Apologetics for the Masses #259

Topic

Will the REAL Church of Christ, the Church of 1st century Christianity, please stand up...

How to Be Added To or Removed From This Newsletter

If you did not sign up for this newsletter and you would like to be removed from our distribution list, just click on this link: http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/unsubscribe, then enter the email address that this newsletter comes to and click "Unsubscribe." If this newsletter was forwarded to you by a friend, and you would like to be added to our distribution list, all you have to do is go to http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter and put your email address in the box at the top of the page. Either way, it will take you about 10 seconds.

General Comments

Hey folks,

A few things:

1) My apologies for no newsletter in the last few weeks. Between baseball, volleyball, travel, jobs, an online class, and more...things have just been crazy lately. However, volleyball is over; the class is over; and baseball is over this weekend, so I should be getting the newsletters out on a more regular basis in the next few months.

2) If you saw my "Blue Collar Apologetics" series on EWTN, but did not record it and would like to get a copy, EWTN is offering all 5 programs on one DVD. You can order it here for $25:

http://www.ewtnreligiouscatalogue.com/Home+Page/MULTIMEDIA/EWTN+HOME+VIDEO/More/BLUE+COLLAR+APOLOGETICS+-+DVD.axd

I've been asked a number of times if they are going to run the series again, but they have not made any decision in that regard, so as of now I would have to say no. If that changes, I'll let you know. And I very much appreciate all the calls and emails you guys sent out to EWTN - I've been told they got more response for that series than for anything else they've done in a while. So, THANK YOU, you guys are awesome!

3) I've posted a new "Questions Protestants Can't Answer" video on YouTube. The question is from Matthew 6: Do you have to forgive the sins of others in order to get into Heaven? You can view it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fCoOGuJEgA

4) I'll be speaking this Monday night, May 18th, at St. Philip's in Huffman, Texas (northeast of Houston). The talk starts at 6:30 PM. I'll be talking about bringing folks back into the Catholic Church. If you live in the area, I'd love to see you there!

Introduction

No response from the young atheist that the last couple of newsletters dealt with. So, I'm going in a different direction this week. Several years ago, I began a series of debates with a preacher from the Campbellite Church of Christ named Pat Donahue. I call it the Campbellite Church of Christ because it grew out of what is know as the "Restoration Movement" in the mid-1800's, and two of the prominent leaders of that movement were Thomas Campbell and his son Alexander. The movement wanted to restore "original Christianity" as opposed to the denominational Protestant Christianity they had grown up in. Mr. Donahue preaches at some church in Huntsville, Alabama - the city I grew up in. We debated three different topics - Infant Baptism, Sola Scriptura, and the Eucharist - in a few different cities over the course of a few years. I stopped debating him because I grew tired of what I first thought was his ignorance of Catholic teaching and practice, and then of what I came to believe to be his deliberate and underhanded mischaracterization of Catholic teaching and practice. With all the various and sundry things I have going on in my life, time is too precious to me to waste it debating with people who I believe to be dishonest and duplicitous.

Mr. Donahue, however, being a very persistent person, has kept emailing me over the last few years, wanting to debate again. I have refused. He has learned from me, however, and has started his own little apologetics email that he sends out every so often. He even added me to his list of subscribers. So, I added him to mine. Every so often he will respond to one of my newsletters. I generally ignore his newsletter and his comments about my newsletter. However, I did respond to something he sent a few weeks back, and I wish to share with you the exchange so as to point out something that you need to keep in mind as you debate/dialogue/discuss/argue/defend the Faith with others. Mr. Donahue does something very subtle, but very dishonest, in his responses to me - which is essentially what he would do when we debated. I'll let you see if you can pick up on it before I tell you about it.

So, I'm going to share our exchange with you and then I'm going to do a little comparison between the Catholic Church of Christ and the Campbellite Church of Christ, and let you decide which one is the REAL Church of Christ...which one gets us back to "original Christianity." The exchange starts off with one of his newsletters and goes from there...

Challenge/Response/Strategy

Patrick Donahue

Romans 6:4a reads “Therefore we are buried with him by baptism.” We all know what “buried” means, so that should tell us about how a person should be baptized – by sprinkling or immersion.

