Truth Magazine

By Michael Garrison

Webster defines morals as “relating to, dealing with, or capable of making the distinction between, right and wrong in conduct.” An article by David Schoenbrun in Parade Magazine (Dec. 6, 1987) contrasted life in the 1950s and life in the 1980s. Some of the statistics Mr. Schoenbrun reports were most interesting and point out a difference, I think, in the morality of the ’50s and the ’80s. (Note: Quotes and statistics quoted in this article are used by permission of Parade, copyright 1987, m1g.)

For example: Mr. Schoenbrun points out that births out-side of the marriage relationship in the 1980s account for 22 percent of births! On the other hand, births outside the marriage in the ’50s was only 4.5 percent! This shows a huge difference. The reason? The morals of the ’50s were more in line with the Bible and the morals now are in line with humanistic ideas.

The Bible teaches, “Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge” (Heb. 13:4). This is what most people in the ’50s believed and followed. Now, most people follow another “Moral” code. This code says, “. . . neither do we wish to prohibit, by law or social sanction, sexual behavior between consenting adults. The many varieties of sexual exploration should not in themselves be considered ‘evil'” (Humanist Manifesto II, p. 18.) Actually, this is an immoral code, because it does not recognize any sexual activities as “wrong” or “evil.” No wonder the ’80s see so many births outside of marriage. When the moral code God has given is rejected, anything goes!

Mr. Schoenbrun also points out a difference in the divorce rate in the ’50s and the ’80s. The divorce rate in 1984 was 5 per 1000 people. But, in 1957, it was 2.2 per 1000. Why? Again, the moral ideas of people have changed. Most people in the 1950s recognized, “For the Lord . . . hateth putting away” (Mal. 2:16). They also believed that “Whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery” (Matt. 5:32). The humanist code, not recognizing right and wrong says, “In the area of sexuality, we believe that intolerant attitudes, often cultivated by orthodox religions and puritanical cultures, unduly repress sexual conduct. The right to . . . divorce should be recognized” (Humanist Manifesto II, p. 18). This reminds me of Judges 17:6: “In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.” This is what happens when God’s moral standard is left behind and people do what they want to. The more humanism had made headway, the more wrong and immoral conduct has been seen.

Mr. Schoenbrun also points out that in 1986, most professional jobs were held by women, whereas in 1957, only 35 percent of women had out-of-the-home jobs. Why? Most women in the ’50s were taught God’s truth, that they are “to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, keepers (or workers) at home, good, obedient to their own husbands” – then note this – “that the word of God be not blasphemed” (Tit. 2:4-5). When this God-given moral code was rejected, women began leaving their God given roles and followed their own desires. After all, don’t they have to help pay for all the luxuries (not necessities) this present world offers? After all, the Humanist Manifesto Il says they believe “. . . individuals should be permitted to . . . pursue their lifestyle as they desire” (p. 18). This leaves God and his moral standard out of the picture! Then their children come home from school to an empty house and have no supervision for hours to do what they want to do and later on, once the children have gotten into some trouble or been caught with various drugs, the parents will ask, “Where did we go wrong? Didn’t we provide everything they needed?” All but love and care as God directs in his Word!

A little – very little – progress is being made by researchers on AIDS. As AIDS spreads from the homosexual community to heterosexuals, it’s ironic that the old-fashioned virtue of sex with a permanent partner, the standard of the Eisenhower times, is now regarded as the principal protection against the scourge. To be moral, to be monogamous, is now the greatest defense against the new plague. That monogamy seems like a new idea is an indication of how our notions of the family have changed since the ’50s.

Yes, in many ways, the 1950s were better than the 1980s because the highest moral code ever given to man was followed by a majority of the people. That did not make it right, but when it was followed, it made a better world in which to live! Let us ever follow that moral, code given by God – by so doing we will have the best life here on earth and prepare ourselves for that world to come in which nothing immoral can enter.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 8, p. 229
April 21, 1988

By Earl Kimbrough

The alluring new Florida state lottery arrived recently with inflated fanfare. The media proclaimed it in banner headlines and pictured eager players panting like puppies expecting a bowl full of Kibbles and Bits. The first million dollar winner (a member of the church) was duly christened in a televised ceremony. All of which only shows that gambling fever is running high here, as elsewhere across the land. We may have about as much chance of cooling it down as of being an instant millionaire. But gambling is wrong in every way and sensible people, especially those led by God’s word, will have no part in it.

