Truth Magazine

By Harold Fite

If the trend continues, 50,000 suicides will have occurred in this country by the end of this year. Ten thousand of this number will be committed by young people between the ages of 15 and 34. Suicide is the second greatest killer among those between the ages of 13 and 19. The rate has tripled since 1955. From 1960 to 1980, suicides have increased 136 percent — up 200 percent over the past 10 years. For every suicide that is successful, 50 fail in their attempt.

During September and October of last year, six teenagers in the Clear Lake area (suburb of Houston, Texas) committed suicide. One month later, across the ship channel from Clear Lake, a 14-year-old girl killed herself by taking an overdose of antihistamines. In the latter part of 1983 and the first part of 1984, a similar epidemic occurred in Plano, Texas, where nine teenagers committed suicide. During the first two weeks of October 1984, four young people killed themselves in New York City. In January of this year an Arlington High School student took his life in his drama classroom. Why this senseless taking of life? With life’s challenges and possibilities before them, and with dreams and aspirations, yet unfulfilled, why?

There are many contributing factors. Not all of the causes listed in this article are involved in every suicide, but one or more are involved in all the teenage suicides with which I am familiar. There can be other reasons for suicide than cited below. We do not intend to lay a burden of guilt on parents who have done all they could for their children.

Experience of a personal loss can produce depression so as to cause one to despair of living. It may be the loss of a job; the loss of social standing in the community or school; the loss of a boyfriend or girlfriend; loss of confidence, self-esteem, or any number of things which may seem trivial and “kid stuff” to us older folk, but is of vital importance to the young person.

The 14-year-old girl who ended her life with antihistamines had been taken from her natural parents because of family problems and was living with foster parents. Her natural parents had moved to Florida without her. With the disruption of the family unit, the severing of family ties, and feeling alone, she calmly walked to the bathroom and swallowed 60 tablets of the allergy medicine Benadryl. She had experienced a personal loss.

Affluence contributes to suicide. Countries in which teenage suicides are highest are noted for their affluence. On the surface, one would think teenagers having affluent parents, living in affluent neighborhoods, who eat well, dress smartly, and are supported in a generous measure would be happy and have a zest for life.

On the other hand, we would normally think that the impoverished are the ones who grow tired in their painful struggle for survival and prematurely exit through the door to death. But not so. The lowest rate of suicides is found in Egypt (0.3 percent per 100,000 population). It is not because life in Egypt is so desirable that so few want to leave it. The opposite is true. Sweden, however, takes care of its citizens from the womb to the tomb, yet has a suicide rate of 18.6 percent per 100,000 population.

When young people are given everything on a “silver platter,” it deprives them of challenges essential to maturity. With no sacrifices to make, and no challenges to meet, life can be rather dull and boring. George S. Hendry, emeritus professor of theology at the Princeton Theological Seminary said, “If suicide is the loss of the will to live, the will to live requires the stimulus of resistance to strengthen it.”

Back in the 1960s, young people began to act rebelliously and dress counter-culturally. They were trying to find their identity, asking themselves the question, “Who am I?” Many went out into the wilderness area and lived in tents; some built log cabins and began to dress like their forefathers. The challenge for primitive survival was exciting. Men carved objects out of wood, women sewed and did the things their grandmothers and great-grandmothers did. They were trying to get back to the soil, to their roots, and to feel good about themselves-to have some challenges in fife. The vast majority of these were from affluent families.

One reason why we have teenagers committing suicide is that there are no challenges for them. Everything comes too easily. If there are no challenges, life is not worth living.

When parents give their children everything they ask for, they are not doing them a favor. We must teach our children the work ethic, responsibility, and the meaning of sacrifice that they may have a challenge to call forth their abilities toward realization of the potential God has placed within them.

The Syndrome of Happiness and Success is another factor in teenage suicides. The American people, by and large, are optimistic. Our politicians are dispensers of optimism. Electronic preachers continue to dangle the carrot of success and happiness before their hearers. Television commercials portray young people as carefree, happy, and successful. One could get the impression that “life is just a bowl of cherries” and we are to go tripping “tra-la-la-la-la” through life. It would seem that happiness is an instant thing, that all we have to do is push a button, and presto! We are happy. Many young people grow up with the idea that they have a divine right to happiness. When something comes along that destroys their happiness, it oftentimes destroys them. It may be a minor disappointment or set-back, but because of their conception of happiness, they can’t handle it. They are not prepared to cope with the negative aspects of life. The Declaration of Independence gives us the right to pursue happiness, but doesn’t guarantee it.

