Truth Magazine

By Charles Degenhart

While working with the old Central church in San Diego during the late forties I had occasion to meet brother Jimmie Lovell a time or two. In those days Jimmie was an affable, outgoing, cheerful person always bubbling over with enthusiasm. Likewise he was always speaking only good of everybody (even of some of whom I had my doubts). He was always dreaming and talking about doing great things in the service of God. In other words, he was “thinking big.”

However, in the January issue of Action which came to our notice, there seems to be a change taking place in his dotage! In boasting about his World Bible School, he states, “In WBS we have one of the most fruitful efforts for souls – our own included – that we have yet attempted. The bedrock backbone of our soul-saving effort is built upon the solid rock of preaching the gospel. We are not trying to win souls through any indirectness. If food, clothing, medical care or any other material means influence a soul for Christ, we plan to take every advantage of it. Our bellyachers have not as yet found any way to stop our success but Satan never sleeps.” Notice that descriptive term “bellyachers.” Could it be that some of brother Lovell’s coworkers do not see eye-to-eye with him on his great work?

In thinking about his terming those who differ from him as “bellyachers” concerning his “great work,” we call to memory a woe pronounced upon those who call good evil and evil good. In God’s word, we find two different attitudes manifested by men. They just might be classed as “bellyachers” by brother Lovell’s way of thinking.

The first class would include the house of Chloe. They had complained to Paul about some factious brethren at Corinth (1 Cor. 1:11). Would Jimmie class Paul’s informants as “bellyachers”?

Peter could be classed among the “bellyachers” al, a, for he told Simon “Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right before God” (Acts 8:21). Was Peter “bellyaching?”

According to brother Lovell’s thinking another Bible character would be classed as a “bellyacher.” When John the Baptist saw many of the hypocritical Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, “You offspring of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruit worthy of repentance” (Matt. 3:7,8). Was John “bellyaching”?

Jesus pronounced a woe on the scribes and Pharisees for their hypocrisy. “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you compass sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he is become so, you make him twofold more a child of hell than yourselves!” (Matt. 23:15). Again, He rebuked the cities where he had performed many of his miracles. “Woe unto you, Chorazin! Woe unto you Bethsaida! for if the mighty works had been done in Tyre and Sidon which were done in you, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say unto you, it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you” (Matt. 11:21,22). Would brother Lovell accuse Jesus of “bellyaching”?

The above were simply discharging their responsibility to the God of heaven by reproving and rebuking sin. It is not “bellyaching” to reprove one of going beyond the word of God by substituting for God’s requirements! We are living in perilous times indeed. Oftentimes brethren will cast aside the word of God and suit their own likes and dislikes. I have known of some preachers being so cowed by the onslaught of sinning church members against the truth of their condition that they “look the other way,” or “wink at sin.” The result is churches filled with worldliness and sin. Preachers need to cry out against sin in high places today. Brethren need to refrain themselves of conforming to this world (Rom. 12:1,2). We need to “bellyache” today as the men of God did in the days of old!

There is another class of bellyachers revealed in the Book Divine. They are the ones who oppose the will of God. Peter and John had been preaching the word and had performed a miracle to confirm they were the servants of God, and the elders, scribes, high priest, and his relatives had taken them into “custody” and were “bellyaching” to them about their work. Like some today they would not settle for God’s way of doing things (Acts 4:1-12).

Opposing God’s way and the truth is the wrong kind of “bellyaching”! Entirely too many in our day are guilty of such. In many places brethren are getting bolder in opposing God’s revealed plan of marriage, His way of work for the church. Instead of getting the church members working at trying to teach those with whom they work and associate, they are seeking more “gimmicks” to attract people to their assemblies. They have little respect for Colossians 3:17 that tells us we must have chapter and verse for what we teach and practice. Their own “think-so’s” are placed on a par with God’s “say so.” In doing so, they are guilty of impeaching the wisdom of God!

