Truth Magazine

By Steve Wolfgang

The Lexington (KY) Herald-Leader for Saturday, 10-6-84 (p. C-8), contains a story which is triply tragic. The article reports the death at birth of an infant whose parents’ “religious beliefs dictated that they not seek a doctor’s help” during delivery. The parents, Shelbyville (KY) residents, are members of a religious group “with ties to Faith Assembly (which) shuns doctors and relies on divine intervention for medical assistance.” According to the AP news release, the couple’s “first child also suffocated during delivery in 1981.”

This incident is tragic not only for the most obvious reason (the death of an innocent child), but also for the fact that so many people allow themselves to be deluded by some charismatic preacher into gullibly believing things in the name of religion and the Bible which the Bible actually does not teach. Such cases as this not only give a false impression of biblical religion to the uninformed, but also provide grist for the mill of those who would increasingly involve the state in religious matters. (Parenthetically and ironically we note that some of these same crusaders for repression of religion breathe smoke and fire when religious people dare to express themselves politically.)

Surely people have a “right” to believe and practice whatever they please-within limits. Obviously, if one’s religious scruples dictate cannibalism, the public good is surely served by government restraint on the expression and practice of such activities. And so it is here should a parent’s right to believe take precedence over the right to life of an unborn child?

Before someone gets-too bent out of shape over the free-expression-of-religion dimensions of the case, we should think further about what seems to me the most ironic portion of this episode. The judge in this case reportedly said that “it was against his better judgment to dismiss the (reckless homicide) charges, but that he had no choice based on a (1983) Kentucky Supreme Court decision (which) – found that a child must be separated from its mother before it can be considered a victim of homicide.”

But think: If the mother had decided to abort the child (even a matter of weeks or days before birth), would this judge have said the first word about the deliberate slaughter of this innocent being? Certainly not if he is like so many others who profess righteous moral indignation over incidents such as this one, but who then hypocritically defend the “rights” of individuals to massacre a million and a half fetuses every year.

This is not written as a defense of false religion; nor is it meant to increase the anguish and pain of anyone facing such far reaching moral dilemmas as are bound up in these kinds of situations. But surely our nation’s values are distorted when a rare incident such as this makes headlines while virtually nothing is said of millions of abortions which are now occurring at the rate of one every thirty seconds (Bernard Nathanson, M.D., Aborting America, p. 187).

Is anyone listening? Does anyone care?

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 5, p. 138
March 7, 1985

By Johnny Stringer

Jesus taught that marriage is permanent. In keeping with God’s original intent regarding marriage, He prohibited divorce and stated that all second marriages of divorced persons are adulterous (Mt. 19:3-9; 5:32; Lk. 16:18). He made only one exception to this rule: One is permitted to divorce his spouse for fornication, and when he does so, is free to remarry. Some, however, teach that even if he did not divorce his mate for fornication, a Christian is still free to remarry if he was deserted by his mate.

Erroneous Interpretation Of 1 Corinthians 7:15

Advocates of this view cite 1 Corinthians 7:15 as proof of their position. It says, “But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases.” They reason that if one is not under bondage, then he must be free to remarry.

Such an interpretation is obviously false, because it clearly contradicts the teaching of Jesus on the subject. The woman who was described by Jesus as being put away (Mt. 5:32; Lk. 16:18), would be deserted; yet, Jesus taught that she had no right to remarry.

Contextual Interpretation Of The Verse

It is necessary to consider the problem Paul was dealing with when he made the statement under discussion. Some of the Christians in Corinth evidently had spouses who were not Christians. They had been converted to Christ, but their mates had not been. They were concerned as to whether a believer’s marriage to an unbeliever was valid; and doubting the validity of such marriages, they wondered whether or not they ought to leave their unbelieving mates.

In verses 12-14, Paul showed that such marriages were valid, so that unbelievers ought to continue dwelling with their unbelieving mates. The Lord had not personally dealt with the specific matter of whether marriages between believers and unbelievers were valid marriages which were to be continued, but Paul would address himself to the subject (v. 12). Of course, when Paul spoke on the subject, he spoke as the Lord’s ambassador under the guidance of the Holy Spirit; hence, the authority of Heaven was behind what he said. The point of verse 14 is that the marriage between a believer and an unbeliever is valid. This being the case, the teaching of Jesus applies to such a marriage, for His teaching had to do with marriages in general.

