Truth Magazine

By T. G. O’Neal

An older preacher friend told me several years ago that fornication was the most often committed sin. I am inclined to agree. An article I read in the Nashville Banner, Sept. 9, 1973, page 11, said the Playboy Foundation commissioned The Research Guild, Inc. to make a survey, the results of which were published in Playboy, October, 1973. Those surveyed were 2,026 in number over seventeen years of age; 982 were men, 1,044 were women. Seventy-five percent of the single women surveyed said they had sexual relations before they were 25; 32% of the married men under 25 said they had sexual relations since married with someone besides their wife, and 24% of married women said the same thing. Current statistics if available would not show an improvement.

Added to the practice of sin, now there are some preachers who are giving their voice to the sanction of fornication and adultery. While they would deny that they favor adultery or fornication, their voice or pen says otherwise. Concerning the. exception of Matt. 19:9, Leroy Garrett said Matthew “inserted that exception on his own, and that Jesus never said it” (Restoration Review, November, 1978, quoted by Mike Willis in Truth Magazine, Vol. 23, page 93).

Some brethren on the West Coast have started a paper called “The Bible Forum” which they say is “dedicated to the open discussion of Bible subjects.” It either had a short life or is way behind schedule for I only have received three copies, the last being November, 1977. All three copies are devoted to a discussion of marriage and”the truth J.T. Smith and H.E. Phillips have taught. The “editorial staff” consisted of Bob Melear, Kenneth Cheatham and Glen Lovelady. Glen Lovelady in his debate with J.T. Smith charged that the exception of Matt. 19:9 is “an addition” to the word of God, and is “what the copiest added” (Smith-Lovelady Debate, pp. 176-177). Also, in this debate Lovelady raised the question of whether “the latter part of Matthew 19:9 is considered by the translators to be an interpolation of copyist” (page 23). By his implication, he cast doubt upon the genuineness of the text. This is what nearly all of us who have debated Baptist preachers have run into with them on Mk. 16:9-20. True, some manuscripts do not contain the latter part of Matt. 19:9, but then there are probably just as many that do. The translators believed there was sufficient evidence to include it. The whole point of this is to get away from what Jesus said.

Olan Hicks has recently come out with a book called What The Bible Says About Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage, which should be called “What Hicks Says About Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage” for it does not teach what the Scriptures says. Hicks charges brethren who teach the truth on Matt. 19:9 with a “need to remove the glasses which have been provided for us by the Catholic Church” (p.26), that the truth we teach “comes from the Vatican, not from the apostles” (p.29). He charges brethren with teaching “tradition” and not the Bible.

Whether they are willing to admit it or not, these men are giving comfort to the idea that the put-away fornicator can remarry without committing sin.

Definition

What is fornication? Vine defines it as “illicit sexual intercourse” and that “it stands for, or includes adultery” (Vol. 2, p. 125). Thayer says “of illicit sexual intercourse in general . . . used of adultery” (p. 532).

What is adultery? Vine defines it as “denotes one who has unlawful intercourse with the spouse of another” (Vol. 1, pp. 32-33). Thayer defines it as “to have unlawful intercourse with another’s wife, to commit adultery with” (p. 417).

Webster defines “illicit” as “not permitted; improper, unlawful” (p. 413). For a thing to be unlawful implies a law somewhere to which one has not complied. Now, what is the Law that says sexual intercourse with one to whom one is not married is sinful? It is God’s law, for man’s law says such is neither illicit or unlawful.

Fornication is a general term including all unlawful sexual activity. Lesbianism and homosexuality would be included here as well as adultery. Adultery is a more specific term used in reference to unlawful sexual contact with the husband or wife of another.

New Testament Teaching

In view of what men are teaching, we need to look at New Testament teaching and a good way to do this would be to look at some specific passages.

(1) Matt. 5:32. Beginning in verse 31, Jesus said, “It hath been said, whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.” Here Jesus said the man that puts away his wife causes her to commit adultery unless he puts her away for fornication. The one who marries her who is put away commits adultery. That is not “the traditional view” or what some preacher said, that is what Jesus said.

(2) Mk. 10:11-12. In this passage Jesus said, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.”