The church as God designed her can do the work God designed for her. There is no need to establish other institutions to do the work. What is needed is teachers and preachers who will teach the brethren how to do it, and to get busy and do it. When that is done, God will bless the church with the increase. Some haven’t learned yet that it is God who gives the increase (1 Cor. 3:6). Let us rise up brethren and plant and water and watch God bless us!

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 12, pp. 370-371
June 21, 1984

By Raymond Harris

Recently I received a bulletin wherein a church announced that the next Sunday was going to be “Dream Sunday.” Everyone was urged to “Come dream with us.” Then the question was posed, “What would you like to see us doing 1 year from now . . . 5 years . . . 10 years . . . 20 years.”

When one considers the mischief, division and digression of the last twenty years, to try to imagine what some churches will be doing in ten or twenty years is more like a night-mare than a dream.

As we view the current activities of some churches of Christ, it is hard to realize that the restoration movement in this country was born of the philosophy, “Back to the Bible.” What ever happened to the plea for “book, chapter and verse for all that we practiced”? Why do some preachers, elders and church members get angry when they are asked for the verses that authorize many of their current activities?

Over fifty years ago a preacher named Floyd Decker left the Christian Church because they were involved in practices he felt were unscriptural. Among those practices we find the following:

1. The Christian Church “has unscriptural positions in the church such as, educational directors, associate ministers and youth directors.”

2. The Christian Church built and maintained, “Missionary, benevolent and educational organizations to execute the work of the church.”

3. The Christian Church without Bible authority “celebrates special days such as Easter, Mother’s Day, Christmas, etc.”

4. The Christian Church “seeks to get crowds with youth meetings, campaigns for Christ, rallies, drives and promotions.”

5. The Christian Church “appeals to the social and physical nature of men by trying to draw them with carnivals, plays, choruses, dramatic groups, church camps, kitchens, fellowship halls and dinners.”

6. The Christian Church “owns, supports and operates schools for secular education beginning with kindergartens and going through theological schools.”

7. The Christian Church “has a compromising spirit. . has no regard for the authority of the Bible, bases its practice on the silence of the scriptures, and appeals to traditions of elders rather than to the simple unadulterated Gospel of Christ. “

Now, 50 years later, many liberal churches of Christ are practicing some or all of the above. But that’s just the beginning! Now that many churches have bolted away from the restraints of the Scriptures, there is no end to the humanly devised activities, programs and projects that will evolve as the years roll on.

In the past few years many churches of Christ have completely lost sight of their God given mission. Their major thrust is no longer the saving of the soul. Rather, they have turned to fulfilling the social, recreational and civic needs of the community. When Churches turn to such, they are correctly described as practicing “The Social Gospel.”

The past few years have seen a host of additional practices that brother Decker would never have “dreamed” possible in churches of Christ. Consider:

1. Joy Busses	16. Timothy Classes
2. Reward Motivation	17. Investment Seminars
3. Sweet Heart Banquets	18. Bridal and Baby Showers
4. Annual Homecoming Sunday	19. Calligraphy Classes
5. Aerobic Exercise	20. Church Choruses
6. Dale Carnegie Courses	21. Divorce Recov. Seminar
7. Ski Retreats	22. Cooking & Sewing Classes
8. Blood-Mobile Day	23. Poem Writing
9. Sr. Citizens Ministry	24. Family Seminar
10. Singles Ministry	25. Puppet Ministry
11. Annual Church Bar-B-Q	26. Team sports
12. Macrame Classes	27. Baby sitting services
13. Family Movie Night	28 Skin Care Classes
14. Golf Tournaments	29. Youth Church
15. Dorcas Classes	30. Christian Drama

All the foregoing are church activities that churches of Christ would not have “dreamed” of 25 years ago. But, they have ALL been dreamed up and entered into through the ensuing years. Elders of non-instrumental churches of Christ have planned, approved, promoted and to various degrees financed from the church treasury all of the foregoing activities. It shows how far brethren can go when they stop reading God’s word and start “Dreaming,” how they can outdo the denomination, round about.