And notice the meaning of the Greek word “baptizo”: to immerge, submerge (Thayer); to immerse (Wigram-Green)

Now read how Catholics admit they changed the mode of baptism from immersion to pouring:

Baptism used to be given by placing the person to be baptized completely in the water: it was done in this way in the Catholic Church for 1200 years. (Adult Catechism, pg.56-57)

The church at one time practiced immersion. This was up to the thirteenth century. The Council of Ravenna, in 1311, changed the form from immersion to pouring. (Our Faith and the Facts, p.399)

Baptism took place by immersion in ancient times. (New Interpretation of the Mass, p.120, Borgmann)

Furthermore, the Catholic Church admits about itself: … if it be not identical in belief, in government etc., with the primitive Church, then it is not the Church of Christ (Catholic Facts, p.27, Noll). So the Catholic Church admits they are not identical with the primitive church, and therefore not the church of Christ.

Conclusion: How can the Catholic Church be authoritative, if its teaching changes?

John Martignoni

2 problems with your email, Pat:

1) What on earth does sprinkling have to do with being buried?

2) There was no such thing as the "Council of Ravenna" - in 1311 or any other year for that matter. Is it right for a Christian to knowingly spread lies about other people's faith?

Comments

Okay, we're not yet to the really duplicitous part - I'll let you know when we get there - but what he is doing here is rather duplicitous nonetheless. First of all, please notice that he is equating anything written by a Catholic as THE teaching of the Catholic Church. He mentions four books - "Adult Catechism," "Our Faith and the Facts," "New Interpretation of the Mass," and "Catholic Facts" - as if he thinks everything these books say is dogma or some such for Catholics. I have told him on numerous occasions in the past, that just because something is written by a Catholic, that does not mean it is THE official teaching of the Catholic Church. In one of our debates, I even walked over to him and gave him - to keep - my Catechism, because of how badly he was misrepresenting Catholic teaching in the debate. The Catholics in the audience were groaning each time he would say, "The Catholic Church teaches..." because he was so offbase. It really was pathetic. Yet, he still apparently refuses to read it and learn from it and continues to do the same thing he has always done, in spite of my correcting him on it. He even states, "The Catholic Church admits about itself..." and then quotes from a book called "Catholic Facts," which is not a magisterial document. So, he is presenting sources as magisterial sources, and they are nothing of the kind, and he has been told that he is in error on this, but apparently does not care. That's his first act of duplicity.

His second act of duplicity is that he is presenting the Church as going from baptizing by immersion to baptizing by pouring because of this "Council of Ravenna" in 1311. And, the way he is presenting it seems like it was an all or nothing type of change, right? Well, he is selectively quoting from this book. Maybe he thinks that because the book was published in 1922 that I wouldn't know he was selectively quoting from it. Or, more likely, he relied on a source that selectively quoted the book and he did not do his homework to get the full context of the quote. You see, on that very same page where the book states that this so-called Council of Ravenna changed the form of baptism from immersion to pouring - in fact, in the very next sentence - it states, "It is well known, however, that the Church had good reason for doing this, that she had the power to legislate on the matter, and that immersion was not the only accepted form of Baptism up to the time of its change. Three forms, pouring, sprinkling, and immersion were practiced previous to 1311, though immersion was the more usual." In other words, this book did not claim that the Church actually made a complete change in the form of Baptism, as Mr. Donahue was wanting you to believe, it simply stated that the Church changed its emphasis on which form of Baptism to use the most often. So, either Mr. Donahue is deliberately mischaracterizing and misrepresenting what this book actually said, or he is ignorantly passing along mischaracterizations and misrepresentations of what this book actually said. I know what I believe on that count, however, you may feel free to give Mr. Donahue the benefit of the doubt if you so desire. Either way, though, he has no excuse - he's either deliberately distorting the truth (lying), or he's being lazy.

We'll get into the so-called Council of Ravenna here in just a minute...

Pat Donahue

To bury someone in baptism, you would have to put them all the way under the water (immerse them). So sprinkling would NOT be unscriptural.

“Our Faith And The Facts” is a Catholic book, right?

Found this on a Catholic site just now (http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=164215): "There was actually a Council of Ravenna in the 14th century under the primacy of Rynaldus the archbishop assisted by 5 (1311) then by 6 (1314) bishops [suffrangans]. In 1917 another one linked to it and also known as the Council of Bologna (8 suffrangans) was held under the primacy of the same archbishop."

