefore, not to be insisted upon as though they were. Only the statements of God's word are the basis of Christian fellowship.⁹²

      Notice four additional points. First, he felt, especially at the beginning, that prophecy was grossly neglected or abused in most congregations. Scripture speaks of "waiting" and "watching" for the "blessed hope"; but such attitudes were practically unknown. In 1915 he claimed, "It is not difficult to find Christians who have been members of the church for years and have not heard one sermon on the subject of the Coming"--the Second Coming of Christ.⁹³ He wanted to correct that great imbalance. Earlier, in 1909 he wrote--rightly or wrongly you may decide--"I protest that the brotherhood in general holds the most absurd, grotesque, and crude kinds of notions concerning prophecy."⁹⁴ For example, he warns, "If every time you see the word 'Zion' or 'Jerusalem' in the prophets you read 'church' instead; if every time you see 'Jacob' or 'Israel' you call it 'the Christians,' then there is an end to all sane interpretation. When men start to spiritualizing there is no end of vagaries."

      Second, when anyone's teaching is attacked (and even misrepresented) on certain points, those points are the ones he naturally will defend. Third, at times during the controversy Boll seemed to write almost as much about the Biblical principle of freedom as he did about prophecy per se. He feared that some leaders among Churches of Christ were establishing not only a party-line but almost a papacy that would destroy our nonsectarian goal. Probably you remember one historian's statement, "Churches of Christ don't have bishops, they have editors." This trend is what Boll was resisting.

      Fourth, in a recorded sermon he pointed out that in the New Testament the return of Christ is referred to oftener than the church, or baptism, or repentance--as essential as they are.⁹⁵ So his over-emphasis, if any, may have been nearer to Biblical proportions than the under-emphasis of some of his critics.

      Of course it is obvious that he wrote a lot about prophecy. But he wrote a lot, period--a lot about many other Biblical subjects as well.

      a. Notice the books he wrote. Studies on Daniel, 1-2 Thessalonians (combined), and Revelation--yes, these contain many prophetic passages. But he also wrote expositions of Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, and Hebrews, and at his death was writing on 1 Peter. His other books include a collection of articles he wrote before becoming WW editor, and his discussion with Boles on prophetic themes, also a survey of what the entire Bible teaches on the kingdom of God, plus two books of sermons.⁹⁶ One of those sermon books contained a series of three regarding Christ's return. The other contained sixteen sermons on various topics; only two were about prophecy. So we might say that six of his thirteen books were on prophecy, though it is stretching things a great deal to think of Daniel, 1-2 Thessalonians, Revelation, and even the kingdom of God as nothing but eschatology!

      b. What about his booklets, pamphlets and leaflets? I find twenty-six of such, ranging in length from four to thirty pages. Three of these were expositions or study-guides of Biblical books (Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Philemon). Of the remaining twenty-three items, seven were related to salvation,⁹⁷ two were apologetical,⁹⁸ and at least four were on non-sectarian Christianity.⁹⁹ A few others were practical, doctrinal, or moral.¹⁰⁰ And prophecy? Five of the twenty-six related to prophecy!¹⁰¹

      Is the accusation justified that his "publishing house has printed many books and much literature, the majority of which has had . . . visionary speculative themes as a major feature"?

      c. It might be easier to sustain the charge of "too much about prophecy" when looking at the Word and Work. But here the emphasis and proportion differed from year to year and from issue to issue, and is hard to gauge in an overall way. Undoubtedly there is a great amount on eschatology, perhaps sometimes too much. But it is hard for us now to judge what circumstances and needs Boll and his co-writers considered as they decided what subjects should be covered throughout the months and years.

      d. Though this is outside our assigned topic of Boll as a writer, it may be relevant to the question of "over-emphasis" to examine the subjects he taught in his winter Bible classes, as announced in W&W. So, browsing haphazardly through the years, we made the following discoveries about what this one-man Bible Institute taught.

      1913-14: Luke and Acts. Exodus through Deuteronomy. Matthew and Prophetic Studies. Joshua through 2 Chronicles. Poetical Books and Minor Prophets. John and Hebrews. [That's around 35 books plus the topical prophetic studies!]

      1917-18: O.T.: Genesis. Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther. Isaiah. N.T.: Matthew, Acts; Galatians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 John. "Topical Study of the Kingdom of God, covering the entire Bible."

      1927-28: O.T. studies: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth and the Minor prophets. N.T. studies: John, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1-2 Thessalonians, 1-2 Timothy, Titus, James, 1-2 Peter. Also "possibly" some studies in Job, Psalms and Proverbs--if time allowed. [That's 29 and maybe 32 books of Scripture studied in one winter! And here's an interesting discovery: In none of the three years picked at random was the book of Revelation studied.]

      It seems that R. H. Boll was obsessed not only with prophecy, but with the entire Bible. And as we saw earlier, he believed in Bible study not just to know the word of God, but to know the God of the word--in a personal way. May we all have such an obsession as that.

