Truth Magazine

By Daniel L. Holloway

These days, we hear much about our country’s economic woes. And we do not have to look far to find that society is beset with plenty of other problems. Of course, each individual has his own personal difficulties as well. To make sure that we feel sufficiently miserable, we are often given to counting our many troubles. If this is our attitude, there is a lesson which we are in need of from God’s word.

From Ephesians 5:20, we learn that we are to give “thanks always for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God, even the Father.” However, I fear that, too often, we take our blessings for granted. We may even feel that we have earned them, that they are ours solely because of our own efforts. We must guard against such an attitude. The truth is that “every good gift and every perfect gift is from above and cometh down from the Father of lights” (Jas. 1:17). Although we may labor to get something, it is still from God in that He makes it possible to obtain it. As Paul and Barnabas told the people of Lystra he did good, and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons filling our hearts with food and gladness” (Acts 14:17). Paul said of the church in Corinth, “I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase” (1 Cor. 3:6).

Not only does God provide us with material blessings, but our very existence is dependent upon Him. Paul declared to the Athenians in him we live, and move, and have our being . . .” (Acts 17:28). Rather than feeling that God has cheated us if we do not receive something that we want, we should be thankful for what we have. “Come now, ye that say, today or to-morrow we will go into this city, and spend a year there, and trade, and get gain: whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. What is your life? For ye are a vapor that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away. For that ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall both live, and do this or that” (Jas. 4:13-15).

Also, we ought to be thankful for the spiritual blessings which God offers. From Ephesians 1:3, we learn that God blesses with all spiritual blessings in Christ. We do not earn these blessings either. Paul explains, “. . . for by grace have ye been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not of works, that no man should glory” (Eph. 2:8,9).

However, there is a significant difference between the way in which God bestows material blessings and the way in which He bestows spiritual blessings. We may receive material blessings whether we want them or not and without meeting any conditions for them. As Christ said, “. . . he maketh his sun to rise on,;he evil and the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust” (Matt. 5:45). But spiritual blessings are not poured out on us whether we want them or not. They must be accepted. After preaching to the Jews of Antioch in Pisidia, Paul and Barnabas told them that they were putting the word of God from them and judging themselves unworthy of everlasting life (Acts 13:46). This shows that we can reject the spiritual blessings that are in Christ. On the other hand, Jesus said, “If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him” (Jn. 14:23). We should be thankful that He has given us the terms which must be followed to receive His spiritual blessings: we must believe on Him (Jn. 8:24), repent of our sins (Lk. 13:3,5), confess our faith (Matt. 10:32), and be baptized (Mk. 16:16).

As Paul wrote, we ought to be “rooted and builded up” in Christ, “established” in the faith, “abounding in thanksgiving” (Col. 2:7). But how can we be thankful for the spiritual blessings if we have not accepted them? The spiritual things are much more important than the material things which we prize so highly. That which is material shall pass away with time, but that which is spiritual will never fail (Matt. 6:19,20; 2 Cor. 4:16-18; Matt. 16:26). We ought to be thankful for our material blessings because they truly are blessings. We ought to be thankful for our lives. And we ought to obey our God that we might receive the spiritual blessings, and be thankful!

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 3, p. 77
February 2, 1984

By Luther Bolenbarker

Whatever we or others choose to call it, divorce is failure, and we here in America are not conditioned to failure. This condition of failure applies in all areas of endeavors it seems except marriage, and the American people it seems are being conditioned to accept divorce as a part of life in the 20th century. Many marriages are ending in divorce, while numerous other marriages are solidified by very “thin ice” “for the sake of the children,” or for business/social reasons, or economics, or by the fear of upsetting the status quo, or the fear of change.

The Word “divorce” is being replaced in some states by euphemisms like the title words of this article. More and more the wording in newspapers and legal documents contain these words instead of divorce.

Yearly over a quarter of million children are affected by husbands and wives who choose to go their separate ways. Thus, the courts of our land divide possessions, lives and children, too. Houses stand mute which once rang with laughter and warmth. Homes become houses.

