Truth Magazine

By Ron Halbrook

Women, wives, and mothers are to be honored as the special creation of God. When God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion. . .,” he was not talking about the male only. “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them” (Gen. 1:26-27). Male-and female reflect the image of God Himself, not a fleshly image but a spiritual image. That image includes a spirit that never ceases to exist and which reflects free moral agency, initiative, and forethought. It includes both intellect and emotion.

Man without the woman has no suitable helper and no adequate companion in all the universe. Women, wives, and mothers are to be honored as a special blessing to man. She was made from man’s rib by a miracle of God-and like man’s rib, she is to be at his side, not under his feet or over his head. Man is to make a unique place in his heart and life for his wife: “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh” (Gen. 2:18-24). The man who breaks these promises to make his wife first, to keep himself to her alone, and to blend his life with hers is himself a dishonor to all that is holy and good. He is to seek her well being and to share every blessing he has with her. He is to protect her and provide her every need. In blessing her, he blesses himself, for she is an honor to him! She can enlarge and enhance everything about him, for good or for bad.

“Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies.” Proverbs 31:10-31 honors woman her faithfulness to her family, for her diligence in duties of life, for her bounty to those in need, and for her good name among all who know her. Her greatest honor is not physical beauty, but above all, “a woman that feareth the Lord, she shall be praised. Give her of the fruit of her hands; and let her own works praise her in the gates.” She is beautiful for what she is and wh she does.

A man honors his wife by loving her as Christ loved the church — with an unselfish love. Christ is not a tyrant a dictator, yet He has full authority in the church. ow is this? It is because He won our hearts by emptying Himself in every way in order to save us. That is exactly how a man attains to his proper role as head the house. Our physical head does not direct the parts o the body to harm each other. When a man tries to be head of his wife by threats, shouts, beatings or any kind of abuse, he defeats and destroys himself. He weakens the love and respect which make it possible for him to lead. “Let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband” (see Eph. 5:22-33). “Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honor unto the wife as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered” (1 Pet. 3:7).

When men and women worship together as the church of God, the woman’s honor is not to lead men but to recognize man’s role as the leader. She does not exercise authority over men as a teacher or in any other way. She participates as a learner and a follower of those who lead. Honor is not found by making a display of her body before the eyes of men in the assembly, but her honor is in her modest habits of dress which reflect soberness and godliness of heart (1 Tim. 2:8-15).

Woman’s Greatest Honor

1 Timothy 2:14-15 stresses a proper understanding of woman’s true honor. Eve stepped out of her role as a submissive and cooperative companion when she was deceived by Satan. Satan deluded her with promises of the power and authority which belong to God, and she acted as a leader in tempting her husband to sin. The result was a blight of sin and death on all the earth until this day. What a lesson in the dangers of assuming powers not authorized by God! In this, woman cursed mankind.

But, to balance the pictures, the Holy Spirit also points out her redeeming work on earth and her greatest blessing to mankind: “Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.” This does not discuss the conditions of pardon for individuals who sin, but speaks of the saving quality or redeeming work of women in general. The woman’s greatest role is to live a life of faith, charity, holiness, and sobriety so as to raise children of the same character. She may choose not to marry or may not raise a family, and can still go to heaven. Great honors may be attained in this world outside the home without sin. But, her greatest honor comes from blessing this sad world with godly children as she herself lives a godly life.

Women bring honor to themselves and to their husbands when they encourage and support their husbands in spiritual growth. Men cannot serve as elders and deacons if their wives are materialistic, spiritually indifferent, and ungodly. “Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things” (1 Tim. 3:11). No man ever developed into a true elder or deacon without the constant encouragement of a godly wife. Men appointed to these offices of trust and service will function effectively only so long as their wives support them.

Honorable, aged women uphold the very highest standards of holiness, avoid gossip, are never intoxicated, and always seek opportunities to teach the truth. They especially delight to “teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed” (Tit. 2:3-5). Aged women who exercise themselves unto godliness are especially effective in teaching these vital lessons. Those who do this privately and publicly are due honor.