IV. CONCLUSION

      Since it is clear that unity amid diversity of prophetic views was practiced in the Stone-Campbell movement during the 1800s (as Boll mentions several times), why and/or how did the issue become explosively divisive during the 1900s? Why did such intense and often bitter opposition arise to Boll and his teaching? There may be several reasons for that. In a message at a Restoration Forum held in Cincinnati in April 1987, Robert Hooper of David Lipscomb University mentioned a sociological reason. He said,

      "The key to understanding the 1930s is to remember the most important happening of the decade--the Great Depression. . . . [Foy Wallace Jr.] was totally sure of his positions. As a result, he gave to many within churches of Christ an assurance of their religious positions. This established a stability they did not have in their economic and social conditions. Thus a strong dogmatism developed during the 1930s within the fellowship, especially in some of the journals with Wallace's own Bible Banner being the most severe."¹⁰²

      Hans Rollmann mentions two other factors that were present in the earlier period of opposition, from 1915 onward: (1) The differences in age. Boll and his closest co-workers were younger than all the Gospel Advocate owner-editors who opposed them. (2) Envy of the "vitality" of Boll's thinking. Rollmann quotes Price Billingsly's statement that Boll was "a new thinker and a growing man. These brethren resented this capacity in Boll, and they are naturally suspicious of something new." Billingsly did not agree with Boll's view, which perhaps gives more credence to his opinion.¹⁰³

      But how did the conflict get started in the first place? Boll refrained from telling names or assigning blame. But when asked that question by a few members of a Bible class one day, he replied, "That whole thing was due to preacher envy!" He would not amplify. Miss Lois Campbell of the Portland Ave. Church was one who heard that statement; she verified it to me in March 1998. I have heard several versions of the who/why/what/when related to the preacher-envy he mentioned. But since he chose not to go into those details, should we? Let's recall Word and Work's policy, voiced by E. L. Jorgenson, "We call no names unless we can commend." And the poignant statement by LaVern Houtz when Boll died, regarding him and those who maligned him: "I am sure that now, as he shakes hands with them on the other side, the kindly feeling is mutual." Thanks be to God for His grace that makes us gracious too.

      After we concluded the series of articles about Brother Boll as a writer, editor and Christian, something else of significance surfaced. The School of Biblical Studies, located at Portland Christian School in Louisville, has a small collection of historic materials from the Stone-Campbell movement. Among other items it includes books, letters, and mementos of Brother Boll--some of his sermon outlines, personal notes, and articles he had clipped from various magazines to use as sermon illustrations. I've browsed through some, but not nearly all, of these materials. My favorite so far is a small, black, looseleaf notebook. My friend Hans Rollmann discovered it while doing research here, and showed it to me. There are no dates in it, so we don't know the time of the entries.

      Significantly, Brother Boll devoted its first four pages to matters of prayer. He listed some scripture references on that topic, then areas of prayer for himself. They are "wisdom; 'unite my heart' [see Psa. 86:11, ASV]; petitions of Mt. 6; temporal needs; personal matters; inner circle; special friends." Then followed some topics for general intercession--government, members of his congregation, churches elsewhere, missionaries, that the Lord send forth laborers, and the unsaved. Then came a list entitled, "For Special Blessing." His comments there were very interesting, and again I quote him exactly: "Revival. Power in Meetings. Financial Needs of the Church. The Work." Only under that last topic did he include sub-topics: "School. W&W 'Alas!'" I wonder what crisis produced that final exclamation. The "'Alas!'" seems written in different ink from the preceding words. Perhaps it was added later in some time of distress (financial? declining circulation? opposition from other papers?).

      The notebook continues with about ten of R.H.B.'s sermon outlines. After that he jotted down a few quotations from writings by other men, followed by a list of "Themes and Topics" for sermons and/or articles.

      Then comes the inner sanctum, the holy of holies of this small book. It is a section entitled simply, "For Myself." It contains five pages (only 3 by 5 inches in size) of meditations and admonitions which he addressed to himself. He never knew that other eyes would see them. Yet I do not feel that publishing them now violates his privacy. While there is some confession of his struggles, there is nothing truly confidential. And his soul-searching can help us, preachers most of all, to examine our own hearts. For we wrestle with these temptations too. So we turn to his meditations. The rest of this article is entirely his own composition except for two quotations and the closing illustration, which I have elsewhere seen credited to Charles Spurgeon. Brother Boll himself put a dividing line between each section. Remember, this was not an article for publication but a series of reflections for his own pondering.

      Do not try to preach up to your reputation; to uphold or advance your reputation; to come up to what is expected of you; to "do yourself justice."

      Make thyself of no reputation--lest you become a man-pleaser or a servant of Self. It is a weary road!

      Remember that pretense shuts the door to all further progress.

      Whose servant am I?
      For whom, & for what am I working?
      Preach the truth & let God take care of the "impression."
      Be content to fill your place. Don't try to seem more than you are. Don't try to make yourself bigger, or to advance yourself. Be faithful and let God promote you as He sees good.
      No more than to run after reputation should a man run on his reputation (coasting)--i. e., grow careless & indolent. Seek continually to please the Master better--"that thy progress be manifest unto all."

      Do not be "trafficking in unfelt truths."

      Lord help me to be in earnest! I am prone to forget what I am really after--the need and the help of souls--[while] endeavoring to put up "grand" and "wonderful" sermons, "powerful arguments" etc.--which tends more to the glory of self than the help of the people and the magnifying of God and Christ. Lord make me simple, single-minded, pure in heart and motive, sincere and earnest.

      Never preach anything you would not be willing to die for.

      Does God resent our addressing Him for show or formality, or in any way except sincerely, reverently, humbly, and in faith? If so, how often He has been insulted and blasphemed by the contemptuous familiarity and perfunctory prayers of His professed people!--"Thou shalt not take the name of Jehovah thy God in vain"--literally--"Thou shalt not lift up the name of Jehovah thy God for falsehood."

      To pray in any unreal way--for pretense, for appearance of religiousness, for custom or form's sake, in any way except in spirit and in truth, is blasphemy and contempt. It is a worse form of profanity than that of the slums.

      It is better to save your soul than your face.

      Be content to appear no better nor greater than you are. Just be yourself, plain & natural.

      "I left my reputation where I left my sins: at the foot of the Cross." (Gypsy Smith)

      "That was a fine sermon you preached this morning," said the deacon to the preacher. "Thank you," he replied, "the devil told me that just as I stepped down from the pulpit."