Woe be to dreaming, scheming Churches that draw nigh to Christ with their mouths, and honor him with their lips,; but teach for doctrines the commandments of men!

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 12, pp. 371-372
June 21, 1984

By Mike Willis

This entire issue of Guardian of Truth is devoted to a study of humanism. Most of our readers probably have heard very little, if any, about humanism and never read the Humanist Manifesto I or II or A Secular Humanist Declaration. Most probably imagine that humanism is a philosophy that is studied only by a few “eggheads” in some university somewhere. While it may be true that the study of humanism is rather limited, the doctrinal conclusions of the philosophy of humanism are affecting various areas of our lives.

The basic tenets of humanism arc as follows:

1. It affirms that the universe is self-existent and denies that it was created. Thus, it affirms the eternity of matter and denies the existence of God and His word of creation.

2. It affirms that man has evolved by purely natural means. This means that they hold that God had nothing to do with bringing man into being.

3. It affirms that man is totally physical, thus denying that man has a spirit or soul.

4. It affirms that all religion is the result of social evolution.

5. It denies that God is the ultimate good, thus denying that men do either that which is really (objectively) wrong or that which is really (objectively) right.

6. It affirms that the ultimate end of man’s life is to be found in the here and now. Humanism rejects Heaven; it denies there is a Hell.

7. “Worship” of and prayer to God is rejected. Man should rather use his time in seeking to promote social well-being.

8. It affirms that man must learn to depend upon science and must discourage hopes of Heaven (which involve wishful thinking).

9. It affirms that all religious institutions – thus, including the church for which Jesus died must be “reconstituted” (changed).

10. It holds that man alone is responsible for the realization of the world of his dreams, thus. holding that God has nothing whatsoever to do with it.(1)

Most of us have long ago decided that there is a God who created the world, who revealed His will to mankind in the Bible. We believe that the Bible, as the revelation from God, is authoritative in our lives. We have begun our life as a Christian and are seeking to grow in the grace and knowledge of the Lord. Why would I want to use my time learning about some philosophy of little interest to me?

Humanism’s Influence

The first reason why I should want to be concerned about humanism is its influence on my life. Your life and mine are touched by the influences of infidelity which are manifest in humanism. Secondly, I need an understanding of humanism to understand why the unbelieving world believes what it believes. I must understand the thinking of the unbeliever to some extent in order to reach him with the gospel of Christ.

To demonstrate the influences which infidelity is having on our lives, I would like to relate some of the modern concepts held by the American populace and how these concepts are rooted in the philosophy of humanism, whether perceived or not by those who hold them.

Concepts Regarding Religion

Humanism believes that God was a concept invented by man in coping with a world which he did not understand.(2) Religion was developed over a period of time in various stages until it evolved into its present forms. Julian Huxley wrote of the development of religion stating that “the main and most essential steps appear to have been, first, the personification of the powers revered and religiously feared as brooding over human destiny; then the progressive unification of these powers, resulting in the substitution of few gods for innumerable spirits; and finally the fading or fusing of the several gods into one God”(3) This is the concept of religion which is presented in most state supported university classes on “comparative religion.”(4) The results of this concept of religion are: (1) Religion was invented by man instead of being revealed to us by God; (2) One religion is just as good as another; (3) There is no one true religion.

As these ideas have become generally accepted, we are seeing attitudes develop in the general populace. Here are some of those attitudes for us to consider:

1. “Religion is something to be tolerated.” It is a part of man’s past heritage which is no longer useful or relevant to man’s needs.(5)

2. “Religion is viewed as useless.” “First, religion is considered subordinate and even useless to science; hence it is to be ignored as a possible source of knowledge . . . Second, when the fears and hopes of man which give rise to religion have been, respectively, allayed and fulfilled, religion is rendered useless and vanishes.”(6)

3. “Religion is a display of man’s weakness.” It is viewed as a crutch on which emotionally weak people must lean.