Wives and mothers are to be honored who cooperate with their husbands, and yet who must serve the Lord without the leadership of their husbands in spiritual matters. Such women discuss the Word of God with their husbands as opportunity permits, without badgering them or being overbearing. Even “without the word,” the habits of such women in dress, speech, and faithful attention to spiritual duties become another avenue of teaching their husbands (1 Pet. 3:16). To the credit of some such women, their husbands obey the gospel. To the credit of others, they continue serving the Lord in spite of their husband’s rejection of Christ and by special diligence are able to raise up men and women with the character of a Timothy (2 Tim. 1:5).

Postscript: Welcome Home

Our godless society has done everything possible to destroy woman’s true honor and to hold up before her idolatrous images of success and accomplishment. Women have been deceived by the lie that the real meaning of life will pass them by if they put their heart into their home life. The influence of truth is felt at times beyond the realm of the Lord’s church as people run into dead end streets on the road of life. It is a good sign that many people are realizing they have been lied to and are searching for answers. A healthy “Back to Basics” movement has affected people’s attitudes toward education, the work ethic, politics, and homelife. Such trends can help to prepare people to see their need for God (1 Cor. 1:21).

Women who focus their interest and energy on the home and family life are doing an honorable work. My sister-in-law, who is encouraging women in that kind of an effort, is Marsha Halbrook (3840 Glenbrook Rd., Fairfax, VA 22031). She has consented for Guardian of Truth to publish her article entitled . . . Mothers At Home’ Organize,” telling about a new group called “Mothers At Home” and a new journal called Welcome Home. Being non-religious, it occasionally contains something Christians could not approve (such as an article on taking teenagers to the beach for mixed swimming), but by and large it is filled with helpful, healthy, and happy material which reflects Bible principles on home life.

Martha is a staff writer. Mothers At Home published an article which is now a brochure by Marsha on “Miscarriage: A brief look at its frequency, causes, emotional impact, recovery process and dealing with its grief.” She commented to me on this little discussed subject:

While society views miscarriage as “only a miscarriage” (it was for the best, you can try again, etc.), for the victim it is the death of a child. Through my writings on the subject and their distribution and use by area hospitals and physicians as well as other doctors nationwide (even St. Mary’s Hospital in London), I have been able to put my losses in perspective and use my experiences to help, comfort and support others.

People who have this high regard for life and who love children will find our society’s wide-open approval of abortion repulsive. Efforts such as the Mothers At Home group and Welcome Home not only share counsel and comfort, but also strengthen the moral fiber of our nation.

As a sample of the good things included in Welcome Home, we got permission to reprint in the Guardian of Truth Dr. John W. Greene’s article on “Raising Teenagers. ” We wish to publicly thank both the journal and Dr. Greene.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 16, pp. 494-495
August 15, 1985

By Olen Holderby

It was my privilege to attend two “unity meetings” held in Dublin, California on January 15, 1985, and on May 14, 1985. I had intended to say something about the first of these two meetings. However, after learning that there was to be a second such meeting, and having no desire to adversely affect that second effort, I waited until after the second meeting. These two meetings involved “conservative” and “liberal” brethren, with speakers from both sides. Past experience caused me to attend these meetings with certain reservations. My desire for unity among God’s people, I believe, is as strong as anyone’s; and I willingly participate in any scriptural and reasonable effort to achieve that unity.

My good friend and fellow gospel preacher, Bobby Witherington, has also written concerning these two meetings; his article will appear in Gospel Anchor. The reader’s attention is called to brother Witherington’s article because he touches on some things about which I say little or nothing. It is a good article. There may be some others who plan to write about these meetings; their impressions may differ from mine. However, I give you my honest impressions as well as sincere thoughts, allowing that I may be mistaken at least in a few of them.