God’s law given to man “from the beginning of the creation” when “God made them male and female” said, “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; and they twain shall be one flesh so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (vs. 6-9). God’s law, even before the church and before the law of Moses, was for “a man” to “cleave to his wife.” When this was done no longer were they “twain, but one flesh.” “God hath joined them together.” God joins a man that leaves mother and father to his wife. This passage does not teach that God joins a man, who up and leaves his wife, to another woman to be his wife. Jesus said the man who puts away his wife and marries another commits adultery. The putting away of a wife is a sinful action and the marrying another is a sinful action, but it is not until he has sexual relations with her that he commits adultery. He has no right to her, it is unlawful for him to have her and every time they cohabit they commit adultery. The first act is adultery and the last one, even if twenty-five or fifty years later, is still adultery. Time does not change the unlawful to the lawful.

If a woman puts away her husband and marries another, she commits adultery. That is not the teaching of Catholicism or the traditional “Church of Christ view”; that is what Jesus said. All of the cases of Mary leaving Ed to marry John, even with the approval of the preacher and the elders will not change what Christ said. God will not change His will just because Hicks, Lovelady and others are teaching error any more than he will because a Baptist preacher is teaching error.

(3) Mt. 14:3-4. Matthew records, “For Herod had laid hold on John, and bound him, and put him in prison for Herodias’ sake, his brother Philip’s wife. For John said -unto him, It is not lawful for thee to have her.” Observe Herod “had” a woman by the name of Herodias, but she was not his wife. He “had” his brother’s wife. He “had” Philip’s wife. John said what we had done was not lawful. According to whose law? Here is one who is not subject to the law of Christ, for the gospel of Christ had not yet been preached, yet he- was not acting according to the law. God’s law said Herodias was Philip’s wife but Herod “had” her. Herod “had” her but God still had her joined to Philip. This shows God does not loose a wife just because man does. The court can say Mary is not longer Ed’s wife and can marry John, but God did not say that.

(4) Luke 16:18. Jesus said, “Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery” It is plain from this passage Jesus said he who puts away his wife and marries another commits adultery. All of the human wisdom of earth will not explain it away. Then Jesus said that the man that marries the woman put away commits adultery. Jesus said the man that puts away his wife commits adultery when he marries another, and the woman commits adultery when she marries again. Thus, four people commit adultery. That is what Jesus said.

(5) Rom. 7.-2-3. By the Holy Spirit Paul wrote, “For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is free from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.” Paul said a woman with a husband “is bound . . . to her husband so long as he liveth.” The way “she is loosed from the law of her husband” is “if her husband be dead.” If her husband is not dead, she is not loosed from him; she is still bound to him. If she is married to another while her husband is alive `she shall be called an adulteress.” The expression “shall be called” in this verse is from the Greek “chrematizo” and is also used in Acts 11:26 where the text says “the disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.” This word means to be divinely called. God called the disciples Christians and God calls a woman an adulteress who is married to another man while her husband liveth. From this passage we learn that a woman can be “married” to another man while having a husband. It should be obvious that the term “married” is not used in the sense of married in the sight of God or that God has joined these two together when at least one of them has a mate.

(6) Matt. 19:9. Jesus said, “I say unto you whosoever shall put away his wife except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery; and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.”

I have waited until this point in this article to introduce this passage. Previous passages noted in the article state the general law of marriage “from the beginning.” However, this passage states the “exception” given by Jesus. True, it is the only passage that says “except for fornication,” but if Jesus said it once, it is the truth. Are we willing to do away with everything taught just one time in the Bible?

Christ said, “whosoever shall put away his wife . . . and shall marry another, committeth adultery.” The exception Jesus gave was where the putting away was “for fornication.” If one puts away a wife but not “for fornication” or if one puts away a wife “for fornication,” Jesus said, “Whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. “

Brother Hicks says in his book on page 25 that “everything said in the passage is addressed in the first line to this kind of case, the married man who divorces a wife who was faithful to him and marries another. It is not addressed to other situation . . . .” I deny it; that is not so. Brother Hicks needs to read the verse. There is more than one case in the verse.

