Bible Basics: Who Is The Head Of The Church?

By Earl Robertson

Newspaper stories and TV news reports recently have emphasized the changing of heads of the Catholic Church. Pope Paul VI died and Pope John Paul I took his place as the head of the Roman church. Now if the Roman Catholic church is truly the church of Christ, as she claims, it poses a great difficulty. The apostle Paul, guided by the Holy Spirit of God, wrote the Ephesians concerning action of God at the resurrection of Christ and His coronation “which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: and bath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all” (Eph. 1:20-23).

How is it possible that a mere human being could arrogate to oneself the power, might, and dominion essential for the headship of the church of Christ? My blessed Lord and Savior Jesus Christ who is seated at the right hand of God, regally crowned and enthroned as the “one Potentate, the King of kings, the Lord of lords” is the one and only head of the church of Christ! The Roman Catholic church is not the church of Christ. If it were of Christ, Christ would be its head; but since it is not of Christ, the Pope is its universal head. The church of Christ is of Christ and Christ is its head.

When Jesus was raised from the dead, He declared, “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth” (Matt. 28:18b). This power was given to Christ; He did not presumptuously assume such. Peter says that Jesus “Is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him” (1 Pet. 3:22). God alone was excluded when He put all things under the feet of Jesus (1 Cor. 15:24-28).

What the whole world needs to do is give up denominationalism and religious practices not found and authorized by the word of God and obey the gospel of Jesus Christ, which Paul says is God’s power to save the believer (Rom. 1:16). When so saved, the Lord will add you to His church (Acts 2:47). Let Christ by the head!

Truth Magazine XXIV: 8, p. 137
February 21, 1980

Some Thoughts On Prayer (3)

By Leonard Tyler

The Christian’s life is founded upon two great and essential principles: (1) personal obligation, which necessitates responsibility and duty for every Christian within its own ability before God; (2) personal dependence upon God, which requires reliance and trust on the part of every Christian for that which transcends his own ability. One must never forget or neglect either of these. Regardless of one’s capabilities he is still incapable of saving himself. It is not within the power of man to save himself. (Jer. 10:23; Prov. 14:12; 2 Cor. 3:5). Paul makes this very plain in Phil. 3:7-16 where he rejects “mine own righteousness” that he may obtain “that which is through the faith of Christ . . . . If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.” This realization humbles man and forces him to become dependent upon God to supply those things which man cannot. It builds a desire within the heart of the believer to obey as well as pray.

Faith is the basis upon which one acts toward and depends upon God. Faith gives assurance, confidence and evidence for that which is sought. By faith we seek what we do not have in personal merit: to be acceptable, to be worthy, and to obtain righteousness. This confidence of faith gives one a desire to obey and pray. Faith prays with assurance that God is able to hear and answer (Isa. 59:1-2; 1 Pet. 3:12; 2 Cor. 9:8; Phil. 3:21; Heb. 7:25).

The strength of one’s faith is manifest by his desire and confidence in the all-sufficiency of God to supply his every need. In his obedience, God supplies the directives and instructions. In his dependence, God supplies his security. If one does not desire a thing, he certainly will not pray for it. If one did not have confidence that such could be had, he would not pray for it. If one does not feel dependent – if he feels that he can do it himself – he will not pray for it. I suspect, one of the great influences leading to our prayerless attitude is the lack of confidence that God will answer. (One lady said, “We pity the heathen in his praying to the idols; but, I tell you, we surround God with so many limitations that we make him little more to us than a heathen’s God is to him.”) Is not this the main reason we pray so little?

Hurtful Theories

Some hurtful theories are discussed in Sound Doctrine, Vol. II, by brethren C.R. Nichol and R.L. Whiteside (pp. 69-72). The following is given and is worthy of our patient study:

Many theories, even amongst professed Christians, have contributed greatly to the present neglect of prayer. Rationalism has crept into the church, and the teaching of the Bible on prayer is either ignored or explained away. With some theorists the plain statements of the Bible cease to be convincing, but everything must be subjected to the test of human reason. Strange as ft seems, some of the most dogmatic of this class of rationalists are to be found amongst those who claim to take the Bible as their only guide. Their theories on prayer are not found in the Bible. On the subject of prayer, they do not ask, What does the Bible say? but, Is it possible for God to answer prayer?

