Truth Magazine

By Jeffery Kingry

These pages could not hold all the words our Lord delivered to his saints on the subject of poverty and wealth distribution. Without exception, in both the Old and the New Testament, a spirit of generosity and empathy is enjoined while greed, materialism, injustice, and covetousness is soundly condemned.

“He that oppresseth the poor reproacheth his Maker: But he that honoreth Him hath mercy upon the poor” (Prov.14:31). “He that hath pity upon the poor lendeth unto the Lord; and that which he hath given will he pay him again” (Prov.19:17). “The rich and the poor meeteth together: and the Lord is the maker of them all. He that hath a bountiful eye shall be blessed; for he giveth of his bread to the poor” (Prov.22:2,9).

Some Odd Feelings Towards Poverty

The United States is the richest nation on the face of the earth. Even our poor have access to charity clothing, food and shelter unavailable to the poor in other lands. But with our material wealth has come some strange attitudes. There is a definite attitude among those who have in the “land of opportunity,” that if a man is poor, or destitute, or in need that his condition is a moral failing. The poor are held in contempt. Those ground down by poverty “could help themselves if only they weren’t so lazy.” Brethren salve their indifference to the poor by joking about “Welfare Cadillacs” and noting that “shanty town” has T.V. antennas. At the check out counters of the supermarket as we wheel our loaded shopping carts up behind the poor soul who is buying “junk food” with food stamps, we silently tell our self in derision, “I wish I could sit back and quit work, and munch chocolates living off of other people’s labor.” I saw a filler in a Gospel paper a few years back that said, “I am a soldier in the war on poverty. I work for a living.” I think that people with such attitudes should quit their jobs for a few months, and then make application for welfare and food stamps. If they would try living on the level such support provides, they would not be as contemptuous of those that do. It is easy to call those in poverty as “lazy” when we are warm, full, and secure.

Since most of those who live in poverty are black (or non-white) there is often a racial slur attached to poverty. Some preachers and brethren effect heavy southern Negro dialect and mock the poor in contempt. “Whoso mocketh the poor reproacheth his Maker: and he that is glad at calamities shall not go unpunished” (Prov. 17:5). Racial discrimination causes non-whites to work at the lowest paying jobs and they suffer much higher unemployment than whites. Often unskilled and poorly educated they are not motivated to better themselves because of the cultural effects of poverty. Many of these poor suffer mental, social, and physical damage.

Who are the poor? They are the very young and the very old. The old are often sick, immobile, and lonely, living their last years in neighborhoods that have changed or in rented rooms. The young often live in areas where they must grow up too quickly; where juvenile crime runs wild; where human life is cheap, human character counts for little, and where sex, narcotics, alcohol, and perversion are ever present and available. They live in an atmosphere where they are merchandised by religion, government, and the rich. They quickly develop unhealthy attitudes which undermine a lifetime.

The Invisible Poor

The poor are invisible to those who are comfortable. The inadequate housing of the poor are often concentrated in a section of town that the comfortable never visit. These neighborhoods are not in areas where the rich may go to shop, visit, or frequent for entertainment. And because the comfortable do not have to see poverty they delude themselves into thinking that it is not a very great problem.

I have found brethren in slums in Baltimore that would make most people shudder. One girl lived with her brother in a “squatter’s row home.” The row homes had been condemned by the city and some had been burned and gutted by vandals. As I walked into the “front room” through a door which hung on a shoe sole nailed to the door, I saw that their garbage was stacked in the next room that had been gutted by fire. The floor had been mended with flattened beer cans to keep out the cold. The plaster on the walls had been broken and smashed so that the lathing showed through. The roof leaked and the ceilings were moldy with water. The newly converted girl lived in a windowless room overlooking the street. Her brother and his “woman” lived across the hall on a soiled and burned mattress lying on the floor. I recall that before this girl was taken into the home of one of the members, brethren used to comment to one another out loud, “I wonder why she is so dirty? Soap and water are cheap.” In her case, soap and water was what she used at the local filling station bathroom.