Peer pressure can tip the scales toward death. Young people can be cruel at times by what they say and, do. We all want to be accepted by our peers and many resort to drugs, alcohol, and sex in order to obtain it. When acceptance and approval is not forthcoming, many lose the desire to live.

A few years ago, a New Mexico high school student took his fife because he felt himself unliked by his -peers. He was a good student and an excellent football player. When opposing players would hit him with cheap shots during a game to intimidate him, he took it as a sign of dislike. He felt that those in his own school did not accept him. Feeling unaccepted by his fellow students, he ended a precious life and a promising career.

Growing up toofast becomes a burden too heavy to bear for many young peopIc Parents don’t allow their children to be children anymore. A young girl on television remarked, “Parents want us to act like adults, but treat us like children.” Children are left alone too much, and forced to make decisions they are incapable of making. They dress like adults too early and date too soon. At an early age, they are placed in organized sports where the pressure to excel is tremendous. Boys can’t get. together for a fun game of sandlot football or baseball. Now everything is organized and regimented, more for the fathers than the players. Often I have heard fathers berate their sons publicly for missing a ball or fouling up a play. There is the pressure of school work in trying to live up to the expectations of parents, the competitiveness of teenage America, etc.

Early in fife a young person is under pressure, and it builds as he tries to fit the mold of conformity and reach the standards that others have set. Many young people live in the fast lane. By the time they finish high school, they have experienced cigarettes, booze, drugs, and sex, and are burned out. They have had it alll Then they begin to ask themselves, “Is this all there is?” “Where is that happiness I was promised?”

Broken homes and unconcerned parents cause children to despair of living. Because of the high divorce rate, one out of every six children now under 18 lives with a single parent. That parent has to make a living, necessitating leaving the child alone for lengthy periods of time. Among the working mothers of our nation, however, 67 percent work outside the home because they choose to do so. Womenwork outsi4e the home for a number of reasons: ‘social pressure, ambition, boredom, trauma of staying home, having something exciting to do, and to be “fulfilled.”

Sixty-six percent of those polled felt that “parents should feel free to live their own lives even if it means spending less time with the children.” Parents are shamelessly selfish, seeking their own satisfaction, unwilling to give up what they want, and doing it at the expense of their children for whom they are responsible.

From 2 to 6.5 million children come home from school to empty houses. Some estimate the number at 10 million. If this latter figure is correct, it would be a quarter of this nation’s school population. Thirty-two million children have mothers working outside the home. The television has become the babysitter and the telephone the lifeline to the parents. Children suffer from lack of security. They are lonely, bored and scared. The Newark Fire Department reports that one out of every six calls involves children alone at home.

Telephone hot lines are springing up all over this country. “Phone Friend” in State College, PA averages 45 calls per week between 2:30 and 5:30 p.m. Children are wanting help with homework, worried about mother being late, lonely, or wanting to know what to do about a sick dog, etc. “Kid’s Line” in Chicago averages 500 calls per month.

It is a shame and a disgrace the way children are being abused and ignored. No wonder they see only death as the light at the end of the tunnel.

The cure is in restoring the home as God would have it. All of the aforementioned causes of suicides are related to the home. These untimely deaths reflect the failure of parents to prepare their children for life. The majority of young people are not taught the true values of life nor the lessons to be learned from failure. When failures come, there is no one to look to for support. The parents are doing their own thing.

The family is the unit of society. It is the strength and the stability of the nation, and the critical center of social force. The home should be an atmosphere of love, interest, care, concern, sacrifice, trust and respect. The parents should provide their children with discipline, encouragement, praise, support and security.

“And, . ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but nurture them in the chastening and admonition of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4). We are not to dishearten our children without cause and purpose. “Bring(ing) them up” begins early and is continuous action (Prov. 22:26). We “nurture” them by feeding them the Word of God (1 Pet. 2:2). We establish them and make straight paths for their feet by admonishing them (Deut. 6:4-7). Our young people must be taught the meaning of life.