In making the point that the marriage between an unbeliever and a believer was valid, and that the believer ought therefore to continue living with the unbelieving mate, Paul hinted that some unbelievers might be unwilling to live with believers. He instructed the believer to dwell with the unbeliever if the unbeliever was pleased to dwell with the believer. Some unbelievers would not be willing to live with believers.

Because some unbelievers would be unwilling to live with believers, it was necessary to tell believers what to do if their unbelieving mates left them. This is the purpose of verse 15. Paul instructed them that if the unbeliever departed, they should let him depart. The believer should not try to force himself on the unbeliever who desired to leave.

Why should such instruction be necessary? Apparently, some Christians might have been inclined to force themselves on their unbelieving mates because of a deep sense of responsibility to fulfill their marital obligations. The Christian may have feared that if his mate left him, so that he could not fulfill his normal obligations to his mate, his failure to fulfill those obligations would be sinful. Paul, therefore, assured the saints that such was not the case. After saying to let the unbeliever depart, he alleviated their fear, assuring them that if the unbeliever departed, the believer would not be under bondage-that is, under obligation to fulfill all the normal marital duties.

Some interpret the statement that they are “not under bondage” to mean that they are no longer married. However, the word that Paul used in verse 15 did not refer to the marriage bond. He spoke of the marriage bond in verses 27 and 39; but the word he used in verse 15 was one which was sometimes used to refer to a slave bound to his master; it was not used to refer to the marriage bond. In fact, Paul could not be saying that the marriage bond is broken by desertion; for verse I I shows that the marriage bond is not broken by desertion. According to verse 11, if a woman deserts her husband, he is still her husband; she must either be reconciled to him or remain unmarried. The marriage bond, therefore, is not broken by desertion. Inasmuch as the marriage between an unbeliever and a believer is just as valid as any other marriage (w. 12-14), the truth taught in verse 11 applies to it as well as to other marriages.

We must remember the purpose of Paul’s saying that the deserted Christian is not under bondage. People today use this statement to prove that the deserted Christian is free to remarry. Paul was not trying to support that idea; whether the deserted Christian could remarry or not was not the problem he was dealing with. Paul’s purpose was to support the instruction that believers should permit unbelievers to depart; he was trying to overcome the reluctance of some to let unbelieving mates depart. His point, therefore, was the believers would not be guilty of a sinful neglect of marital obligations if their unbelieving mates departed, for they would no longer be bound to fulfill their normal marital duties. Paul did not say the deserted mate was free to remarry; and, indeed, such a notion contradicts the clear teaching of Jesus on the matter (Mt. 5:32; Lk. 16:18).

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 5, pp. 137, 141
March 7, 1985

By Dan Walters

It is well established that the Masonic Lodge is a religious institution. Many Masonic writers have admitted this truth including Henry Pirtle in The Kentucky Monitor who stated that “Masonry is a religious institution,” and that “Masonry is a worship.” Joseph Fort Newton, a Mason who wrote at least seven popular books on the subject of Freemasonry, entitled one of his volumes The Religion of Masonry.

Brother A.C. Grider, in an article written several years ago, pointed out the religious nature of the Masonic Lodge by quoting from three representative Masonic books, The Kentucky Monitor by Henry Pirtle, Morals and Dogma by Albert Pike, and the Encyclopedia of Freemasonry by Albert G. McKay. Grider showed from these three works that ” 1. The Masonic Lodge is a religious institution. 2. The Masonic Lodge is open for religious purposes. 3. The Masonic Lodge has religious ceremonies. 4. Masonry produces a religious faith. 5. Masons engage in religious worship. 6. Masonry is a religion. 7. Masonry is worship. 8. The Masonic Lodge will lead to heaven. 9. Masonry fits one for immortal nature. 10. Masonry builds a spiritual temple. 11. The Masonic Lodge has a redeemer, a High Priest, a creed, an Altar, a Decalogue, and a crucifix. 12. Masons practice baptism, eat the Lord’s Supper, Burn Incense, and keep Easter.”

However, one ought not to conclude that the Masonic Lodge is merely a cult, a sect, or a denomination of religion that would be parallel to the Mormon church, the Roman Catholic religion, or the Moonies. The Masonic religion is far more subtle and far more dangerous than that. Its elaborate symbolism is derived from many ancient religious and occult sources. To a background of ancient Persian and Egyptian paganism is added a generous portion of Gnosticism (one of the first major heresies), a handful of Jewish Kabbalisin (a system of esoteric theosophy, based on a mystical interpretation of the Scriptures), and even a bit of medieval alchemy. None of this symbolism is to be taken literally, and it would be a mistake to suppose that Masons actually practice magic or give credence to any particular false religion through their ritual. Masonry seeks to be a religion that comprehends all of the so-called “great religions” and philosophies of the world. It teaches that the same basic truths, the only truths of eternal significance, are to be found in most, if not all, of the major religions of history.

