Truth Magazine

By Lewis Willis

You do not hear much from them today, but perhaps it has always been that way. I refer to godly women. They either have no time for, or interest in, the feminist rhetoric that captures the attention of the media. These godly women simply go about their business as wives, mothers and homemakers, striving to be credible helpmeets in the truest sense of that word. They are respected by their families, admired by their neighbors and they are blessed of God. Their homes are as God would have them and they are central elements in the orderly function of society. The godly woman is not the source of unrest and strife that permeates modern life.

So, where does the confusion originate concerning the woman and her role in the 1980s. Who are these women who champion the feminist cause? What are their backgrounds? What are their contributions?

Last week I saw a CBS Morning News interview with the “mother” of the movement, Betty Friedan. It was 20 years ago that her book, Feminine Mystique, was published. The modern women’s liberation movement attributes much of its impetus to the appearance of this book on the scene. It is viewed as the “bible” of the movement.

Just who is Betty Friedan? Perhaps you have known for years who she was, but the interview I saw was actually my introduction to her. She is an old, arrogant, foul-mouthed gal – the embodiment of all that is ugly in a woman. She makes Yasser Arafat look like Prince Charming. She is so unattractive that I can now understand how she had time to write her book. Her husband would probably like for her to write some more books. How this “excuse” for womanhood could be so greatly admired is beyond me. If she is all the women of this world have to idolize, we are in worse shape than many of us think we are.

Then there is the lovely Ginny Foat. She has been on leave from her job as California president of the National Organization For Women (NOW). She championed the NOW cause until her arrest on January 11 of this year for murder. In her celebrated trial, her husband, John Sidote, an admitted alcoholic and convicted killer, testified that 18 years ago she had beaten an Argentine toy manufacturer to death with a tire iron. Yesterday (11/16/83) her trial ended and she was acquitted of the charge. However, from the public and media reaction, this gal is destined to become another of the champion of the feminist cause. Such sterling character is deserving of respect!

The Akron-Beacon Journal (11/13/83) reported that Foat had worked in a New Orleans bar as a gogo dancer. USA Today (11/16/83) reported she had had an illegitimate baby at that time and had given it up for adoption. She is a marriage dropout; Sidote was the second of her four husbands. She has only been married three times since 1965! The details of that sordid and corrupt relationship made her trial spectacular. The National Organization For Women must surely be proud of such a wonderful representative for their cause! She is just the kind of image that NOW deserves. All people make mistakes and Foat’s mistakes are not greatly different from those that many other people make. However, the tragedy with her is that there is no evidence that she would do things differently today than she did back then. She is sorry that her exploits were exposed by the media and her trial, but her defense is that she was a victim of an abusive husband and her environment. The last several years of her life have been spent trying to get society to look with favor on such conduct and thus remove the stigma attached to those who do such things.

What has been the impact of such women on society. Politicians, from the local to the national level, have been led to believe that Betty and Ginny represent the aspirations of modern women. In their search for votes and in an effort to “be elected at any cost,” these politicians have recently tried to bless our nation with another Equal Rights Amendment to replace the one that the states would not ratify. The latest effort failed to win approval in the House of Representatives, being defeated when less than a two-thirds majority voted for the amendment on Tuesday (11/15/83). Feminists across the country were outraged and they vowed to defeat every representative who voted against the issue. God bless those statesmen who voted in favor of the well-being of women instead of knuckling down to the threats of a few malcontents who have failed to find happiness by living ungodly lives.

Behold, not wishing to be left behind, the National Council of Churches has lent its ear to the utterances of these women and responded favorably to NOW purposes. This national council represents 30 Protestant and Orthodox denominations. Their work through the years has done as much for religion as Betty and Ginny have done for women. The NCC has just published the Inclusive Language Lectionary. The Lectionary is a collection of Bible readings that eliminates references to God as being solely male. NOW must be rejoicing! The Lectionary could possibly become the basis for many other books by Betty. Ginny’s attorney might introduce some of its wisdom in her next trial for deeds in her colorful past. In some passages, God is referred to as both Father and Mother – as in “Our Father (and Mother) which art in heaven. . . . ” They altered the language about Jesus to refer to him as the “child” of God, instead of the “son” of God. The 112-page Lectionary is billed “as an attempt to re-think the language of Scripture . . .” (Akron Beacon Journal, 10/14/83). Why can’t these people just say what they are trying to do? The National Council of Churches is responding to the feminist movement and if it is necessary they will desecrate the Sacred Scriptures to attain their purposes! Their efforts, if the past provides us a measure, will be applauded by the clergy of most mainline Protestant, Jewish and Catholic bodies. With Betty and Ginny, the clergy will correct all of God’s mistakes about the role of women!

