Truth Magazine

By W. Frank Walton

Listen to the moral resolve of a spiritually-minded person: “I will set no worthless thing before my eyes ” (Psa. 101:3, NASB). To be pure, strong and godly, he will not fix his attention on base, ungodly things. Hear his prayer: “Turn away my eyes from looking at vanity” (119:37). Vanity is “all that is hallow, worthless, and trivial” (H.C. Leupold). We must closely guard our innermost thoughts and desires, for they’re the source of our character (Prov. 4:23). Evil seeks to subtly worm its way into the heart’s fortress, subverting our devotion. We become like what we choose to think about most (23:7).

What do we enjoy thinking about or watching when free to do so? To what is our heart attracted, the spiritual or the carnal (Rom. 8:6)? If our heart is corrupt, we will be corrupt, even if we go through the motions of regular church attendance or the pretense of following Jesus. What do we allow into our minds, which influences our thinking and has eternal consequences?

The Christian’s renewed, transformed mind delights in filling the mind with the pure, positive things of God. “Whatever is true . . . honorable . . . right . . . pure . . . lovely . . . of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, let your mind dwell on these things” (Phil. 4:8). Honestly now, where do today’s soap operas fit in here? Would you like it if I daily dumped a pile of filthy, stinking garbage in your den? Pew! But will you allow the Devil to walk into your mind with his muddy feet and dump moral garbage into your mind? I think the filthy “soaps” should be called General Horseplay, All My Illegitimate Children, The Young and the Worthless, Sins of Our Lives (or Days of Our Lies), As the Stomach Turns, Guiding Light, and One Life to Lust. When a billboard says, “Get Your Daffy Dose of Dallas,” we ought to be alerted to their addictive power. Why do Christians eat up the juicy tidbits of the darker, sinful side of human behavior, delighting in the hedonistic value system of tangled lives and ungodly enterprises? Dee Bowman observed, “We all pretty well show where our interests are by what we talk about. I am disappointed to be in the homes of Christians who know more about . . . soap operas than the work of the Lord” (Christianity Magazine, April 1985, p. 23).

The Originators And Thrust of Soaps

Who writes and produces the shows? Christians who’ll help you grow spiritually? Nope! Public Opinion (January 1983) surveyed 104 of the media’s elite, including many TV script writers and producers. It showed: 93 percent seldom or never attend religious services; 80 percent condone homosexuality; 54 percent condone adultery; 97 percent support women’s unrestricted right to abortion; 45 percent renounce any religious affiliation. “Two out of three (66 percent) believe that TV entertainment should be a major force for social reform,” the report said. “According to television’s creators, they are not in it just for the money. They also seek to move their audience toward their own vision of a good society.” Over 20 million people regularly watched soaps in 1977, which today would be even higher. The report adds, “This group has had a major role in shaping the shows whose themes and stars have become staples of our popular culture.”

In a recent UPI interview, John Conboy, producer of Capitol, proudly proclaimed, “The male viewer has come out of the closet. . . . Kids also are avid soap opera buffs.” The reporter noted Conboy “doesn’t mind using sex in his stories” and that “it’s love that makes the world go ’round and the ratings 90 up.'” One survey found soaps average two sex acts per hour and over 90 percent of them are between unmarried people. The Bible calls it fornication and condemns it to hell because God hates it. Should a Christian enjoy feasting his eyes on what God hates (Prov. 8:13)? A local TV show, PM Magazine, interviewed some soap stars who said, “hopping in and out of bed all the time – it’s downright racy! While not X-rated, its definitely not kiddy hour.”

Soap Opera Digest chronicles the lurid stories of wretched lives, divorce, deceit, ad nauseam. The cover of the June 2, 1987 issue has this titillating come-on: “Murder, Lust, and Love on the Run. . . Preview of the Summer’s Hottest Stories! In the March 11, 1986 issue, the inside back cover has this typical quote: “Adultery is commonplace on soap operas, but our special section, ‘TV’s Most Surprising Adulterers,’ features the most shocking cheaters!” How about this alluring tease about The Colby’s.- “Tracy [Scoggins] and co-star Phillip Brown (Neil Kittridge) steam up the COLBY’S set with their too hot love scenes” (p. 129). A synopsis of General Hospital informs us, “Alan wants to make a weekly appointment for sex…. After two sips of brandy, she heads to his bedroom. The aroused Donely follows. The phrase ‘Smoking in Bed’ acquires new meaning as they drive the mercury through the thermometer” (p. 60).

