Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

(On 20 May 1985, Attorney General Edwin Meese III announced the formation of a Commission on Pornography to “determine the nature, extent, and impact on society of pornography in the United States, and to make specific recommendations to the Attorney General concerning more effective ways in which the spread of pornography could be contained, consistent with constitutional guarantees.” The Commission finished its work in the latter part of July. The report is now readily available in a 571-page paperback book entitled Final Report of the Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography which is available through our bookstore at $9.95 (plus postage and handling).

The book is not pleasant reading or recommended for everyone. Indeed its cover contains a warning stating, “Contains extremely explicit content. While the Final Report of the Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography must be made available, the report does describe and quote from material sold in adult book stores which will be offensive to most individuals. This book should not be purchased or read by minors.” With that warning, I am in agreement. I examined the book and want to call attention to several pertinent points from its contents.

How Extensive Is The Problem?

The Commission surveyed six major cities (Washington, D.C., Baltimore, MD; Miami, FL; Philadelphia, PA; New York, NY; and Boston, MA). They randomly selected sixteen “adults only” outlets and found 2,325 separate magazine titles, 725 books titles, 2,370 film titles. Needless to say, pornography is big business, bringing in millions, if not billions, every year. Monthly sales of the ten top selling sexually explicit magazines range from a high of 4,209,825 copies for Playboy to a low of 185,532 copies for Club International (figures given for 1984).’ The top ten magazines average selling 10,617,482 copies per month. These figures not only demonstrate the fact that pornography is big business, they also mirror the moral deterioration in our society.

The Commission Concluded That Pornography Is Harmful

A 1970 Commission on Pornography has frequently been quoted which denied that pornography was harmful; needless to say it has been used by pornographers in defense of their right to sell pornography. Yet this Commission voted unanimously to state: “We believe that an increase in aggressive behavior toward women will in a population increase the incidence of sexual violence in that population, we have reached the conclusion unanimously and confidently, that the available evidence strongly supports the hypothesis that substantial exposure to sexually violent materials as described here bears a causal relationship to antisocial acts of sexual violence, and for some subgroups, possibly unlawful acts of sexual violence” (cf. P. xiv).

In addition to this summary statement, the Commission found that “a disproportionate number of sex offenders were found to have large quantities of pornographic material in their residences. . . . There is a correlation between pornographic material and sex offenders” (p. xv). A former prostitute said, “We were all introduced to prostitution through pornography. There were no exceptions in our group, and we were all under eighteen. Pornography was our textbook. We learned the tricks of the trade by men exposing us to pornography and us trying to mimic what we saw” (p.xv).

The Report also adds, “It is far from implausible to hypothesize that materials depicting sexual activity without marriage, love, commitment or affection bear some causal relationship to sexual activity without marriage, love, commitment or affection. There are undoubtedly many causes for what used to be called the ‘sexual revolution,’ but it is absurd to suppose that depictions or descriptions of uncommitted sexuality were not among these” (p. xx).

Lack of Law Enforcement

Repeatedly the Supreme Court has affirmed that “obscene material is unprotected by the First Amendment” (p. xii). The Commission wrote,

If the laws on the books are sufficient, then what explains the lack of effective enforcement of obscenity laws throughout most parts of the country? The evidence is unquestionable that with few exceptions the obscenity laws that are on the books go unenforced. . . . From January 1, 1978, to February 27, 1986, a total of only one hundred individuals were indicted for violation of the federal obscenity laws, and of the one hundred indicted seventy-one were convicted (p. 53).

There was not one single federal indictment against adult pornographers in all of 1983! There were only six in 1982, but four of them were brought by a single prosecutor in Kentucky.

The Commission says it is “dismayed at the unwillingness of the states to assume the bulk of the responsibility for enforcement of the criminal law” (p. xxi).

Pornography and Organized Crime

“The Commission frankly states, ‘Organized crime families from Chicago, New York, New Jersey, and Florida are openly controlling and directing the major pornography operations in Los Angeles,’ where most films and videos are made. Los Angeles Police Chief Daryl Gates told the Commission, ‘organized crime infiltrated the pornography industry in Los Angeles in 1969 due to the lucrative financial benefits. By 1975, organized crime controlled 80 percent of the industry and it is estimated that this figure is between 85-90 percent today'” (p. xxii).