The Masonic Lodge is a sort of extra-ecclesiastical ecumenical movement. It operates on the premise that adherents of all the differing religions, even those most diametrically opposed, such as Christianity and Hinduism, can meet on common ground in the Lodge and enjoy spiritual fellowship as brethren without sacrificing any of their sectarian convictions. As General Albert Pike put it: “In no other way could Masonry possess its character of Universality; that character which has ever been peculiar to it from its origin; and which enables two Kings, worshipers of different Deities, to sit together as Masters, while the walls of the first temple arose; and the men of Gebal, bowing down to the Phoenician Gods, to work by the side of the Hebrews, to whom those Gods were abomination; and to sit with them in the same lodge as brethren” (Morals and Dogma, p. 276).

William Hutchinson, in The Spirit of Masonry, expresses this thought well: “All Masons, therefore, Christians, Jews, or Mohammedans, who violate not the rule of right, written by the Almighty upon the tables of the heart, who do fear Him, and work righteousness, we are to acknowledge as brethren; and, though we take different roads, we are not to be angry with, or persecute each other on that account. We mean to travel to the same place; we know that the end of our journey is the same; and we affectionately hope to meet in the Lodge of perfect happiness.”

Masonry does not accept the fact that God has revealed to man through the Holy Scriptures all spiritual truth that he is capable of receiving. Masonry is a quest for new religious truth. “Thus Masonry, so far from limiting the thought of God, is evermore in search of a more satisfying and revealing vision of the meaning of the universe, now luminous and lovely, now dark and terrible; and it invites all men to unite in the quest…” (Joseph Fort Newton, The Builders).

The Masonic Lodge requires faith in a supreme Being, but of the name or of the nature of that Being it asks for no agreement. As the Masonic poet Alexander Pope expressed it:

Father of all!

in every age,

In every clime adored,

By Saint, by Savage, and by Sage,

Jehovah, Jove, or Lord!

Masonry teaches the brotherhood of man and the fatherhood of God, and this without condition and without the necessity of redemption through the blood of Christ. “For better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, and even after death do us part, all men are held together by ties of spiritual kinship, sons of one eternal Friend” (Newton, The Builders).

Masonry teaches that its own philosophy is able to reform the world and to ameliorate what Christians know to be the effects of sin. “The Spirit of Masonry! Ay, when that spirit has its way upon earth, as at last it surely will, society will be a vast communion of kindness and justice, business a system of human service, law a rule of beneficence; the home will be more holy, the laughter of childhood more joyous, and the temple of prayer mortised and tenoned in simple faith” (Newton, The Builders).

According to the teaching of the Lodge, Freemasonry has been in existence since the building of Solomon’s temple. Thus, if we accept the word of Masons, a system of religion that had been in existence at least a thousand years before Christ was born in Judea, has the power to reconcile sinners to one another and to God (if they, indeed, require the latter), to regenerate human society, and to point men the way to eternal life. This makes the sacrifice of Christ on the cross an unnecessary act and the shedding of His blood a wasteful mistake.

Masonry claims to bring about, or at least to make manifest, a spiritual fellowship between those who follow God’s revealed will (the Bible) and those who reject it. Yet if we accept the Bible as eternal truth, we must conclude that such an idea of fellowship is utterly impossible, and has been so throughout all dispensations of religion. For this reason and others, Masonic writers of high standing always tend to view the Scriptures as allegorical. A literal interpretation of the Bible severs the very taproot of Freemasonry.

We live in an age that seems to be a fulfillment of Masonic predictions. Though there are more religious sects than ever before, and the differences in their doctrines are no less prominent, there seems to be an unwritten agreement among most of them that these differences are of no real importance and that sincere persons of all religions will meet in heaven. This attitude is seen in the modern ecumenical movement in which many Protestant denominations are seeking unity of all segments of the restoration movement without requiring any group to give up any sinful practice. There have for many years been some brethren who have joined the Masonic Lodge and have tried to reconcile this with their membership in churches of Christ. Masonry has undoubtedly had some influence upon the thinking of brethren; just how much it would be difficult to assess. It is unfortunate that some brethren cannot come to an understanding of the truth and terminate their membership in the Masonic Lodge. It is even more alarming when we see brethren, whatever their affiliations, begin to talk and to act as if they were being guided by the Masonic philosophy.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 5, pp. 131-132
March 7, 1985

By Bill Cavender

“I robbed other churches, taking wages of them, to do you service. And when I was present with you, and wanted, I was chargeable to no man: for that which was lacking to me the brethren which came from Macedonia supplied . . . . Now ye Philippians know also, that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church communicated with me as concerning giving and receiving, but ye only. For even in Thessalonica ye sent once and again unto my necessity” (2 Cor. 11:8-9; Phil. 4:15-16).