Divorce (as I see it) is a startling testimony to the spiritual danger that threatens our nation as much or more than nuclear bombs, air pollution, crime, over taxation, or what ever happens to be the topic of the day being espoused by our “doomsday” prophets.

But, we as Americans are incurable optimists. While the divorce rates soar, so do marriages. At the turn of the century, more than 20% of our population never married. Now about 701o or less of those of marriageable age have never been married.

The divorce (dissolutionment) of more and more marriages has resulted in the breakdown of a Christian structure on which our society was supposedly built and is based on, love. In the words of the apostle Paul and now abideth faith, hope, love, these three: but the greatest of these is love” (1 Cor. 13:13). If only people today would possess and display these three great qualities, “divorce” would be unheard of among Christians.

While Jesus was on earth, the Pharisees, while attempting to test and trick in order to discredit Him asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?” (Mt. 19:3). Jesus knew their hearts and sensed their motive, so He countered with a question of His own: “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. So then they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man divide” (Mt. 19:4-6).

So we can see that the divorce question isn’t unique to our day and time. However, not to be out done by any past civilization, our generation has developed its own set of problems and standards, which includes our growing divorce rate (50%), plus men and women living together, having children (and proud of it too!) all without the formality of even being married.

In the New Testament book of Ephesians Paul uses a striking comparison between the relationship between Christ and the church and the relationship between a husband and his wife (Eph. 1:23; 5:23-32). If these admonitions and exhortations are heeded, then marriages would be as God designed them: without divorce, and filled with love for Him and one another.

All of the essential ingredients to a happy marriage must be founded on love. One way to describe what love is can best be described by what love is not:

Love is not jealous. Jealously is the highest form of distrust and the first stage of hatred. It drives its possessor to thoughts and deeds completely foreign to love. Some become obsessed with it to the point of near insanity. If only the jealous would enjoy the wisdom of Solomon: “. . . rejoice in the wife of thy youth . . . and be ravished always with her love” (Prov. 5:18, 19). Read now what love is according to Paul, the Holy Spirit and God (1 Cor. 13:4-8).

Love is not fear. Fear is the complex of negative emotion. To live in a state of constant fear is to suffer a terminal illness. John says, “There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear . . .” (1 John 4:18).

Love is not anger. Anger between mates, unchecked often develops into a monster which grows and grows eventually explodes into hatred, harsh words, and even a punch in the nose, if we allow “the sun to go down on our anger.”

Love is not revengeful. When revenge is taken, somehow it always seems to find its way back to us. Revenge is like a “boomerang” or “chickens coming home to roost.” Heed the advice of Paul if revenge has a part in your heart. “Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, Vengenance is mine, I will repay sayeth the Lord, Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good” (Rom. 12:19, 21).

Let me share with you some advice that seems to work for me and has resulted in a happier marriage for me:

Control your tongue I Say less than you think or want to say. “Let every man be swift to hear and slow to speak . . ” (James 1:19, 20).

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 3, p. 75
February 2, 1984

By Lewis Willis

People give me some of the strangest things. Some time ago someone passed along to me a promotional letter from Anne Keating, of the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C. She was promoting the magazine Smithsonian. She asked a question, “Is Smithsonian magazine for you?” She then answered, “You bet we are! We’re for everything in the whole, wide world that’s beautiful, unusual, exciting, elegant, adventurous, daring, different.” Sounds like some churches I know.

She then discussed some of their up-coming articles. They’re going to dig for diamonds in southwest Africa, jet to London to meet a certain lady, teach your body to program your brain, worship the Indian god Shiva, journey to remote baboon Island and second guess Mother Nature.

But one item especially captured my imagination. Here it is: “Howl like a wolf, sing like a whale! Join the extraordinary Paul Winter Concert at the Cathedral of St. John the Divine in New York, where the sounds of animals and instruments are blended to remind us all of Man’s harmony with nature.”

