Truth Magazine

By Jack L. Holt

In answer to the question in the tide of this article many would say, “No.” They claim they love Jesus and would never be offended in Him. In Matthew 11:6, Jesus spoke a very thought provoking beatitude, “Blessed is he who shall not be offended in me.” The word “offend” means “to stumble.” So what Jesus is saying is, “Blessed is he who keeps from stumbling over me” (NASV).

Today, in the religious world as well as in the church, there are many who stumble over Jesus. To the Jews, Jesus was a stone of stumbling because He didn’t fit in with their concepts of what they thought the Messiah was to be. They stumbled at Him for they stumbled over the Scriptures about Him. Paul said, “Because they knew Him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every Sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning Him” (Acts 13:27).

Paul shows that the willful ignorance of and prejudice against the Scriptures caused the Jews to have “blind spots.” The Scriptures were read every Sabbath day. The Jews professed respect for the Scriptures, but while sitting under the sound of the blessed word of God the truth of the Scriptures never penetrated through their prejudices. So when Jesus came in fulfillment of the Scriptures the Jews stumbled over Him.

Now today, many who profess to respect and believe the Scriptures stumble over Jesus. They stumble because they refuse to believe what He says. Peter wrote, “And a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word being disobedient: whereunto they were appointed” (1 Pet. 2:8). What is the teaching here? Did God appoint certain ones to stumble? If so, they couldn’t help but stumble. What God appointed was that those who refuse to believe would stumble. When men do not believe the word; they will stumble over the word.

Unbelief causes men to stumble over Jesus today. They stumble over Him for they stumble over His words. The Jews didn’t stumble over all the Scriptures, but they stumbled over the Scriptures which Jesus said “concerned Me.” They respected the Scriptures in their selective fashion. They were happy to say, “Moses said,” as long as what Moses said fit in with their traditions and concepts. But when the writings of Moses didn’t agree with what they thought Moses should have said, they stumbled at Moses and refused to believe his words. Jesus told them, “Had ye believed Moses ye would have believed me, for he wrote of me” (John 8:46).

Jesus condemned these Jews for their unbelief. Why? Because they stumbled at all the Scriptures? Nol They were condemned as unbelievers because they didn’t believe all the Scriptures. If you do not believe all the Scriptures, you do not really believe the Scriptures at all. What you have is merely a pretended Bible foundation for your unbelief! When men use the Scriptures merely to build a basis for their own human systems they have faith in themselves not in God.

There are multitudes today who will accept what Jesus says as long as what Jesus says agrees with their concepts of what they think He should say. They will go around saying, “The Bible says,” and they expect hearers to believe what they say because “the Bible says it.” But when Scriptures are quoted to them that do not fit in with their creeds or practices they stumble over the word through unbelief.

For example, many who pride themselves on being what they call, “conservative, evangelical Christians,” and who swim in the mainstream of what they call “theological scholarship,” will sign an affirmation stating, “that the Bible and the Bible alone is the word of God written and that it is inerrant in the original autographs.” They will further proclaim their belief in the virgin birth, the atoning death of Jesus and His bodily resurrection. And they will quote Scripture proving these. But when the Scripture is quoted where the resurrected Lord said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved . . . ” (Mk. 16:16), they stumble. Now why do they stumble? Because of unbelief They accept the Scriptures about the resurrection, but reject the Scriptures on salvation from Him who was resurrected!

If we realty believe in Jesus as Lord then we will accept the words of the Lord. What words? All of them. When man truly believes in Jesus they will believe all He said, just as the-Jews. If they had believed Moses, they would have believed all he said. But men often make themselves “lords” and become selective in their unbelief. You either believe all He said, or you don’t really believe in Him as Lord at all. Jesus is your Lord in all or He is not your Lord at all (Lk. 6.46). We need His guidance every step of the way, or we do not need it any of the way. If I can guide myself in one step, I can guide myself in every step. Jeremiah declared, “0′ Lord the way of man is not in himself, it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps” (Jer. 10:23). But according to the selective belief crowd, man can select the steps he likes. He doesn’t need to look to Jesus as Lord in every step.