Jesus said, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery.” The “whosoever” is party number one, and “his wife” is party number two. The number one party, “whosoever,” marries “another” which is party number three in the verse. When party number one marries party number three without putting party number two away for fornication, Jesus said he “committeth adultery.” But even this is not all the verse says. Jesus continued by saying, “And whoso (which is party number four) marrieth her which is put away (which is party number 2 of the verse) doth commit adultery.” If party number one puts away his wife (party number 2) and then the two of them marry, you have four people committing adultery, if party number one did not put away his wife for fornication, despite what Brother Hicks and others say. If party number 2 is put away by her husband for fornication, and all remarry, then only two people are living adultery, the put away fornicator and her “husband.”

In the beginning of this article, I was careful to define “fornication” and “adultery” as being “unlawful or illicit sexual intercourse.” Part of Brother Hick’s problem, in an effort to get around what Jesus said, is that he does not know what adultery or fornication is. He has people guilty of such without having “unlawful sexual intercourse.” Observe what he says about Matt. 19:9 on page 28: “Does the adultery Jesus spoke of occur when one puts away his wife and marries another, or does it occur later when he cohabits with the second wife? How can we insist that it is the latter when Jesus specifically said it is the former.” Notice Brother Hicks has a man (1) putting away a wife and (2) marries mother, which in his second “wife,” and he says Jesus said he commits adultery before he cohabits with her. If a m; n has no right to put away his wife, and does so, his action is sinful but putting away or divorcing a wife is not adultery or “unlawful sexual intercourse.” When he “marries” another, standing before a justice of the peace or a preacher and saying some words will in the eyes of the law of the land make him married, but whatever ceremony is said is a sinful action upon his part for he has no right to her, but this legal ceremony is not the sin of adultery. He commits the sin of adultery with her every time he cohabits with her. On page 29, Brother Hicks says “the two actions,” “putting away” and “marrying another” is what “consists of” adultery.

Twice in verse 9 Jesus used the term “marry” or “marrieth” but he used it in what we would call an accommodative way. Each time he used the term, he said the parties involved “committeth adultery.” These people committing adultery were not married in the sight of God, unless God joins together those committing adultery. One may be “married” in the sight of men or the laws of the land, but when God looks at them, God says they “commit adultery.” Does God sanction by joining together those committing adultery?

Other Errors

In addition to what has already been said in this article, there are a few other errors that need to be noticed.

(1) No reason for any divorce. Reacting to the extreme of divorce for any reason, there are those that have gone to the opposite extreme and have said there is no reason for any divorce. While it may be true that few divorces are “for fornication,” it is true that Jesus did give this as the reason. When there is the reason, one has the right to exercise the right. The fact that many people do not follow what Jesus taught does not give one the right to ignore what Jesus did say.

(2) No alien subject to God’s marriage law. This is commonly been called in recent years the “Fuqua Position” but I doubt he originated it. The position stated says that alien sinners, those outside the spiritual relationship described in the New Testament as being “in Christ” do not live under the law of God as it pertains to marriage, divorce and remarriage. Therefore, before becoming a Christian, one could have married and divorced any number of times, but when they learn the truth and obey the gospel, they are to live with the one to whom they are married at the time of gospel obedience.

However, the Bible does not teach this idea. Writing to Gentiles in Corinth, Paul said “such were some of you” referring to the sins of fornication and adultery, but said ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified” (1 Cor. 6:9-11). How could they have been fornicators and adulterers if they were not living under God’s law pertaining to marriage before “hearing, believed, and were baptized” (Acts 18:8)? If they were not under the law, they could not have violated the law. Among some sins Paul said the Colossians “walked” and “lived in” was the sin of “fornication” (Col. 3:5-7). If these Gentiles were not under God’s law from the beginning concerning marriage, how did they get to be fornicators?

(3) Not living with husband or wife, free to marry. Another error that is being taught is the idea that when a man puts away his wife, they are no longer married, thus free. Then the theory says that those free are able to enter into marriage. Glen Lovelady affirmed in debate with J.T. Smith that “the Scriptures teach that the put-away adulterer can remarry without committing sin” (Smith-Lovelady Debate, p. vi, and pp. 159-242). This is what the late Brother Lloyd Moyer advocated in his tract entitled “Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage” when he said on page 3, “When a marriage is thus dissolved, the innocent is no longer married to the guilty, nor is the guilty any longer married to the innocent. No marriage exists. Where no marriage exists, the parties may marry someone else . . . . Where is the passage or passages which teach that the guilty person whose marriage has been destroyed cannot be married again. They are not married. What law would prohibit those not married from getting married?” (all emphasis is Moyer’s, T.G.O.).