1. God Is Unchangeable. It is argued that since God is unchangeable our prayers can have no effect. Such a conclusion is not found in the Bible. No inspired writer ever so argued. There are numerous examples of answered prayers. It does not meet the issue to say that all these occurred in the days of the miracles; for, if the unchangeableness of God prevents his answering prayer now, it would have prevented it then, for he was unchangeable then as now. He answered prayer then. That is certain. Being unchangeable he will answer prayer now. Thus the argument on the unchangeableness of God, instead of militating against prayer, is positive proof that God will answer prayer.

2. God Is Omniscient. It is contended that God possesses infinite wisdom and knows what we need before we ask him; that his nature being perfect, and his purposes always good, he will withhold no good thing from his children; hence, there can be no reason for praying. This view is the ground for many neglected prayers. It is not true that all were answered then! It is foolish to argue against a demonstration. Do not allow your zeal for argumentative ability to discredit the Bible.

3. Miracles Have Ceased. It is insisted that God cannot answer prayer without violating the law of nature, and that would be a miracle. Suppose that be true, if God says he will answer, are we going to subscribe to a theory that will make him a liar? Many who advocate this theory cannot define a natural law nor tell what a miracle is. How can one know that God cannot answer prayer without working a miracle? Do you know everything? If not, why make a statement which implies universal knowledge? If there is in all the universe one thing you do not know, that one thing may be how God can answer a prayer and not work a miracle. Do not make a fool of yourself trying to be smart.

A friend asks a favor, and you grant it. Did you work a miracle? The birds and beasts hear the cry of their young and bring them food – do they work miracles? We use the laws of nature every day to answer the requests or prayers of our friends and children. Cannot God do as much? Jesus said, “With God all things are possible.” But the advocates of this God-dishonoring theory make it possible for man and beast to do what they claim it is impossible for God to do.

That God cannot answer prayer without working a miracle is a mere assumption supported by no Bible teaching. So far as we understand the laws of nature, it is as much a miracle for God to hear us pray as it is for him to answer a prayer.

Reflex Influence

By some we are told that reflex influence is the only benefit we derive from prayer. This makes prayer a sort of spiritual gymnasium in which we take spiritual exercise – and spiritual exercise is good, we are told! It is true that the reflex influence of a sincere prayer is good; but if prayer is only a form of spiritual exercise and reflex influence is the only good derived therefrom, then the heathen is as much benefitted by prayer as the Christian. Under what conditions are the reflex influences good? Would there be a good reflex influence if you pray to a post or stone? Your own heart answers: “No, the reflex influence would be bad.” Why? Because you know the tree or stone cannot hear or answer. Such prayer would be foolish mockery. ,But is it any less so to pray to God believing he cannot hear and answer? In the very nature of the case the reflex influence of prayer is good only when we sincerely pray to One whom we believe hears us and is willing and able to grant us the desires of our hearts.

God Answers Prayers

The foregoing theories are not supported by the Bible, and no advocate of such theories ever tries to prove them by the Scriptures. Such theorists depend on a process of reasoning, and not on what God says. Not one of them points to a passage or Scripture and says: “This teaches my doctrine.” They forgot that every Bible doctrine must be settled by what the Book says, and not by our reason. We should use our reason to learn what God says, and not to set aside what he teaches. Leave that to infidels. The proof that God answers prayer is too abundant to include all in this lesson, but we briefly call attention to:

The Bible Teaching On Prayer

Jesus taught his disciples to pray (Matt. 6:5-15), and said: “Thy Father who seeth in secret shall recompense thee.” “The eyes of Jehovah are toward the righteous, and his ears are open unto their cry” (Psa. 34:15).

“Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; for every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. Or what man is there of you, who; if his son shall ask him for a loaf, will give him a stone; or if he shall ask for a fish, will give him a serpent? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father who is in heaven give good things to them that ask him”” (Matt. 7:7-11).

“The supplication of a righteous man availeth much in its working” (James 5:16). As an encouragement to prayer, James immediately adds: “Etijah was a man of like passions with us, and he prayed fervently that it might not rain; and it rained not on the earth for three years and six months. And he prayed again; and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brough forth her fruit” (James 5:17-18). This was a remarkable prayer and answer, and the answer seems to have come in a natural way. To the people it did not appear as a miracle. (See 1 Kings, chapter 17 and 18).

For What Can A Child Of God Pray?