In James 2:10, a very vital truth about our attitude toward “the law of Christ,” is set forth. “Whosoever shall keep the whole law and yet offend (stumble) in one point is guilty of all.” The vital truth here is that belief in Christ is not just respect for one part of His law. “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God” (Matt. 4:4). All the Scriptures come from God’s mouth (2 Tim. 3:16-17). A If His words have authority and must be accepted.

The Lord is telling us in James 2: 10 that the same authority that is behind one verse of Scripture in the “law of liberty” is the same authority that is behind every verse of Scripture. The same obligation that you have to believe one verse of Scripture, you have to believe every verse of Scripture. The Law of Christ is indivisible. You are guilty of unbelief when you follow a “pick and choose,” method of belief.

The context illustrates the point James is making. Notice his line of reasoning: “For He who said do not commit adultery said also, do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill thou art become a transgressor of the law. So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty” (Jas. 2:12-13). The lesson is plain. The believer will not put himself above the law at any point for in putting himself above the law he puts himself above the Lawgiver. In becoming a judge of the law at any point, he becomes a judge of the Lawgiver at that point. To judge the Lawgiver is rank unbelief anyway you cut it.

Some in the assemblies (Jas. 2) were making distinctions among men. In doing that, they were making distinctions in the law of Christ. They were saying, in effect, “Now this is important truth, but the other isn’t. We can make allowances on this point, but not on other points. We should keep this, but no need to keep that.”

In making these distinctions in the “perfect law,” James tells them plainly what they were doing, “they were committing sin” (2:9), and stood condemned by the law as transgressors. Can one in sin be approved by God? Maybe James should have been told that there was no need to make an issue over this for we can just sweep the whole thing under the rug of God’s grace! As I said before, so say I now again, “there is not one criticism that can be made against a faithful preacher of the Gospel that is not in reality made against Christ and the apostles.” To criticize truth is to criticize God!

The lesson in James 2, stands clear. Approval with God doesn’t depend on our acceptance of some truth, but on our readiness to accept all the truth. To accept the authority of Christ isn’t accepting some truth but all of His truth. Partial belief is unbelief, just as partial obedience is no obedience. King Saul didn’t really obey at all because he didn’t obey God in all (1 Sam. 15:22). The Jews believed much of what Moses said, but they were unbelievers because they didn’t believe all he said. Selective belief is, in reality, unbelief.

In Matthew 23:23, we have an example of professed believers making distinctions in God’s law. They stumbled by unbelief over some of its teachings. Jesus said, “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.”

Now why did Jesus pronounce this woe? Was He just “picking” on the Pharisees? Were they not religious? Sincere? Didn’t they believe Moses? Was our Lord void of love? Or, why didn’t Jesus realize that these religious people were just children of God in another fellowship? According to the teaching and practice of some, Jesus should have said, “Well, you brethren may be wrong about this. But I can’t be sure since truth is not fixed and the last word has not been spoken. So let us have a dialogue about your practice and in addition, an in depth study and perhaps we can hammer out some rules for fellowship on this whole matter. Meanwhile my love will forbid me to say you’re wrong.”

But Our Lord didn’t do that, and “He left us an example.” He condemned the Pharisees because they stumbled over the law. They practiced selectivity in what they believed. They thought the keeping of the parts of the law they considered important would excuse them from keeping other parts of the law. They put an unequal emphasis on truth. They stumbled at the authority of God in some points. Jesus then gave them a lesson on “Divine oughts.” He said, “These ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.” Jesus was a “stickler” for respecting and keeping the law of God. In this teaching, was Jesus teaching salvation by law keeping? No, He was showing that respect for, and belief in God is demonstrated by our attitude toward all that God says.

The Pharisees showed partiality in the law and thus became “judges of the law,” and in becoming judges of the law they sat in judgment on the Lawgiver. No, they didn’t stumble at every point, but they stumbled at the point they didn’t think important and the Judge of all called them “hypocrites.” His judgment was based on their attitude toward the law as a whole.

The true believer is one who does not stumble over the law of Christ at any point. Why not? Because he has made the giver of the law the Lord of his life (Lk. 6:46; Isa. 66:2; 1 Pet. 3:15). David said, “O’ how I love thy law . . . .” Why did David love the law? He loved the law because he loved the Lawgiver! If you love the Lawgiver, you will love His law. What part of it? Every part of it! Jesus said, “If you love Me, you will keep my commandments (law).” Which commandments? All of them. The believer will say, “0′ how I love thy perfect law of liberty, I will continue therein for in doing this I shall be blessed in my doing” (Jas. 1:25). God blesses those who keep His law.

