Truth Magazine

By Dennis D. Tucker

By now everyone has heard of Vanessa Williams. For a number of days she was the source of national news and controversy. Her name has been on the front page of numerous newspapers and magazines. In fact, it was a magazine and some photographs that started the whole uproar. It appears that Miss Williams posed nude in some very lewd pictures for a certain photographer a few years back. She was paid to pose nude, and she willingly accepted the money after she had done so.

Eventually the pictures wound up in the August issue of Penthouse magazine, a so-called adult magazine, meaning that it shows pictures of individuals in sexual positions and acting out sexual encounters. It is worth noting that several magazines turned down the rights to the pictures of Miss Williams, realizing that such publicity would harm her career and harm the Miss America Pageant. Those magazines turned down a good sized profit; Penthouse has to be pleased with their August sales.

Once the pictures of the naked Miss Williams hit the newsstands, everybody reacted with horror. Miss Williams was stunned that the photographer would have the gall to sell those pictures and that any magazine would print them. Organizers of the Miss America Pageant were shocked and angered by the photographs. They stated that the contestants of the pageant. sign a contract with a morality clause. This clause allows the organizers to relieve the winner of her duties if she acts in any immoral way or brings reproach upon the pageant. They stressed that this was the first time that they had to actually use this clause and wanted to stress the cleanliness and decency of the Miss America pageant.

Publishers of Penthouse responded by calling the organizers of the Miss America Pageant a bunch of hypocrites. Penthouse did not claim that the pictures were wholesome or innocent; they recognized the pictures for what they were, photographs designed to stimulate a sexual response. They challenged the pageant to be honest with itself and admit that they have the same goal, that is to show off flesh.

The whole pageant. is designed to show off bodies of some pretty young girls. No matter how hard pageant officials try to present a wholesome pageant, they fail. If the pageant’s very purpose is wrong, if its goals are wrong, its results will be wrong. Young ladies are shown wearing bikinis, one piece bathing suits, and evening gowns. These articles of clothing are designed to show off the bodies of these women. Pageant officials have tried to keep a certain level of respectability; however, it is impossible to have a wholesome event if its purpose is not wholesome. Talent and ability play very little part in selecting the winner. There is a question for the five finalists to answer, but the nature of this question does not require a great deal of knowledge. For the most part, the winner is chosen on the criterion of looks.

Many of the sponsors of the pageant use the young ladies to model their fashions and makeup. They will use these ladies and other models in their advertisements. Such advertisements are often aimed at stimulating sexual response or at showing other women how to be provocative. They will do this by showing women posing skimpily dressed, wearing their product or with their product, so as to catch the eyes of men. The same thing happens during the pageant; women are skimpily dressed, and people watch to drool over these young ladies.

Penthouse made a good point; their pictures of Miss Williams are the natural conclusion. People who are immodest enough to stand in front of a national audience barely dressed will have little trouble appearing naked in front of a photographer. Miss Williams should not have been shocked; after all, she posed for the pictures. The photographer was in the business of selling pictures. The fact that he would eventually sell her pictures is the natural conclusion. Organizers of the pageant should not have been shocked. If somebody is immodest enough to try to show off her body, it will not matter how under-dressed she is. People with immodest attitudes will do immodest things. Persons with modest attitudes will dress and act modestly (1 Tim. 2:9).

It would shock most individuals to sometimes see the natural conclusion of their attitudes. Those individuals who could see nothing wrong with “church supported orphan homes” or “church supported colleges” twenty years ago, should not be shocked by the church businesses we have today. It is the natural conclusion. People who start missing worship services and eventually fall away should not be shocked. It is the natural conclusion. Individuals who advocate social drinking or immodest dress have no right to be shocked by alcoholism or adultery. It is the natural conclusion. Penthouse was honest enough to see and admit the natural conclusion. How about you?

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 18, p. 550
September 20, 1984

By Hoyt H. Houchen

Question: Why was Jesus born of a virgin?

Reply: Skepticism and denial of the virgin birth of Jesus not only exist among the non-religious, but they also prevail within the religious circle. Modernism and infidelity have both infiltrated the pulpits of some religious bodies. Many people believe that Jesus was the greatest man who ever lived, even the greatest moralist and teacher, but they deny that He was born of a virgin, thus rejecting His deity.