He is told to.: (I) pray for his enemies (Matt. 5:44; Acts 7:60); (2) pray for a brother who sins but not unto death (1 Jn. 5:16; Acts 8:18-24; Jas. 5:16). (3) Pray “for kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty,” in fact, pray for all men (1 Tim. 2:1-2). (4) “Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God” (Phil. 4:6). “In everything” covers all of life’s problems and needs. If not, why not? Will God answer prayer? Christians are taught to pray (1 Thess. 5:17; 1 Tim. 2:8) and, if taught to pray, the answer must be forthcoming or there is no need to pray. “By prayer” means that God is pleased with the prayers of His children. He hears and responds to their supplications or else He would not expect man to pray. (5) Pray for sinners that they might be saved (Rom. 10:1-4). (6) Pray for wisdom (James 1:5). This does not nor does any of the other texts – mean to so pray without applying one’s ability. It means that as we apply all of our powers, we still need God’s help – pray for it. This is the more reason that a man of God recognizes his need to “pray without ceasing.” God will take care of the hows. He will not violate His will but He will fulfill every promise. Therefore, we should pray without fear and doubting. Always, if one loves and has complete faith in the allsufficiency of God, he will pray, “Thy will be done – not mine.” God’s child can be content with God’s answer.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 8, pp. 136-137
February 21, 1980

Attitudes Toward The Truth (3)

By Morris W. R. Bailey

As we continue our study of attitudes toward the truth as revealed by New Testament writers, we observe that another unfavorable attitude, while not specifically named, is nevertheless implied in Paul’s description of the apostate condition of the Gentiles, as recorded in Romans 1:24-25.

Wherefore, God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts unto uncleanness, that their bodies should be dishonored among themselves: for that they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Here we have an attitude of presumptuousness that dares to elevate the wisdom of men above the wisdom of God in that they

Exchanged The Truth Of God For A Lie

The keynote of the epistle to the Romans is sounded by Paul in verse sixteen! “For I am not ashamed of the gospel: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.” Paul then proceeded to show man’s need of salvation, tracing his course from a state of belief in God to a state of unbelief, from whence he descended to the lowest depths of moral depravity. That is obvious from the words of verses nineteen to twenty-three.

Because that which is known of God is manifest in them; for God manifested it unto them. For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity, that they may be without excuse. Because that, knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks; but became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.

It was in that context that Paul said that they had exchanged the truth of God for a lie.

A Recurring Phenomenon

Many times since, men have exchanged God’s truth for the philosophies of men. That disposition is manifested in those who turn away from the Bible account of creation to a theory that would account for the origin of things on a non-miraculous basis. Just as the existence of the universe, with its harmony and order, bore witness to the ancients that God is, so also it bears witness to us today that “the hand that made them is divine.” So, if those of whom Paul wrote were without excuse in failing to recognize God as the Creator, then it is certain that with our tremendous increase in knowledge in the various branches of science today, man has even less excuse than they when he turns from God as the Creator to the speculations of human philosophy.

It is the simplest of logic to conclude that the universe, with its evidence of design, harmony, and order, is the product of not only a Creator, but also of one possessed of a high degree of intelligence. That is obvious from the following illustration.

I drive an automobile. Of course every one will agree that at some point in time it came into existence. Moreover every one will agree that it is not the result of mere chance, produced by some spontaneous action that threw a lot of disassociated debris together and, thus, formed an automobile. Nor would anyone suggest that it was the result of along evolutionary process that began with a tiny piece of metal that grew in size and in complexity, resembling at one time a wheel-barrow, later a two-wheeled chariot, and still later a stage coach of frontier days, and finally, after having acquired a two cylinder motor, it evolved on up through the model T Ford stage to emerge as the high powered V-8 of today, and all this, bear in mind, untouched by human hands and aided only by forces resident in itself.

Of course, no one who had their head on straight would suggest either accident or evolution as the explanation for the existence of an automobile. Reason tells us that some one with intelligence made it. But that is as far as reason can take us. Who made the automobile is a matter of revelation. Under the hood of my car I see a name-plate that identifies its manufacturer, General Motors of Canada. In the light of so reasonable an explanation, would it not be sheer folly to suggest that the automobile was the result of spontaneous generation, or of a long evolutionary process?

That the universe exists is an indisputable fact. That it bears strong evidence of design, harmony, and order cannot be denied. Reason tells us that behind it all is a maker of infinite intelligence and wisdom. But that is as far as reason can go. For the answer to the question of who made the universe, we are dependent on some form of revelation. That revelation is provided for us in the Bible account of creation in the first chapter of Genesis. There we have an explanation that meets all the demands of reason. For it ascribes the existence of the universe with its harmony and order to an all-wise, all-knowing, all-powerful being who “spake and it was done; . . . commanded and it stood fast” (Psalm 33:9). Therefore, when men turn away from the Bible account of creation to a theory that ascribes the existence of the universe to unintelligent forces acting on dead matter, they have exchanged the truth of God for a lie.