The far emotional distance many brethren have and like to maintain from poverty is illustrated in another example. One of our women, converted and faithful to the Lord in all things, fell ill. Her husband was profligate, and a couple of the women decided to visit and help her by doing some housework. For some, this was the first time they had visited this woman. They worked hard all day, and afterwards one woman who lives in a $60,000 house commented, “I didn’t think people could live that way!” The old tenement building they cleaned was not an example of abject poverty, but this woman actually got sick at toilets that did not work, at showers whose floors were black with mold, at inadequate kitchens, and furniture. She was appalled that the children slept on thin mattresses, and the parents had no bed but a mattress, while she had extra furniture stored away in her two car garage.

Many think, “Because I have all my needs met, everyone else must be in the same situation. If they are not, then it is their fault, not mine.” This is a human reaction and an old one. The poor are embarrassing, and we do not like to be made uncomfortable in our affluence. “All the brethren of the poor do hate him; how much more do his friends go far from him? He pursueth them with entreaties, yet they are wanting to him” (Prov. 19:7).

“Ye Did It Unto Me. . .”

Jesus was poor. He was readily accepted by the poor, the unskilled, the beggars, the menial workers, the socially unacceptable. He ate his meals with “publicans and sinners” in his effort to help them. He had no place to call his own, no home, no apartment, no walk-up flat, no rented room, not even a bed to call his own (Matt. 8:20). He had everything when he was with the Father, but became poor for our sakes (2 Cor.8:9). He depended upon others for his support, food, and lodging (Luke 10:38-42; 19:1-10). Jesus gave us an example. He told us that the manner in which we treat the poor, the hungry, the lonely, the man in trouble-this was to be as we cared for Him. If we neglected our opportunities then we had neglected Him. I wonder what our reaction would be today if a good man came to our assembly in ragged, vile clothing and said that he was a preacher of righteousness. Would it be the same if a man came to our assembly in a $200 Brooks Brothers suit, sporting a razor trim and wearing an expensive cologne and declared the same thing? The way we treat “the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me” (Matt. 25:35ff; Jas. 2:1-10).

Our hospitality is to be a freely offered thing, with no strings attached. It is not to be offered with a superior attitude of charity, but in a spirit of love and dignity (1 Cor. 13:3). God is concerned as to motives and attitudes displayed in our hospitality. “When thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not thy friends, neither thy kinsmen, nor thy rich neighbors; lest they also bid thee again and a recompense be made unto thee. But, when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind. And thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee: For thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just” (Luke 14:12-14). When so much of our social life is directed towards selfserving ends, the words of our Lord need attention sorely. Social meals for self-advancement or ingratiation are unworthy of those who serve Jesus.

We may think that God has given us responsibility to work for only one purpose: to provide for the needs of ourselves and our families. But, the scriptures give a second reason for labor, and a primary reason for the Christian. “I have shewed you all things, how that so laboring ye ought to support the weak and to remember the words of our Lord Jesus, how he said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive'” (Acts 20:35). “But rather let him labor, working with his hands the thing which is good that he may have to give to him that needeth” (Eph. 4:28).

Jesus taught that the test of our discipleship is our willingness to support those who are without with what we have. “Who so hath this world’s goods, and seeth his brother hath need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him? My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue, but in deed and in truth. And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him” (1 Jn. 3:17-19).