The Meeting On Janum7 15, 1985

This meeting dealt with these topics: What Do We Have In Common?, Unity Of The Body, Unity Of Faith, Unity Of Spirit, Unity Of Doctrine, and Where Do We Go From Here? A question period followed each topic except the last. Although attitudes are difficult to assess, it seemed to me, that good attitudes prevailed throughout the day. Most of what was said needed to be said, and heeded. The beginning topic, “What Do We Have In Common?” was well handled, with force and clarity; though, it seemed to me to be ignored by the speakers that followed.

Enthusiasm was high “on both sides the fence” and, as it seemed to me, this enthusiasm produced, to say the least, some inaccurate statements. Several times throughout the day I heard statements about what “great good” had been accomplished just by that one meeting. I did not then, nor do I now, share that conclusion. This is not to say that no good at all was accomplished by this effort. The very fact that the two sides did get together and talk was a step in the right direction. The opportunity to get better acquainted with brethren in general surely could be an asset. Brethren, throughout this first meeting, seemed to think that changes had occurred that would permit unity today. Perhaps so, but I ask, “What is it that has changed? And, who was changed? Is the change the right kind of change?”

My general impression of this first meeting was this: I saw two sides speaking and acting very cautiously, seemingly trying to “set up” the other for some future effort. The restraint was obvious; and, perhaps, this meeting did lay a foundation for the second one.

The Meeting On May 14, 1985

This meeting dealt with the topics: Presuppositions Alter Your Conclusions, Autonomy (two speakers), Parameters Of Fellowship, and Romans 14-Fellowship. A question period also followed each of these topics.

Like brother Witherington, I heard more “uncertain” sounds in this meeting than in the former. There was not the same measure of restraint in this meeting as in the former; speakers did, for the most part, address their topics more pointedly and plainly. This fact was very revealing. It revealed that there was absolutely no change in the attitude of our “liberal” brethren. They still use the same old arguments, have the same attitudes toward the truth, and demonstrate no willingness to change.

The fifty-minute speech by brother Don White on “Presuppositions” may be summed up in one simple statement: There is no binding pattern or standard and the only unity that is possible is “unity in diversity.” There were no scriptural arguments presented in this lesson; perhaps none were intended. This lesson would lead one to believe that Christ can be separated from His Word, as the “doctrine of God” was played down and the person of Christ was uplifted. Brother White argued that there is no “explicit scriptural basis for a restoration principle” and that “Doctrine is a framework, not a reality.” During a break following this lesson, one of brother White’s fellow preachers passed by my table and remarked, “He didn’t learn that in the Bay Area School of Preaching.” I might add, he didn’t learn it from the Bible either.

Brother Clyde Wilson did an excellent job on the subject of “Autonomy,” setting forth in plain and forceful terms, the need for authority and respect for the God-given pattern. Anyone missing his points must have had a desire to miss them. Brother Ken Sterling did a fine job in presenting his lesson on Romans 14, clearly showing that Romans 14 did not allow nor did it teach “unity in diversity.”

In the speech on “Parameters of Fellowship,” I heard very little that was in harmony with Scripture, though many passages were introduced. However, the speaker on this subject made his points plainly; you may disagree but could not easily misunderstand. He ended his lesson with a plea for us to accept even those whom we consider to be in error.

Obviously, I have not said all that might be said about the presentations and the reader may notice that I have said nothing about the questions and answers following the lessons.

Perhaps it would be of some value to give some remarks made during those question periods. Brother Don White asked, “Does a return to the New Testament pattern mean a return to specific forms of worship?” He did not think so! Further he said, the “church was born into a Jewish cradle,” and he referred to some acts of worship as Jewish in origin. Brother Jim Ferguson said, “Under some circumstances I would not object to one congregation placing itself under the eldership of another congregation.” In answer to a question about worshiping with a congregation that uses mechanical instruments of music, brother Hal Hougey replied, “Do we love each other?” Earlier brother Hougey had told of him and his wife leaving a congregation because the instrument had been introduced. Yet, he would continue his plea for “unity in diversity.” In a reply to a question about where to worship, brother Hougey’s solution was, “Go where he feels most harmonious.” All these fellows, at the same time, were arguing that “unity should not be compromised.”