Do we make heroes and idols out of soap stars? They’re good-looking, well-dressed, suave, lead exciting lives, have plenty of money and the “good life.” Yet these “beautiful people” never need God and seem to lead a fulfilling life without priority placed on the Spirit. Those models of “success” are the opposite of what. a Christian should admire. The above issue of Soap Opera igest had an interview with Shannon Tweed who plays Savannah Wilder on Days of Our Lives. What kind of role model is she? She was a Playboy centerfold and Hugh Hefner’s “lover.” She said if she wanted a baby, she didn’t care if she had it out of wedlock. She wasn’t at all embarrassed posing nude or autographing her centerfold because she only did it for the money (pp. 9-11). Ruth Warrick (Phobebe Wallingford, All My Children) said, “I think sex is glorious…. I probably might have been a quote-unquote bad girl” (p. 127). “I’m so grateful to God, the spirit, whatever you call it that created this incredible playpen for us” (p. 138). How can Christians idolize such godless, irreverent actors?

Critics Other Than “Rabid” Preachers

If soaps are your “sacred cow,” you might think I’ve an ax to grind or this is mere “preacher talk.” But in The National Review (July 26, 1985), Aram Bakshian Jr. wrote “Soap and Sympathy.” He said soaps are a “reliable guide to popular contemporary morals” featuring weekly outbreaks of love, lust, larceny, adultery, deceit, passion, voyeurism and greed such as on ” The Young and the Restless … given the amount of partial nudity it indulges in, might better be called The Young and the7Dressless” (p. 51). He observes “soaps have replaced clan and community gossip. What Cluppies once saw through the keyhole they now see on the TV screen.” He thinks the stories are “trite, tasteless and predictable. . . . Most inmates of contemporary Soapland still make love the old-fashioned way, result being frequent pregnancies, and tangled ones at that. . . . In such a topsy-turvy world, it is a truly wise child that knows its own father.”

He quotes William Raspberry’s observations from the Washington Post. “Since housewives, children, and nitwits are bound to watch rubbishy television of one sort or another anyway, . . . the soaps may be the rubbish of preferences.” Mr. Raspberry believes soaps are filled with “pervasive immorality and too-explicit sex.” In an editorial, Jonathan Yardley of the Washington Post chides parental neglect when their “kiddies came home from school and, with milk and cookies in hand, gazed their way through soap operas not much less explicit than what was once shown in movies thought to be scandalously ‘blue.”‘ Will a Christian be addicted to what is a reflection of modem, ungodly morals, described as “rubbish” featuring “pervasive immorality”?

Elizabeth Joneway wrote “Soaps, Cynicism, and Mind Control” in Ms. (Jan. 1985). She admits “the powerful teaching tool of television” influences our character. She deplored “the lack of any sense … that events have consequences, and that people can and do influence what happens to them and to others. What I saw . . . was a consistent, insistent demonstration of randomness, a statement that life is unpredictable and out of control . . . no one, friend, kin, or lover, is really trustworthy” (p. 118). The Bible teaches we can take full responsibility for our lives. Do you justify their sinful behavior by situation ethics? We rationalize: “Poor Susie has had such a hard life. Chad, her no-good, rotten husband, is so mean and stingy. She deserved that romantic one night stand with Hugo. I’m glad Hugo punched Chad’s lights out when he caught them in bed, after blabbermouth Blanche told him about the affair. Anyway, Chad’s running around with that low-life Dixie, so it serves him right. But I hope Susie doesn’t get too attached to Hugo, since he’s a drug addict, psychopathic killer and now thinking about a sex-change operation. Really, Kyle is just right for Susie. She nursed him back to health at Lonely Hearts Hospital, after he fell out of that 20-story building escaping the police when he smuggled heroin for the Maria. When their eyes met, it was true love! All Kyle has to do is divorce his two wives, Rachel in Slitherville and Ginger in Slimetown. Kyle and Susie will live happily ever after for at least a week, or until they find someone else better.” What a heart-rending scenario!