The Church’s Role in Combatting Poverty

The church has a definite responsibility, clearly taught in the word of God, to care for the needs of the saints wherever they may be throughout the world. There ought not to be one saint among us that should go without while we have so much. The collections of the churches are for the needs of the brethren. Today those collections go primarily to support church meeting places, provide for the evangelism of the church and in support of Gospel preaching. Within bounds of propriety, expedience, and conscience this is a lawful, proper, and godly use of the collection. But the primary use of our weekly collection is to be the same as it was for the first century church: “The daily ministration” (Acts 6:1); “Relief unto the brethren… who dwelt in Judaea” (11:29); “…to minister unto the saints …the poor saints who are at Jerusalem” (Rom.15:25; “The collection for the saints” (1 Cor. 16;1); “The fellowship of the ministering to the saints” (2 Cor. 8:4; 9:12,1; Heb. 6:10, etc). I wonder how many churches would petition for benevolence from other churches to enable them to care for their own today? I wonder how many of them would question the “scripturality” of giving such support on a regular basis to another church, until the need was met?

In my experience I have seen that “church benevolence” often is a case of several brethren “chipping in,” to meet an immediate need on a one time basis. These special collections are unscriptural. The reason we “lay by in store” is that there be “no gatherings” of a special nature that will be necessitated by need (1 Cor. 16:1-3). The primary use of our treasury is for “distribution unto every man as he hath need.”

I have known “church treasurers” who refused to write checks for needy saints, on the grounds that “Our money is the Lord’s money, and we are going to use it to preach the gospel, not waste it on the poor.” The church overruled his objections and set aside the funds for the poor’s use. A month later when one of the brethren came upon one of their number begging from door to door because of hunger, it became known that the treasurer had refused to write the check because such support was “unscriptural.”

I have known brethren who have said, “Why not let them go on welfare. That is what we pay taxes for. Let them go on welfare that the church be not charged.” There should be no brother ‘who is on welfare. The church cares for its own!

I have known churches who “loaned” money to brethren who were in need and expected that the benevolence be paid back. Some even charge interest! Our benevolence is without usury; it is a gift, not a loan.

I have known churches that would not care for their own needy because “it isn’t in the budget.” They had air conditioning plants to pay for, and new pews. They had a reputation to uphold as a generous church that sends $25 a month to 25 preachers. They could not “cut back” their “evangelistic work.” They had “commitments.” The church which is of Christ has only one budget: “As every man hath need.” To meet that budget the church of the first centruy raised its funds when brethren “sold their possessions and goods and parted them to all men as every man had need”(Acts 2:45). “…having land, sold it, and brought the money and laid it at the apostle’s feet” (Acts 4:37). “How that in a great trial of affliction, the abundance of their joy and their deep poverty abounded unto the riches of their liberality …beyond their power they were willing of themselves; praying us with much entreaty that we would receive the gift, and take upon us the fellowship of the ministering of the saints” (2 Cor. 8:1-4). Those brethren first gave themselves to God. They did not count their substance as their own. They did not set arbitrary “budgets”. They served the Lord and made whatever sacrifices were necessary to see that the needs of the church and the gospel were met.

Conclusion

Individually we are to seek opportunity to help whom we can (Ga1.6:10; Jas.1:27). As a people, a church, a congregation we minister to the needs of the saints. God is concerned with the needs of his children and their suffering. God cares when people are hungry, poorly clad, and hopeless. Whatever stunts a person’s potential is of concern to God and should also concern his people.

But, not only should we have an abiding interest in relieving people’s immediate needs, but we need to take thought of eliminating the causes of poverty. Men do not need charity as much as they need an opportunity to work for a living, or to recieve the training necessary to get a job. The effects of poverty are certain. Poverty perpetuates itself and the poor are often caught up m the vicious cycle of poverty linked consequences. Inadequate housing, diet, education, unhygenic facilities, frequent illness, or racial animosity make it difficult to get steady and profitable work. Without work the conditions of poverty persist, the unwholesome conditions are not removed.. Thus a culture of poverty results. Hopelessness leads to social “dropping out” and animosity towards the “system.” Crime increases as hopelessness, bitterness, futility, and apathy flourish. The Christian must replace the futility of poverty with hope “as each man has opportunity.”