I was just thinkin’- I think I will continue to believe and teach the Scriptures teach and honor those godly women who respect Divine Revelation. Let the world applaud the NOW gals, but let godly women remember that “her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praiseth her” (Prov. 31:28). “Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husband; . . . whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; but let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price . . . . 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” (1I Pet. 3:1-7).

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 14, pp. 441-442
July 19, 1984

By Jack L. Holt

In the November issue of Action there is an article by Rubel Shelly with the title, “A Question of Eternity.” The editor of Action, Jimmie Lovell, gives the article his editorial approval and blessings.

Brother Shelly wrote about a conversation he had with a man he was trying to convert to Christ. This man finally got around to the issue that disturbed him. He could see his need to obey the Gospel but was reluctant to do so because as he said to Shelly, “Rubel I think my mother was the godliest woman who ever lived. She loved us kids, taught us the word of God and showed us how to live with respect for everything that is good. I don’t know whether she was immersed or not. Are you saying my mother will go to hell if she wasn’t immersed?”

That question seems to give modern preachers a lot of trouble. I say modern preachers, for this question didn’t give preachers like Jesus and the apostles any trouble at all. The Lord told the apostles, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature” (Mk. 16:15). Now, why were they to do that? Because every creature needs the gospel of Christ. Jesus didn’t say, “Go present some things that can be the basis for a religion,” or “Go preach a gospel.” But “Go preach the gospel.” Then, “He that believeth (that gospel) and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mk. 16:16).

There are five facts that stand out in this commission: (1) every creature needs the gospel; (2) because every responsible creature is a sinner; (3) every creature can understand it; (4) every creature is responsible to it; and (5) only those who believe it and are baptized can be saved. Jesus views the whole world as lost. The world is lost because it is in sin. The gospel is the only way out of sin.

When the apostles labored under that commission, they went forth to preach the only saving gospel to a lost world. In the preaching of that gospel the saving grace of God was fully and finally revealed. The only grace of God that can be preached with His approval is “the word of His grace” (Acts 20:32). There is only one gospel of God’s grace (Gal. 1:6-9). To preach another does not mean one is loving and kind, but accursed.

Paul tells us, “The grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men” (Tit. 2:11). The word appeared means “to make clear, manifest.” It refers to the sudden coming of God’s word into a sinful world as light comes into a dark place. When Jesus said, “Go preach the gospel,” He is saying “let the light of salvation burst upon a lost world.” Or to put it another way, “Go tell a lost sinful world about the saving grace of God, those who believe and are baptized shall be saved; but those who disbelieve will be damned. ” Those who obey the gospel are saved “by grace through faith” (Eph. 2:8-9).

The Scriptures tell us we are saved “by grace through faith.” I ask, “Through faith in what?” Is it through faith in what we think God will do, or through faith in what God says He will do? To reject what God says He will do is unbelief. Is faith in God faith in what we think is true, or faith in what He says is true? For example if we have faith in God we must accept His view of the world. In God’s view every responsible creature who has not obeyed the Gospel of Christ is lost in sin, perishing and is “without hope” (Eph. 2:11).

In God’s view one has saving hope only in Christ. One comes to the Father through Christ, not through human goodness. Now shall I sit in judgment on God? Brother Shelly says, “God forbid that any human being presume to sit in judgment on the eternal destiny of another.” Well, Paul was a human being and he said those who “obey not the Gospel will be punished with everlasting (eternal) destruction . . .” (2 Thess. 1:7-9).

Brother Shelly, was Paul wrong in “presuming to make such judgments upon the eternal destiny of another?” Is it wrong to declare to lost men God’s judgments upon the disobedient? Is it wrong to tell an unbeliever his destiny will be damnation if he doesn’t change? Does God make any exceptions upon the basis of human goodness?