But Wait, There’s More!

I believe soaps can desensitize us to sin, blurring the boundary of right and wrong. It can warp our priorities and distort our value system and moral standards. Tania Modleski in Loving With A Vengence.- Mass-Produced Fantasiesfor Women terms soaps as “liberal” in portraying life. “And in soap operas what concerned us was … the way it necessarily deviated from the norm in order to appear fulfilling” (p. 112). The soaps alter perception with illusions of reality. “Soap operas invite identification with numerous personalities” (p. 88) and “encourage women to become involved in – ‘connected to’ the lives of the people on the screen” (p. 99).

Since the stories of doom, gloom, tragedy and trauma never end, “the spectator, frustrated by the sense of powerlessness induced by soap operas, will . . . try to control events directly: thousands and thousands of letters [from soap fans to actors] give advice, wam the heroine of impending doom, caution the innocent to beware of nasties (“Can’t you see that your brotherin-law is up to no good?”‘), inform one character of another’s doings, or reprimand a character for unseemly behavior” (p. 91). This “consequent blurring of the boundaries between fantasy and life” is called “psychological fusion” (p. 99). Soaps can grab you, occupy your interests and play with your emotions. The soaps present the typical family as “always in the process of breaking down … it is perpetually in a chaotic state” as “misery becomes . . . the very means of its functioning and perpetuation” (p. 90). Most characters are in trouble, heading for trouble or asking for trouble. This is what addicts folks.

Attitudes of morality, based on Scripture, can be weakened. She says the soaps appeal “to the spectator to be understanding and tolerant of the many evils which go on within that family. . . . As a rule, only those issues which can be tolerated and ultimately pardoned are introduced” such as “abortions, premarital and extra-marital sex, alcoholism, divorce, mental and even physical cruelty” (p. 93). There’s a sordid cycle of people “always getting blackmailed” or “conducting extra-marital affairs” (p. 106).

As an “escapist” form of mass art, it can “offer the image of ‘something better’ to escape into, or something we want deeply that our day-today lives don’t provide. This is the utopian function of entertainment” (p. 112). Such romantic stories can make wives unsatisfied with their present marriage. Soaps can be an outlet for suppressed desires, which are titillating but forbidden as sin. Media professor R. C. Allen observes, “The soap opera becomes the prime example of ‘giving the audience what it wants'” (Speaking of Soap Operas, p. 177). He also says, “The longer the soap opera can maintain the interest of a reader whose own value system is at some distance from that of the implicit central norms of the text, the more likely it is that the reader will tolerate aspects of the text she or he finds . . . insulting” (p. 175). Soaps arouse fleshly desires, directly contradicting God’s standard of holiness. Soaps insult the Christian’s way of life by glamorizing sin. Do you watch soaps because you find what they’re doing exciting, but don’t do it yourself because you could go to hell for it? Do you want to be like the soap opera stars or more like Jesus? Flights of fantasy can only ignite a strong desire for the forbidden fruit of sin.

Guard Your Heart (Prov. 4:23)

The Bible calls us to “say ‘No’ to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age” (Tit. 2:12, NIV). How can you say “no” to worldly desires with your eyes glued to the TV, showing the advertised “hot passion” of a “romp in the sack,” as they flop around in beds of fornication? Some might be more interested in following the soap’s tantalizing plot than studying about the wonderful, life-changing story of the Bible. Where’s the real priority if one delights in and can recite the details of illicit affairs, power plays, deception and hedonistic lifestyles, yet doesn’t hunger daily for the nourishing word of God? “Set your mind on things above, not on the things that are on the earth” (Col. 3:2). Why would one who is looking for that blessed hope want to habitually look at ungodly behavior God abhors and damns to hell? Faithfully watching soaps spoil the appetite of spiritual growth, dividing our interests. It dulls the desire for meditation upon Jesus and heavenly things. Are you pitching your tent toward Sodom?