Human Creeds

The attitude of presumptuousness that tends to elevate the wisdom of men above the wisdom of God rears its head within religion when men adopt human creeds. The writing of the human creed is an admission on the part of its author(s) that they do believe in the all-sufficiency of the Bible. Yet the Bible claims to be all-sufficient (2 Tim. 3:16, 17).

Moreover, human creeds teach error on various subjects. The Methodist Discipline, in one of its articles states,” . . . that we are saved by faith alone is a very wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort.” Obviously, there is something wrong with the attitude that finds comfort in a doctrine that so obviously contradicts the Bible. James said, “Ye see how that by works a man is justified, and not only by faith” (James 2:24). Twice in the book of Romans, Paul wrote about “the obedience of faith” (Rom. 1:5; 16:26). Assuming, as we must, that Paul and James wrote the truth, we must conclude that when men turn from the Bible to the doctrine of salvation by faith alone, they have exchanged the truth of God for a lie.

Some human creeds teach the doctrine of inherited total depravity of the newly-born child. In the Larger Catechism of the Presbyterian Confession of Faith, we find this statement: “Original sin is conveyed from our first parents to their posterity by natural generation, so that all that proceed from them in that way, are conceived and born in sin.” This is a vastly different picture of little children from that portrayed by Jesus who taught that we must become like little children to enter the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 18:3). Moreover the Bible teaches that sin is an act of transgression (1 John 3:4). It is therefore not transmissible from parents to children (Ezek. 18:20). The doctrine of inherited depravity therefore replaces the truth of God with a lie.

And Now, Some Brethren

It is a sad fact that the disposition to exchange the truth of God, once held, for a lie has made its appearance among some of our brethren. This is, perhaps, not surprising when we remember that Paul foretold that there would come a time when some would “turn way their ears from the truth, and turn aside unto fables” (2 Tim. 4:4). It has become manifest in that there are some who deny the role of approved example in establishing scriptural authority for faith and practice.

Up until the early 1950’s, it would have been rare to find any of our brethren who would deny the authority of approved example. I realize, of course, that unanimity among even a large majority of brethren is not the deciding factor in determining truth. That can be determined only by an appeal to the scriptures. But it was with sound scriptural reasons that brethren taught the role of example, as the following, scriptures reveal.

1. In giving the great commission to His apostles, Jesus instructed them to teach the baptized disciples “to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you” (Matt. 28:20). If, we are correct in assuming that the apostles were faithful in discharging the responsibility committed to them, it is logical to conclude that anything practiced by the early disciples with apostolic approval would reflect the will of the Lord on that particular matter, and thus would furnish an example for us to follow today.

2. Paul, himself, taught the authority of apostolic example when he wrote, “The things which ye both learned and received and heard and saw in me, these things do . . .” (Phil. 4:9). Thus Paul ascribed equal authority to what they heard (command) and what they say (example). Other scriptures that may be noted are Phil. 3:17; 1 Cor. 11:1.

3. More over it is a fact that much of what we know about how people were converted in New Testament times, the early church, and how it functioned in the work ‘of evangelism and benevolence are learned by example. The book of Acts is a book of examples. To deny the role of approved example is thus to deny the utility of one of the most important books of the New Testament. It is by example that we learn that elders were appointed in every church (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5). It is by example alone that we know when to eat the Lord’s supper (Acts 20:7).

But as the issues concerning institutionalism and sponsoring churches began to intensify, and it was pointed out that the examples of evangelism and benevolent work in the New Testament did not include things that some brethren were promoting, they were faced with the dilema of abandoning their unscriptural projects, or denying the authority of examples. Many of them chose to do the latter. That this is not an unsubstantiated charge is apparent from the following facts.

1. In his book entitled We Be Brethren, J.D. Thomas, after a long and complicated argument on Acts 20:7 said, “This then is the reason why some good brethren have concluded against the establishment of pattern authority by examples alone.”

2. Another writer, Milo R. Hadwin, writing in the Firm Foundation said, “The conclusion of this study is that New Testament examples have no role as related to Bible authority. The actions of individuals or churches recorded in the New Testament have no authority to require imitation today” (emphasis mine, M.W.R.B.).