Now it may be asked, “Are you a law keeper?” I sure am. If I am not a law keeper I am a law breaker or lawless. To act without law in religion is to sin (1 John 3:4; Matt. 7:23). I preach that men can be saved only by obeying “the law” of conversion, and we can worship acceptably only by following the law of worship and we can please Him in our service only when we observe His law of service. No, I don’t trust in law keeping, I trust in Him who gave the “perfect law of liberty.” If I love the Lawgiver I will love His law. The attitude I have toward the law shows the attitude I have toward the Lawgiver. We do not keep His law perfectly so we are not justified by law. But we can have a perfect attitude toward the law by recognizing that every precept is to be believed and obeyed. We must “trust and obey for there’s no other way.” The old T & 0 railroad, is the only way to heaven. Now do you stumble at any of His laws? Remember, “Blessed is he who keeps from stumbling over me.”

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 15, pp. 449, 472-473
August 2, 1984

By Larry Ray Hafley

Homosexuals are “coming out of the closet.” They are being urged to announce publicly and forthrightly their homosexuality. Many are doing so. It is a sad reflection on a nation when sinful perverts can flaunt their degradation and depravation. What next? Should those who leer and lust for child pornography be encouraged to “come out of the closet” and be accepted? Why not? What about “flashers,” those who obtain satisfaction through exposing themselves to women and children? Should they “come out of the closet” and practice their “sexual preference?”

Appeal To “Grace-Unity” Sympathizers and Apologizers: “Come Out Of The Closet”

Brother Carl Ketcherside, Arnold Hardin and others have said that several brethren agree with their views on grace, imputed righteousness and fellowship and that these brethren are their disciples, “but secretly for fear of the Jews.” Well, it is time they came “out of the closet.” If those of us who disagree with them are ever going to receive any help, they are going to have to expose themselves. (Pun intended.) While they consider coming 4 ‘out of the closet,” they might ponder the words of Jesus: “For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest that they are wrought in God” (Jn. 3:20, 21).

The usual justification for remaining in the closet is that they know they will be “written up” in “party papers” like Guardian of Truth. Assume the worst. Suppose you are. It is far better to stand and defend truth than to be a covert, cowering mole (underground rat). While we are assuming, why not assume that brethren are as honest, sincere and truth loving as you are and that they may acknowledge that God is in you of a truth? Adopt Paul’s attitude. Do not be concerned about those who seem “to be somewhat, (whatsoever they (are) it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man’s person).” Put your views to the test. “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good” (1 Thess. 5:21).

If you are right, we need to see the light you have seen. Do not keep it under a bushel. If you are wrong, it will benefit you to have it made known so you may be converted and saved (Jas. 5:19, 20). Everyone wins when a position is defined, explained and examined as the situation demands. The losers are the closet people. They work and walk in darkness. They shudder every time the closet door is rattled. They are afraid to teach and ashamed to lie about their hidden beliefs. Meanwhile, the Bible says, “But the fearful…. and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death” (Rev. 21:8).

Good Writers: “Come Out of The Closet”

The Lord’s people are blessed with a host of faithful and able teachers and preachers. There are some effective writers and authors, too, but a few are “in the closet.” At least their typewriters are. It is time they opened the doors, dusted off the keys and published the fruits of their studies. Ignore the jealous barbs of those who pick at your efforts. Pray for those who smirk (sometimes in print) and sarcastically denounce any thing they themselves did not write. Then, write, and let the rest of us profit from what you have gleaned from the word of God.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 14, p. 436
July 19, 1984

By Weldon E. Warnock

The most dangerous of all college disciplines is the field of psychology. Freud and his humanistic disciples have taken over this academic discipline (that is studied by 85 percent of today’s college students), and they use it to propagate the five basic doctrines of humanism:

1. atheism;

2. evolution;

3. amorality;

4. autonomous self-centered man;

5. socialist one world view.

Every phase of psychology . . . . is based on these erroneous assumptions” (Tim LaHaye, Foreword, An Answer to Humanistic Psychology, by Nelson E. Hinman).