Are we naive about the influence of soaps? “Foolishness” (Mk. 7:22) defiles our stupidity. ” It is lacking spiritual discernment or being unable to see the long-term consequence of present habits. We shall reap in our character as we have sown in our hearts (Gal. 6:7-9). We’ve “escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust” (2 Pet. 1:4). We shouldn’t have an avid appetite for the filthy refuse of this rotting evil age.

What are you feeding your mind? “Purify your hearts, you double-minded” (Jas. 4:8). We must be decisively single-minded. “But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh in regard to its lust” (Rom. 13:14). We can’t afford in the war against the flesh (I Pet. 2:11), to have a “fudge factor” to tolerate a little sinful desire. Do we think we can just go window shopping for sin? “Each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust” (Jas. 1:14). Soaps can entice and draw out carnal cravings, to attract you to sin’s baited trap. Soaps can subtly seduce you to gradually condone, in certain circumstances, lying, lust, divorce, fornication, etc. The Devil tries to inflame the craving of desire.

The Best Choice

“And the world is passing away, and also its lust; but the one who does the will of God abides forever” (1 Jn. 2:17). Soap operas reflect the glitter of this transient age. We need to focus our attention with a renewed mind to walking in newness of life. Develop a greater appetite for the life-giving, dynamic word (Matt. 4:4). Exercise yourself unto godliness, by seeing the blessings in Christ and the benefits of serving God. Every day is made for the Judgment Day. One day this world and all things therein will be burned up! God is trying to get us ready now to spend eternity with Him in heaven’s bliss. Soaps will hinder you in life’s greatest purpose. Be honest with yourself and think about the evidence presented. “Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness. But according to His promise we are looking for a new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells. Therefore beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless” (2 Pet. 3:11,13-14). Will you turn away your eyes from looking at vanity so you can look unto Jesus and to realms above? You’ll be glad you did.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 18, pp. 564-566
September 17, 1987

By Mike Willis

The morning paper announced that the Indianapolis laity would meet with the Roman Catholic pope during his visit to the United States. Separated in a box for emphasis was this quotation from Valerie Dillon, director for the archdiocese’s Family Life Office: “Lay people are interested in a church that’s honest but still is adapting to a changing culture. ” The quotation pinpoints the conflict between the Papacy and American Catholics. American Catholics include many who are calling for change in the Catholic Church’s stance on birth control, ordination of women, and divorce whereas the Papacy is trying to maintain its doctrinal adherence to historic positions.

The conflict brings to the forefront the issue of how one determines what doctrines and practices shall be accepted by a church. There have been a number of answers given to this question through the years.

The Authority For Roman Catholicism

In Catholic doctrine, the authority for the church has been systematically developed through the centuries. Catholics believe that one determines right and wrong based on these evidences: (a) The Bible as translated in the Latin Vulgate; (b) The Apocryphal Books; (c) The living voice of the church as manifested through the various church councils; (d) Tradition from the fathers as depicted in the writings of the church fathers; (e) The voice of the pope when he speaks ex cathedra. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia contains this expression of the Catholic position:

We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is essential to salvation that every human creature subject himself to the Roman Pontif . . . . The Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra. . . has that infallibility, with which the Divine Redeemer endowed His church, in defining a doctrine of faith and morals. . . . This authority of the pope extends over all questions of knowledge and conduct, of discipline and government in the whole church (p. 338).

Based on this concept, the church has authority to pronounce that eating of meats on Friday is sinful or not sinful and, whatever is decided becomes binding upon every Catholic.

The Protestant Concept of Authority

Expressing the concept of authority which Protestants hold is more difficult because of the greater diversity in Protestantism. Early reformation churches posited authority in the Bible rather than in the pope.