Other like quotations could be given from other brethren, but these are sufficient to confirm our charge that some brethren are denying the authority of examples. When we consider the plain and emphatic teaching of the Bible on this subject, we can only conclude that they have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worship and serve the creatures of their own invention rather than the Creator.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 8, pp. 133-135
February 21, 1980

Suicide: Self-Murder

By Mike Willis

The number of eases of suicide continues to increase every year. One can hardly imagine that those who have so much to live with have so little to live for. Yet, the number of Americans who are taking their own lives continues to increase every year.

Not surprisingly, the number of teenage suicides has increased as well. In the last decade the number of incidents of teenage suicide has increased one hundred per cent.(1) Here are the grim statistics of teenage suicide:

The suicide rate among fifteen-to-twenty-four years-olds has risen by almost 300 percent in just twenty years. An average of thirteen teenagers kill themselves every day.

Suicide is the third leading killer of teens (following accidents and homicides). As if these statistics aren’t gruesome enough, some experts argue that suicide may, in fact, be the number one killer.

The basis for this argument? Suicides often go into the record books as accidental deaths. For example: A person killed in a head-on collision, while driving at night on the wrong side of an expressway with no headlights, would probably be pronounced an accident victim – unless there was positive proof of suicide, such as a suicide note.

Though about five thousand teenagers kill themselves each year, the number who attempt to kill themselves is as much as one hundred times as high, or about five hundred thousand teens.(2)

None of these statistics means quite so much to an individual as does a personal telephone call relating that one of his friends has committed suicide. I shall not soon forget my alarm upon hearing that my cousin had murdered his estranged wife and then committed suicide. Just a few weeks ago, I was informed that one of the young men who was baptized in a recent meeting which I conducted had taken his life. The brethren in one northern Ohio city related the suicide death of the brother of one of the members. The mortician who handled this suicide related that this was the eighth case in one month of death through suicide by a teenager.

Surely these statistics are alarming. However, they certainly are useless unless they cause us to ask what is causing these increases in suicide and what can be done to prevent others. I speak as no authority, for I have not given myself to a thorough study of this subject. However, I would like to make some suggestions as to causes and preventions.

Causes of Suicide

1. Hopelessness. Almost every document written regarding suicide relates the hopelessness of situations as a leading cause of suicides. “It’s not so much that the person wants to die; he just doesn’t see any alternative,” wrote Reina Gross.(3) Psychiatrists agree that a leading cause of suicide in the young is hopelessness about the future.(4)

Generally this hopelessness is not concerned with life after death; it is pertaining to life on earth. A wife feels trapped in an unhappy marriage; she sees no way out except through death. A teenaged girl becomes pregnant out of wedlock. Rather than face the problem, she commits suicide.

2. Problems in the home. Though these categories are not mutually exclusive, they need to be enumerated separately. “Insecurity in family life is given as one likely cause (of suicide, mw). `Divorce is breaking up families at a great rate,’ says Paula Cantor, an associate professor at Boston University, `and for an adolescent it’s more damaging to lose a parent through divorce than through death.’ “(5)

The increase in divorce affects suicides of both teenagers and adults. Our lack of concern for the solidarity of the family unit causes instability in children as one of its byproducts. Sometimes, this results in teenage suicide. More and more, we can see the wisdom of God in revealing the family structure as one of the stabilizing forces of life.

Added to the problem of divorce as an enemy of the home which contributes to suicide must be the neglect of children. Janet Chase-Marshall wrote,

“There has been a definite weakening of family standards and parental authority,” says Dr. Joseph Teicher, director of child adolescent psychiatry at the Los Angeles County-University of Southern California Medical Center. “There are more and more divorces. And more children are physically and emotionally abandoned at an early age by parents who are so troubled themselves they cannot give that vital life fluid we call nurturance.”

Related to the breakdown of family ties is the emphasis on “doing your own thing.”

“We have become very egocentric and competitive – even with our own children,” points out Cleveland phsychiatrist Dr. Victor Victoroff. “Our old traditional resources – family, church, schools, government – are seen cynically as untruthful and untrustworthy. So, in a world where mom and dad are both working, and grandparents are off living the `good life’ in some retirement city, who is there to help a troubled teenager?”(6)

The assessment that the problem is the home failing to meet the emotional needs of the teenaged suicide is not some isolated comment of some narrow-minded preacher. “. . . Morris Paulson, the clinical psychologist who conducted the U.C.L.A. study, found a common denominator among these disturbed youngsters: `Every one of them had a home that wasn’t providing the understanding and caring that the child needed.’ “(7)

I am sure that other breakdowns in the home could be enumerated as causes of suicide. However, these should be sufficient to make us aware of the instability of the home as a contributing cause of many suicides, both of the young and old.