4. “Religion is a hindrance to social progress.” John Dewey, who signed the Humanist Manifesto I and whose influence in education is extensive, wrote, “. . . the assumption that only supernatural agencies can give control is a sure method of retarding this effort [of social betterment].”(7) To have social progress, religion must either be eliminated or completely revamped. Karl Marx viewed religion as the opiate of an oppressed people. He wrote, “Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness.”(8) Based on Marxist thought, Communist countries have systematically sought to abolish religion.

5. “Religion is communion with nature.” Sometimes our friends emphasize that they can be just as religious in a boat on a lake as you can in attending worship. Religion is just as religious without God as with Him.(9)

6. “One must not be dogmatic in religion.” Since all religions are the inventions of man, those who make dogmatic statements affirming that theirs is the only true religion are narrow-minded, bigoted, and to be pitied. [Christians have been influenced by the spirit of this age as well as others. Many churches no longer appreciate sermons on the one true church or which imply that only those who have believed in Jesus, repented of their sins, confessed their faith in Christ and been immersed in water for the remission of sins are the “only Christians.”] Tolerance should be exercised toward all religions.

Brethren, watch how religion is being portrayed on television to see the influence of infidelity. The preachers portrayed in television programing are ungodly and immoral, unable to contribute anything to cope with the needs of the people, and useful only for weddings and funerals. What part does church attendance have in our lives, based on the portrayal of television, the newspapers, and other forms of public media? The influences of humanism and The relative approach to ethics is the approach used in the television programs, and movies. These concepts are being accepted by many who have no formal contact with humanism.

Concept Toward The Universe

The humanist concept of the universe is also pervading our society. The humanist deny any supernatural origin or providential direction of the world. Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.(10)

Quoted . . .

“Most journalists are simply blind to religion. They think it’s somehow slightly embarrassing, a holdover from the Dark Ages. . . . something only ignorant’~and backward people really believe in. This is not necessarily a conscious judgment on their part. It’s just part of their general world view . . . in which religion is seen as an aberrant phenomenon.”

– Robert Bellah, professor of sociology, University of California, Berkeley, quoted by David Shaw in the Los Angeles Times, Dec. 28, 1983.

We find insufficient evidence for belief in the existence of a supernatural . . . . But we can discover no divine purpose or providence for the human species.(11)

This concept of the universe has also led to some general attitudes shared by many.

1. “The world originated through evolutionary processes.” Atheistic evolution posits that matter is eternal and that the world has evolved into its present form by chance and the survival of the fittest. This idea is taught as fact in most schools, colleges, and universities. Television programs of a scientific nature present evolution as fact. The humanists who preach tolerance for other points of view and academic freedom are intolerant of creationism and refuse to allow a two-model approach to be taught in the public schools.

2. “Man is only a little more highly developed animal.” Tied with this concept is the belief that man’s existence ends with death. Man’s place in relation to the rest of nature is judged superior only on the personal evaluation of the scientists that he is the most highly developed animal of all creation. (What standard is used to form this judgment has never been revealed.) Consequently, man should not worry about an afterlife.

3. “Miracles have never occurred.” The miracles of creation, those associated with the life of Jesus, and otherwise recorded in the Bible are discarded and disbelieved because they are contrary to the presupposition that there is no God to cause them. Miracles do not occur today; consequently, we have no reason to believe that they occurred in the past.(12)

4. “There is no need to pray.” “Why should one pray to a God who does not exist? Why should one pray to a God who does not intervene in the affairs of men? Rather, one should get up off his knees and do something to change his situation in life.” As this attitude has spread in our society, prayers have changed. Even in churches, Christians are very careful in how they pray for the sick. Why should one pray for rain when he can find out on the six o’clock news whether or not it will rain tomorrow? Surveys have indicated that even preachers are spending little time in prayer.

The concepts of humanists have infiltrated every level of our society, even though many who hold these points of view have had no formal contact with humanism.