1. Gambling Is Wrong Economically. The St. Petersburg Times said, “The people who govern this state will try to separate you from your money in a game of chance that affords you virtually no chance. . . . You invest $1 in a lottery ticket, in hopes of winning $1 million. Your odds are one in a million, right? Wrong. Try one in 125 million. . . . For a realistic return on risk, the lottery is a farce. You are 250 times more likely to be hit by lightning.” While all gambling is a losing proposition (except for entrepreneurs), the lottery is probably the most economically depressing. It hurts most those who can least afford it. The Tampa Tribune reports that lower-income areas are apparently buying more tickets than the more affluent neighborhoods.

Even for winners, the economics are on the down side. Small winnings are squandered on more chances. And few who win big can wisely handle the windfall. Studies show that for most the golden goose soon dies and the visions of sugar plums that lured them to the lottery soon vanish in the thin air of infectious greed. A local family who won big in another state lives in a mansion it can hardly pay the taxes on.

2. Gambling Is Wrong Socially. It adversely alters the behavior of people in their dealings with one another. This is seen more in the fruit of gambling than in the act itself. It primarily preys on the foolish. John Dryden, the English poet, said,”Bets, at the first were fool-traps, where the wise, like spiders, lay in ambush for the flies.” The social ills of gambling are known to those who study it. After investigating national crime, Senator Estes Kefauver said, “Pages could be filled with examples heard by the (senate) committee of the old, familiar story of how fine citizens and family men became paupers, embezzlers, and worse because of the enticements of the gambling tables” (Crime in America, p. 125).

Gambling robs families of life’s necessities. It wastes time, money, and energy. It spawns crime. It gives false hope to the hard-pressed. Many who cannot pay the bills spend money on games of chance. “Gambling is a kind of tacit confession that those engaged therein do, in general, exceed the bounds of their respective fortunes” (Sir William Blackstone). Testifying for the State Gaming Commission before a senate committee in 1984, Gerard Fulcher said sixty-five percent of the lottery machines in Delaware are located near “the lowest socioeconomic group . . . and lest they forget what they are supposed to do with those machines, we found a doubling of advertising by the State lottery on the day the welfare checks arrive” (Gambling, Crime or Recreation, p. 83).

3. Gambling Is Wrong Morally. This moves the matter from the level of waste and folly to that of truth and right. “Moral” implies “conformity with the generally accepted standards of goodness or rightness in conduct and character.” With Christians, God’s word is the measure, rather than community attitudes. But many in the world see gambling as immoral. George Washington said, “Gambling is the child of avarice, the brother of iniquity, and the father of mischief.” Even the board of the National Council of Churches in 1951 reaffirmed its “vigorous opposition to all gambling as an insidious menace both to personal character and social morality.”

One moral evil of gambling is its enslaving nature. If otherwise harmless, the gambler still runs the risk of addiction. It can get a strangle hold on him. “Gamblers gamble as lovers love, as drunkards drink, inevitably, blindly, under the dictates of an irresistible force” (Horace Levinson, The Science of Chance, p. 26). Senator Kefauver said, “The fascination of gambling to many people is so strong, in my opinion, it would be complete folly to make the facilities more available than they are.” Nearly two thousand years before, Horace penned these lines in Rome: “Curst is the wretch enslaved to such a vice, who ventures life and soul upon the dice.” No one, certainly no Christian, should “chance” such a demoralizing bondage (see 1 Cor. 9:27).

But some say, “I only bet what I can afford to lose.” Or, “I gamble not for gain, but for sport.” This is like the apology for social drinking. Ben Franklin was moved to say, “Keep flax from fire, and youth from gaming (gambling).” What assurance does a gambler have that his “sport” will not lead to his child’s addiction? What assurance that it will not encourage the weak to get caught in its snare (see Rom. 14:21)? The member who gambles puts the church in an unfavorable light before those of the world who know what gambling is. He also weakens the church’s voice against worldliness of all kinds (see Rom. 2:21-24); and it is weak enough already.

4. Gambling Is Wrong Spiritually. It violates God’s will regarding material gain. There are five acceptable ways to obtain the world’s goods: work (1 Tim. 5:18), selling or exchanging value for value (Acts 5:1,4), business profit (Jas. 4:13), gifts (Acts 20:35), and inheritance (2 Cor. 12:14). Gambling is none of these. It seeks to profit at another’s expense without giving anything in return. This is true of all gambling. None wins except from another’s loss. The fact that losers are willing to risk the loss, or pool the wager to minimize it, does not lesson the evil intent of all involved.

The main cause of gambling is covetousness (Rom. 13:9). This is “greed for something another person rightfully possesses.” The word has elements of both envy and greed. The whole gambling industry rests on this sin. Richard Whately, author of Lessons on Morals, is correct in saying, “All gambling, since it implies a desire to profit at the expense of others, involves a breech of the tenth commandment. ” Christians aspire to higher motives of conduct (Col. 3:6).