It is a matter of “the faith,” the plain will of God in the New Testament, that churches are to pay wages to gospel preachers. “Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel” (1 Cor. 9:14). Paul preached the gospel. He gave his life and time to that work. Churches supported him with wages while he did so (2 Cor. 11:8-9; Phil. 4:14-16). It is a matter of human judgment as to which preacher(s) a church will pay wages, but it is a matter of faith that they must do so. A church which does not pay wages to preachers for their work is not obeying the will of God. By plain precept and by apostolic examples, this truth of God is established.

Until a church and its elders really believe that the greatest, most necessary work in the world is gospel preaching, they will not have a dedicated and sacrificial disposition toward preaching. Until brethren really believe that “it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe” (1 Cor. 1:21), they will continue to be unconcerned for the lost and for the world beyond their own city or area, and will continue to be content to be preached to but not to preach to others who have not heard the truth. Selfishness with the gospel and with money is generally widespread among the brethren.

Many elders and churches are afraid to “launch out” and let down the gospel nets for a drought of souls (Luke 5:1-11). They want to “play it safe and not over-commit ourselves with the Lord’s money,” lest a depression comes or the meetinghouse burns down, and “we are not able to pay our bills.” Many elders and brethren sit on the Lord’s treasury in the congregation as if it were a bank account to be saved “for a rainy day and hard times. ” Such brethren have little faith, not believing God’s great truth and principle of sowing and reaping: “But this I say, he which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully . . . . And God is able to make all grace abound toward you, that ye, always having all sufficiency in all things, may abound to every good work . . .” (2 Cor. 9:6-11).

I would offer some suggestions to brethren, especially to elders and preachers, regarding the support of preachers and the amount of wages paid to them. Perhaps these thoughts will help you to do some thinking in these matters and result in increased awareness of God’s will and our duties to God and to those who preach the gospel.

1. Preachers should not hesitate to preach the truth (and practice it) of the New Testament regarding the use of money and material possessions, giving, generosity, unselfishness, and supporting of preachers. There will always be brethren who will say, “All he talks about is money . . . . Every sermon is about money . . . . The preacher is wanting a raise . . . . He makes too much already . . . . He ought not to make any more than the average member of the congregation,” etc. These, and other statements by sometimes unconcerned and even covetous brethren, should not deter us from teaching the truth on this part of God’s will and encouraging our brethren in liberality, generosity and sacrifices for the gospel’s sake. While some will scoff and mock, and close their ears and hearts, some others will hear, listen, learn, purpose, and obey the truth in these matters. Especially will there often be young, sincere people, married couples and families, who will become generous and liberal givers all their lives because they were taught by word and deed from faithful preachers, elders, and brethren who are thoughtful, purposeful givers of their money to Christ.

2. Elders should be men of vision, far-sightedness and understanding, planning the work of Christ and of supporting preachers at home and abroad, and urging and insisting that these plans be carried out by the church. If the elders are not out in front, leading and inspiring the church to do more and to do better in our Lord’s work, little progress will be made. No church rises above nor excels its leadership. If elders and preachers and deacons are not men of generous, sacrificial dispositions, then they will be poor examples to the flock of God. Elders should take the leadership in inspiring and urging a congregation to greater levels of activity, interest, and giving. They should keep before the people the need for preaching the gospel in all the world and the needs of various faithful gospel preachers who work in barren, hard, difficult areas throughout the world. Elders should not leave it up to the preacher to do all the urging, exhorting, and teaching of the church in the matters of giving and supporting faithful preachers. They should be before the church, leading and guiding into greater areas of work and giving of our prosperity to spread the gospel. So often elders will not do this. They leave it to the preacher(s) to do this, and then allow him to be subjected to unjust criticism from brethren who, in many cases, care little about the souls of the lost in all the world and who have never learned to truly give as they are prospered.