Conclusion

The reason that you should be concerned about humanism should be more apparent to you now than at the beginning of this article. Humanism is influencing the world around us. In order to understand why our world is now accepting homosexuality as an acceptable form of sexual expression, abortion on demand, withholding food and water from handicapped infants, defending the pornographers’ right to distribute his wares, and other things which Christians understand to be wrong and which our government formerly disapproved, a person must understand the fundamental doctrines of humanism. To help enlighten us on this subject. This special issue on humanism is presented. I commend it to you.

Endnotes

1. Is There Such A Thing As A ‘Christian Humanist’?, Thomas B. Warren, Spiritual Sword, XXIII:2 (January 1982), p. 1.

2. Humanism contends that instead of the gods creating the cosmos, the cosmos, in the individualized form of human beings giving rein to their imagination, created the gods” (Corliss Lamont, The Philosophy of Humanism, p. 145).

3. Religion Without Revelation, p. 23.

4. See Man’s Religions, John B. Noss. The religion departments of most state and not a few private universities are the pulpits of infidelity.

5. Today, God can no longer be considered as the controller of the universe in any but a Pickwickian sense. The god hypothesis is no longer of any pragmatic value for the interpretation or comprehension of nature, and indeed often stands in the way of better and truer interpretation. Operationally, God is beginning to resemble not a ruler, but the last fading smile of a cosmic Cheshire Cat” (Julian Huxley, Religion Without Revelation, pp. 58-59).

6. B.F. Skinner as quoted by Norman L. Geisler, Is Man The Measure?, p. 3 1.

7. A Common Faith, p. 76 as quoted by Geisler, Ibid., p. 54.

8. On Religion, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, p. 42.

9. The foregoing survey of the field of philosophy of religion … does nevertheless very clearly reveal a tendency to dispense with God as the goal of religion and the end of life” (Fulton Sheen, Religion Without God p. 58).

10. (Note: Corresponding footnote number not found in original article) Humanist Manifesto II, pp. 17-18; cf. Corliss Lamont, The Philosophy of Humanism, p. 13.

11. (Note: Corresponding footnote number not found in original article) Joseph Fletcher, Situation Ethics, p. 26.

12. (Note: Corresponding footnote number not found in original article) John A.T. Robinson, Honest To God, p, 114.

13. (Note: Corresponding footnote number not found in original article) The Scriptures teach that one should seek fulfillment in life, but this fulfillment is found in “fearing God and keeping His commandments (Eccl. 12:13-14).

10. Humanist Manifesto 1, p. 8.

11. Humanist Manifesto II, p. 16.

12. This same kind of reasoning would eliminate belief in evolution. We never see a “big bang” bring a world into existence. Why should we believe it happened in the past? We never see an evolution from one kind to another. Why should we believe that occurred in the past? The premise of uniformitarianism which denies miracles also undermines belief in evolution, if consistently applied.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 13, pp. 385, 394-395, 411
July 5, 1984

By Don R. Hastings

The fact that the morality of this nation has greatly deteriorated cannot be successfully denied. An article in McCall’s magazine stated that each year about one million teenagers between the ages of 15 and 19 become pregnant. One survey revealed a 30% increase among teenagers in sexual activity within the last five years. Many other statistics could be quoted to show that we are fast becoming a nation of people who support and practice sexual activity outside of marriage.

What can be done to reverse the head-long plunge into complete moral decadence? Those who run our schools believe the answer lies in teaching our children about the sexual functions of their body from kindergarten through twelfth grade. Are they right? No! Knowledge does not restrain teenagers, and those younger, from engaging in sexual activity. Many naive parents and educators think that if girls and boys are taught how pregnancy occurs that this will keep them from engaging in the act that produces pregnancy. Baloney! The teaching of sex education courses has greatly increased in schools all over this land and, as we have seen, sexual activity among teenagers has greatly increased, as well. But, we are told that what we need is more sex education. How foolish can we be?

We live in a sin-sick, sex-saturated society. Television, movies, newspapers, advertisements, records, bookstores, etc. are constantly bombarding the public with sex, sex and more sex. Now our children have to listen to their teachers talk about it. But, the educators say that we teach them to use correct terminology.