The Word and the home provide the cure for teenage suicides. The home as God would have it would obliterate these known causes and convince our young that life is worth living.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 12, pp. 360-361
June 20, 1985

By Herbert Fraser

State lotteries are much in the news and have been for some time. Legalized lotteries are not really new. In this nation, they were fairly common in the nineteenth century, the last one was abolished in 1982. State operated lotteries in their present form began about twenty years ago, and have been adopted by approximately one-third of the states, with other states involved in drives to adopt them.

A great deal of promotion is evident in these drives, reference made to winnings and revenues available for financing state projects.

The following material does not deal with the issue of claimed advantages to such state projects (as schools) or disadvantages to a stable society, per se. It does deal with the issue from a basically moral and biblical perspective.

Environments are well-known influential factors in ideological as in physical matters (the classic “Corinth syndrome”). We should not be greatly surprised, therefore, to learn that some members of the Lord’s body are uncritical of lotteries, with some members even participating in them. It is hoped that the following study will be helpful to these, if there be such, as to others.

Lotteries Identified

Lotteries are but one form of gambling, of course. And not all that is termed gambling is essentially the same. It is recognized that the word “gambling” is used in various ways, its broadest meaning being “risk taking to obtain a return.” This writer is not interested in engaging in mere semantics. Thus, should any insist that farming, marketing, automobile driving, and cooking constitute gambling (because they are risk-taking ventures), no objection here is raised. The issue of lotteries goes far beyond the subject of risk-taking.

There are risk-taking ventures that are considerably different from parimutuel horse racing, bingo, “crap-shooting,” and lotteries.

In the first, focus is on skill and effort as criteria for success. In the second, focus is on chance, or accident.

There are, of course, risk-taking ventures of the latter kind in which skill is present in contestants (as horse racing). In these, however, attempts are made to offset such differences (as by handicapping) in order to make the ventures more “chancy.”

Lotteries do not have such “problems. ” Essentially, they are clearly and purely chance oriented.

What Lotteries Do

With lotteries identified as chance-oriented ventures, let’s note their features and fruit. The lifestyle biblically ~that is, divinely) recommended is considerably different from the lifestyle that is chance-oriented. Let’s now consider the following evidences, both individually and cumulatively.

1. Lotteries express and promote irresponsibility as a feature of life. Conscious exercise of one’s talents in proper and purposeful ways is urgently recommended by the Lord in His word (see Matt. 25:14-15). Such responsible stewardship involves a high level of acumen and effort.

2. Lotteries are non-productive, even wasteful. This is apparent as the source of the “winnings” is noted. The Lord designed and desires man to be productive (see Gen. 2:15; 3:19a; Prov. 4:23a; 2 Thess. 3:12; Eph. 4:28). Lotteries, by their very nature, are barren and parasitic.

3. Lotteries, as all such chance-oriented ventures, are addictive and self-destructive. The qualities of sobriety (mind soundness and balance) are urgently recommended by the Lord (see 1 Pet. 5:8; 2 Pet. 1:5). It is greatly important that man, as a responsible being, be in full possession of his faculties. Whatever tends to disrupt orderliness of outlook and enslave the mind is to be shunned.

A little honest investigation should convince a person that chance-oriented activities do tend to harmfully affect the orderly processes of the mind — even to encourage addiction to such endeavors. The “something for nothing” syndrome has resulted in compulsive chance-taking for many. And this is most unhealthy.

4. Lotteries are clearly exploitative of others. Every person has the responsibility to deal with his fellow man respectfully and benevolently, and without greed (see Acts 20:35). When one’s “profit” is expected to come from others’ “loss,” covetous unconcern with reference to others prevails.

In view of all the above, lotteries can hardly be properly considered as either an asset to society or an innocent pastime.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 12, p. 367
June 20, 1985

By Robert F. Turner

Soon after the beginning of the Lord’s church the concept of church was subjected to change. Instead of being considered a people of God, there was a growing tendency to consider the church an institution of God not simply instituted (as was marriage), but a universal body politic. Perhaps it is impossible to say whether the change in concept produced changes in government, or changes in government produced changes in concept, but it is clear that a misconception of church officers developed hand in hand with apostasy in government, structure and concept making a Judaism type “priesthood” in what was supposed to be the “New Testament” church.