Reaction To The Report

Because of the findings of these reports, negative reactions from pornographers and liberal political organizations were expected. The American Civil Liberties Union called it “censorship . . . a national crusade against dirty pictures. “

Surprising to some was the way in which the Commission and Report were treated by the established news media. Michael J. McManus, a syndicated columnist, wrote the “Introduction” for the report. He covered the Commission’s meetings in New York, NY, Scottsdale, AZ, and Washington, D.C. He was one of the few journalists who followed the proceedings in depth. He wrote,

Frankly, I was shocked to discover that almost the only people I saw at all three sessions were writers for Playboy, Penthouse, and Forum magazines and representatives of the ACLU. The TV networks only showed up to hear a few victims’ lurid testimony. Where were the newsmagazines, the Associated Press, or The New York Times? They were all absent, except for token appearances. . . . On the day the Report was released, NBC-TV had only three sentences on the conclusions of the 1960-page Report, plus one sentence each from Mee and the Commission’s directors. Compared to those rive sentences, three critics, including Christie Hefner of Playboy, each had 4-5 sentences of dissent. . . . It saddens me, as a former Time magazine correspondent, to say it was clear to me that Time’s July 21, 1986 cover story “Sex Busters,” was written by someone who had not read more than excerpts of the Report (p. x).

Later McManus reported that $900,000 was paid to a public relations firm in Washington to undermine the report. He said, “What is frightening to me as a journalist is that the public relations campaign. . . is working (p. xlvi). As evidence of that he wrote,

And when the leaders of denominations representing 150 million Americans stood on the steps of St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York City on July 25, 1986 and endorsed the Commission’s top priorities to focus on hard core, sexually violent and degrading pornography and child pornography, they did not get thirty seconds on the evening news of ABC-TV, NBC-TV, or CBS-TV, nor one paragraph in the three newsmagazines (p. xlvi).

Difficulty was even had in getting the Report published. Those book publishers who generally are interested in such reports, shied away from publishing this report, even when one publisher was guaranteed 100,000 copies in advance sales. As a result, the relatively small Rutledge Hill Press in Nashville, TN is the publisher of the Report.

Conclusion

We who are Christians find pornography not only to be a blight on our society but a sin before God. Although this study does not examine biblical teachings which condemn the use of pornography, it does contain many relevant statistics and other pieces of information to help in one’s preaching on this subject. Consequently, I wanted to acquaint our readers with this report and advise them of its availability.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 5, pp. 130, 138
March 5, 1987

By Bruce James

On Sunday morning, December 28, 1986, at age 55, Billy J. James slipped peacefully into that rest remaining for God’s people (Heb. 4:9). He had been seriously ill for several days and had fought a hard battle with cancer until finally being overcome. He had fought another battle with cancer fifteen years before, and, with God’s help won. Many times I think of how God answered good king Hezekiah’s prayer and how He answered prayer for Bill. Each time I face the grim fact of death, I realize more than ever that “this world is not my home, I’m just passing through.” But I want to do more than think of death at this time. I want to pay tribute to my uncle, brother and true friend, Billy J. James, with the hope that his example will help us all to see more clearly the true meaning of life.

Bill was a good husband and father. He loved and cared about his family deeply. He gave them everything he knew to give, especially the knowledge and example to do what’s right. Many homes lack that kind of consideration today. Bill saw the need and he filled it. Bill taught me how to love the truth – by standing up for it. He began preaching in 1955 on the south side of Chicago where a handful of courageous people of God began the task of establishing a faithful church in that area in an old store front. It wasn’t anything for our worship to be disrupted by hollering in the doors, banging on the windows, and even rotten tomatoes or eggs thrown in the windows. This did not stop the church from growing. In fact, it helped all of us in our stand. It wasn’t too long after that, that Bill got the opportunity to preach at 410 S. Michigan in Chicago. As he continued to study he was given the opportunity to move to Burbank, Illinois where he labored from 1960 to 1963. From there he and Flossie, his first wife moved to Beaver Dam, Kentucky. In 1966, they moved to, Louisville, where he worked with the West End and Eastside churches. While at Eastside, he was asked to work with the good church in Paragould, Arkansas at 2nd and Walnut. He worked with the church there for eight years at which time (1976) he was given the opportunity to move to Grenada, Mississippi. In 1980, he was asked to serve as one of the elders of that local church, an evidence of the high esteem the brethren had for him there. There he stayed until his death. For 31 years Bill preached the gospel, fought error, stood for and with Jesus Christ. You would never find Bill on the sidelines. He was always. studying, asking questions, discussing the truth with “whosoever will.” He had a keen mind and used it properly. He had no use for fence-straddlers because they have never helped the cause of Christ. While in’the hospital at Memphis, he told me of is love for my dad and mom and that he didn’t ever want to quit preaching the word. He had set the example on being one that “finished the course.”