I have said it before, I say it now again: ” There is no objection that can be made against a preacher who properly quotes the Scripture in proof of a proposition that is not also made against God who gave the Scriptures. ” Faulting the preacher of the Scriptures is faulting God. To put it another way, to criticize those who contend for the pattern is to criticize the One who gave the pattern!

Brother Shelly wrote, “Judgment is the work of the Son of God when He sits on the great white throne in the last day (Acts 17:31; Rev. 20:11-15). It is an arrogant thing for any sinner to think himself fit to pass judgment on any other sinner.”

It is true there will be a final judgment day in which the Lord will pass sentence upon all men. But it is not the purpose of that judgment to determine whether one is saved or not. We can know that now. I may just ask, “Brother Shelly, are you fit to pass judgment on yourself?” Or would that be arrogant? Whether one is saved or not is a judgment we can make now. That judgment is going on daily. Jesus said, “He that believeth in me is not judged, but he that believeth not is judged already” (John 3:18). Now is a gospel preacher unfit to tell an unbeliever about this judgment? Brother Shelly, do you judge an unbeliever to be condemned or not?

Brother Shelly told this man: “I had no judgment to make about his mother, him or any other person,” Well, that’s strange talk coming from one who professes to know the truth as it is in Christ Jesus. Tell us, brother Shelly, since you were talking to this man before he obeyed the gospel, did you tell him he was saved or lost? Did you make any judgments about that? Further, do you judge sinners are lost? If not, why preach to them? Again, is a sinner lost until he obeys the gospel? If you are unfit to judge about this, why are you preaching? If you can pass judgments on one’s present condition as set forth in God’s grace and not be arrogant, why can’t you pass judgments based on God’s grace about a dead sinner’s condition and not be arrogant? God’s grace teaches that if one dies in his sins, where Jesus is there he cannot come (John 8:21-24). What gospel of grace sets aside that gospel of grace?

We need to come to grips with the truth that in situations where one has a good kind mother or father, that the question is not one of human goodness, but human sin. One’s parents may be worthy of the highest praise, but goodness doesn’t remove the fact that they are sinners. Jesus came to “save sinners” (1 Tim. 1:15), and this includes dear sweet mothers, fathers and children. Christ died for all men, which in turn shows that all men need His death, “for all were dead” (2 Cor. 4:14). The godliest mother that ever lived needs the cleansing blood of Jesus just as does the vilest sinner.” If righteousness comes by law (any law-moral or Moses) then Christ died in vain” (Gal. 2:21).

If the blood of Christ will cleanse the unbelieving sinner upon the basis of his goodness, then we have a new gospel. We could then preach, “Go into all the world and tell every sinful creature that he that is a good kind person can be saved; but he that is not may be lost.” But then we would have to be arrogant and judge who is good or bad! “O, what a deceitful web we weave, when first the gospel we do leave.”

To get a better look at Shelly’s error, let’s picture Shelly talking to this man’s mother about her salvation one week before she died. Would he tell her she must believe and be baptized to be saved? Suppose he did and she responded, “You’re judging, and it is an arrogant thing for any sinner to think himself fit to pass judgment on any other sinner.” How would Shelly answer? Would he say, “Well, I suppose you’re right. Judgment will come at the great white throne and I won’t be so arrogant as to say you’re lost.” Yet this same Shelly claims to be a gospel preacher.

Brother Shelly claims that he preaches one must be baptized to be saved, or at least to obey God. But then he says, “Some will surely find mercy in their ignorance and unbelief.” Now Brother Shelly wouldn’t be so arrogant as to pass judgments about that would he? Does he think he is “fit” to do that. The idea, “one human being passing judgments upon the eternal destiny of another human being! ” Well, that settles it Lord. “Judge” Shelly, who doesn’t believe in judging, has now spoken from the judgment seat. He is “surely” sure about it all.

It is remarkable how some will tell you you are not judging if you say a living unbeliever is lost, but it is arrogant, unfit judging if you say a dead unbeliever is lost. Jesus said, “. . . but he that believeth not shall be damned.” When I say what Jesus said am I preaching the truth in love? Can I preach the truth in love and say the unbelievers will be saved? Again, if one can be saved in unbelief when dead, why can’t that same one be saved in unbelief when alive? And if saved, why preach to them?