The above is typical of replies heard throughout the question periods. However, these were not the only questions and answers that proved to be disturbing. One questioner used the expression, “intercongregational fellowship.” I wonder if the questioner believes in one congregation withdrawing from another congregation. If such fellowship can be established, can it not be broken? If not, why not?

Some answers given in these question periods left a lot to be desired; others being downright disturbing. Maybe the circumstances were more the determining factor than it should have been. In any case, it seemed to me that one truth was being made less important than others, in some instances. This may not have been the intent, but the impression was there. Brother Don White had (mis)used Matthew 23:23 in an effort to support his idea that, “We have assumed that all truth in the New Testament is on the same level of importance.” Are we falling victim to this same fallacy?

All of this, perhaps, illustrates the complex nature of such meetings, and the frustrations that can result, at least to all who sincerely desire the unity for which Jesus prayed.

Addendum

Following the meeting of January 15, I wrote thusly, “I sincerely trust there shall be further such meetings and that they can soon Ie9d into the practical applications that need so badly to be made. ” I would still hope for such an effort, but I am not so naive as to expect it, especially on the part of our “liberal” brethren. Those wearing the “battle scars” of the past do not get too excited about this hope, even though they would share that hope with those less scarred.

I do not see such meetings as accomplishing the unity as taught in the Scriptures – At best they might possibly change the thinking of some in attendance, so as to help begin a trend in the right direction. Even if unity among all the preachers attending such meetings could be achieved, what of the congregations from which they came? I understand unity, based on Scripture, to focus on the local congregation, as given in such passages as 1 Corinthians 1:10. The basis for this unity is given by God (Eph. 4:1-14). We could, in fact, say that the unity is already there; it is up to us to respect and to maintain that unity as given by God. Since the local congregation is the only unit of “church function,” how can unity be otherwise than local? When each local church respects the unity given by the Lord, there will be no difficulty between churches. Yes, there is a standard and a pattern (2 Tim. 3:16-17). All that God said on any subject is the pattern for that thingl To say that we cannot understand that pattern is to question both the wisdom and justice of God. May God hasten the day when such practice will be erased from the hearts and lips of every one of us.

John 17:20-2 1; 1 Corinthians 1: 10- 13; Ephesians 4:1-14; 5:11; Philippians 3:16; 1 John 1:3-7; and 2 John 9:11 are all still there, and they shall stand as a rebuke to those who would force “unity in diversity” upon God’s people anywhere. Brother Jim Ferguson said, “If we are ever going to find unity we will have to find it because we love each other in Jesus Christ.” The idea is to love each other enough to overlook anything that we consider error-an idea that even its perpetrators will not follow to its logical end!

I am not sure that such meetings make the right impression on younger preachers, those who are not old enough to have experienced any of the “liberal” opposition of the 1950s. I fear for the tolerant attitudes that seem to have taken hold on some. I know of one young preacher who now takes the position that it would not be wrong for one who believes it to be right to worship with the instrument to go among the members of a local church and teach his views, providing he did not force it on others. Now it ought to be obvious that if he was not doing anything wrong, the elders (or anyone else) would not have a right to rebuke, stop, or othewise prevent his activity. Are the burdens of division, immorality, permissiveness, and rebellion against God weighing so heavily that we are willing to compromise our stand for truth and right? God forbid?

I have no information regarding any future meetings, but it shall be interesting to watch for the outcome of any such meetings. May all our efforts redound to His Glory!

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 16, pp. 490-491
August 15, 1985

By John W. Greene, M.D.

Recently I admitted a bright and attractive fifteen-year-old girl to the hospital for an attempted suicide. She had friends, good grades, and, on the surface, a good home. The real problem became evident, however, when I tried to schedule a family conference to discuss the problem. Her father could only meet before 7 a.m. time. or after 9 p.m., and her mother would be out of town on a buying trip for her job for the next two days. Although their daughter had taken enough medication to have resulted in her death, neither parent could make time during the following two days to even discuss the situation. When careers take precedence over people (especially our own children), it is no wonder some teenagers decide that life is not worth living.