Truth Magazine XXI: 36, pp. 571-573
September 15, 1977

By Morris W. R. Bailey

In the preceding article it was pointed out that a proper handling of the Bible requires that we recognize the distinction between the Law and the Gospel. They are distinct as to the medium through whom each was given. The Law came through Moses. The Gospel came through Christ. They are distinct as to whom each was given. The Law was given to Israel, only. The Gospel is for all men. In this article we continue our study of this phase of our subject as we notice . . .

Further Contrasts

In Romans 1:16, 17 Paul wrote, “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. For therein is revealed the righteousness of God from faith unto faith: as it is written, But the righteous shall live by faith.” In these words Paul sounded the keynote of the book of Romans which was a powerful polemic against Judaism in both ancient and modern form. We shall notice a number of implied contrasts in these verses which serve to point up clearly the distinction between the Law and the Gospel.

Power vs. Weakness

Under the first contrast we have for consideration the power of the Gospel as contrasted with the weakness of the Law. Paul said that the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation. Divine power is manifested in various ways. It brought the physical universe into existence (Romans 1:20). It controls the universe (Heb. 1:3). It is seen in the forces of nature — in the warm sunshine and in the refreshing showers that give us fruitful seasons (Acts 14:17). It is seen in the lightning flash, and heard in the roll of thunder. It is seen in the refreshing breeze that brings relief from scorching heat, and in the cyclone that leaves destruction in its path.

But in effecting salvation from sin, it is the Gospel that is God’s power. His creative power cannot save. Nor can his power, as manifested in nature, save. All who are saved must be saved by the power of the gospel. It is indeed “the gospel of our salvation” (Eph. 1:13).

When we speak of power, there is suggested its opposite which is weakness. This was the defect of the Law, insofar as effecting salvation was concerned. Paul said, “There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh” (Romans 8:1-3).

Thus, Paul taught that what the Gospel had the power to do, (make men free from the Law of sin and death) the Law was unable to do because of its weakness. This weakness was no reflection on God who gave the Law. Paul said that the Law was weak through the flesh. It will be observed that the Law required perfect obedience to all of its precepts. To the Galatians Paul wrote, “For as many as are of the works of the law are under a curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one who continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law, to do them” (Gal. 3:10). This was a quotation from Deut. 27:26. The Law was thus weak through the flesh in that it demanded perfect obedience which the weakness of the flesh made it impossible for man to render.

Divine vs. Human Power

A second contrast between the Law and the Gospel is implied in the expression, of God. The implied contrast is between divine power and human power. Under the Gospel the power that saves us is of God. Thus many passages speak of God as our Savior (Titus 2:10; 3:4; Jude 25).

Concerning the Gospel, Paul said in Rom. 1:17, “For therein is revealed a righteousness of God.” What Paul called salvation in verse sixteen, he called a righteousness of God in verse seventeen. He explains this righteousness of God in Rom. 4:6-8. “Even as David also pronounceth blessing upon the man, unto whom God reckoneth righteousness apart from works, saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not reckon sin.” Thus righteousness is reckoned, or imputed to those whose sins are forgiven. Since it is God who forgives sins, it is thus a righteousness of God.

Over in contrast to salvation as being of God, salvation, if such had been possible under the Law, would have been of man. It would have been the result of human power, because it would have been due to man’s perfect observance of the Law (Gal. 3:10, 21).

Salvation would thus have been a debt that God owed man (Rom. 4:4). It was the fatal mistake of Israel that they tried to attain to salvation by virtue of their own power. Paul said of them, “For being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit themselves to the righteousness of God” (Rom. 10:3).

Salvation vs. Condemnation

A third point of contrast between the Law and the Gospel is seen in the difference in results. Paul tells us that the Gospel is God’s power unto salvation. So the Gospel saves from sin. It is thus called by Paul, “the gospel of our salvation” (Eph. 1:13). Other synonomous terms used by inspired writers are, “Forgiveness of our trespasses” (Eph. 1:7); “Remission of sins” (Acts 2:38); “Blotting out of sins” (Acts 3:19).