Brother Shelly affirms that God will save unbelievers! Look at this quote again, “some will surely find mercy in their ignorance and unbelief.” This is Shelly’s judgment of what God will do. Never mind that Jesus said, the unbeliever will be damned. Rubel Shelly has spoken. There is nothing arrogant about that – or is there?

Brother Shelly says, “God’s mercy is the only hope any of us has.” True indeed. But to whom does the Lord show mercy? Listen, “But the mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear Him and keep His covenant, and to those who remember His commandments to do them” (Psa. 103:17-18). Now we find that He will be merciful and save sinners in unbelief.

We need to keep in mind that God never commanded anyone to go apologize for His gospel. Should anyone be ashamed to preach what God was not ashamed to reveal? If the great God in heaven was not ashamed to write His gospel, why should we be ashamed to preach what is written? His ways and thoughts are higher, more loving and merciful than ours, no matter what we think about it.

Brother Shelly concludes, “How much better if we simply teach leaving both increase and judgment to God.” Very well, but teach what and to whom? One can’t teach without making judgments upon the spiritual condition of men. I preach to only two classes; (1) the sinner saved; and (2) the sinner unsaved. My preaching doesn’t put these people into either class. They are already there. I teach all men that if they do not obey the gospel they will be lost in hell. In doing that I simply teach what God’s judgments are and I will leave the matter of my fidelity in purpose to Him.” God forbid that any human being think himself fit to sit in judgment on God.”

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 14, pp. 439-440
July 19, 1984

By Dick Blackford

Nothing has more power for good or bad than the media. By this term we refer to radio, television, newspapers, and magazine. Through the media the gospel has been preached and souls have been saved. Through the same means error has been spread and souls have been lost. Considering the number of converts we are making today, it is probably not an understatement that error has been victorious through the media 99.9% of the time! Not only has the media prevented conversions, it has been the cause of many Christians falling away from the truth. Jesus showed how the attitudes of society can affect disciples when He said, “And because iniquity shall be multiplied, the love of many shall wax cold” (Matt. 24:12).

The media is an inanimate object. The good or harm it does is dependent upon who controls it. It always goes to the highest bidder. Due to high costs, Christians have been quite limited in their use of the media. They can’t compete with large companies and religious conglomerates that spend billions through this means. Many companies and producers seem bent on spreading certain philosophies. We shall deal with the two chief offenders – television and music.

Humanism And Television

It is a fact that we remember more of what we see than what we hear. Thus, it should be obvious that what we both see and hear has the possibility of affecting us the most. Television has been called the world’s greatest teacher. It has also been called “the plug-in drug” and “the devil’s eyeball,” both obvious references to its harmful effects.

Time Spent. Daily TV watching per home hit a new high – an average of seven hours, two minutes, an increase of 14 minutes over 1982’s record!(1) This was the largest jump since 1964. Here are the Nielsen ratings since 1950.

Year By Year The following is the daily average time spent viewing television per household since 1950:
1950 – 4 hours. 35 minutes	1967 – 5 hours. 42 minutes
1951 – 4 hours. 43 minutes	1968 – 5 hours. 46 minutes
1952 – 4 hours. 49 minutes	1969 – 5 hours. 50 minutes
1953 – 4 hours. 40 minutes	1970 – 5 hours. 56 minutes
1954 – 4 hours. 40 minutes	1971 – 6 hours. 2 minutes
1955 – 4 hours. 51 minutes	1972 – 6 hours. 12 minutes
1956 – 5 hours. 1 minute	1973 – 5 hours. 15 minutes
1957 – 5 hours. 9 minutes	1974 – 6 hours. 14 minutes
1958 – 5 hours. 5 minutes	1975 – 6 hours. 7 minutes
1959 – 5 hours. 2 minutes	1976 – 6 hours. 18 minutes
1960 – 5 hours. 6 minutes	1977 – 6 hours. 10 minutes
1961 – 5 hours. 7 minutes	1978 – 6 hours. 17 minutes
1962 – 5 hours. 6 minutes	1979 – 6 hours. 28 minutes
1963 – 5 hours. 11 minutes	1980 – 6 hours. 36 minutes
1964 – 5 hours. 25 minutes	1981 – 6 hours. 45 minutes
1965 – 5 hours. 29 minutes	1982 – 6 hours. 48 minutes
1966 – 5 hours. 32 minutes	1983 – 7 hours. 2 minutes

 

If you are anywhere close to the national average, that doesn’t leave you much time for Bible study, personal evangelism, devotion, helping new converts or shut-ins, being a spouse and/or parent, etc. (Eph. 5:22f; 6:4; 2 Tim. 2:2; Gal. 6: 10).