Contrary to popular belief, a child’s need for a parent to be near does not end with the infant/toddler stage. In fact, during adolescence a child needs more, not less, parental availability. Beginning around age eleven in girls and age twelve in boys, the process of puberty (physical development) and identity crystallization (psychological development) begins, causing a succession of rapid changes. During this transition from childhood to adulthood, only a person who is consistently available to listen when stresses arise, can be of real assistance to a teenager, since these changes occur in such an uneven and sporadic manner.

Parents who strengthen their support and involvement during the teenage years facilitate their adolescent’s acceptance of life’s unavoidable physical and psychological changes. Yet that extra involvement cannot necessarily be scheduled in advance. Teenagers talk when they choose to talk, not when a parent has thirty minutes of “quality time” to listen. (It is not uncommon for a teenager to sit completely mute for more than thirty minutes when approached in this manner.) Having someone (ideally a parent) consistently available in the home is key during this difficult time.

Many parents spend more individual time with friends than with their own children, yet they expect their children to show family loyalty and respect. Teenagers often consider this kind of behavior a violation of an unwritten contract which reads: “I will give you respect and show loyalty to your values if you spend time developing our relationship.” When an adolescent feels that expectations of loyalty exceed the time commitment made to them by parents, they may resort to “acting-out” behavior — such as failing in school, using alcohol or drugs, breaking curfew or other ruleswhich maybe viewed as I ‘payback” for lack of time.

It appears that many of the severe problems encountered by teen-agers today are due in part to the fact that no one seems to want to spend much time with them. Teen pregnancies are estimated at one million a year in the United States, with conception most often occurring in the home of the adolescent girl because no one else is home. Adolescent depression and suicide are at all-time highs. Many of the teenagers suffering from these problems say very directly that they feel abandoned.

Much is said today about the need for women to work outside the home for personal fulfillment and intellectual challenge. I invite anyone who is feeling unchallenged to rear my fifteen-year-old for one week. Rearing children – and especially teenagers – is the most challenging of all the tasks I have performed to date, including college, medical school, internship, residency, and my years as a faculty member at a highly respected university. It is much easier to perform many jobs outside the home than to deal with an ever-challenging teenager.

While it may be true that the task of child/adolescent rearing does not pay economically and, unfortunatley, does not gain one a great deal of respect in some circles, it is abundantly clear that more women are needed with the sharp minds, quick wits, and infinite patience that are required to rear adolescents effectively. Women who have the fortitude to go against societal convention and pressure and choose to work (and childrearing is work) in the home, deserve the utmost respect and admiration.

-Dr. John W. Green is an Associate Professor of Pediatrics and Psychiatry and is the Director of the Division of Adolescent Medicine at Vanderoilt University in Nashville, Tennessee. Reprinted from Welcome Home, Vol. L, No. 9 (September 1984) with permission of the author.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 16, p. 497
August 15, 1985

By Marsha Halbrook

There is a tendency today for people to equate raising children with babysitting, and homemaking with housecleaning. I can hire someone to babysit or to dean my house, but I can’t hire anyone who can train my children to deal with the complexities of fife or who can make my home a place where family members feel accepted, supported, and loved. – Cheri Loveless, Co-founder, Mothers At Home

At a time when the job market is flooded with working mothers and the women’s movements have extolled the virtues of women fulfilling themselves in meaningful careers, there is a quiet but determined revolution afoot! The organization behind this swiftly growing revolution is Mothers At Home. The founders are three Northern Virginia mothers, and the members are mothers all over the United States with allegiance spreading abroad.

Mothers At Home is a new volunteer organization devoted to the support of women who have chosen to stay at home to nurture their families. The beginnings of Mothers At Home go back several years. Janet Dittmer and Cheri Loveless began discussing ideas for boosting the spirits of others mothers at home. They talked about ways of giving the at-home moms more support, and the idea of doing a monthly newsletter came together. Soon they were joined by Linda Burton, and in January of 1984, their first issue of Welcome Home was published.