Behaviorism and Psychoanalysis

The basic weakness of modem psychology and psychiatry is that they have left out God. Behavioral psychology says that man is totally the product of his cultural environment. It denies that man has a soul or that he can even make a free choice. He is controlled by his environment, trapped and programmed by it. To talk of man being made in the image of God, thereby being responsible for his actions, is nothing more than theological myth to the behaviorists. Man is a machine, they say. We would agree that, to an extent, man is what his environment is, but that does not mean he cannot transcend his surroundings, or rise above his environment. The Corinthians did (1 Cor. 6:9-11) and we can, too.

Freudian psychology or psychoanalysis sees all problems resulting from a bad childhood. There are three areas that receive much attention in psychoanalytic therapy: (1) society, (2) family and (3) sexual drives. Freud maintained that society, especially the church, severely inhibits man’s ego. The family, parents and grandparents, builds barriers in their children’s egos, and sexual drives are suppressed by society, especially the church, and the family. All of these forces inhibit instinctive releases in a person and cause frustrations, neurosis, psychosis, and even schizophrenia.

Both of these schools are antithetic to biblical teachings, making it impossible for reconciliation. Behaviorists, believing that man is nothing more than an animal, studies man in the framework of animal behavior and treats his improper behavior with positive-negative reinforcement, desensitization (an example is overcoming fear of a dog by showing people happily playing with a dog), drugs, or alteration of brain states, either by electric stimulation or surgery. The father of behaviorism was James Watson and the leading proponent is B.F. Skinner.

It is true that man, at times, has needs requiring reinforcement, drug therapy and the other things mentioned above. But viewing man totally as an animal, and environmentally controlled and deterministically guided, behaviorism is unable to explain man’s non-material needs, such as love, justice, peace, truth, loyalty, good conscience, hope, etc. These can only be explained from a biblical perspective that man is also a spiritual being, created in the image of God.

Psychoanalysts, like behaviorists, make somebody else responsible for malfunction in human beings. Those with deviant behavior or maladjustments became that way because of parents, or friends, or church, or teachers, or society in general. Everybody and everything are the problem, but never me. I am not the blame! It is true that others can influence us, disappoint us and frustrate us, but in the final analysis, each person is responsible for his own conduct. Everyone of us can live above the pressures of life, if we so choose, instead of permitting them to control us. As Phillip’s translation puts it, “Don’t let the world around you squeeze you into its own mold” (Rom. 12:2).

Dr. Edward Pinckney said, “There is not one single ‘scientific’ experiment on record to support the doctrine that psychoanalysis . . . . as defined by Freud as a form of treatment for mental illness …. has, or can, cure anybody or any illness! In contrast, there is a wealth of documented information to show that the results of psychoanalysis are not only unsuccessful, but what is even worse, have been harmful.

“Again, I feel the answer lies in the assumption or rejection of responsibility. If you are willing to assume your share, you will conquer every conceivable obstacle to good mental health. If, on the other hand, you spend your efforts trying to dodge moral obligations, you cannot help but bog down in your own mire of self-created doubt . . . . which leads to worry, which leads to anxiety and which finally leads to your seeking help for something you will not do for yourself” (The Fallacy of Freud and Psychoanalysis).

Humanistic Psychology

Many psychologists, seeing man dehumanized, both by behaviorism and psychoanalysis, developed another school of psychology, known as “Humanistic Psychology.” Behaviorism, making man nothing more than a machine and predetermined by blind fate, and Psychoanalysis portraying man as helplessly trapped by inner, subconscious forces beyond his control prompted psychologists to invent something that would give man dignity and worth. Hence, humanistic psychology was born. Prominent men of this school are Carl Rogers, Abraham Maslow and Rollo May. The label would aggrandize and dignify man, instead of denigrating him as they viewed behaviorism and psychoanalysis doing.

They reasoned that all that man needed was to look at himself, see his problem and then proceed to solve it, himself. One of the central propositions of the Humanist philosophy is that “Humanism, having its ultimate faith in man, believes that human beings possess the power of potentiality of solving their own problems, through reliance primarily upon reason and scientific method applied with courage and vision” (The Philosophy of Humanism, Corliss Lamont, p. 10).