Vulgar Language. The Coalition for Better Television reported an increase of 140% in profanity in the fall of 1983. Here were the increases: CBS up 182.4%; NBC up 171.2%; and ABC up 65.8%.(2)

If you would not let “corrupt speech proceed out of your mouth” (Eph. 5:29). Why would you permit it to be piped into your home in front of your family while doing nothing to stop it? Are we being consistent? One may reply, “They hear it all the time at school.” What kind of justification is that? Does it mean that therefore they should also hear it at home? How far will we follow such reasoning on other moral matters? Think brethren.

Materialism. Affluence and worldly power are emphasized in many popular programs. This has been the setting for such programs as Dallas, Falcon Crest, Knotts Landing, Flamingo Road, Dynasty, and Different Strokes. More are promised. Many fathers are having difficulty meeting the demands on their pocketbooks for more material possessions. The Son of Man had no where to lay His head. He hasn’t called us to that same lifestyle but there is no question Dallas is having more of an influence than our Lord’s teaching. Remember His warning about the cares, riches, and pleasures of this life which choke out the pure seed (Lk. 8:14)? He has promised to provide when we put first things first (Matt. 6:25-34).

Violence. Dr. Thomas Radecki (psychiatrist) reports that “families with problems of aggression are watching large amounts of television, are more nervous and fearful of the world around them.” He points out that hyperactivity in schools is related to television violence.(3) Since the Christian is taught to “render to no man evil for evil” and to “be at peace with all men” (Rom. 12:17,18), it is obvious that a constant diet that is the opposite of what our Lord taught and practiced will be detrimental.

Illicit Sex. Only the naive would deny the overwhelming obsession TV has with this subject. We cite one example. Jeff Greenfield wrote in TV Guide on TV’s treatment of marriage. “One of the best illustrations of this attitude occurred some time back on Dallas, during the wedding of Lucy Ewing. As the solemn vows of matrimony were recited by the bride, groom and minister, the camera cut back and forth among no less than three husbands and wives – each lusting after a mate to whom he or she was not wedded. The pledges of eternal fidelity were the straight lines; the looks of illicit longings were the punch lines. And the joke was as anyone so naive as to believe that any marriage could exist as a bond between two young people in love.”(4)

Examples of nudity, sexual innuendoes, raunchy dancing, glorification of incest and homosexuality are too numerous to mention.

God put a fence around sexual relations. It is called marriage (Matt. 19:9). Lusting after another is called “adultery in the heart” (Matt. 5:28). Fornication and lasciviousness will prevent one’s salvation (Gal. 5:19-21). Humanism exalts this obsession.

The Kind Of Person You Are

Are you the kind of person who, in an average two month period: (a) engages in extra marital sex 426 times? (b) makes sexually suggestive comments outside of marriage? (c) is involved in public sexual activity 1126 times? (d) or commits 2087 acts of violence? A recent study of prime-time programs recorded that many incidents between March and May, 1981. Another study by Harvard University showed 70% of TV’s references to sexual relations occurred between unmarried people.(5) As Red Skelton said: “Now they say this doesn’t affect your mind . . . but if you can subliminally sell a product in 30 seconds, what does one hour of filth and violence do to the brain?”

Why Has TV Become So Corrupt?

Let us go behind the scenes to the beliefs of those responsible. Public Opinion published a survey of 104 of Hollywood’s most influential writers, producers, and executives. Here are the results: 97% support abortion; 20% believe homosexuality is wrong; 51 % do not believe adultery is wrong; 45% claim no religious affiliation; 93% seldom or never attend religious services.(6) Some of these have won Emmy awards and are household names. Whether they are part of an organized movement, their practices and beliefs harmonize perfectly with the aims of The Humanist Manifesto.