According to the natural laws of procreation, conception occurs when the sperm of a man unites with the egg of a woman. This, however, was not the case with Jesus. He was born of a virgin. It was prophesied that He would be (Isa. 7:14), and the narratives of Matthew and Luke assert it (Matt. 1:18-23; Lk. 1:26-35). The virgin birth of Jesus was a supernatural event, a miracle, which those of us who believe that the Bible is the word of God accept by faith.

Why was Jesus born of a virgin? The pre-existence of our Lord necessitated a miraculous conception. The preexistence of Jesus is affirmed in John 1:1,2: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. ” The “Word” here is Logos (Gr.) and refers to Christ who is the Logos. This term (Logos) which applies only to Christ in this passage, also appears in 1 John 1:1 and in Revelation 19:13. Although logos may at times refer to speech (utterance of words), or to the divine mind of God (see Heb. 4:12), its use in the above passage applies to the person of Christ. In John 1:1,2, the word is used with reference to Christ in connection with His pre-existence with His Father. Other New Testament passages testify to the pre-existence of our Lord (2 Cor. 8:9; Phil. 2:5-11; Col. 1:15, 16; Eph. 1:4,10). While Jesus lived on earth, He affirmed that He was before Abraham (Jn. 8:58). He had lived eternally in union with His Father before His birth upon this earth.

When we entered this world by the natural laws of procreation, we became persons; we were newly created. But Jesus was already a person before His birth. This was true only of Jesus, but not true of us. The natural union of a man and woman cannot bring into the world a person who has existed before (even though some believe and teach the doctrine of reincarnation–rebirth in new bodies). Joseph and Mary could not bring the pre-existent Son of God into the world. His entering into the world had to be by divine intervention. The miraculous conception and virgin birth of Jesus was exactly how it was done. He became man to reveal Himself to man. Men could see God the Father in Him. In His discourse to the Jews, Jesus said, “If God were your father, ye would love me: for I came forth and am come from God; for neither have I come of myself, but he sent me” (Jn. 8:42). John declared of Him he came forth from God, and goeth to God” (Jn. 13:3).

The virgin birth of Jesus was unique. There was never anything like it before, nor has it been since. It explains how Jesus came to earth from God. The subsequent life, teaching and miracles of Jesus all attest to the fact that indeed He was conceived by the Holy Spirit and was born of a virgin.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 18, p. 549
September 20, 1984

By Tom Roberts

We live in a time when modern technology has provided us with the ability to do things quickly. We hear of instant coffee, tea, TV dinners, microwave ovens that cook in seconds, radios and televisions that turn on “instantly,” without waiting for the unit to warm up, computers that rapidly supply answers to difficult questions and many more such like. Consequently, Americans have become used to the concept that almost anything can be done quickly and effortlessly. Miracle drugs provide instant cures to many diseases and pills (white, red, blue, yellow or speckled) are available to relieve tension, slow down or speed up our lives. All of this reminds one of the postcard which contained the prayer, “0 Lord, please give me patience. And do it now.”

We need to be reminded that not everything can be accomplished in an instant. There are some things that require attention, other things that need to be savored and yet others that demand time and patience to accomplish a worthwhile goal. If we expect everything to be over and done in a “twinkling of an eye,” we will miss many a good thing while not really giving other things the attention they deserve.

Knowledge of the Bible is not an instant accomplishment. Have you seen a copy of the popular painting which shows an old, white-haired man sitting with his lamp and an open Bible? For that man, time stopped and he was completely absorbed in reading his Bible. Not many of us do that any more. While the apostles, through the baptism of the Holy Spirit, had instant knowledge (miraculous) of God’s will, none of us have that gift today. There is no substitute for reading the Scriptures, for taking a passage apart word by word, phrase by phrase, until we absorb the meaning that God gave it. How sad it is to teach a class of young people only to see them unable to read, with most of them skipping over words that are unfamiliar to them. When is the last time you took the time to look up a word when its meaning was unknown to you?

Robert Turner relates that a woman rushed up to him once and said, “I would give anything to have your knowledge of the Bible.” While I don’t remember his reply verbatim, he indicated that he simply did not believe the woman. Why? Because knowledge of the Bible is available to all Oust as it was to him) for the taking. Too many people are just not willing to take the time and effort to dig for the knowledge. If that woman (or anyone else) was really interested in learning, they can learn. Paul said, “Whereby, when ye read, ye- can perceive my understanding in the mystery of Christ” (Eph. 3:4). Not only can you know as much Bible as any living preacher today, you can know as much about it as Paul! But not instantly; not without study.