The Holy Spirit said, “The woman which hath a husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth . . . . so then if while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress . . .” (Rom. 7:2-3). Jesus said, “Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery; and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery” (Lk. 16:18). The teachings of Lovelady, Moyers, Hicks and others will not set aside what the Holy Spirit said. Preachers would do well to preach the word and quit trying to justify the guilty.

QUESTIONS

1. What are two very common sins discussed in this article? (One might gather articles and clippings from papers showing how common these sins are.)
2. Define “fornication” and “adultery.”
3. In what way does adultery differ from fornication?
4. What two people did God say a man should leave in order to be Joined to his wife?
5. Of those whom God joins together, what is man not to do?
6. Are people married if God has not Joined them together?
7. Is it possible for two people to be married legally in the eyes of men but not married in God’s eyes?
8. What reason did Jesus give for one to put away his mate and marry ‘a second time without committing sin?
9. What “reasons” does the state in which you live give for divorce? How many more reasons is this than Jesus gave?
10. Can unrepentant fornicators go to heaven?

Truth Magazine XXIII: 22, pp. 362-365
May 31, 1979

By Dennis C. Abernathy

I have been asked to write this article on the subject of “pornography”, which I am glad to do. In this article we shall not deal with a huge list of “statistics” and draw from that tabulation the conclusion that we have a problem with pornography! Really, all one has to do, is live in our society, to know that we face a grave danger in the form of pornography. Pornography is not something that people indulge themselves on in secret (or it is not a thing done in a corner) in today’s world!

Today we hear a great deal about pollution. The polluting of the air, water, the land, etc. We are in trouble! If we can believe the experts, man has so befouled his environment that now he is faced with a self-induced calamity. The pollution of the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the land we live upon is a most sinister threat to our health and happiness, and we had better be concerned about it! Former President Nixon warned: “We have become victims of our own technological genius.”

But while the world’s best minds grapple with the problem of air and water pollution, a far more lethal type of adulteration has descended upon us. And, ironically, this contamination arouses only slight concern compared to that of our physical environment! We are talking about “inner pollution”, or pollution of the heart and mind.

Consider the man who puts up a beautiful fence around his yard, yet his yard looks like a garbage dump. Also the man who beautifies the outside of his house, yet the inside is a total wreck! Yet, what about the individual who wages the fight against air and water pollution, yet all kinds of filth and defilements are found lodging in his heart?

From a moral standpoint, our country has reached the “open sewer” stage. Anyone who would argue the point need only investigate the average news stand or glance at the entertainment pages of their local newspaper. To read reports from those who have made a thorough investigation and appraisal of the “adults only” books, movies, etc. is shocking indeed. Even more shocking than that is, the fact, that this form of contamination is accelerating at an unbelievable pace. It seems that the adult movies, plays, books etc. are competing with each other to see just how far they can go! One New York critic, after seeing an off Broadway play, wrote: “After this, what can there be for an encore?”

With the onslaught of this form of corruption, has come a burgeoning rate of crime which is now almost beyond anyone’s power to stop or even check. I am made to wonder what our beloved America will be like when my little girls are adults!

The printed page, movies (in theaters and on television screens) and much of the music of today have a tremendous influence on the attitudes, manners, and morals of their recipients.

Just here, I think it would be good to give a definition of Pornography. Porneia is the Greek term for sexual uncleanness of all kinds, including fornication. Grapho means to write or picture. So you can see that we are talking about obscene books and films sold in the adult book store. It includes many of the adult magazines found in the drug stores and on the news stands. Many of the movies in the theater and an increasing number of shows piped into our homes via the TV screen are pornographic.

In the case of the printed page, censorship for all practical purposes, is non-existent. The most lurid and obscene literature imaginable is now freely circulated, obviously protected by the nation’s highest courts. Listen! We are speaking about Hard-Core pornography, not just the “girlie magazines.” It is almost hard to realize how lewd and vicious some of this trash really is.