Humanism And Modern Music

The Bible shows that music can have an affect on our behavior (1 Sam. 16). It can “soothe the savage beast” or bring the beast out of a man. One historian observed that “songs have overthrown kings and empires.” What can they do to the faith of a Christian? Modern music is to blame for much of the decadence in our society. A wise man observed,”Let me write the songs of a nation, and I care not who writes its laws.”

Dr. Adam Knieste, Ph.D., a musicologist who studies the effects of music on humans, says “music is a two-edged sword. It’s really a powerful drug. Music can poison you, lift your spirits or make you sick . . . mellow tones can relax you, loud, grinding music can cause blood pressure to rise, leading to headaches and an anxious feeling.” He observes that “only in recent years has music been used systematically to affect human behavior . . . . Eddy Manson, Oscar-winning composer and president of the American Society of Music Arrangers, points out that moviegoers pay good money to have their emotions stirred. ‘We manipulate people like crazy and they love it.’ Even the sex drive, says Manson, is kindled by the right music. ‘The big thing about sexy music is the power of suggestion. One of the biggest motivations in record sales is the bedroom lure, which record companies all know about.’

“Manson warns people to watch out for musical manipulation. ‘Music is used everywhere to condition the human mind. Hitler used Wagner to win the German masses to Naziism.’ The real danger is ‘because nobody takes musical manipulation very seriously.”(7)

The wise man warned, “As he thinketh in his heart, so is he. . .” (Prov. 23:7). How does this fit humanism? When one considers the onslaught of pornography of the air waves, suggesting fornication and adultery, double entendres, along with anti-family and anti-God suggestions, and a “this world” view, it isn’t difficult to make the connection. The Humanist Manifesto tells us that “no deity will save us; we must save ourselves . . . . We strive for the good life here and now . . . . In the area of sexuality, we believe that intolerant attitudes, often cultivated by orthodox religions and puritanical cultures, unduly repress sexual conduct . . . . We do not . . . wish to prohibit . . . sexual behavior between consenting adults. The many varieties of sexual exploration should not in themselves be considered ‘evil’. . . . The state should encourage maximum freedom for different moral . . . values in society.”(8) Music is being used to spread these views. The song Imagine, by John Lennon, is still being played on radio. It suggests the idea of no heaven, no hell, no religion, no private ownership of property, and a one world government.

Sexual suggestions have been made in such hits as “Why Don’t We Do It In The Road,” “Let’s Spend The Night Together,” “If It Feels Good, Do It,” “Do You Wanna Make Love,” “Lick It Up,” “I Want A New Drug,” “Baby, Give It Up,” etc. When the “Culture Club” received a grammy recently, Boy George said, “Thank you, America. You’ve got taste, style, and you know a good drag queen when you see one.”(9) (“drag queen” is homosexual jargon for a male homosexual who wears the clothing of a female).(10)

Some of the chief exponents have been the Beatles, Rolling Stones, Dr. Hook, Elton John, Kiss, Queen, Alice Cooper, and Rod Stewart. Some of their songs openly advocate a violent revolution of American society and of going to war with our parents. Alice Cooper has a song about necrophilia (intercourse with a corpse) titled “Cold Ethyl.” Dr. Hook sings of fornication, bestiality, and homosexuality. (I have tried to be as polite as possible, but you need to know.)

Jerry Rubin (of the Chicago Seven) wrote a book titled “Do It. ” He said, “Rock n’ roll marked the beginning of the revolution. We see rock n’ roll and dope as part of a Communist plot to take over America . . . . We’ve combined youth, music, sex, drugs, and rebellion with treason, and that’s a combination hard to beat.”(11)

Dr. David Noebel wrote: “Rock has turned our young ladies into sex machines, our young men into dirt balls and has abolished pride in personal appearance. It has degraded love, sex and marriage while upgrading lust and lasciviousness. It has made a mockery of morality and has encouraged bisexuality and homosexuality.

“And while attacking God, Jesus Christ, the Bible and Christianity, it has expressed sympathy for the devil. It has opened the door to the occult and paganism.