When Protestants sought an external authority, they posited the inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible, and the whole Christian faith was founded upon that dogma. . . . Protestants found it necessary to interpret Scripture, and to define doctrines in synods and councils, but their decisions had authority only because they were supposed to be exposition of Scripture, and in that sense, the expressions of God’s mind (ISBE, p. 339).

Nevertheless in nineteenth century thought, the creed became as authoritative as the Bible.

Gospel preachers opposed the creeds of Protestantism saying, “If a creed contains more than the Bible, it contains too much (1 Cor. 4:6). If it contains less than the Bible, it does not contain enough (Rev. 22:18-19). If the creed contains the same as the Bible it is not needed because we already have the Bible.” Surely fallible man could not expect to speak more plainly than the infallible Bible! Proof that the creeds were no more easily understood than the Bible was evident by the commentaries which were written to explain the creeds. Only the more conservative, fundamental Protestants give much allegiance to creeds today.

The Modernist Concept of Authority

Within the framework of the Protestant denominations a movement grew which denied the inspiration of the Bible. Modernism rejected the miracles of the Bible. (Such a generalization does not take into account those modernists who pick and choose which miracles to reject.) As the modernists rejected the Bible and the papacy as their standard of authority, they were left without a chart or compass to direct their course. Subjectivism ruled. The quest for the historic Jesus resulted in making Jesus in the image of the modernist concepts in vogue at that period of time. The modernists began teaching, “It doesn’t matter what doctrine you believe so long as you believe the gospel.” Soon the “gospel” became too confining, so modernists recognized the validity of the common religious experience of all religions. In the realm of morality, an absolute standard of right and wrong was rejected. The result is a church which must adjust and adapt itself to the culture in which it exists. Such denominations meet to decide by popular vote whether or not to ordain women, homosexuals, etc. Belief and practice depend upon the vote of the latest session of the heirarchy of the denomination.

The Pentecostal Concept of Authority

Early in the twentieth century, the Pentecostal movement blossomed in America. Whereas the Pentecostals can be characterized as “Bible-believing” in contrast to the modernists who deny the inspiration of the Bible, they cannot be described as men who confine the word of God to the Bible. They believe that God speaks directly to man separate and apart from the Bible. The modern Pentecostal preacher relates his experience in which God communicated directly to him, which communication he passes down, as the prophets of the Bible, to the congregation. Oral Roberts has stated that God expressly told him to build the City of Faith hospital. Jim Bakker related that God wanted him to build Heritage, U.S.A. Jimmy Swaggart reveals God’s special word to his audience. None of these men confine God’s word to the Bible. Consequently, Pentecostalism is full of latterday revelations, women preachers, and unique beliefs contrary to the Bible.

A Biblical View of Authority?

Does the Bible direct us in how to determine right and wrong? What is the standard by which the church is to determine morality, dogma, and practice?

The Bible begins with the statement that God is the Lord of all because he is the Creator (Jn. 10:29; 14:28). Even the incarnate Son of God submitted himself to the Father’s will (Jn. 4:34). Consequently, every man must submit himself to the authority God the Creator.

The Father committed all authority to the hands of the resurrected Christ (Matt. 28:18). To him every knee shall bow (Phil. 2:8-9). He is the head over all things to the church (Eph. 1:21-23).

The will of the Lord Jesus Christ was revealed to the apostles and prophets by the Holy Spirit (Jn. 14:26; 16:13). Because they were the instruments through whom the will of God was revealed to men, whatever they bound on earth would be bound in heaven and whatever they loosed on earth would be loosed in heaven (Matt. 16:18; 18:18). The revelation which God gave to men through the apostles and prophets was communicated both orally and in writing. The written word was as much the voice of God speaking to man as was the oral word (1 Cor. 14:37; 2 Thess. 2:15; 3:14). This revelation was completely communicated to man and confirmed by miracles (Mk. 16:20). Through reading the certified word of God, one can know what God wants him to do in order to obtain life and godliness (2 Pet. 1:3-4). The Scriptures are adequate and all-sufficient to reveal God’s will to mankind (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

Conclusion

Consequently, the church looks to the inspired word of God as its standard by which to determine right and wrong. What is approved by God in the Bible is right and what is disapproved by him is wrong. The church is not an organization which should be changed and shaped to fit the mold of the culture in which it lives; rather, the church is to conform itself to the revelation given by God in the Bible. The Bible – not the church Fathers, church councils, papacy, creed book, subjective judgment, or later revelation – is the authority for the church.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 19, pp. 578, 598
October 1, 1987

By Carl Curry

Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common (Acts 2:44).