Although these publications carry the Adults Only warning, any thinking person knows this is only a ridiculous attempt to justify their existence. Where is the evidence that adults are not demoralized by these publications (any person with any knowledge at all know they are affected irregardless of age), and of course all control is lost the moment the purchase is made. There are no laws to keep such material out of the hands of young people once they are sold. If you do not believe teenagers and even pre-teens are reading this obscene material, you had better wake up in a hurry!

I am told (and let me tell you this; I believe it) some of the photographs in these publications are too vile to describe—and most are posed by young people. Certainly, they must be influenced very strongly by drugs, etc., for few people, however depraved, would even do such things much less allow themselves to be photographed in the act!

To the person whose mind is obsessed with sex, who knows little about history (and cares even less), or whose god is the “almighty dollar”, the moral decline of our nation means little. Yet any sensible, and right thinking person, knows and realizes that obscene literature, movies, TV, etc., encouraged by permissive courts, can fatally weaken our nation! This fact is not only underscored by history; it is affirmed by the conduct of those who have abandoned the morals of the past. Today we are witnessing a callous indifference toward patriotism, and a total lack of respect for our rich heritage, and toward God Almighty and His Holy Word! Many of the young people today solve their problems by painting daisies on car doors; by carrying their “Make Love, Not War” placards, and etc. These are the fruits of an inner pollution problem! A pollution, I might add, that we cannot survive. “For as a man thinketh in his heart, so is he.” (Prov. 23:7).

The Source Of The Worst Pollution Is In The Human Heart

Jesus said, “There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which came out of him, those are they which defile the man (Mk. 7:15). He then goes on in verse 18 to say: “. . . Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: all those evil things come from within and defile the man.” My dear reader, the Lord is saying that one’s conduct (speech, dress, etc.) is but an evaluation of his heart! “For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. A good man out of the good treasure bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.” (Matt. 12:34-35). In other words, if a man fills his heart with corruption, it will be that which flows out of his heart. That is why the Bible says, “Keep thy heart with all diligence, for out of it are the issues of life.” (Prov. 4:33).

This is the point of attack made by pornography. It affects one’s heart or mind. It warps one’s concept of what is right and good. It awakens, kindles, and inflames the vilest forms of lust, which lead the individual down the road of degradation and ruin. Note the following illustration:

“A teen boy stops by a drug store for a snack before going home. As he passes the magazine rack he notices a section of magazines displaying nude and semi-nude women. He stops and begins to shuffle the sports magazines, but his eyes are concentrated on the pornography. Passions he hasn’t known before begin to stir within his mind. Curiosity arouses, but he hesitates to reach for any of the alluring magazines. Something seems to warn him of the evil before him. For the moment he refuses to go so far as to pick up one of the pieces of trash, but he has become careless. He has allowed to lodge in his mind pictures which have appealed to lust.

This carelessness continues for several days until one afternoon at the same magazine rack the boy gets bolder, bold enough to not care who is looking, bold enough to get one of the magazines in hand and look through it closely. Eventually, he has scanned the pages of all the nude magazines. The figures are fixed in his mind. He thinks about them at school. He thinks about them on a date as he makes advances to the girl. He talks about them with his buddies. He feeds his thought processes on them as every female he sees becomes the object of hidden lust. He is bolder now having stifled any warning of danger.

Boldness leads to habit. The boy’s collection of pornography grows as he manages from various sources to buy the foul print. He is introduced to all types of sexual experiences. Through the literature he becomes acquainted with perversion in all its vile forms. Thoughts are not enough. He constantly seeks companions to fulfill his lust. On and on it goes until things happen he never imagined when he first started the downward trail. His mind is a moral sewer. His body a deceased wreck. His future is dark. He is a slave to the lust he only played with at first!”

When people ignore what God’s word says about purity of heart—when they leave God out of their lives, they are on the road to ruin. Hear Paul to the Romans: “Therefore, God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them . . . . God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire towards one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper . . . . and, although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them” (Rom. 1:24-32).