We can readily see, for the most part, that humanistic psychology is no better than what it sought to replace. Solutions to life’s problems are still approached with human reasoning rather than divine revelation. To the Humanist, man must overcome ignorance and fear in order to become the complete person. Of course, ignorance, among other things, would be the eradication of any concept of a supernatural Being and a Divine revelation. Religion does a disservice to the human species, they tell us, and promises of immortal salvation or fear of eternal damnation are both illusory and harmful. These things distract people from present concerns, from self-actualization, and from rectifying social injustices (Humanist Manifesto II).

Humanism says that man is autonomous, independent of God, and he decides under all circumstances what is good or bad for him. Sin is not in the Humanists’ vocabulary, except when used with scorn and ridicule. Fear would be conquered by releasing all instinctive inhibitions, to do your own thing, and to have the courage to reach out for one’s fullest potential without too much ado about moral restraints.

It is becoming obvious what to expect when one visits the office for a counseling session with many of today’s psychologists and psychiatrists. With the exception of a few biblically oriented psychologists, a person with emotional and mental problems who is seeking psychological counseling will be led to look at himself and come up with the solutions to his own problems. That is a lot of money for just a few hours of companionship.

The counselor might also tell you to break out of your established moral restrictions and be more permissive and free. “If you want to get drunk, have an affair, divorce your mate, smoke ‘pot,’ go do it. After all, there is no good or bad, right or wrong in and of itself. So, release your inhibitions and you will be happier as a result of unleashing those pentup emotions.”

Nelson E. Hinman stated that psychology, such as behaviorism, psychoanalysis, humanism and transpersonal psychology, has its roots in philosophy, empiricism and evolution (An Answer to Humanistic Psychology). He gave the following diagram on page 49:

Philosophy tries to find reality without God, leaving psychologists and psychiatrists unable to explain man. God created man, and, therefore, knows man perfectly. He who made us, obviously, knows more about us than we know about ourselves. Empiricism or scientism says that man can know nothing except by sensory perception. Nothing can be ascertained unless it be examined by the physical senses. There is no way to know God by this method, and very little can be learned about man. There is a place for empiricism, but it does not provide all the information that is needed to correct man’s problems. Purpose of life, guilt, sin, love, morals, etc., cannot be solved by sensory perception.

Evolution greatly influences psychological evaluation and has tremendous potential influence over future social orders. Henry W. Broslin, Chairman of the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Pittsburg, said at the 1959 Centennial Convocation at the University of Chicago, “It is appropriate for psychiatrists and other students of mental disorders to pay homage to the work of Charles Robert Darwin and the theory of evolution, for without this work it is difficult to imagine what the state of our discipline would be like” (copies from The Twilight of Evolution, Henry M. Morris, p. 17). So, most of these modern psychiatrists and psychologists look at man as just a glorified ape in a chain of evolutionary development.

The Moral Bankruptcy of Psychology

As a result of psychology’s godless and non-biblical approach to man, words like “bad,” “wicked,” and “immoral,” have become old fashioned. “Sin” is an absolete word. Criminal acts are now symptoms and immoral conduct is euphemistically softened. There are no liars, but simply extroverts with imaginative talents. The drunkard is a sick alcoholic with an inferiority complex. Adultery is an affair or biological maladjustment. The murderer is the victim of early childhood trauma. As Dr. Karl Menninger wrote, “Whatever became of sin?”

Albert Ellis, Ph.D. and Robert A. Harper, Ph.D. psychologists, authored a book entitled, A New Guide To Rational Living (1975). In chapter 12 under the title, “How To Stop Blaming and Start Living,” they said, “The idea that we can label some people wicked or villainous springs from the ancient theological doctrine of free will. Although we cannot accurately say that humans have no free choice whatever, modern findings have shown that they have relatively little free will in the sense that this term usually gets employed in theological discussion. As Freud thought . . . . humans have genetic or inborn tendencies to behave in certain ways . . . . The idea that people emerge as ‘bad’ or ‘wicked’ as a result of their wrongdoings stems from a second erroneous notion: namely, the concept that we can easily define ‘good’ and ‘bad’ or ‘ethical’ and ‘unethical’ behavior and that reasonable people can readily see when they act ‘right’ or ‘wrong.”‘

What a contrast to Dr. William Glasser, psychiatrist, who said, “But, whether we are loved or not, to be worthwhile we must- maintain a satisfactory standard of behavior” (Reality Therapy, p. 10). Dr. Glasser also said that “the conventional weakness of psychology and psychiatry has been that we have left out morality” (Quoted from Four Trojan Horses of Humanism, p. 34).