Bill taught me how to face hardships without becoming bitter or soured on the world. His first bout with cancer was while in Paragould, Arkansas. The doctors didn’t give him much hope to live but he faced the odds and, with the help of God and family, he overcame them. During this time, his first wife, Flossie (who was the reason he became a Christian) developed complications with her heart from an early childhood disease, and after a series of strokes over a period of 18 months, passed from this life at the age of 40. On that Wednesday evening, after making preparations for her funeral, he left for the church building to teach the Wednesday Bible class. Bill, with the help of his daughters, Sharon and Denise, and his son, Billy, continued on. While in a gospel meeting in Illinois, he met Kathy Boyle, the daughter of Carmel and Marcine, one of the elders of the church. Kathy and Bill married in 1975 and had two children: Stacy (10) and Adam (6). They loved one another deeply and their goals were the same. In the summer of 1986, tumors on the brain and lung were discovered. While going through the difficult treatments of chemotherapy he received a letter from his insurance company cancelling his policy. Being one who was more than concerned with paying his debts, this seemed to have a devastating effect on his ever recovering, and finally he passed away. But even in death there were no ugly scars on his soul. He knew how to take the bitter with the sweet, how to adjust in difficult circumstances. He was a man of character. In fact, the greatest tribute that I could ever pay to Bill and men like him, is in simply saying he was a good man at home, in the church and in the community. He was a leader, not a follower, except of Jesus Christ.

Funeral services were held in Paragould, Arkansas and his body was laid to rest in Kennett, Missouri. A memorial service was also held in Grenada, Mississippi.

(Note: Bill’s wife, Kathy, is le t with a $12, 000 medical bill, not to speak of the needs of the family for the future. The church in Grenada has shown a supreme example of love and benevolence to them by continuing their support. Other brethren have sent help in their relief. If you can help in,any way, she can be contacted thru the elders at the following address. Church of Christ, 175 Van Dorn St., Grenada, MS 38901.)

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 4, p. 115
February 19, 1987

By Irvin Himmel

Where there is no vision, the people perish: but he that keepeth the law, happy is he (Prov. 29:18).

The first part of this proverb is quoted frequently and pretty generally misapplied.

Vision

The “vision” under consideration is not an object of imaginative contemplation or foresight. Sometimes when a preacher is trying to awaken brethren to the need for looking ahead, planning wisely, and showing some power of discernment, he reminds them that where there is no vision, the people perish. Admittedly, we need foresight and insight; we need to look ahead and think ahead; we need to try to envision what can be done by determination and faith.

However, the “vision” of this passage is divine revelation. The Hebrew word is chazon, meaning “vision, night-vision, or dream; prophetic vision; oracle or prophecy” (Wilson’s 0. T. Word Studies). It is synonymous with the word of the Lord. Note how the word is used in 1 Samuel 3:1. “And the word of the Lord was precious in those days; there was no open vision” (cf. 2 Chron. 32:32; Isa. 1:1).

The New International Version renders it, “Where there is no revelation, the people cast off restraint . . .”

Revelation Is Needed

The following are some of the reasons why mankind needs revelation from God:

(1) To understand the character of God. We would know nothing of God’s personal attributes and qualities of character if He had not revealed Himself. “In nature are clearly seen, God’s existence, wisdom, and power, but not his moral attributes. A knowledge of the true God has ever been the most pressing need of our race” (H.W. Everest, The Divine Demonstration, p. 29). We cannot “discover” God as one might find some scientific fact through experiments in a lab.

(2) To be in fellowship with God. By divine revelation we learn that sin separates us from God. We must depend on His word to learn how to obtain forgiveness of sins and be brought into spiritual union with Him. We cannot rely on personal fancies and feelings. “A religion based on mere feelings is the vaguest, most unreliable, most unstable of all things” (James Orr, The Christian View of God and the World, p. 20).

(3) To do the will of God. A servant cannot do his master’s bidding unless he knows his master’s wishes. We do not serve God out of animal instinct, intuition, or by following human plans. To serve God we must have direction from God. All through the ages Jehovah has revealed to mankind what He requires and expects.

(4) To know our purpose and destiny. Life is an unsolved mystery to people who reject God’s unveiling of His plan and purpose for us. The grave does not open its mouth to disclose what lies beyond. We need God’s revelation to understand the meaning of life.

Perishing People

Without vision, people perish. The Hebrew word for “perish” is para, meaning “to throw off, to let loose; hence to uncover, to make naked . . . ” (Wilson). It is the term used in Exodus 32:25, which says, “And when Moses saw that the people were naked; (for Aaron had made them naked unto their shame among their enemies).” The people had thrown off restraint, let themselves loose, or made themselves naked .