The above passage portrays a most blissful scene of the early church. This peacefulness was soon to be interrupted by internal commotion and external persecution. This turmoil demanded more than ever that the Christians come together for periods of mutual exhortation.

Do you ever stop and ask yourself why you assemble with Christians? What can you do to make your presence in worship more meaningful for yourself and others? I intend to suggest one determination that you can make which will multiply many fold the benefit you receive from attending Bible studies and other worship assemblies.

How much time does the church spend each week in worship and edification? A time analysis demonstrates that at most the church comes together in a normal week only four hours out of a possible 168. This is less than 2.4 percent of the hours available in a week. Some are only able to take advantage of one of these hours, while others choose to do so. A simple analogy may shed new light on the importance of these hours.

What would you do if your doctor informed you that you have developed a very serious medical disorder? He indicates that there is an effective treatment which if followed precisely will arrest the illness. His treatment plan includes a change in diet; sugar, coffee, salt, and greasy foods are to be eliminated from your diet. A change in your behavior is necessary; you must get at least eight hours of sleep and thirty minutes of exercise everyday. Finally, you must receive three shots a week. He sternly warns that any departure from this treatment plan may result in serious physical problems and possibly premature death.

The assemblies of the saints are analogous to the three shots required each week. There are many teachings of Jesus which combined together form parallels with the change of diet and the modifications in behavior. Jesus has also issued the same warnings as the physician. Failure to comply with his instructions places your spiritual well-being in jeopardy and may cost you eternal life. Assembling with the saints is as necessary to your salvation as is putting on the new man.

What can you do to increase the value you derive from assemblies? For too many saints, worship has been reduced to nothing more than a mental exercise or a psychological game. Like many Athenians they spend their time “in nothing else but either to tell or to hear some new thing” (Acts 17:21). The Greeks boasted of their ability to participate in the lengthy philosophical discussions. They appreciated the intellectual stimulation. Jesus died leaving his last will and testament for much more than a topic for mind games. Although the Greeks were impressed by such, Jesus never reduced himself to that level.

The game proceeds something like this. The preacher rants and raves thoroughly raking those in the assembly over the coals. After letting loose with both barrels, he concludes his address feeling great because he really gave it to them today. The listeners feel good also because they really had it given to them today. Somehow, the ranting and raving exercises all shortcomings out of the speaker and the hearers. Then, all involved gear up to do it again next week.

A major problem with this scenario is that no one has experienced lasting benefits. Even though a biblical lesson may have been presented, it was delivered in the wrong spirit, and the listeners likewise received it in the wrong manner. The whole process was exercised in the mind, and the message never left the pew.

True religion according to the gospel of Christ is not a psychological game. True religion is characterized by action (Jas. 1:27). Jesus intended that his audience would take his message home with them. Certainly, they were to think about it and try it (Acts 17:11), but, as soon as it was established in the heart and mind as the truth, it was to be manifested in the speaking and the doing of the hearer.

The single most important change that you can make in your current practice of worshiping with the saints is to take what you learned and put it to good use in your life. This will change your whole attitude towards worship. You will arrive expecting to learn something that will be of use to you, and you will be amazed at how this expectation can change the entire appearance of the assembly. Your zealousness will have a profound effect on the others in attendance and also will make an impression upon those who witness your changed manner of life. You will be surprised at the response you will receive from your peers.

Now, all of this may sound too good to be true, but it comes with a divine guarantee. “Be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. . . But he who looks into the perfect law of liberty and continues in it, and is not a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work, this one will be blessed in what he does” (Jas. 1:22,25).