3. Brethren should be taught by elders, preachers and all Bible teachers that it is necessary to “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature” (Mark 16:15). We will never convert everyone “right around home,” and “right around here in our own community and state.” The Bible examples in Acts of Apostles, in which the gospel was preached in many cities and nations, then resulting in the gradual spread of truth throughout those areas, are still the best ways. We need to preach in all areas of the world. Then those Christians in those areas will, in turn, evangelize those places further. We cannot expect nor see people “believe and be baptized to be saved” (Mark 16:16), if we who know the truth and have an abundance of God’s material blessings do not with vigor obey Mark 16:15.

4. As much as possible, every member of the church should be informed about the Lord’s work in our own country and throughout the world. We can get people to see and support gospel preaching the more they are informed about it. They will not be enthusiastic about nor give their money generously to preachers, nor to good works needing support, if they are not informed and interested. Reports from preachers supported by a church should be read publicly, reprinted in church newsletters and bulletins, and posted on bulletin boards for members to read. Every member of a congregation should be aware of the work being done by preachers supported by the congregation. This will beget even more enthusiasm and concern, causing brethren to feel more partnership with those who are out preaching the gospel to the lost.

5. Preachers should be given wage increases regularly. Living costs and the extra expenses preachers have make this imperative. Many men do not preach because they cannot support themselves and their families in doing the greatest, most needful work in the world. Others of experience and ability have quit because of lack of wages and income. Some churches never increase a preacher’s wages. He has to move if he gets an increase, or go into secular work. Many churches want to know and try to figure out how little they can pay a man to get him to work with them. Yet churches will spend hundreds or thousands of dollars to move a man but will not pay him well after he gets there. Some brethren work night and day to make all the money possible, their wives work, and all the income they can have is wonderful to them. But a preacher must sometimes beg or almost beg for even livable wages. Workers in businesses, professions and industry have life-long benefits from excellent wages, job security, pensions, social security, life insurance, hospitalization insurance, vacations (up to 5-7 weeks a year in some cases) fully paid, 40 hours per week work with overtime pay for over 40 hours and double time for holidays, and other emoluments. A preacher has very few or none of these benefits unless he provides them for himself and few preachers are paid enough to do that, nor do they work with brethren who are deeply concerned about his welfare and want to help him to have the best “pay-package” and benefits possible. Oftentimes the preacher’s wife must work to help provide income and insurance when she is really needed by her husband at home to help him and to be with their children. Often she does much work with him and in behalf of the church, yet she is rarely ever compensated. Brethren, in many cases, want to “hire” the preacher’s wife along with him, getting two for the price of one. It is little wonder that young men of good minds and good educations want to do something besides preach. (I am not arguing that this is the way it should be with young men; I am just saying this is the way it is.) Yet the work of preaching the gospel and saving souls is the only absolutely essential and necessary work in the world. Many brethren do not realize or believe that!

6. Brethren need to establish (and in some cases, rearrange) their priorities in the Lord’s work. Instead of so much emphasis on buildings, comfort in the buildings, steeples, eating and recreational facilities (unscriptural and unauthorized by Christ), keeping the grounds, investing in property, etc., the first emphasis should be upon preaching the gospel at home and abroad. (What property a church owns should be kept neat, presentable, in good repair and conducive to study, worship and good influence in the community. But brethren sometimes get worldly and gaudy in their excessive and unreasonable expenditures upon meetinghouses.) I know of churches who get involved in building and then terminate all gospel preaching except to themselves at home. I know of churches who pay for buildings, doubling and tripling the payments, “to save interest, ” and support no preachers. I know of churches which keep surplus funds, large bank accounts, and certificates of deposit on hand to pay the building payments “in case of a slump,” and ignore the pleas of faithful men who need wages badly so they can preach the gospel and support their families. These things ought not so to be! No church ought to cease support of gospel preachers to engage in building programs. Meetinghouses, brick and mortar, wood and glass, have never converted one soul in all. the history of the world. People, preachers, and preaching the gospel have and will. Preaching and saving souls is the heart and soul, the life-blood of the kingdom of God. All meetinghouses will perish when Jesus comes and the world ends. Saved souls will not.

If you have read this far in this rambling article, my dear brethren, I thank you. I trust you are thinking with me. I know of many brethren and churches who could greatly increase their contributions personally to the Lord’s work, and the churches could increase their support of gospel preachers at home and abroad – if they would. I urge all to take inventory in this matter to see if we are doing what we should in the matter of giving as we are prospered and supporting gospel preachers as we ought to do.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 5, pp. 133-134, 153
March 7, 1985