3. Financial problems. There has always been an increase in the number of suicides which increase is coincident with the financially troubled times in our economy. When a man gets himself in hopeless financial conditions, he sometimes uses suicide as his way out. In some cultures, suicide is more honorable than bankruptcy.

Materialism and Teenager Suicide

Our emphasis on the accumulation of things in many respects affects our children. However, when our emphasis on things becomes so engrossing that it is a contributing cause in children taking their own lives, it is time for something radical to be done to correct it. Let us consider how materialism and attitudes toward children run together:

With increasing frequency – and plaintiveness – we hear how children endanger the “life-style” of those who must care for them. This protectiveness toward something so seemingly ephemeral as a “life-style” may at first glance seem bizarre – or narcissistic – yet when the term “life-style” is recognized as code, its significance begins to make sense. What the expression refers to is in fact something closer to the bone: standard of living. Lifestyles almost invariably cost money, and the more “imaginative” the life-style, the more “daring,” the more it is likely to cost . . . .

Thus, underlying the degeneration of our romance with childhood is the pervasive idea – half grounded and half hallucinatory – that children can no longer be afforded . . . .

But the dread of children isn’t limited to the rich man’s view of the poor. Even those with rather large sums of discretionary income wonder in all seriousness if they can afford to have children . . .In this sense, parents who say that their children are draining the life out of them are really saying something much less mystical: It is their ability to buy things for themselves that is being drained by the child. And since the accouterments of the single or childless life are the most ephemeral and the most discretional, they must be glamorized and injected with importance. Once you have been removed from the possibility of wasting your money on a lot of self-enhancing junk, you can feel isolated and irrelevant: the familiar voices are no longer speaking to you. Your diminished ability to participate in the market-place is felt unconsciously as life itself passing you by. Those who do not spend and live well are irrelevant, and if the children are responsible, then, in fact, they have ruined your life.(8)

I have witnessed this kind of over-emphasis on the accumulation of things. Couples who are afraid that they will not have as much money to spend on themselves voluntarily decide not to have children; others deprive themselves of the joy of additional children for the same reasons. Frankly, I am not convinced that a new car, stereo, house, curtains, etc. will give one much joy in his old age; certainly the joy which these things can give cannot compare to a hug around the neck from a youngster who calls you “Grandpa.”

This inordinate emphasis on the accumulation of things relates to suicide when children are made to feel guilty because their parents do not have as much money to spend on themselves as do those who have no children. When children are constantly reminded of how much trouble they are, how much they hamper the ability of their parents to go to places of entertainment, and how much they cost, they soon begin to feel as wanted and loved as a deflated spare tire.

What Can Be Done About Suicides?

In recent years, we have witnessed the proliferation of suicide-prevention centers all over this country. These centers operate phones manned by counselors twenty-four hours a day. The counselors (usually volunteers) try to talk the potential suicide victim out of committing suicide. They can send medical help to the person who has already taken an overdose of pills, cut his wrist or shot himself. But, how effective have these things been? According to what reports I have read, they have not been very effective in reducing the number of suicides and attempted suicides. Typical of such reports is the following:

In the United States, a network of suicide-prevention centers based on that approach grew up, with the public expectation that they would reduce the incidence of suicide. Those centers have had no demonstrable effect on the suicide rate in their communities.(9)

Hence, some other solutions are going to have to be found to suicide prevention other than the erection and maintenance of suicide-prevention centers. In my next article, I will suggest some ideas relative to suicide prevention.

Endnotes:

1. Scott Spencer, “Childhood’s End,” Harpers Magazine (May, 1979), p. 17.

2. Carol Greenberg Felsenthal, “Teen Suicide: What To Do When A Friend Is In Trouble,” Seventeen (April, 1979), p. 184.

3. Reina Gross as quoted in “Teen-Age Suicide,” Newsweek (August 28, 1978), p. 76.

4. Spencer, op. cit., p. 18.

5. U.S. News and World Report (July 10, 1978), p. 49.

6. Janet Chase-Marshall, “Teenage Suicides,” Good Housekeeping (May, 1979), p. 98.

7. “Children Who Want To Die,” Time (September 25, 1978), p. 82.

8. Spencer, op. cit., pp. 18-19.

9. Herbert Hendin, Psychology Today (May, 1979), p. 115.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 8, pp. 131-133
February 21, 1980