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 18, p. 562
September 17, 1987

By Don R. Hastings

Like so many other Americans, I have heard some of the testimony given by Lt. Col. Oliver North. He is answering questions asked by an Iran-Contra Committee. Among other things, these Congressmen are trying to find out what role Mr. North had in supplying military aid to the Nicaraguan rebels.

What I have heard greatly disturbs me. Mr. North has stated that he has lied over and over again in an effort to keep Congress and others from finding out what he was doing. He shredded incriminating documents and fabricated others. In spite of all this deception, he maintains vehemently, “I have done nothing wrong.” He also said, “I want you to know that lying does not come easy to me . . . I think we all had to weigh in the balance the differences between lives and lies.”

Mr. North assured the committee that he was not lying to them because he was under oath. Is it right to lie if you haven’t taken an oath? Is it right to lie to protect others? The answers to both questions is – No!

I have heard people, who knew Mr. North when he was growing up, say that he was an honest boy. What a shame that he has learned to be a very convincing liar. What a shame that he no longer views lying as wrong under many circumstances. What a shame that our government has encouraged him to change his values. What a shame that many Americans would encourage him to keep his present values by telling him how proud they are of him. Haven’t we called “evil good” (Isa. 5:20)?

Many people believe that if you are told to lie by someone in authority over you, then it is not wrong. Even if the President of the United States had told Mr. North to lie, he should have refused. We all must obey a higher authority than man and that is God! We must have the courage to follow the example and belief of the inspired apostles. They said, “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).

Not only does Mr. North think that his lying was justified, so do a lot of Americans. Mr. North showed some of the telegrams he has received which praised him for his work over the last five years. The Bradenton Herald (Friday, July 10, 1987 edition) has in bold print, “Floridians Rallying in Praise of North. ” This is one Floridian who does not praise him.

Someone prepared a sign which read, “Col. North Is A Hero.” If Mr. North is a model for our young people to idolize and imitate, then our nation must consider deception to be honorable. Does this concern, sadden or upset you?

I know of one Christian, who said that if she had been in Mr. North’s place, she would have acted as he did. She justified his lying because she said he was doing it to protect lives. There may be many other Christians who agree with her.

Like Jeremiah, I weep for my nation (Jer. 9:1). I believe that many people, both in and out of the government, are very careless with the truth. How can we trust officials in government when they lie to us and lie again to cover up other lies? How long can a government stand when her foundation is not truth and righteousness, but dishonesty and moral corruption? How long will God spare a nation which praises the things which he abhors? How can children of the Most High praise wickedness?

One of the things that the Bible has impressed upon my mind is that God hates lying! “There are six things which Jehovah hateth; Yea, seven, which are an abomination unto him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue . . . a false witness that uttereth lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren” (Prov. 6:16-19). “Lying lips are an abomination to Jehovah; But they that deal truly are his delight” (Prov. 12:22). Jesus said of the devil, “When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar and the father thereof” (Jn. 8:44). Jesus is “full of grace and truth” (Jn. 1: 14). There was “no guile found in his mouth” (1 Pet. 2:22).

Do you think God’s attitude toward lying has changed? If you do, you are in for a great surprise at the judgment day. “But for the fearful, and unbelieving. . . and all liars, their part shall be in the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone; which is the second death” (Rev. 21:8). Did you notice that “all liars” are going to be in a lake of “fire and brimstone”? That includes those who tell “white lies” and any other kind of a lie. “Without are the dogs, and the sorcerers, and the fornicators, and murderers, and the idolaters, and every one that loveth and maketh a lie” (Rev. 22:15).

Honesty is the best policy because it is God’s policy! Lying destroys our trustworthiness, credibility, faithfulness, respect, reputation, and our soulsl Be not deceived, lying is not honorable. “Righteousness exalteth a nation; But sin is a reproach to any people” (Prov. 13:34). Tell the truth all the time.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 18, p. 558
September 17, 1987