John Martignoni

Sorry, but sprinkling does not "immerse" someone. You get sprinkled, not immersed. You have water sprinkled on you - a few drops get on various parts of your body - it does not cover your whole body, it is not like being buried. And I have no idea whether "Our Faith and the Facts" is a Catholic book or not [I had not looked it up at the time]. However, I do know that it is not a book issued by the Magisterium of the Church and therefore has no weight and no authority whatsoever when it comes to Catholic belief and practice.

Furthermore, to highlight how little you know about the Catholic Church, a "council" is something that involves Bishops from around the world. A meeting of 5 or 6 bishops is not a council and it also holds no weight and authority for the universal Church whatsoever when it comes to matters of faith and morals. For a "council" to be a "council" - one that has authority for the whole Church - it has to be attended by a number of Bishops from around the world, and it has to be approved by the Pope! So, again, there was no Council of Ravenna, in 1311 or 1313 or any other time in recorded history.

If you are truly interested in the truth about Christian practices, which I do not believe you are, then why don't you read a book called, "The Didache"? You can find it online here: http://newadvent.org/fathers/0714.htm, check out Chapter 7 (while you're at newadvent.org, maybe you'll read some of the writings of the Church Fathers and see how thoroughly Catholic they were). The Didache is the earliest known Catholic Christian writing outside of the Bible - written as early as possibly 70 A.D. - and it gives a picture of early Christian practices. And, guess what, it states that pouring is an acceptable means of Baptism. Are you going to report on that to your email list? No, of course you won't, because that would run contrary to what you have already stated about Catholic practices regarding Baptism, and we can't have you look like you don't know what you're talking about, now can we?

The truth is, Pat, I stopped debating you because I found you to be dishonest - not simply ignorant - when it comes to telling people about what Catholics believe and why we believe it. And I simply refuse to debate someone who is willing to lie about other people's faiths in order to make their faith look good. If you want to prove me wrong, then send out an email to your list reporting what I've said here.

Comments

Okay, notice that not only is he investing magisterial authority in books written by Catholics, but now he is investing magisterial authority in Catholic websites. What he has done here, though, is tell me exactly what I knew to be true. He has done no independent research on this "Council of Ravenna" and has no idea if it was an actual council or not, but he doesn't care. That's what really bothers me about his methodology, he doesn't care if he gets what he says right or not, as long as it seems to make his point. And look at the quote he put up from the Catholic website - he has no clue whatsoever what it means. All he cares about is that a Catholic is seemingly confirming (apparently infallibly) that there was indeed a Council of Ravenna. Did the Council actually change, for the entire Church, the mode of Baptism? Not important to him. Does that fact that there were only 6 or 7 bishops at the so-called "Council" mean anything to him? Not at all. In fact, I guarantee that before I responded to him he had no idea that the quote was saying that there were only a few bishops in attendance. Does that fact that nowhere does anyone make a claim that the Pope confirmed the teachings of this "Council" mean anything to him? Are you kidding?!

Folks, this is the kind of shoddy historical "scholarship" you have to constantly be aware of. People are going to put things to you about how the Catholic Church did this or did that, changed this or changed that, and you need to constantly reply: "Give me a source for your information that I can read it for myself." And then check out that source because I can pretty much guarantee you that it is either an anti-Catholic source (bigoted), or not really a "source," but rather someone simply making a claim without any real backup, or, when read in context, it doesn't really say what they claim it says - as we have seen here.

I'll address the "sprinkling" issue in just a minute...

Pat Donahue

John,

That’s exactly my point that “sprinkling does not ‘immerse’ some one. You get sprinkled, not immersed.” So sprinkling is not scriptural, and neither is pouring either.

council – (Dictionary.com) an assembly of persons summoned or convened for consultation, deliberation, or advice.

Adult Catechism, Our Faith and the Facts, New Interpretation of the Mass, Catholic Facts are all Catholic books.

You would want to debate me if you really thought you had the truth and could prove it (John 3:19-21). If you thought I was right, there would be no reason to debate me.

"The Didache" is not the Bible (God’s word) so it carries no weight.