Remember when the mother of James and John brought her sons to Christ and asked that they be allowed to sit in high places in the kingdom (Matt. 20:20f). Christ said to be great in His kingdom one must be a servant. He cited the concept of rule that prevailed among kingdoms of men, and said “not so shall it be among you.” There is no hierarchy in Christ’s church. All are priests, figuratively speaking (1 Pet. 2:5), under Christ our High Priest (Heb. 7). Our Lord repeatedly warned the apostles about desiring “high places” and forgetting that “one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren” (Matt. 23:8). In Christ’s view of matters, there was only one step in the ladder of authority. He occupied the top of the ladder, and apostles, prophets, elders, deacons, preachers, and those some call “laymen” — all occupied the common position of “brethren.”

This is not to say every one has the same function. For a while, certain ones were “power-equipped” for roles essential to “the perfecting of the saints, unto the work of ministering, unto the building up of the body of Christ” (Eph. 4:llff). But the special gifts that made these roles possible were not permanent, nor did this represent a hierarchal order of authority. In I Corinthians 12 the list includes “miracles, gifts of healing, helps, governments, and divers kinds of tongues. ” Those who had such gifts are likened unto members of a physical body-“and those parts of the body, which we think to be less honorable, upon these we bestow more abundant honor” (v. 23). Each member of the body has an “office,” in the sense of the dictionary example: “They (the eyes) resign their office and their light.” Here, “office” is not a power position of authority over other members. It refers to function, in a body made up of parts equally necessary to the whole. (Remember “. . . all ye are brethren.”)

In early restoration literature, and from some current writers, we are told the Apostles were “officers” in the Universal church. Our brethren usually insist they had no successors, but continued in that role through their writings. Continued in the figurative role of ambassadors with the King’s message, yes; but were they ever “officials” of a universal church organization? This is vitally pertinent to the basic question regarding church concepts. It is the “take off” point for Roman Catholicism, and for all other “historic church” concepts-resulting in international, national, or denominational church organizations. Paul said his “authority” was for “building you up” (2 Cor. 10:8), and claimed to do no more than deliver truth (2 Cor. 4:7, 5:18f). The apostles bound and loosed what had already been bound and loosed in heaven: as is apparent in the future perfect passive periphrastic tense of Matthew 16:19. If grammar is distasteful to you, consider the fact that they were forbidden to teach until they could speak as the Spirit gave them utterance (Lk, 24:49), which means the message originated in heaven, not in the minds or from the “office” of the Apostles.

We may reason, the apostles were “officials,” but they had no legislative authority, i.e., they could not make laws. Could their decisions be ignored or disobeyed with impunity, or were their directives to be regarded as divine law? I believe we can say they were either legislators; or, they had an “office” in the sense of function, viz., that of inspired message bearers, and the directives originated with God. James seems to settle the question by writing that there is one legislative, executive, and judicial authority, and that is God. (Read carefully Jas. 2:10-12; 4:11-12.) This does not erase the need for ambassadors, experienced advisors, and qualified leaders in the early church. But they asked for following only on the basis of inspiration and their example of Christ following (1 Cor. 11:1).

If the apostles were not “officials” of the church-if they had no legislative authority in and of themselves, it should be clear that uninspired elders do not occupy such a position. 1 Timothy 3:1 (KJV) does say, “If a man desire the office of a bishop . . . ” but there is no separate word here for “office.” A literal translation is, “If anyone oversight aspires to . . . ” and this refers to the “work” of overseeing. The KJV continues, very aptly, “he desireth a good work. ” It is not a “position” (office in that sense) that is under consideration, but a “function” or “work” that should be desired. The bishops are neither lawmakers nor “dignitaries” in a hierarchy, but mu t follow laws of God, and urge others to do the same (Tit. 1:9-11). The same reasoning eliminates evangelists and deacons from an “official” preeminence of position in a local church. The whole church (assembled or otherwise) follows divine instructions, and neither makes nor validates those laws.