In contrast to the salvation offered by the Gospel, the Law condemned. To the Romans Paul said, “And I was alive apart from the Law, once; but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died: and the commandment which was unto life, this I found to be unto death: for sin, finding occasion through the commandment beguiled me, and through it slew me” (Rom. 7:9-11). In 2 Cor. 3:7 Paul spoke of the Law as, “the ministration of death.” In verse nine he called it, “the ministration of condemnation.”

Does this mean that the Law was an unsuccessful experiment on God’s part? God forbid! To the Galatians Paul wrote, “So that the law is become our tutor to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith (Gal. 3:24). It prepared the world for the coming of Christ by making man sin conscious. “And the law came in besides, that the trespass might abound; but where sin abounded, grace did abound more exceedingly” (Rom. 5:20).

Faith vs. Works

The fourth and final contrast between the Law and the Gospel is suggested by Paul’s words, to everyone that believeth. Thus the salvation offered by the Gospel is obtained by faith. “Being therefore justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom. 5:1). Again, “But now apart from the Law, a righteousness of God hath been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the prophets; even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ unto all them that believe, for there is no distinction” (Rom. 3:21,22).

Salvation by faith, however, does not rule out works of obedience. Faith without works is dead (James 2:17). Twice in the book of Romans (1:5; 16:26), Paul spoke of “obedience of faith.” This is obedience that is the result of, or the fruit of faith.

In contrast to salvation by faith under the Gospel, the Law was a system of works. The expression, “the works of the law” occurs six times in the books of Romans and Galatians. The word, “works,” without any qualifying term, occurs many more times when the context makes it clear that it means works of the Law. That the blessings conferred by the Law were conditional upon their perfect observance of these works has been pointed out in Gal. 3:10, where Paul, quoting from Deut. 27:26, said, “Cursed is every one who continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the Law to do them.”

Salvation by faith in Christ and justification by the works of the Law are not only distinct from one another, but they are the antithesis of one another. To the Galatians Paul wrote, “Now that no man is justified by the law before God is evident; for the righteous shall live by faith; and the law is not of faith; but he that doeth them shall live in them” (Gal. 3:11,12). To the Romans Paul said, “For if they that are of the law are heirs, then faith is made void” (Rom. 4:14). Thus in developing the contrast between the Gospel as a system of faith, and the Law as a system of works, Paul, on the one hand, showed that the fact that salvation is by faith, makes impossible salvation by the works of the Law, and, on the other hand, that if salvation was by the works of the Law, it would rule out faith.

The disposition of Israel to seek for salvation by the works of the Law, and not by faith was their ultimate downfall. To the Romans Paul said, “What shall we say then? that the Gentiles who followed not after righteousness, attained unto righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith; but Israel following after a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by works” (Rom. 9:30-32).

Truth Magazine XXI: 36, pp. 565-566
September 15, 1977

By Mike Willis

In recent weeks, a lot of attention has been focused upon Anita Bryant’s stand against% homosexuality. Since her stand, a number of prominent political figures have announced their support of her petition. Governor Reubin Askew of Florida urged the repeal of a Dade County (Miami) ordinance guaranteeing equal job opportunities, particularly teaching jobs, to homosexuals. Askew, a Presbyterian and the father of two teen-agars, said he would not want “a known homosexual teaching my children.” He said he had no known homosexuals on his staff and would not accept any.

A number of people do not agree with Askew and Bryant’s stand. Personally, I do. I recognize in America that everyone has certain personal liberties. However, another person’s liberties end when they begin to infringe on my rights. I fear that in our attempt to give every minority group the full extent of its rights, we are neglecting the rights of the majority of Americans. I know that this has happened in the laws which have been passed to protect the criminal. As they now stand, the laws of this land protect the criminal more than they protect his victim.