The fact that every facet of gambling is wrong should be enough to cool the temptation that sometimes runs high among those, including some brethren, who dream too much about an effortless route to easy street.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 8, pp. 225, 247
April 21, 1988

By Steve Dewhirst

From earliest childhood I recall seeing the venerable name of George W. DeHoff on the cover of Bible class books. Over the years I’ve profited from tracts he’s penned, proclaiming the powerful gospel of Christ. He’s been preaching since the late 1920s. But he has long been associated with the digressive, institutional element, and this time he has just gone too far.

Like many preachers, George DeHoff has been in the “book business” for years, He is a gifted writer and Bible teacher, and DeHoff Publications has published and circulated mountains of books, workbooks, and tracts since 1939. However, longevity doesn’t guarantee soundness. This past November, I received the latest catalog from DeHoff Publications. To my amazement, the cover sported a nativity scene (complete with lambs around the manger) and bore the title Joy To The World Christmas Gift Catalog. I just stared at it for a long time.

Later while thumbing through it, I discovered a number of interesting items for sale. On page 10 is a book called All Paths Lead To Bethlehem, described as “a creative approach to telling the Christmas story.” Also, there’s Christmas, The Annual of Christmas Literature and Art which, among other things, includes “the Christmas activities of the Salvation Army.” Then there is The Christian Family Christmas Book offering “stories, poems, prayers, and carols” and claiming, “All the stories communicate Christian values of love, trust, forgiveness, self-acceptance, and caring.”

Page 12 advertises the Peter Spier’s Advent Calender. The advertisement reads, “Here’s a deluxe advent calendar and holiday table decoration. Depicts the village of Bethlehem and its townspeople engaged in activities typical of the times. The final door of the twenty-five, opens on Christmas day to reveal the birth of baby Jesus.”

Page 27 displays a Christmas stocking bearing the slogan, “Jesus is the heart of Christmas.” A variety of nativity-oriented decorations are shown on page 28. Or, you can order a lapel pin from page 30 that declares, “Jesus is the reason for the season.” The catalog winds up on page 33 with a selection of rock and roll “gospel” albums and videos, in addition to the expected Christmas records.

All of this just proves again the old principle concerning digression: there’s no natural stopping point. No one ever says to himself, “Hey, I’ve digressed far enough!” Indeed, the digressive generally considers himself the epitome of conservative orthodoxy. Certainly this is the case with George DeHoff. Inside the Joy To The World Christmas Gift Catalog was a flyer advertising his books. Beside his picture is a brief biographical sketch which begins, “George W. DeHoff is without a doubt one of the giants of the Restoration Movement.” That goes to prove another old principle: the bigger they are, the harder they fall.

When George DeHoff claims to be a “giant of the Restoration Movement,” I can’t help but wonder, what restoration movement? Surely he can’t be referring to the movement associated with Stone and Campbell in the last century. They tried to run full speed away from sectarian error. DeHoff has run in a complete circle. He’s right back to the position of endorsing the very denominational error he proudly claims to denounce! The only “Restoration Movement” of which George DeHoff is a part, is the movement to restore denominationalism. He and other liberals have been moving in that direction for years, and it’s probably safe to say, they’ve arrived.

I don’t know George DeHoff personally, but I’d guess he really doesn’t believe that “Jesus is the heart of Christ,” or that, “Jesus is the reason for the season.” If fact, I imagine that in nearly 50 years of preaching, he’s delivered a sermon or two on the pagan origin of the Christmas holiday. Certainly DeHoff’s catalog should evoke a hue and cry for consistency, even among his own digressive brethren: what you can’t plug from the pulpit, you shouldn’t plug for profit!

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 8, p. 232
April 21, 1988

By Charles G. Finney

(The following article is reprinted from the Restorer, February 1984. It has been adapted from an article by Charles G. Finney, published July 29,.1875. – DVR)

The design of this, article is to propound several rules, by a steady conformity to any one of which, a man may preach so as not to convert anybody. The Holy Spirit converts souls to Christ by means of truth adapted to that end. It follows that a selfish preacher will not skillfully adapt means to convert souls to Christ, for this is not his end.

Rule 1. Let your supreme motive be to secure your own popularity; then, of course, your preaching will be adapted to that end, and not to convert souls to Christ.

Rule 2. Aim at pleasing, rather than at converting, your hearers. Aim to make your hearers pleased with themselves and pleased with you, and be careful not to wound the feelings of anyone.

Rule 3. Give your sermons the form and substance of a flowing, beautifully written, but never-to-be-remembered essay, so that your hearers will say, “It was a beautiful sermon,” but can give no further account of it.