But Hebrews 13:7 reads, “Obey them that have the rule over you. . . .” Four different Greek words are translated “rule” and three are applied to elders. Here the word for “rule” (hegeomat) means “lead” and signifies one who is out in front as a guide or military leader. It is not amiss to say elders have the “office” (function) of leading. Then, in 1 Thessalonians 5:12 we are told the elders are “over you in the Lord.” Here the word (proistemi) means “stand before” and indicates they have the “office” (work) of directing, managing, conducting. Elders are to “shepherd” the flock (1 Pet. 5:2), and that word (poimaino) is also translated “rule.” The office of the elder is to feed and protect the flock. But the fourth word translated “rule” (archo) means “preeminent, first” and is never applied to elders. Jesus uses the noun form of this word to speak of “rulers of the nations” and says, “not so shall it be among you” (Matt. 20:25f).

Godly elders have a heavy load to bear and are worthy of our respect. We should submit to their judgment and work as a team under their guidance. They are not “officials” in the political sense of the word, but nonetheless workers with God, who need our support and assistance.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 12, pp. 358-359
June 20, 1985

By Mike Willis

The Guardian of Truth is happy to announce that brother Robert F. Turner has agreed to contribute articles to this paper on a regular basis. Brother Turner was born in Scottsville, Kentucky on 3 November 1916. He was married to Vivian Allison on 12 December 1936. They have two children (Barbara Semmelmann and James A.) And three grandchildren.

Brother Turner has been preaching the gospel for fifty years. He has done local work in Illinois, Indiana, Arizona and Texas. In 1962, he moved to Burnet, Texas to begin work with the Oaks-West Church; since then, he has made Burnet his home. In 1968, brother Turner resigned from the local work at Burnet and began to work full-time in gospel meetings, holding 20-35 meetings each year. In January 1979, he “retired.” For the next four years, he taught the fall semester at Florida College and then held 10-12 meetings each year in addition to that. He is presently living in Burnet and conducting 10-12 meetings each year.

Brother Turner is best known to many of our readers for his work in Plain Talk. For twenty years he edited and wrote this 8-page paper which had a circulation as high as 8,000. His unique style of writing has been attractive to many readers all over the United States. We think our readers will enjoy his articles and we feel privileged to have them as a welcome addition to Guardian of Truth. Brother Turner will be writing a regular column, one which will appear 18-22 times each year. You can expect to read his material on page 6 or 7, depending on the layout. I know that you will look forward to reading from him and will benefit from his years of study.

Both brother Turner and I want our readers to know that there has been no compromise of convictions in our agreement to work together. We met together and discussed specifically some of the areas we thought that there was disagreement. We rejoice in the fact that we found no disagreement of substance between us. Brother Turner has been misrepresented by those who would imply that he believe a Christian may sin with impunity. He believe all sin, whether committed ignorantly, inadvertently, or presumptuously, is contrary to God’s will, and forgiveness is promised only upon conditions set forth in God’s word. We both believe that grace for the Christian is continuously available but conditionally received. The Christian who is involved in the practice of sin must cease the practice of his sin in order to stand justified in the sight of God.

Though there is no doubt that each of us would express some thing differently, we are aware of no significant different in doctrine or application. Brother Turner’s name has been linked erroneously with some other writers who have made very loose statements regarding “continuous cleansing.” Last year, I perceived that some brethren among us were ready to cut themselves off from men who disagreed on “continuous cleaning” but who had no difference in practice or in application of scriptural concept. Consequently, in an editorial dated 1 March 1984, I expressed that I had no desire to cut myself off from those who disagreed on this subject but whose practice was the same. In that editorial, I mentioned several men with whom I perceived disagreement and from whom I did not want to be cut off. Among those I mentioned was brother Turner. Unfortunately as I can now see in retrospect, this wrongly implied that brother Turner’s beliefs are identical to some others who have taken positions on continuous cleansing with which both brother Turner and I are in disagreement. My statement also implied that there was a difference in my convictions and brother Turner’s on the subject of continuous cleansing. Though some have assumed and asserted a difference exists, so far as he and I can tell, there is no significant difference between us on this subject. Though my main purpose was to express my desire for continued fellowship with him and others, I recognize that my statement implied that brother Turner took a position which he denounces. I regret that my statement misrepresented his convictions and apologize for it.

Brother Turner has a free hand to write on any subject he pleases in Guardian of Truth. Based on his past work in other periodicals and bulletins, we look forward to his contributions to our own work.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 12, pp. 358, 377
June 20, 1985