Sharing Our Mail

[Page 12]

     "We are all inclined to have biases and prejudices and to think of ourselves as having none. It takes no less than the same Holy Spirit of God who revealed the Son to our hearts initially to break down our biases and to bring any new truth to us." --John S. May (Pennsylvania).

     "The article you wrote about 'The Sheep on the Hills' was wonderful. It was so interesting I read it over and over again ever so many times." --N. D. Grow (Ill.).

     "I certainly do not question your methods. You mention on page 2 of your October paper the three steps you take when you tackle a problem. Sometimes I wish you would elaborate on each step. People do not know how to ascertain just what the author intends to convey. They don't know enough to go to a historical dictionary if they use the King James Version -- some don't know the difference between the versions; they cannot distinguish between literal and figurative language. They do not know how to examine proofs presented by the proper criterion: they don't know what the criteria are. And they don't know how to formulate their own convictions because they don't know how to investigate personally." --Dorothy Keen (Kansas).

     "Generally speaking, the church has been content to 'rest in the law' as was typical of the Jews in Paul's day, and is largely our trouble in this present time. I am fully persuaded our trouble can be summed up in one phrase, 'lack of conviction.' The physical side (human part) of our salvation has been set forth and played up to such an extent that brethren have forgotten that Jesus said, 'Except a man be born again he cannot (it is utterly impossible for him) to see the Kingdom of God. The physical side of the new birth has been the only side with many. The first thing so sorely needed and lacking is conversion. When people are truly converted the petty stuff will disappear like magic." --An Iowa brother.

[Page 13]

     "I enjoy your articles whether I agree or not. Since none of us has all the truth, nor a monopoly on it, I feel that an exchange is very good. Our ideas of fellowship seem narrow and un-Christian, though factions and denominations have posed questions that did not exist quite like that in the New Testament church. My fellowship takes in all who are "in Christ" and in fellowship as I can best understand. My practice takes in nothing I hold doubtful or questionable as I understand what is truth. I cannot exclude brethren who have doubtful practices, though I do not participate with them. In this community, Church of Christ, Christian Church, and others, have split over and over. I wonder how we can teach or even think unity when we are always dividing? If every custom or practice does not suit, that furnishes cause for another split. Unity seems to me more important." --Raymond I. Kenney (Louisiana).

     "Have enjoyed your articles in the paper. It appears to me that methods to be employed for teaching the Bible, serving the Lord's Supper, or spreading the word, should be outlined by elders of the congregation, then such methods submitted to the Christian assembly for approval. When decisions must be made, let those made by the elders stand, and let the congregation respect them, provided, of course, that no law of the Master is violated. In this manner, the people could expect changes in procedures as years come and go. If a congregation serves the fruit of the vine in one container that is good. If, after a lapse of some ten years, the elders decide it best to use individual containers, let the congregation accept their judgment in the matter. The same applies to the method of teaching the word of God in classes. If the elders decide that such a method is to be used, let the congregation abide by their decision. Once the people are educated to this, it may help matters and avoid unnecessary strife and factional disputes," Darrel Bolin (Pennsylvania).

     "I was very much interested in the article dealing with whether or not elders should be married, but was surprised that so many voiced the opinion that they need not be. There are several reasons why I think they must be married to scripturally qualify.
     First, that is the only meaning of the rendering "the husband of one wife" that is absolutely safe to accept, and the one most commonly accepted.
     Second, an elder needs the training and experience that comes only from raising a family. Unmarried persons often form very definite ideas as to the care and training of children, hut these are usually radically modified, or discarded, if they are at last blessed with children of their own. It always seems easier to solve someone else's problems than our own. An elder not only needs this experience in carrying out the duties of the office, but his ability to rule his own household well is a divinely given qualification (1 Tim. 3:4), which constitutes our third reason for believing he must be a married man.
     Fourth, he is to have faithful (believing) children (Titus 1:6). His household must include children that are his own, a household composed of hired servants would not meet the case.
     Fifth, he must be "given to hospitality" (1 Tim. 3:2) and all will admit that a married man has a distinct advantage over an unmarried man in this regard, generally speaking, even granting that the unmarried man possessed the housing facilities. A husband and wife, who are Christians, could, as far as propriety is concerned, entertain any one regardless of sex, age, or social standing; this would not be true of an unmarried man or widower. The social status of the unmarried man is much different from that of a married man. This requires no proof, being self-evident, and it is decidedly in favor of the married man when it comes to the oversight of the church."-B. M. Cummings (Pennsylvania).