You say below “The truth is, Pat, I stopped debating you because I found you to be dishonest.” But you have always told me before it was because you didn’t have the time. For example on Feb 15, 2013, you wrote regarding my suggestion of a possible at “St. Peter the Apostle parish”: “Pat, if my life ever slows down I might be able to do some debates again, but as it is, I am working 5 jobs right now, and simply do not see anytime in the near future when I could fit in a debate. Right now I'm trying to simplify the madness, not add to it...” On July 2, 2012 you wrote: “the thing is, I really don't see myself having room for any debates into the foreseeable future - working 4 different jobs is keeping me pretty busy and I'm away from my family plenty as it is.”

Which time did you tell the truth about why you won’t debate me?

By the way, why was Michael the archangel willing to debate the devil (Jude 9)? Was it because he thought the devil was honest?

In Christian love,

Pat

Comments

Okay, this is where Mr. Donahue was at his most duplicitous. Can you hone in on exactly what he did that is about as hypocritical and dishonest as you can get? Keep reading and I'll point it out below...

John Martignoni

Pat,

Your words are in italics:

***That’s exactly my point that “sprinkling does not ‘immerse’ some one. You get sprinkled, not immersed.” So sprinkling is not scriptural, and neither is pouring either.***

Okay, in your very 1st email to me - in your newsletter that you send out - you stated: "We all know what 'buried' means, so that should tell us about how a person should be baptized – by sprinkling or immersion." Two forms of Baptism that you claim are acceptable - sprinkling and immersion. After I pointed out to you that sprinkling can in no way be compared to being buried, you stated the following in a follow-up email: "To bury someone in baptism, you would have to put them all the way under the water (immerse them). So sprinkling would NOT be unscriptural." If it is "NOT unscriptural," that means it is scriptural, right? Now, in your last email you state: "sprinkling does not ‘immerse’ some one. You get sprinkled, not immersed. So sprinkling is not scriptural, and neither is pouring either." So which is it? Twice you say sprinkling is okay, and now you say it's not. It's pretty difficult to argue with someone who changes their position like that.

***council – (Dictionary.com) an assembly of persons summoned or convened for consultation, deliberation, or advice.***

I don't give a rip what dictionary.com says a council is. A meeting of 6 or 7 bishops does not constitute an authoritative council - it is a regional meeting. My bishop goes to meetings where there are more than 6 or 7 bishops all the time. Twice a year he goes to a meeting where there are a couple of hundred bishops. They are not councils. Furthermore, a council, in order to be authoritative, has to be approved by the Pope. This is yet another example of your willing and deliberate ignorance of the Catholic Church, it's teachings, and its practices. You truly are not interested in a fair and honest representation of what we believe and why we believe it, are you?

***Adult Catechism, Our Faith and the Facts, New Interpretation of the Mass, Catholic Facts are all Catholic books.***

Whether the Adult Catechism, Our Faith and the Facts, New Interpretation of the Mass, and Catholic Facts are all Catholic books or not is irrelevant to every argument being made here. Are they authoritative magisterial documents or not is the proper question? The answer is no. But you don't care about that, do you? No, you don't, because you don't care about representing what Catholics actually believe and teach in a fair and honest manner. Which is why I said you are dishonest.

***You would want to debate me if you really thought you had the truth and could prove it (John 3:19-21). If you thought I was right, there would be no reason to debate me.***

No, Pat, I know I have the truth...but can I "prove" it? Not to someone like you. Just like there are Holocaust deniers no matter how much evidence, or "proof," is put in front of them, there are those like you who will deny the Catholic Church no matter how much evidence is put in front of them. Jesus told His disciples that if a town will not accept their blessing, then to shake the dust of that town off of their sandals. By no longer taking the time to publicly debate you I am shaking the dust of Pat Donahue off of my sandals. A person has to be open to hearing the truth in order for the truth to land on good soil. You are not yet open to the truth...I pray that one day you will be.