Phillipians 4:8

“Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence, and if anything worthy of praise, let your mind dwell on these things.” How can one obey this injunction of Paul, while filling his mind with pornography (whether it be in the form of dirty books and pictures – in the theatres or on the TV – or through the dirty and suggestive lyrics of many of the songs today)? We must cultivate proper and pure thinking and leave no room in our hearts for that which is base and vile.

Young people, heed the danger flag before you dabble with pornography. There is nothing good that can come from it. Do not be deceived. There is too much good and wholesome literature – too many good and wholesome things God has given us – for us to degrade ourselves with the trash and filth coming from depraved minds. “Keep thyself pure” (1 Tim. 5:22).

If you are a sinner, purify your heart (Acts 15:9; 1 Cor. 6:11; 1 Pet. 1:22). It is through obedience to the faith (the gospel) that one’s heart is purified. Have you obeyed God? Have you had your sins washed away (Acts 22:16)? Why not resolve to do that today?

Are you a Christian, but have gone back into the world (the mud and mire – the pollution of sin)? It is a low state indeed (2 Pet. 2:20-21; 2 Pet. 1:4). You need to repent of your sin and seek forgiveness at the hand of God (Acts 8:22; Jas. 5:19-20).

This is the way for the Christian, under God, to combat moral pollution in his own life. We must start with ourself. We as parents must educate our children against the dread disease of pornography. What do your children read? What do they watch? What records do they listen to? Do you know? Do you care?

We cannot cleanse the whole world. God’s people have almost always been outnumbered, outvoted, outwitted and outraged by the pollutants which have taken over the minds, morals, and wills of wicked men. But we can begin with our own household. We can teach our children the truth concerning pornography and we can do all in our power to eliminate it from their daily activities. Also, we can confess our sins to God, and we can be sure our own hearts are unpolluted.

Yes, the great battle is not with water and air pollution, but, with those things that pollute the heart and mind of man.

QUESTIONS

1. Define Pornography.
2. Discuss the importance of air and water pollution as compared with heart pollution.
3. How do you view the moral condition of our country today and how has pornography played a part?
4. What are the main sources of pornography?
5. Does pornography affect only young people?
6. What is the source of pollution?
7. Quote and explain some passages of Scripture concerning the heart.
8. The battle against pornography must start where?
9. How would you refute the “artistic value” arguments presented by the porno pushers? Is pornography simply an “artform.”
10. Will we be judged according to our deeds? Does this include our thoughts? How does pornography affect the thoughts and intents of our heart?

Truth Magazine XXIII: 22, pp. 359-361
May 31, 1979

By Johnny Thompson

I was going to the prom! I thought about it for days, and then decided to go. After all, I would be a senior but once. So why not?

I well knew that informing my parents would be most difficult. I was a minister’s son who had been taught all my life the problems and dangers involved in the modern dance. I decided to tell them at breakfast.

“Dad,” I said, “since I am a senior, I have decided to go to the Senior Prom.” I waited for his reply, but there was only silence. I expected my father to take me to task severely. I thought certainly that mother would cry. But still there was silence, a terrifying silence. Then my father replied, “So you are going to the prom?”

“Yes sir,” I said, “after all I’ll be a senior only once.” He looked at me and then hung his head. Then he said words I’ll never forget: “Son, your mother and I have tried to teach you for the past sixteen years what is right and what’s wrong. We’ve done our best to bring you up as a Christian young man. But you’re right Son, you are a senior. You are almost grown. So if you have decided to attend the Senior Prom, go ahead, but please remember this: if the Lord should come and find you there, please tell Him that you came because You wanted to, not because We sent you.”

Those sobering words shook me into reality. I then knew that this was a temptation that I must overcome. I must not go! I have never regretted not going, but continue to thank God that I was given the strength to throw my influence, fully behind the church and its work in the community. Remembering this temptation, I take encouragement from James 1:12, “Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love Him.”

Truth Magazine XXIII: 22, p. 359
May 31, 1979

 

By Marshall E. Patton

Dancing is an age old problem in the church, and it continues to present itself anew with each rising generation. While the problem appears over and over, dancing itself appears in a new form from generation to generation. This study shows, however, that the same basic evil in dancing of the past is likewise present in that of the current generation – hence, the problem, regardless of the form or the generation.