Rule 4. Be sparing of thought, lest your sermons contain truth enough to convert a soul. Make no distinct points, and take up no disturbing issues with * the consciences of your hearers, lest they remember these issues and become alarmed about their souls.

Rule 5. Avoid preaching doctrines that are offensive to the carnal mind, lest they should say of you as they said of Christ, “This is a hard saying; who can hear it?” and lest you should injure your influence.

Rule 6. Denounce sin in the abstract, but make no allusion to the sins of your present audience. Avoid especially preaching to those who are present. Preach about sinners, and not to them. Say “they” and not “you,” lest anyone should make a personal application of your subject.

Rule 7. Keep the spirituality of God’s holy law, by which is the knowledge of sin, out of sight, lest the sinner should see his lost condition and flee from the wrath to come.

Rule 8. Preach salvation by grace, but ignore the condemned and lost condition of the sinner, lest he should understand what you mean by grace and feel his need of it.

Rule 9. Preach no searching sermons, lest you convict and convert worldly members of your church.

Rule 10. Do not make the impression that God commands your hearers now and here to obey the truth.

Rule 11. Do not make the impression that you expect your hearers to commit themselves upon the spot, and give their hearts to God.

Rule 12. Leave the impression that they are to go away in their sins and consider the matter at their convenience.

Rule 13. Make no appeals to the fears of sinners, but leave the impression that they have no reason to fear.

Rule 14. Make the impression that if God is as good as you are he will send no one to hell.

Rule 15. Preach the. love of God,. bu ignore the holiness of his love that will by no means clear the impenitent sinner.

Rule 16. Try to convert sinners to Christ without producing any uncomfortable convictions of sin.

Rule 17. Flatter the rich so as to-repel the poor, and you will convert none of either class.

Rule 18. Make no disagreeable allusions to the doctrines of self-denial, cross-bearing, and crucifixion to the world, lest you should convict and convert some of your church members.

Rule 19. Do not rebuke the worldly tendencies of the church, lest you should hurt their feelings and finally convert some of them.

Rule 20. Should any express anxiety about their souls, do not probe them by any uncomfortable allusions to their sin and ill desert, but encourage them to assure their perfect safety within the fold.

Rule 21. Preach the love of Christ, not as enlightened benevolence that is holy, just, and sin-hating, but as a sentiment – an involuntary and indiscriminating fondness.

Rule 22. Be sure not to represent religion as a state of loving self-sacrifice for God and souls, but rather as a free and easy state of self-indulgence. By thus doing you will prevent sound? conversions to Christ and will convert your hearers to yourself.

Rule 23. So select your themes and so present them as to attract and flatter the wealthy, self-indulgent, extravagant, pleasure-seeking classes, and you will not convert any of them to the cross-bearing religion of Christ.

Rule 24. Be time-serving or you will endanger your salary; and besides, if you speak out and are faithful you may convert somebody.

Rule 25. Lest your preaching make a saving impression, do not maintain a close walk with God, but rely upon your learning and study.

Rule 26. That your people may not think you in earnest to save their souls and, as a consequence, heed your preaching, encourage worldly expedients to raise money for church purposes.

Rule 27. Do not rebuke extravagance in dress, lest you should uncomfortably impress your vain and worldly church members.

Rule 28. Ridicule solemn earnestness in pulling sinners out of the fire, and recommend, by precept and example, a jovial, fun-loving religion, and sinners will have little respect for your serious preaching.

30:pursuit of it. Make the impression upon sinners that their own safety and happiness is the supreme motive of being religious.

Rule 31. Make little or no impression upon your hearers so that you can repeat your old sermons often without its being noticed.

Rule 32. If your text suggests any alarming thought, pass lightly over it, and by no means dwell upon and enforce it.

Rule 29. Cultivate a fastidious taste in your people by avoiding all disagreeable allusions to the last judgment and final retribution. Treat such uncomfortable doctrines as obsolete and out of place in these days of Christian refinement.

Rule 30. So exhibit religion as to encourage the selfish

Rule 33. Avoid all illustration, repetition, and emphatic sentences that may compel your people to remember what you say.

Rule 34. Avoid all heat and earnestness in your delivery, lest you make the impression that you really believe what you say.

Rule 35. Be tame and timid in presenting the claims of God, as would become you in presenting your own claims.

Rule 36. See that you say nothing that will appear to any of your hearers to mean him or her, unless it be something flattering.

The experience of pieachers who have steadily adhered to the above rules will attest to the soul-destroying efficacy of such a course, and churches whose preachers have steadily conformed to any of these rules can testify that such preaching does not convert souls to Christ. If souls are converted in congregations cursed with such a ministry, it will be by other means than the preaching.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 7, pp. 212-213
April 7, 1988