There are some things in life that must be savored to be appreciated. A good meal should not be gulped. Instead of nourishment and enjoyment, it will give you indigestion. So it is with many spiritual things. Our worship should not be pushed and shoved into a time frame that permits no deviation. So many miss visiting with the saints after worship because they must be first in line at the cafeteria. A sermon must not be too long (if one can determine just exactly how long one must be), a prayer should be short, the songs must not take up too much time, etc. We have become so clock-conscious that worship must be constricted and put into a corset of time lest it foul up our Sunday afternoon football (with instant replay). Consider instead, how uplifting it would be if our worship was set free from rigid adherence to the clock. (I realize that we must be practical in these matters or chaos would result.) Might we not just relax and sing one more song for the joy of the Lord’s Day? Might we not appreciate the Lord’s supper a little better? Is it possible the sermon might be understood a little clearer? Some things are worth extra effort or time.

Converting the lost requires a great deal. And many people are just not willing to make the sacrifice. To reach out to those that need the gospel means that we must turn off the TV, leave our family and spend time studying with those who do not know what we know. At times the ignorance of those outside of Christ is appalling; they don’t know the books of the Bible, the plan of salvation or how to worship God. In fact, the things they do know are often wrong. There is not a man or woman living that can spend five minutes with such people and impart to them what they need to know. The tragic thing about the situation is that most Christians are not any more willing to take the time to teach than the sinner is to take the time to learn. Stalemate.

Folks, let us not be guilty of putting the Lord on a stop watch. If we are truly to “put the kingdom of God first” (Mt. 6:33), other things will have to be farther down the list. If you can appreciate the differences between homemade yeast rolls (which have to be kneaded, allowed to rise, kneaded again, etc.) and pop-open rolls from the refrigerator case, you can understand what this lesson is all about. Some things are not better because they are quicker. Probably some people have not read this far in this article because they were too busy. If you did, you can understand the principle and be blessed by it.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 18, pp. 545, 569
September 20, 1984

By Paul K. Williams

On my recent trip to America I heard several favorable comments concerning brother Mike Willis’ editorial, “A Plea For More Tolerance” which appeared in the March I Guardian of Truth. A few I talked to indicated that this indicated a change in policy and attitude on the part of brother Willis.

Editors get their fair (and unfair) share of criticism. In this case, I would like to give evidence that the attitude of brother Willis on this subject (continuous cleansing of the blood of Christ) has been brotherly throughout. He has been practicing what he preached in that editorial.

In late October 19811 submitted an article entitled, “Who Can Discern His Errors?” I later reminded Mike about the article and in a letter dated May 27, 1982 we began a correspondence on the subject. At that time, he did not want to print my article without a lengthy rebuttal, and I merely wanted the article to contribute to the current discussion without entering into a debate. But throughout our correspondence, Mike repeatedly showed that he was not in any way regarding me as a false teacher.

Here are some quotes from his letters: “I certainly do not consider you an enemy of righteousness, although I disagree

with you on this passage. What I think is that both of us need to give very careful attention to this verse (Psa. 19:12) that we might use it correctly in our discussions with the grace-unity brethren” (27 May 1982). In the article of rebuttal he wrote: “Do not misunderstand me I am not charging brother Williams with accepting any of the tenets of the grace-unity movement.” On 3 August 1982 he wrote: “I appreciate your amicable disposition in our correspondence. I hope that I am being equally kind and gentle in replying.” (He was, by the way.) Finally on 28 October 1982 he wrote: “Brother Williams, I have pressed you on the matter of how you should act toward those who are guilty of sins of ignorance. I am fully aware that you and I act the same way toward them. I am charging that these are the necessary conclusions from your argument and not that they are your conduct. I know that you will repudiate the conclusion.” And finally, “I look forward to hearing from you again and pray that the Lord will continue to bless you and your work.”

The tolerance that Mike pled for in March 1984 is the tolerance which he has been practicing. It is the tolerance which I believe all Christians should be practicing. In this spirit brethren can discuss subjects of difference and the result will only be good.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 17, p. 532
September 6, 1984