Objectivity

One aspect of the problem is found in the fact that far too many do not study the issue objectively. All too often social, sometimes a party spirit, and other pressures make for a prejudicial, biased, and opinionated study. Some hold that preachers are so bound by antiquated views, tradition, and a desire for acceptance among their peers that their teaching is void of objectivity; that because of these pressures they simply can not “get with it” in this modern hour. Bible class teachers are sometimes viewed in much the same light, and others who oppose dancing are thought of by some as radicals, “kill joys,” and objectors without due regard for facts.

In the hope of greater objectivity, let it be observed that while the possibility of such on the part of some exists, surely, more serious thought shows such views to be a reflection upon the integrity of our teachers in general as well as a threat to our future security. Those who are experienced, who are void of a reputation of extremism, :and who are recognized as careful students of the word are well schooled in the dangers of such pressure influences. Among these we find many who have the faith and courage to search out and stand for truth regardless of such influences and consequences. The consensus judgement of such is worthy of the greatest respect and study.

Consensus Judgment

I believe that it goes without debate that the consensus judgment of the more faithful among us (preachers, elders, deacons, Bible Class teachers, and others) is that dancing, as opposed in this article, is wrong. It would be folly for one seriously ill physically to ignore the consensus judgment of the best qualified in the realm of therapeutics. Likewise, we must conclude that it would be equally foolish to ignore the consensus, judgment of the best qualified in the field of Bible knowledge. Young people, especially, should be very careful to avoid the path of folly in their study of this issue.

Inconsistency

Inconsistency poses a problem for both the guilty and the observer. All of our literature – that used in Bible classes, religious papers, tracts, books of sermons, etc. that deals with this subject sound a unanimous voice against dancing. The Christian, therefore, who engages in such finds himself at variance with the literature throughout the brotherhood as well as the oral teaching thereof. This puts him in a bad light with his fellows and at a disadvantage to explain his inconsistency to others.

Dancing in the Bible

The dancing of which one reads in the Bible may be divided twofold. (1) There were dances expressive of great joy and gratitude on occasions of victory and signal favors wrought or bestowed at the hand of God; also dances by which devotion, honor, and praise were shown unto Him (e.g., Ex. 15:20; Judges 11:34; 1 Sam. 18:6; 2 Sam. 6:14; Psa. 30:11; 149:3; 150:4; Lk. 15:25). In these dances men and women danced alone – no mixed dancing. (2) There were dances for amusement, pleasure and entertainment. There often involved hilarity, revelling, and mixed dancing (e.g., Ex. 32:19-28; 1 Sam. 30:16; Job. 21:7, 11-20; Matt. 14:3-6; Mk. 6:21-28). Concerning the two kinds of dancing, only the former has any semblance of approval. Even then, those involving some religious aspect (praise unto God) are found in the Old Testament. There is no authority for such in the New Testament age (John 4:23, 24).

Works of the Flesh

Among the works of the flesh (Gal. 5:19-21), we find “Lasciviousness.” Webster defines this word as follows: “Wanton, lewd, lustful – tending to produce lewd emotions; the synonym of licentious, lecherous, salacious the antonym of chaste.” Again, it is defined: “Indecent bodily movements, unchaste handling of males and females” (Thayer’s Greek Lexicon, p. 79, 80). There are two expressions in the above definitions worthy of special attention, because they identify, beyond doubt, the modern Disco dance (as well as others), namely, “tending to produce lewd emotions” and “indecent bodily movements.” The suggestive positions, provocative movements, and seductive gyrations of the Disco dance and other forms of the modern dance are here identified as lasciviousness.

If one were trying to produce lewd emotions by indecent movements of the body, could he do better than employ the bodily movements of such dances? In order to see more clearly the lascivious aspect, omit for the moment the presence of music, and ask the question, “Is there a Christian woman anywhere who would condone another woman engaging is such bodily movements before her husband even in her own living room?” The-presence or absence of music does not change the lascivious aspect. One thing wrong with dancing is that it takes and grants privileges that are not tolerated anywhere else in decent society. Even if a mature Christian (one schooled and experienced in the control of his passions) should be able to withstand temptation, we need to remember that the average man of the world is void of such strength, and many could care less.