“Where there is no vision, the people are unrestrained. . .” (NASB). This means that in the absence of revelation from God there is confusion, rebellion, disorder, strife, vice, and loss of character.

“Where the revealed will of God, as expressed in His word, is not kept constantly in view, His people break loose from their allegiance” (A.F. Walls). “Out of touch with God, man loses his humanness, and thus goes wild, becoming little better than the animal world” (George Kufeldt).

How thankful we should be for the Bible and for faithful teachers! God has not left us to walk in darkness. His revelation is available to us.

It is unfortunate that thousands of souls ignore God’s word. They are without divine guidance by their own choice. No wonder they are perishing! No wonder they go wild! No wonder they make themselves naked! No wonder they show no vigilance in conduct! No wonder they plunge deeper and deeper into iniquity!

Key to Happiness

“. . . But he that keepth the law, happy is he.” The design of God’s word is to bless mankind. It is not enough that we have His revelation; we must heed it.

“But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only. . .” (Jas. 1:22).

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 5, p. 134
March 5, 1987

By James R. Cope

For the Christian the Lord’s Supper is a confession. “For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord’s death till he come” (1 Cor. 11:26). The word “show” as here used simply means to declare, proclaim, or make known. This is what the apostle affirms of the Lord’s Supper. It is a confession.

What Does The Christian Confess In The Lord’s Supper?

1. He confesses the death of Jesus. This is what the passage says: “Ye do show the Lord’s death.” This memorial feast stands as a witness to the death of Jesus with all the implications that death entails. Whatever the Bible declares about the death of Jesus the Lord’s Supper attests. It affirms the historicity of His life, for had He not lived He could not have died. It affirms the historicity of His death and the benefits derived therefrom. Whether it be considered from the divine viewpoint or the human, the Lord’s Supper affirms whatever may be revealed about the purpose of Jesus’ death. If the sacrifice of His Son was necessary to the satisfying of God’s sense of justice in considering the reconciliation of sinful man, the Lord’s Supper testifies to this justice. If the giving of His Son was the expression of infinite love for a lost world, the Lord’s Supper bears witness to that love. If there must be a mediator between God and man, the Lord’s Supper affirms the sufficiency of Christ as that mediator. If a high priest is necessary in the divine scheme, the Lord’s Supper avows Jesus to be fitted for that office. If the sinfulness of man must be viewed in all its heinousness, the Lord’s Supper stands as a perpetual reminder of that sin and the infinite interest of Jehovah in its removal.

2. He confesses the second coming of Christ. “Ye do show the Lord’s death till he come. ” In the communion of the body and blood of Jesus (1 Cor. 10:16), the disciple looks forward as well as backward and has fellowship with the death of his Lord but not with a dead Lord. He eats and drinks with a living Lord, the one who was dead but is now alive forevermore, who, though dead, everything from the death of Christ till His second coming. It is the summit of faith upon which the Christian places his feet and with panoramic view sweeps everything before and after him. In it he connects the past with the future and rejoices at the prospects of his eternal redemption made real at the Lord’s second advent and made possible by the Lord’s sacrifice of Himself.

3. He confesses the validity of the New Covenant. When Jesus instituted the Supper He said, “This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (Matt. 26:28). Luke’s record says, “This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed “dieth no more” for “death hath no more dominion over him. For in that he died, he died unto sin once; but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God” (Rom. 6:9,10). In the same line of thought Paul writes: “So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation” (Heb. 9:28). The Lord’s Supper, then, comprehends for you” (Luke 22:20). That the Old Covenant was to cease and a new one to be established was foretold by Jeremiah: “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of Egypt . . . but this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in ther hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more” (31:31-34). In Hebrews 8:8-12 Jeremiah’s prophecy is quoted by the Holy Spirit and the following comment made concerning it; “In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old” (8:13).

The foregoing passages establish the point that in God’s plan there are two covenants, the old and the new. The cessation of the old and the establishment of the new were both foretold by the prophet. The old covenant was dedicated with blood, and this blood foreshadowed the blood of the new covenant to be shed by Christ, as Hebrews 9:18-26 declares: “Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood. For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book and all the people, saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you. Moreover he sprinkled likewise with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.

And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; for then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.”