I knew we had missed something! Everyone knows that the apostle Paul traveled the ancient Roman Empire encouraging people to assemble with their animals to discover their harmony with nature. I can hardly wait for the elders to schedule this activity for us at Brown Street. I’ve got a gallon-sized pup named “Texas” that should be the highlight of such a worship. His favorite pastime is chewing on my arm. He and I could really demonstrate harmony with nature. He could chew on me and I could chew on him! And everyone could go away saying, “It was good to be here.”

I don’t know how we missed this activity in the New Testament. It reminds me of a Michigan priest who invited his parishioners to bring their pets to him to be “blessed.” I was just thinkin’ – since our brethren pick up on practically everything the denominational world does, how long do you think it will be before you read of such an activity among the more “progressive” churches of Christ?

I suppose we would like to think that such activities are found in New York City or Los Angeles. Don’t kid yourself! St. Paul’s Episcopal church here in Akron recently mailed a folder throughout the city. It explained, “Inside this folder we’ve outlined some of the spiritual and educational opportunities which begin this Fall – opportunities you’ll find nowhere else”. I was surely glad to read that they won’t be forced anywhere else. These great spiritual (?) learning opportunities available at St. Paul’s include “hay rides, Halloween party, ice-skating, sledding, canoe trips, swimming parties.” I mean to tell you, these things build strong spirituality! They explain, “We try to make growing up a great spiritual adventure!” Maybe I missed something somewhere, but I never associated these activities with “spiritual” anything! With people everywhere re-defining terminology, I guess you can just define it anyway you want to. But, if by their definition, this is “spiritual,” I wonder how they define “carnal” (1 Cor. 3: 1).

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 3, p. 74
February 2, 1984

By Dick Blackford

While some situationists have completely discarded the Bible there are others who attempt to prove their new found standard of morality by the Bible. It is needful then that we examine such attempts to mishandle the words of our Lord.

Pretext of the Situationists

The two chief and strongest arguments made for situationism are the cases of Jesus’ disciples eating corn on the sabbath and David eating the shewbread (Mt. 12:1-8)). However, situationists make a similar mistake as that of the Pharisees – only worse. There is irony in Jesus’ question (“Have ye not read?”). The Pharisees took pride in their knowledge but had not read (understood) one of Scripture’s most common incidents. Jesus did not break the Law nor endorse violations of it. How do I know? Because (1) Sin is transgression of the law (I Jn. 3:4), and (2) Jesus committed no sins (Heb. 4:15). When the disciples plucked corn they did not break the law. They only violated the Pharisaical misconception of the Law. Obviously, the Pharisees “had not read” (nor had Joseph Fletcher) of the humane provisions made in the Law for wayfarers and sojourners. “When thou comest into the standing corn of thy neighbor, then thou mayest pluck the, ears with thine hand; but thou shalt not move a sickle unto thy neighbor’s standing corn” (Deut. 23:25). “Eat thy fill, but pocket none” (an Old English proverb) is undoubtedly based on this passage. Christ’s disciples did not practice situationism but were engaged in carrying out the will of Christ who was “Lord of the sabbath” (one possessing authority over; institutor, governor). No man on earth today is “Lord” over circumstances where morality is involved – certainly not Fletcher. We must subject ourselves to the One Lord (Eph. 4:5).

In David’s case Jesus specifically says what he did “was not lawful” (Mt. 12:4). Eating the showbread violated a condition of the Law (Lev. 24:9). David lied to obtain it (I Sam. 21:1-6). Jesus did not approve either act. To infer He did is to make Him approve a violation of the Law and thus approve sin. His message to the Pharisees was this: “You condemn the innocent and acquit the guilty.” Under no situation did Jesus approve lawlessness. Consequently, Fletcher is left standing in a worse predicament than the Pharisees. He believes both Jesus and David violated the Law, but it was “OK” because of th circumstances! Under this system it is nearly impossible to be wrong. Fletcher admits his views are almost devoid of the concepts of guilty, sin, repentance, and forgiveness. The redemptive work of Christ at Calvary is nullified.

Such a concept would mean Hitler was not wrong for murdering millions of Jews. By being able to give more jobs to Germans (his beloved countrymen) and greatly improving the economy, who could doubt that he did the “loving thing”? Many Germans thought so. The New Morality can be summed up with the phrase “the end justifies the means.” Paul was accused of this. He said the man who says “Let us do evil that good may come” has a “just damnation” (Rom. 3:8).