Dr. E. Fuller Torrey, psychiatrist wrote, “A major impetus behind this tendency to psychiatrize social problems arises from the vacuum of absolutes in our culture. This vacuum is associated with the decline of religious influence – the death of God, some claim . . . . Psychiatry has been willing to sanctify its values with the holy water of medicine and offer them up as the true faith of ‘Mental Health.’ It is a false Messiah” (The Death of Psychiatry, p. 107).

Humanistic psychology endeavors to make man feel great about himself while he is living in sin, debauchery and profligacy. Hinman’s approach to counseling is the proper way to begin when he wrote, “When people I counsel tell me how worthless they are, I always agree. I even tell them that they would probably feel worse if they knew how bad off they are as compared to what they could be in Christ. I then show them that God has a plan to transform them into the image of His Son. We start building and rebuilding from that point . . . . I try to get them to see themselves as God sees them – both as fallen, sinful creatures and as creatures that can become like Him” (Ibid., p. 93).

The Bible and Psychology

In conclusion, psychology may have some of the answers to some of the problems of man. But it certainly does not have all the answers. In fact, some of the answers it claims to have are wrong answers. Psychology is wrong when it extrapolates data from animal behavior and applies it to human behavior. There are too many variables in man: power of choice, ability to appreciate, to love, evaluate, to be evil or wicked, etc. Animal behavior sheds no light on these things.

The Bible is the only book that has all the answers to man’s real problems. God has granted unto us all things that pertain to life and godliness (2 Pet. 1:3). The Scriptures furnish us unto every good work (2 Tim. 3:16-17). In the Scriptures we learn how to be triumphant (2 Cor. 2:14), conquerors (Rom. 8:37), content (Phil. 4:11; 1 Tim. 6:6-8; Heb. 13:5). We can have our burdens lifted by the Lord (Matt. 11:28-30; 1 Pet. 5:7) and every physical necessity supplied (Matt. 6:33). In Christ there is hope that satisfies man’s yearning for life eternal (Col. 1:27; Tit. 2:13). All these things man can have by simply exercising his free will in obedience to God and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Gordon Allport, Harvard University psychology professor, said, “And we could probably prove that throughout history those Christians who have accomplished the most practical benefit in this world are those who believed most fervently in the next” (The Individual and His Religion, p. 22).

What the world needs is Jesus Christ and the Bible, not Sigmund Freud and godless psychology!

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 14, pp. 430-432, 443
July 19, 1984

By Robert E. Waldron

The home is the incubator of society. The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world whether it is the hand of a loving, godly mother, or the hand of a state trained employee. Society needs but a generation to change if the minds of that generation can be trained from infancy in the new way.

For centuries it has been recognized that the first few years of a child’s life are the most crucial in forming his basic standards, beliefs, and attitudes. Therefore, the homes of a society have largely determined what that society is. Those who would manipulate society realize that adult minds are not the most pliable clay to work with. The ideal mind for him who would rebuild society is that of a small child. It is not surprising that humanists, acting as social architects, have concentrated on the field of education, and, the younger they can get their subjects, the better. This aim brings the guns of the humanists to bear on the home. We want to look at the ways in which humanism is at tacking the family. First, we will study the various legal, legislative, more direct methods that are being used, then the dangerous and highly successful insidious approaches. The National Education Association (NEA) is working to achieve humanist goals. One of their objectives is described in the NEA journal. An article entitled, “Forecast for the 70’s,” sets forth what amounts to a master plan for education. Notice the first point: “1. Educators will assume responsibility for children when they reach the age of two. Enforced or mandatory foster homes are to be available for children whose homes are felt to have a malignant influence.”(1)

A footnote adds this information which should be carefully noted by all in this election year: “In 1975, corresponding legislation in the form of the Child and Family Services Act was proposed by Senator Walter Mondale (D.-MN.), a Humanist. If passed, this legislation would, according to Representative E.G. Schuster (R.-PA.) permit the government ‘to legally intervene in the American family,’ in that it ‘repeatedly opens the door to increased governmental interference with the parental role.'”(2)