If my fifth grade son comes home and describes perfectly and accurately the human reproduction process, I will not be proud of his knowledge. I would greatly fear what that knowledge, at that age, would do to him emotionally, morally and spiritually!

The present downward slide into the cesspool of all manner of vile sexual acts will not cease until we teach our children by word and example to: “Fear God and keep his commandments” (Eccl. 12:13). All sexual activity outside of marriage is sinful (Heb. 13:4)! As long as we continue to disregard the Bible standard of morality, there is going to be an increase in rape, venereal disease, illegitimate birth, homosexuality, abortion, incest, adultery, prostitution, child molestation, etc.

Some school officials contend that teaching about human reproduction is comparable to teaching about the circulatory system or any other function of the body. They talk as though they can see no difference between presenting factual information about the heart and facts about the reproductive organs. I find it difficult to believe that they are really that ignorant concerning the emotional make-up of human beings.

A teacher can lecture on the function of the heart to a group of boys and girls and no one is embarrassed, there is no snickering, and no lustful emotions are aroused. Such is not true when the teacher lectures on the reproductive system. There is a big difference!

We find this statement in Planning Stages For Sex Education Unit In The Elementary Schools, “Children become desensitized quickly and become very comfortable discussing the subject matter in a few days.” Do you know what this means? We are told that it is good and wholesome for children to talk as freely about their reproductive organs as they would their hands and arms. Do you want your child to discuss his, or her, genital organs with other children without any shame or embarrassment? Do you think it is healthy for children to talk to members of the opposite sex about their reproductive organs without any hesitancy or modesty? If you answer “No” then you need to stop sex education courses from being taught. Many sex education courses turn out to be an exercise in destroying the conscience, modesty, and morals of our children.

We are living in a society that has been de-sensitized in many respects and the effect is moral decay. I heard Lucille Ball say that it used to be one could not say the word “pregnant” on television; now the programs show you how to become that way. Not long ago you wouldn’t hear any curse words on television; not it is hard to find a program without them. Listen to how raw the language on records has become. Those who practiced homosexuality once tried to hide their sin from the public; now they openly advertise their perversion. People who committed adultery were once looked down on as harlots; now they are held up as people who know how to really enjoy life. Yes, we have come a long ways down the broad way “that leadeth to destruction” (Matt. 7:13). We have become so insensitive to godless talk and behavior that we are like the people who lived during the time of the prophet, Jeremiah. “Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? nay, they were not ashamed, neither could they blush; therefore they shall fall . . . (Jer. 6:15).

Some “experts” on sexology charge religion with being a major cause for people having sexual hangups. I strongly deny the charge! Some corrupt what the Bible teaches on this subject, and I will not defend their perverted doctrine; however, I am set for the defense of God’s word.

God has given us our sexual desires and these are not to be thought of as “dirty” or “sinful.” He has made it possible for us to satisfy these desires with a member of the opposite sex. He has, also, restricted the satisfaction of these desires to marriage. “Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge” (Heb. 13:4). Those who are not true children of God bitterly oppose God’s restriction. They want to fulfill their sexual desires with anyone, at anytime, and not feel any shame for their activity. It is toward this end that our nation is headed!

It is not the Bible which causes people to be maladjusted concerning sex. The Bible teaches the man and woman to enter into marriage pure, keep themselves faithful and true to one another, and “Defraud ye not one the other . . .” (read 1 Cor. 7:1-5). If the husband and wife would follow God’s rules for marriage, they would be happy in the satisfying of each other’s desires and that includes the sexual ones.

Many problems arise because we depart from God’s word. Those who keep themselves pure, do not have to worry about venereal disease, ruined reputations, illegitimate births, abortions, being charged with rape, incest, prostitution, or adultery. You don’t have the heavy burden of a guilty conscience. You do have self respect and peace of mind. God’s way is best!

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 12, pp. 368-369
June 21, 1984