The Bible And Morality

The Bible does make some absolute ethical demands. There is a sense of “oughtness” and “ought notness” in its pages. But it is not merely a book of cold, hard rules. Behind it is a loving, personal God who motivates us to love him by his abundant blessings. All of His commandments are pure, good, sure, and not grievous (Ps. 19:7-9; 1 Jn. 5:3). Thus, when He tells us not to steal, lie, commit adultery, covet, etc., it is for our own good. The Christian must “love not the world” (1 Jn. 2:15-17). He must not be “conformed to the world (Rom. 2:2). He must be “dead to the world” (Rom. 6:2-7). He must quit the world (Eph. 4:17). His death implies he is finished with it. He must “flee youthful lusts” and “flee fornication” (1 Tim. 2:22, 1 Cor. 6:18).

It is unfair for Fletcher and other situationists to use the Bible when they think it supports their view but then reject the preceding demands. The Bible is a demanding book. It demands that it be read, believed, obeyed, lived, defended, and that it be the final answer in religion and morality.

Consequences of Situation Ethics

Sometimes the folly of a thing can best be seen by looking at its consequences. It may be that I would feel driven to do wrong in a given circumstances. I would be no less guilty. But Fletcher would come out “smelling like a rose” by justifying himself on the basis of the circumstances. John Warwick Montgomery said it well: “We plead with Professor Fletcher to cease the irresponsible practice of sticking his thumb into sinful human situations, pulling out the plum of moral self-vindication, and saying, ‘what a good boy am I!'”(1)

Situationists find great sport in citing some condition that appears as a dilemma and demanding that one of two equally wrong and unpleasant alternatives be chosen. They overlook the always possible third alternative of doing right. They forget the faithfulness of God who promises a way of escape from temptation (1 Cor. 10: 13). Their way of escape is to go ahead and commit the “lesser” evil and tell yourself it was “OK.” Some escape.

H.A. Dobbs gives an interesting illustration: “When my son was four years old he asked.- ‘Daddy, would you rather jump off a 44 story building without any clothes on or be ihot in the head by an automatic pistol?’ ‘Thanks a lot’ ‘ I answered, ‘but for my part I’d rather eat chocolate pie.'”(2) The situationist must be dealt with accordingly. He wants to eliminate the third alternative. Even when I have to make tough decisions in moral matters, I must remember that I am not the standard.

The New Morality insults God, deifies man, makes love for man greater than love for God, obscures right and wrong, and presumes absolute knowledge on the part of participants that the situation will turn out good. Now, back to Mrs. Bergmeier! What if her husband had resented her adultery? Fletcher justifies this case because of the “good” that came. But he violates his own rule that we should “love persons and use things.” One becomes so emotionally involved with pity and tears for the Bergmeier family that he forgets one other person – the guard! Mrs. Bergmeier treated the guard as a “thing” to be used and not as a person. With no regard for his family or his’soul, she deliberately used a fellow human! No one can really claim to love another when he works against that person’s eternal welfare. Fletcher forgets that an all wise God might have his own way of freeing a woman from a prison camp – if she doesn’t lose her “cool,” her patience, and her concern for fellow humans.

The New Morality also destroys individual responsibility and makes society guilty. Charles Manson blamed society for the murders committed by his hippy family.’ Wonder where he got that idea? Haven’t we heard that society was guilty of the murders of JFK, RFK, and Martin Luther King? The Bible teaches that each must give an account (2 Cor. 5:10).

Our next and final article deals with the question, “Who can consistently oppose the New Morality?”

Endnotes

1. John Warwick Montgomery, Situation Ethics (a debate between Fletcher and Montgomery), p. 47, Dimension Books, Bethany Fellowship, Inc., Minneapolis, MN.

2. H.A. Dobbs, Situation Ethics .Anchor, Vol. 2, No. 2, p. 9.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 3, pp. 72-73
February 2, 1984