There are humanists scattered all along the spectrum of humanism. Some are complete radicals; others are mild. This variation makes it difficult to know what view truly represents humanistic philosophy. Another thing that makes it difficult to know whether humanists are expressing their true views is that there is nothing in their philosophy to keep them from lying if they think it will advance their cause. Most humanists are married, and one can find statements such as: “The institution of marriage, despite its faults, plays an indispensable role in the good life and the happy life . . . .” But the statement goes on to say that the state should allow for a quick, no-fault divorce. “We must take the lock out of wedlock . . . . “(3) Most humanists would go on record as approving of marriage, but at the same time, they would approve of other lifestyles and would make marriage a thing of convention and convenience, not of divine sanction.

Some of the most shrill and venomous statements made about the family have come from the feminists. In 1970, Roxanne Dunbar wrote: “The present female liberation movement, like the movement for black liberation and national liberation, has begun to identify strongly with Marxist class analysis.”(4) She begins section four with the question: “How will the family unit be destroyed?”(5)

Of course, one of the problems in destroying the family unit is who is going to look after the children? Dunbar says, “Our demand for full-time child care in the public schools will be met to some degree all over, and perhaps fully in places.”(6)

At this point our thread of thought goes back to the NEA “Master Plan,” mentioned above, in which educators would be given responsibility for children from the age of two upward.

Having heard these dire warnings, many begin to envision having to take their children and going out to hide in the rocks and the caves to avoid having their children taken away. At this point, even the humanists do not plan to take our children away. Do you know why? Because we are giving them away voluntarily! The humanists, feminists, and other enemies of the home will simply make it convenient for us to turn our children over to them. With so many mothers working out of the home (which is a strong part of their strategy), it is a constant problem to find some place to leave the kids, and there is the cost of baby-sitters. Would it not be convenient to have state day-care centers where you could dump, I mean leave your children, go to work or play, and come back that afternoon and pick them up?

In the whole subject of humanism, we are too often guilty of conjuring up a specter which frightens us to death, while the invisible enemy does his job with deadly efficiency, unnoticed. Public day-care centers, and especially state or federally sponsored ones, should be anathema to caring parents. These are the places which will be more accessible to the influence of humanist organizations. “Day Care is a powerful institution . . . . A day care program that ministers to a child from six months to six years has over 8,000 hours to teach him values, fears, beliefs, and behaviors.”(7)

Not only do humanists want to gain control of children as early as possible, but there are some who would like to be able to remove children from homes if those homes do too good a job countering the humanist line. One way in which this might be done is on the grounds of child abuse. In a work called Child Abuse.- A Pastoral Perspective, spanking, or any physical chastisement, is called child abuse. If one says, “God won’t like you if you don’t behave,” or “Honor your father and mother and don’t argue,” he is guilty of verbal abuse. This preposterous work also mentions sexual abuse and says that rejection by the parents of sex education for the child is a possible indicator of sexual abuse.(8)

Of course, if child abuse were to be proven (according to these humanistic guidelines), then the child could be taken and placed in a “proper” home. Quotations indicating a plan to be able to take children from the home can be multiplied. As pointed out above, some of the strongest statements on this subject come from the Women’s Liberation Movement. “With the destruction of the nuclear family must come a new way of looking at children. They must be seen as the responsibility of an entire society rather than individual parents.”(9) One of the most explicit quotes concerning the matter of children comes from Dr. Mary Jo Bane, Assistant Professor of Education at Wellesley College: “We really don’t know how to raise children. If we want to talk about equality of opportunity for children, then the fact that children are raised in families means there’s no equality. It’s a dilemma. In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them . . . . It (divorce) makes for better family life . . . . Divorce improves the quality of marriage.”(10)

Whether the humanists and feminists occupy the same position on getting the children out of the home or destroying the home, one thing is certain. They both are very determined to “terminate all religious and moral views except their own.

Let me deal now with the more insidious methods of humanism. The most effective platform and advocate for humanism is television. Television is totally dominated by humanists. Have you noticed that any time religion is portrayed on TV, it is either presented in a ridiculous, selfrighteous light, or it is shown as a faded, almost completely impotent force? Preachers are still listed as number one of those professions most admired and trusted. That kind of esteem for preachers does not set well with humanists. Have you noticed that preachers are presented either as rather comical, ineffective men who are not really important (Mulcahy on Mash who obviously does not measure up to the doctors), or as sadistic hypocrites or psychotics driven mad by their efforts to be strict?