***"The Didache" is not the Bible (God’s word) so it carries no weight.***

Now look what you've gone and done, Pat. You've once again been a bit dishonest. You are more than willing to use "Catholic" books that you think say things that back up the point you're making (even though they don't actually do so), but when I reference a Catholic book - the Didache - which shows that you are misrepresenting early Christian teaching and practice, all of a sudden that book is inadmissible as evidence because it's "not the Bible" so it carries no weight. You used books written in the 1920's, to try and show that the Catholic Church changed the form of Baptism from immersion to pouring in the 14th century. Those books aren't the Bible, yet you treat them as if they are somehow authoritative. They speak the truth! So when I give you a Catholic book from the 1st century - the 1st century, Pat...early Christianity...original Christianity - a book that proves your contention about the Catholic Church changing its practice in the 14th century to be dead wrong, what do you say? That book is not the Bible so it carries no authority. Jesus spoke well of you in Matthew 23 - hypocrite! Liar!

Furthermore, in your attempt to show that the Catholic Church changed the mode of Baptism from immersion to pouring in 1311, you cited the book, "Our Faith and the Facts." Why, however, did you not tell the people who receive your newsletter, that "Our Faith and the Facts" actually states that the Catholic Church practiced Baptism by immersion, pouring, and sprinkling from the beginning? And, why did you not tell the people who receive your newsletter, that the Catholic Church still practices Baptism by immersion, pouring, and sprinkling? Why are you telling people the Catholic Church changed how it performs Baptisms, when in fact, it performed Baptisms in all three ways from the beginning and it still performs Baptisms in all three ways? Isn't that dishonest?

***You say below “The truth is, Pat, I stopped debating you because I found you to be dishonest.” But you have always told me before it was because you didn’t have the time. For example on Feb 15, 2013, you wrote regarding my suggestion of a possible at “St. Peter the Apostle parish”: “Pat, if my life ever slows down I might be able to do some debates again, but as it is, I am working 5 jobs right now, and simply do not see anytime in the near future when I could fit in a debate. Right now I'm trying to simplify the madness, not add to it...” On July 2, 2012 you wrote: “the thing is, I really don't see myself having room for any debates into the foreseeable future - working 4 different jobs is keeping me pretty busy and I'm away from my family plenty as it is.” Which time did you tell the truth about why you won't debate me?***

I told the truth each time. I stopped debating you because I do not have the time to fit in a debate with someone who deliberately and willfully, and with apparently malicious intent, distorts the truths about the teachings and practices of the Catholic Faith. Time is too precious of a resource for me to waste on people such as you. If I had nothing else on this earth to do, I might actually take the time to debate you. But I do have better things to do with my time. Now, you might say, "Well, John, you're wasting your time with me right now...so aren't you lying?" No, I'm not wasting my time. I'm using you as a catechetical moment for those who read my newsletter, because all of this is going to be in there. I am letting people see the kind of duplicitous and dishonest behavior they will more than likely run into out there when explaining and defending the Faith. And, teaching them that when they do run into folks like you, it is okay to imitate the Jesus of Matthew 23 and/or it is okay to metaphorically shake the dust of that person or persons from your sandals. So, in the sense of providing a teachable moment, this exchange is indeed of value.

***By the way, why was Michael the archangel willing to debate the devil (Jude 9)? Was it because he thought the devil was honest?***

I have to tell you that I got a chuckle out of your analogy about St. Michael and the devil. You do realize that as you presented it, you are saying you're analogous to the devil, right? Now, let me ask you this about your analogy: Were St. Michael and the devil disputing over doctrine? If not, then your analogy falls a bit short. Furthermore, I challenged you to put my responses to your emails in the newsletter you send out to your folks, but you have not done so. Why not? What are you afraid of them seeing? I have put Campbellite Church of Christers in my newsletter before - several times - and I'm about to do so with you - which means I have no fear of what you say and I have no fear of the 40,000 or so folks who I send the newsletter out to hearing what you have to say. Why are you afraid of the folks on your newsletter list being able to read what I have to say?

Now, Pat, one last thing. I am going to compare your Campbellite Church of Christ with the Catholic Church of Christ and both of them to the Church of Christ of the Bible to see which could truly qualify as the REAL Church of Christ. The Church of Christ of the Bible has the following characteristics:

1) 1st Century Church of Christ: "And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, then healers, helpers, administrators, speakers in various kinds of tongues." (1 Cor 12:28)
Campbellite Church of Christ - No Apostles, no prophets, no workers of miracles, healers, or speakers in various kinds of tongues.
Catholic Church of Christ - Apostles, prophets, workers of miracles, healers, and speakers in various kinds of tongues.