“It has alienated children from parents and widened the generation gap. It has downgraded patriotism and reached violent revolution. It has tarnished our nation’s culture and promoted and sustained the drug culture. It has become our teenagers’ number one addiction.

“Although rock music may have many defenders, it has absolutely no defense. It is a moral, cultural and spiritual wasteland. It has no redeeming social value. It is a veritable noise-emitting compost heap.”(12)

What is the meaning? So far as this study is concerned, there is no significant distinction to be made between humanism and communism. When one looks at a communist country he may observe that the great moral problems we are encountering are not significant to those nations. The reason is best summed up in Ramparts Magazine, by pro-Castro publicist, Susan Sontag: “The American new left is correct to be anarchic, because it is out of power. The freaky clothes, rock, drugs, sex are pre-revolutionary forms of cultural subversion and so you can have your grass and your orgy, and still be moral and revolutionary. But in Cuba, the revolution has come to power, and so it follows that such disintegrative :freedom’ is inappropriate.”(13)

What Can The Christian Do?

The greatest need today is for the Christian to be informed and to take control of his/her life instead of letting the media control it. Begin at home. Pray (Jas. 5:16). Teach your children (Eph. 6:4). Then seek to inform and teach others (2 Tim. 2:2). As time and resources permit, write edifying and appropriate letters to those responsible. Remember that whatever happens to our society, you can be faithful. Christ, the apostles, and other early Christians lived in an evil society. Remembering their sacrifice will give you strength to endure. May God bless us all in these perilous times.

Endnotes

1. “Daily TV Viewing Tops 7 Hours,” Fred Rothenberg, Associated Press, Messenger-Inquirer, Owensboro, KY (1/25/84).

2. “Study Says Profanity Up Sharply On Shows,” (Ibid., 2/4/84).

3. “Violence On Television Has Psychological Effect,” Thomas Radecki, M.D. (Ibid., 10/11/79).

4. TV Guide, Jeff Greenfield, (4/11/82).

5. Leadership Foundation (mail out), Martha Roundtree, Pres., p. 3 (1/84).

6.(Note: Corresponding footnote number not found in original documentation) Ibid., p. 2.

6. Ibid., p. 3.

7. How Music Soothes, Stirs and Slims You, David Chagall, Family Weekly (1/30/83).

8. Paul Kurtz, Humanist Manifestos I and II, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY (1979).

9. Messenger-Inquirer, (2/29/84).

10. David A. Noebel, The Homosexual Revolution, Tulsa, OK.

11. David A. Noebel, Rock ‘N’ Roll: A Pre-revolutionary Form of Cultural Subversion (booklet).

12. Ibid.

13. Ibid.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 14, pp. 423-425
July 19, 1984

By Anonymous

“Brethren, as I have told you before, I cannot do justice to a class, when I am away half the time preaching. However, because you continue to insist on having me to teach a class, I will accept a class and refuse all invitations to preach elsewhere, except those received from churches which express an interest in the possibility of having me work with them on a ‘full-time’ basis.”

On the first Sunday of the next January I began my duties, as the teacher of that class. Three months later, I had reached an agreement with a small church to work with them. I began my association with that church filled with enthusiasm, but it soon became evident that I had associated myself with a church fraught with troubles.

If you have the idea that only large churches experience troubles, forget it. Over the last 20 years I have worked only one year with a church averaging 100 or more in attendance on Sunday morning. It seems to me that small churches have all the troubles which large churches encounter, plus a few others. My experience leads me to conclude that a preacher working successfully with a small church marks him as a special kind of man. He must be a preacher who is in a peculiar way adapted or can adapt himself to the work required in a small church.

When I left my Sunday morning class and began working with that first small church, the regular preacher where I had been identified as a member, recommended me for that work. He told me: “It will be a hard work, but someone has to do it.” I took that, as encouragement. However, I came to believe that he meant it as a warning. Later I learned that he had told another: “That work will either make or break him, as a preacher.”

At this time I am in my seventh work, as a “full-time” evangelist with a local church. It was necessary for me to engage in secular employment in order to be able to work with one of those churches. The demands of those two jobs were such that I began to find it necessary to be in my library very late on Saturday nights. Then, one Sunday morning, as I turned from my books and my desk, with the intention of going to bed, I was greeted by the light of dawn coming through my window. Some how it became clear to me that the time to move had once again arrived.