Sometimes women say that such does not so effect them. Perhaps there are exceptions – more often among teenage and single girls. This point involves a study of the psychological and biological differences between the male and female, which space limitations forbid just now. However, just remember that no matter how innocent one may be of lewd emotions in such dances, he cannot be sure that such does not “produce” or “tend to produce lewd emotions” in another. Remember, “Lasciviousness” is condemned in these words “they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.”

“Revellings” is also listed among the works of the flesh. A study of this word as defined by Webster and by lexicographers shows that it means a lack of restraint and self control; emotional excitement; that which is boistrous, loud and noisy. While this word may not be descriptive of every form of dancing that falls into the category of amusement, pleasure, and entertainment, it is descriptive of the modern dance hall and that associated therewith. It, therefore, must be considered in a study of this theme.

A few years ago, Paul Harvey, under the heading of “Pagan Dance Nothing New,” said:

“I had no business in that night club except that friends insisted I ‘should know what’s going on.’

“It was one of those places where, in suspended cages, girls wiggle and giggle to a jungle drum beat. Later, I’m told, they dance on tabletops among the customers. I didn’t wait.

“Anyway, I said, `that’s one degree of vulgarity that I’ll never get on TV!”

“Now three shows feature little else: ‘Go, Go,’ ‘Shindig’ and ‘Hullabaloo’ (Cf. “American Bandstand” – mep).

“And many variety shows are interspersed with similar pagan fertility rites.

“Choreographers must never have read anything more profound than `Billboard’ and ‘Playboy’ if they genuinely consider their product avant-garde. It is, conversely, as old as the Old Testament and as unimaginative as burlesque.

“The Greeks, the Romans, the Persians, the Egyptians, the Arabs, the Turks, the Sardinians, the Mongolians, the Chinese – certain alley cats and dissolute dogs – long ago allowed such self-expression as is masqueraded as ‘new”‘ (Paul Harvey, ABC News, Via Bedford Bulletin, Vol. 1, No. 52, Jan. 16, 1966).

According to an AP dispatch from Hollywood (sometime ago), Ginger Rogers said of the twist:

“The twist is ungraceful, vulgar, and exhibitionism personified. I think it’s scandal. It is the most obscene dance I’ve ever seen, worse than the shimmy ever was” (Via God Speaks to Today’s Teenagers, by James Meadows).

Space limitations preclude further quotes which show that even many “not of us” put those who engage in such dancing in a bad light. This is significant in relation to the issue because of the principle of influence (Matt. 5:16).

It should also be observed that in listing the works of the flesh, Paul adds to “lasciviousness” and “revellings” the expression “and such like.” These works of the flesh identify acts that would excite to unlawful desires and passions on the part of either the performer or observer. Furthermore, it does not meet the issue to say that properly supervised and sponsored dancing falls into a different category. Supervision can have some control over the aspect of revelery, but one cannot supervise the thoughts, emotions, and passions of another.

Dancing, as opposed in this article, identifies the participant as foolish, inconsistent, indulging the works of the flesh, condemned by the Scriptures, and without hope of heaven. Repentance is mandatory by a loving Heavenly Father who would have all men to be saved.

QUESTIONS

1. Name some influences that often keep one from studying this issue objectively.
2. Is it foolish to ignore the consensus judgment of the best qualified on any issue?
3. What is the consensus judgment of the best qualified teachers and most of the more faithful in the church on dancing?
4. In what problem of inconsistency does one who engages in the modern dance involve himself?
5. Distinguish between the different kinds of dances found in the Bible.
6. Are dances of devotion, honor, and praise unto God authorized in the N.T.?
7. Are dances for amusement, pleasure, and entertainment approved in the Bible?
8. Does the change in the form of dancing from generation to generation change its basic evil?
9. Define “lasciviousness.”
10. May one be guilty of “lasciviousness” who does not experience lewd emotions himself?
11. Identify “lasciviousness” in different forms of dancing.
12. Does “revellings” apply to the modern dance hall?
13. Does the modern dance limit one’s influence for good? How?
14. While the supervision of a dance may control in some measure the revelry aspect, can it control the thoughts, emotions, and passions of the participants?
15. What did Paul say of those who “do such things” (Gal. 5:21)?

Truth Magazine XXIII: 22, pp. 357-359
May 31, 1979