Hebrews 9:20 is a quotation from Exodus 24:8. The similarity between this statement by Moses at the dedication of the Old Covenant and the statement of Jesus when He gave the Lord’s Supper is readily seen. Note them: Moses – “This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined upon you” (Heb. 9:20); Jesus – “This is my blood of the new testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (Matt. 26:28). That the blood of Christ dedicated and made valid the new covenant is clear from the following: “But Christ being come a high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh; how much more shall the blood of Christ who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?” (Heb. 9:11-14) It is the blood of Jesus, then, that makes the new covenant valid and thus purges its subjects from sin, sanctifies, and makes them meet for the Master’s use, “for by one offering he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified” (Heb. 10:14).

In his observance of the Lord’s Supper, then, the Christian confesses the validity of the new covenant because the blood of Christ is that which gives power and effectuality to it. In this feast he bears witness that every thought of his heart, every word of his mouth, and every deed of his life, prompted by his relationship to the testator of the New Covenant, is registered with approval in heaven. Not because of any inherent righteousness within the person who performs such deed-but because of the righteousness transmitted to the New Covenant by the testator of it, is his approval possible. It is with this consciousness that disciples should partake of the sacred feast. “But let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body” (1 Cor. 11:28,29).

4. He confesses the existence of the kingdom. At the giving of the Lord’s Supper Jesus said, “I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom” (Matt. 26:29). From this we conclude that the Lord’s Supper was to be a feature of His kingdom. Wheresoever, therefore, we find the observance of the Lord’s Supper by those for whom it was intended, we find the kingdom of God. Acts 20:7 shows the disciples at Troas observing the “breaking of bread” and 1 Corinthians 10:16 and 11:20-30 reveal the church at Corinth communing with Christ in the Lord’s Supper. The kingdom existed, therefore, for the Lord’s Supper was observed.

5. He confesses the identity of the kingdom and the church. The Supper was to be in the kingdom, but 1 Corinthians 11 shows the “church of God which is at Corinth” (1 Cor. 1:2) participating in its observance. Unless, therefore, it can be shown that the Lord’s Table was removed from the kingdom and placed in the church, we necessarily conclude that the church and the kingdom are identical in their ruler, citizenship, and law. Christ is the king of the kingdom and head of the church; Christians are citizens in the kingdom and members of His church; the apostles’ doctrine is the law of the kingdom and the rule of the church, and it was the apostles’ doctrine which gave direction concerning the proper observance of the Lord’s Supper in the church at Corinth. Jesus said, “I appoint unto you a kingdom – that ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom” (Lk. 22:29,30). 1 Corinthians 10:21 shows that the church of Christ cannot partake “of the Lord’s table and the table of devils” at the same time, thus not only identifying the church and the kingdom again through the Lord’s table, but also identifying the kingdom of God (Matt. 26:29) with the kingdom of Christ – “my kingdom” (Lk. 22:30).

When Does The Christian Make This Confession?

The text says, “As often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord’s death till he come.” How oft is “as often”? This question is answered in the New Testament by the practice of the disciples regarding the observance of the Lord’s Supper.

When Jesus gave the Great Commission He told the apostles to baptize those taught “teaching them (the baptized ones) to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you” (Matt. 28:18-20). If the apostles followed the Lord’s instructions, whatever the church (baptized ones) practiced in its assembly, it practiced at the apostles’ instructions. Acts 20:7 shows that “upon the first day of the week” the disciples at Troas “came together to break bread.” This church had been planted according to the apostles’ doctrine and hence had been instructed not only in what was to be done with reference to the Lord’s Supper but when it was to be done also. It was the “first day of the week,” the record declares.

The presence of Paul in the meeting and participation in that service is proof positive it was by apostolic approval and instruction that the first day of the week was the day peculiar to the observance of the Lord’s Supper. This point is further enhanced by the fact that Paul and his company waited in Troas seven days after arriving there before having opportunity to “break bread.” The purpose of the assembling was to “break bread” and the assembling occurred on “the first day of the week.” Had there been no “breaking of bread” in that assembly there is no reason to think there would have been an assembly of any kind by the disciples on “the first day of the week.” The same verse in the New Testament that authorizes Christians to meet together at all on the Lord’s Day shows unmistakably the primary design of their assembling – that which brought them together. While teaching, prayer, and other acts of edification undoubtedly characterized the meeting once it had taken place, the fact remains that the object of their assembling was “to break bread,” to observe the Lord’s Supper. Since the first day of the week came every eighth day and since every week has a first day, we conclude that 66as often” as the first day of each week came, each first day the disciples assembled to break bread. On the first day of the week, each week, and every week, like the brethren at Troas, disciples now come together “to break bread” and thus “show the Lord’s death till he come.”

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 5, pp. 129, 139-140
March 5, 1987