The reception of Welcome Home far exceeded all expectations! Circulation has grown from 98 subscribers in January of ’84 to 1,000 in March of ’84. As of November of 1984, circulation is close to 7,000 with requests for subscriptions pouring in daily. Interestingly enough, this growth has been without any advertisement on the editors’ part. The press has actually sought out the organization.

The editors of Welcome Home know from first-hand experience that staying home to nurture a family is perhaps the most demanding, most challenging, yet most rewarding of the many career options open to women today. It is also one of the least understood and most underrated, causing much frustration and anxiety to those who choose it. The purposes of Welcome Home are to: (1) let mothers at home everywhere know they have made a terrific choice; (2) let mothers at home know that they are not alone (in fact they comprise the single largest occupation in the country today); and (3) let mothers know that when they choose to be at home, they choose to be in wonderfully good company. Today’s mothers at home are smart, talented women who, though concerned with developing their own potential, have decided that caring for their families deserves their foremost attention at this time.

“I have working friends who say my mind is too good to stay home. I decided my mind was too good not to stay home with my children. The best minds are required there,” says Linda Burton, a 37-year old mother of two. A former publicity writer for public television, Linda had never planned to stay home. After trying the working mother role and attempting to balance “quality time,” motherhood, a career, and find good care for her children, Linda decided that the only person who would be able to give her children the kind of care she wanted them to have was herself. As for quality time-how do you explain to a baby that he is supposed to wait for “quality time” to take his first steps or speak his first words?

“When you think about what you’ve taken on, raising the future generation-the leaders and idea makers of tomorrow-you kind of shudder. It’s an awesome responsibility,” says Janet Dittmer, a mother of four. Janet is a 35-year old former researcher at Stanford Research Institute, who holds a master’s degree in clothing and textiles. “We decided when we got married I would stay home when we had kids. We don’t eat out once a week, go to movies or drive new cars. But, I think we’re doing just fine.”

Cheri Loveless, a 32-year old mother and freelance writer says, “At times, we’ve been really pinched for money. We have five children but feel strongly enough about me not working that we find ways to cope.”

The strength of this fast-growing organization has not gone unheeded by the media. The founding mothers have appeared on numerous programs, including the Phil Donahue Show and Dr. James Dobson’s “Focus on the Family. ” The message of these united mothers has also been heralded in national magazines and newspapers across the country.

The pages of Welcome Home do not attack the working mother. The editors recognize that because of pressures of today’s economy, many mothers do not have a choice. In fact, many mothers who work outside the home are Welcome Home subscribers.

The majority of articles, art work and poetry in the newsletter is contributed by the subscribers. The immediate success of the publication is proof in itself of the many talents mothers across the country possess. Thus far, some of the articles featured have been on such topics as raising teen-agers, the real feelings surrounding a miscarriage, the challenges of raising a handicapped child, ways a mother finds relief during her twenty-four-hour-a-day job in order to renew herself, and teaching appreciation of the fine arts to children. Regular columns address the issue of making and saving money at home, problems and solutions, the preschool years, and home management. With the arrival of the new year, plans are underway to add other monthly columns and to increase the number of pages in the newsletter.

To meet the demands of the publication, the editors have relied on volunteer mothers who regularly donate time to answer mail and attend various other jobs. The mail room includes a large well-equipped play area so that mothers can bring their children and supervise them while they handle the mail and visit with other moms. Aware that the demands of the thriving newsletter could threaten their number one priority — their families — Janet Dittmer says, “We realize that our first priority is to be mothers at home. We made the choice and we’re not going to do anything, no matter how great the cause, to-take ourselves away from our families more than we feel is appropriate . . . . We’re mothers at home, that’s our first priority.”

For a one year subscription to Welcome Home send $12 ($15 outside the U.S.) to Welcome Home, P.O. Box 2208, Dept. GT, Merrifield, Virginia 22116.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 16, pp. 496-497
August 15, 1985