Nearly all programs today center around sex. There is a message being taught. In a study of the people responsible for the television fare being offered today, this paragraph is found: “Moreover, two out of three believe that TV entertainment should be a major force for social reform. This is perhaps the single most striking finding in our study. According to television’s creators, they are not in it just for the money. They also seek to move their audiences toward their own vision of the good society.”(11) 

We should not limit our criticism of TV to its emphasis on sex. Its entire presentation of morality is either completely amoral or pragmatic. The networks also equate the good life with money and having things. Very few main characters are shown living in an average house of an average income family. The character drives a fine car, wears expensive clothes, drinks expensive wines, and lives in an apartment (or mansion) which has been professionally decorated. In other words, an artificial lifestyle is created and held before us as the ideal. Since most of us do not make fifty to a hundred thousand dollars a year, the wife has to go to work to help finance the American dream. And the peer pressure, which we accuse the teenagers of having such problems with, is so powerful that we will throw aside the kids, the Lord, and everything we have been taught, to keep up with the Jones.

Husbands and wives are taught that somewhere there is a better life, a more exciting man, a more alluring woman. Dissatisfaction is bred into our hearts. Women are made to feel unfulfilled if ‘all’ they do is bear and rear the children. They go out and get jobs where they work with men and women who are immoral, who live a fast life. Soon they feel shackled. They are not free to be themselves. Soon books show up on how to be an assertive woman. Many of these works ought to be called how to be a selfish per-son. Soon there is a divorce. The couple is lost, the children are lost, and a little more of society crumbles.

We who are Christians, fighting the good fight of faith, are going to have to find our swords and refurbish our armor (Eph. 6:10-18). We need to reorder our priorities. When we let our children watch TV unsupervised, allow them to go (and go ourselves) to PG movies, in which nudity and strong sexual innuendo are found, and to R-rated movies, where nudity is shown, where the sex act is depicted, and where traumatizing violence is shown, when we pretend that the laws of nature governing male and female relationships are suspended so that boys and girls, men and women can hold each other’s body while dancing, or look upon each other’s almost unclad body with no lascivious effect, we are deceiving ourselves. We are showing that our “fight” against humanism is a pretense, and we are making a mockery of the call to “come ye out from among them, and be ye separate” (2 Cor. 6:17).

The churches are badly infected and sick and swollen with worldliness and materialism. There are many churches where a preacher who is known to be strict on moral issues is not welcome. We are the church. Our problem is at home. It is in our hearts. If we are serious about fighting humanism, we must realize that it is not the only enemy, and that the only way we can fight all the enemies of truth is by preparing our hearts to seek God, and by putting on the whole armor of God. “Having therefore these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God” (2 Cor. 7:1).

Endnotes

1. Today’s Education, “Forecast for the 70’s, ” January, 1969. Quoted in The Siecus Circle, Claire Chambers, p. 273.

2. Ibid., pp. 273, 274.

3. Ashley Montagu, quoted in The Child Seducer, John Steinbacher, page 341. Quoted in Gospel Anchor, December, 1982, p. 15.

4. Roxanne Dunbar, “Fernale Liberation as the Basis for Social Revolution,” in Sisterhood is Powerful, ed. by Robin Morgan (New York: Vintage Books A Division of Random House, 1970), p. 486.

5. Ibid., p. 488.

6. Ibid., p. 488.

7. White House Conference on Children, Report to the President, 1970, p. 278.

8. Mary Krider, “Toward Non-Violent Parenting,” Child Abuse, Jefferson County Child Abuse Authority. Quoted in Gospel Anchor, December 1982, pp. 19, 20.

9. The Document. declaration of feminism, cited in bulletin from Citizens Forum, date NA.

10. Dr. Mary Jo Bane, quoted in an AP story in Tulsa Sunday World, August 21, 1977.

11. Hollywood and America.- The Odd Couple, quoted in the NFD (National Federation of Decency) Informer, March, 1983.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 14, pp. 425-427
July 19, 1984