2) 1st Century Church of Christ: Leaders who had the ability to forgive or retain sins: Matthew 9:6-8; John 20:21-23; James 5:14-16
Campbellite Church of Christ: No.
Catholic Church of Christ: Yes.

3) 1st Century Church of Christ: Called a council to discuss and decide disputed doctrinal issues (Acts 15: 1-21)
Campbellite Church of Christ: Never called a council to discuss and decide disputed doctrinal issues.
Catholic Church of Christ: Has called more than 20 councils in the last 2000 years to discuss and decide disputed doctrinal issues.

4) 1st Century Church of Christ: Had the authority to bind and loose matters on earth that would be bound and loosed in Heaven (Matthew 16:19; Matthew 18:18).
Campbellite Church of Christ: No.
Catholic Church of Christ: Yes. Binds and looses disciplines such as priestly celibacy, whether it is okay to baptize via immersion, sprinkling, and pouring; people's sins in Confession; dogmatic statements such as the Immaculate Conception, and so on.

5) 1st Century Church of Christ: Had leaders of whom it could be said: "He who hears you, hears Me, and he who rejects you, rejects Me," (Luke 10:16).
Campbellite Church of Christ: Does not even claim to have such leaders.
Catholic Church of Christ: Does indeed have such leaders - the Pope and the Councils that speak infallibly on behalf of Christ.

6) 1st Century Church of Christ: Had many charismatic gifts of the Spirit (1 Cor 12:4-11)
Campbellite Church of Christ: No charismatic gifts of the Spirit.
Catholic Church of Christ: All the charismatic gifts of the Spirit.

7) 1st Century Church of Christ: Had leaders of the Church who had authority over the entire Church, not just their local church (Acts 15:19-20)
Campbellite Church of Christ: Have leaders who only have authority in their local church.
Catholic Church of Christ: Has leaders who have authority over the entire Church.

8) 1st Century Church of Christ: Held to the traditions as Paul delivered them by word of mouth or in writing. (Acts 2:42; 2 Thes 2:15)
Campbellite Church of Christ: Rejects tradition.
Catholic Church of Christ: Keeps the Sacred Tradition as delivered by the Apostles.

And, finally, Pat...you have yet to answer the question that you could never answer in our debates on Sola Scriptura. I asked you, to give me book, chapter, and verse - from the Bible - that tells me the Gospel of Mark was written by someone named Mark, and that this Mark was indeed inspired by the Holy Spirit in writing that Gospel. The first time I asked you that question, you replied, "It doesn't matter who wrote Mark." Really?! The 2nd time I asked you that question, you replied that we know that Mark wrote Mark and was inspired by the Holy Spirit "because of the witness of the early Christians." When I pointed out to you that "the witness of the early Christians" is what folks call "tradition," you had no response. So, Pat, since you believe that "Scripture is our Sole authority in religion," then using that sole authority, please tell me who wrote the Gospel of Mark and how you know whether or not he was inspired by the Holy Spirit?

Comments

I'll be short in my comments here, as this has gotten a bit long. Just want to point out how he is free to use books that are not the Bible to "prove" his points, but dare I use a book, like the Didache, to show that his arguments are completely bogus, then that book has no authority whatsoever because it's not the Bible. Really?! That is the height of hypocrisy and duplicity. Plus, selectively quoting from "Catholic" books to "prove" his arguments, as I've already pointed out, is more hypocrisy and duplicity. That is something that I have had a lot of folks try to do with me, so be especially careful of that - particularly taking a quote from the Catechism and yanking it completely out of its context to try and make it say something that it does not actually say. I always tell Catholics that most folks who question your faith or attack your faith are doing so out of ignorance, not malice. However, as Mr. Donahue here amply shows, there are those folks who do so not out of ignorance, but out of malice...these are the folks that you really want to have nothing to do with.

Summary

That's it for now on the Campbellite Church of Christ. I definitely expect a response, so I might have one more newsletter on the Campbellites, we'll see. I hope all of you have a great week!

Donations

The Bible Christian Society is a non-profit organization that relies solely on your support to bring the truths of the Catholic Faith to tens of thousands of people throughout the U.S. and all around the world each year. If you would like to help us do what we do, you can donate online at: http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/donations, or send a check to: Bible Christian Society, PO Box 424, Pleasant Grove, AL 35127. Anything you can do is greatly appreciated!