It was necessary to depend upon other churches for part of my support in order to work with three of the seven churches. When one depends on other churches for part of his support, he must have great faith in the Lord’s promise to provide. Such a preacher may, as I once did, receive a telephone call when one of his checks is due, and hear an elder tell him that the church helping him has run into financial difficulties and must discontinue helping with his support, immediately. In my case, the elder who called was persuaded to have the check then due sent to me. After hanging up, I called an elder of another church and was able to arrange temporary support until I could find permanent replacement of the support that had been terminated.

A few churches which make a commitment to support a preacher working with a small church will stick to their commitment, as long as that preacher remains with that church, needs support and faithfully does the work of an evangelist. However, it seems that most churches are composed of members who have little, if any, understanding of why small churches cannot be set up on a time table and become fully self-supporting by a prescribed time. Such churches place an arbitrary limit on the time they will support a preacher to work with a small church. If the church has not been able to become self-supporting by the set time, the preacher faces the choice of trying to raise replacement support or trying to relocate.

Termination of support often comes at the end of December. When that happens, the preacher’s decision, regarding whether to seek replacement support or move, may be very difficult. It may be that the church which terminated support gave no consideration to whether or not the preacher had two, three, four or five children in school, but the preacher must give that some consideration when making his decision. May the members of churches which have treated preachers in that way add to their faith brotherly kindness and love. May they also learn: not only must support be sent directly to the preacher, it also is for the support of that preacher, not for the support of the church where he preaches.

After I was with them for some time, two of the three churches, where it was necessary for me to obtain outside support, began providing all the support I received. I stayed with one of those churches only a short time longer. I remained with the other two more years.

A preacher should know, better than any member of a church with which he is considering associating himself, what wages he must have in order to form the association. It has been my practice to tell brethren what I must have and make that non-negotiable. Once I set aside that rule and made a mistake.

Three of the seven churches were self-supporting, when we began our association. However, the members of one experienced financial reverses, during the time I was there. When I moved away, they continued sending me “wages” I had earned, but they had been unable to pay the last few months I was with them.

It may be that you thought creative financing is something new, but preachers who have worked with small churches have been acquainted with it a long time. One place a brother provided the house in which I lived. He had an agreement with the church to provide the house for a stipulated amount each month. However, instead of collecting the rent from the church, he donated what he had coming.

I have worked with churches that met in rented rooms, an 80 year old building (well maintained and modernized), buildings only a few years old and a new building. At one place, we entered into a building construction program. Such a program may produce problems which will try one’s faith and test the love which the children of God have for each other. One should always remember that a problem is no more than a thing in need of a solution. If a church will enter a building program with that attitude toward problems, it can enter its new building a better and stronger church than when it began the program, because it has experienced facing problems and solving them.

It is not uncommon for a preacher to learn of some brother or sister who thinks he is being paid too much. Even though I believe my pay has always been below the average for preachers, I have failed to escape having that opinion expressed regarding my wages. I have raised what today is considered a large family. Never have I put forth a moment’s effort to find out what other preachers.earn. Yet, certain information has a way of reaching a preacher’s cars. At one time I was aware of how much two preachers, having neither children nor even a wife, were paid. Each had his housing and utilities furnished and received $10.00 per week more than I was receiving and I had to pay my own housing and utilities.

Some time ago it occurred to me that I was receiving about average wages for a preacher. Then some brother destroyed my illustion by writing that the average preacher receives the amount I receive plus his housing, utilities, auto allowance and social security. What is a low paid preacher to do? If he is paid less than the average, he must be an above average manager and if he is married, he must have a wonderful understanding wife, who is willing to economize. Comfort one another with these words, do not eat them as though they were sour grapes which leaves a bitter taste in one’s mouth. They are not sour grapes.

This series of articles is being written anonymously: first, to protect the identities of individuals and churches to whom references are made. Second, to leave the author free to express certain things without someone charging him with unworthy motives. It is hoped that this series will help preachers of the future to be better prepared to solve some problems than was the author. May we all contend earnestly for the faith.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 14, pp. 437-438
July 19, 1984