Yet, someone clamors that I am trying to force a set of moral codes upon someone when I try to keep homosexuals from being teachers. So what? Is it wrong, to demand that school teachers have a moral code or conform to a given moral code? Do we not demand that school teachers not be known as habitual murderers, thieves, arsonists, etc.? Is this not the enforcement of a moral code upon a person? Really, the only question which must be faced is not, “Are we going to enforce a moral code upon someone else?” but which moral code are we going to enforce?”

The moral code which is presently being accepted with reference to homosexuality is “to each his own.” That is, if a person enjoys the homosexual life-style let him live it and let no one try to degrade him for living that style of life. If that moral code works with reference to homosexuality, we should be able to apply it to other ethical problems. If T want to be a thief, lei me be a thief and let no one try to criticize me; if I want to be a murderer, let me be a murderer and let no one criticize me for it; if a woman wants to be a prostitute; let no one criticize her for it and certainly do not arrest her for violating the law. Otherwise, you will be trying to legally enforce a moral code upon the whole society! I think you can see that this would lead to social anarchy.

The charge that you will be guilty of trying to enforce the Christian ethical code upon the whole society is nothing but a smokescreen to cloud an ethical issue which anyone in his right mind knows is both criminal and sinful. It falls into the same category as rape, prostitution, and sexual abuse of children. It should be enforced in the same way.

Some months ago, I saw a program on one of the public television stations in Indianapolis on which three confessed homosexuals tried to defend their sinful behavior. They commented on the trend of modern psychiatry to treat homosexuality as a sickness; the homosexuals rightfully contended that homosexuality was not a sickness. It was something into which each entered of his own volition. The problem which these had, however, was that they would not admit that homosexuality was a sin. They wanted to treat it as an acceptable form of sexual expression. One of the three was a priest from some denomination. He had the audacity to leave the impression that the Bible approved of homosexuality. A more blatant perversion of the Bible cannot be imagined. Here are some of the Bible passages which speak of homosexuality:

“You shall not he with a male as one lies with a female; it is as abomination” (Lev. 18:22).

“If there Is a man who lies with a male as those who He with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them” (Lev. 20:13).

“Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals . . . shall inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 6:9-10).

Personally, I would have more respect for the homosexuals if they would come right out and say that they did not care what the Bible says and that they were going to live how they want to live regardless of what God says than when they dishonestly try to leave the impression that God approves of their homosexuality. My friends, God detests homosexuality and considers the man who practices it as a sinner doomed to hell.

Why is it that homosexuality has increased so much in recent years? Again, I think that the Bible has the answer to this question. The society which has decided to disregard God and walls in its own way is headed down the road to destruction. It will become more and more morally corrupt. This the plain statement of Scripture. Paul said,

“For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or glue thanks; but became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the in. corruptible God for an image In the form of corruptible man sad of birds sad four footed animals and crawling creatures. Therefore God gave them over is the lusts of their harts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a He, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them over to degrading passion; 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” (Rom. 1:22-27).

Let us examine the steps which led to the sodomy which is condemned in v. 27:

(I) “For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God.” The beginning of the moral degradation into which today’s society has fallen is the repudiation of God’s right to dictate to man the kind of life which he should live. When a society decides to “ban the Bible” and “eliminate prayer,” it has taken the first steps toward moral degradation. We are where we are today because man has decided to no longer worship, adore and obey God Almighty.

(2) “Professing to be wise, they became fools.” Thisis the second step of the road to moral degradation. When God has been removed as the spokesman who determines what is right and what is wrong, man has no objective criterion left by which he can determine what is right and wrong. This is the situation in America today. Our “wise men” are desperately trying to decide what is to be considered pornography and what is not; they are more and more leaning toward legalizing prostitution. Already they have legalized gambling, adultery, and other sins. Man in his wisdom has become a fool!

(3) “God gave them up.” God will only tolerate so much of this kind of conduct before altogether turning his back upon the society which practices it. From the description which is contained in the latter part of Romans 1, I am about to conclude that God has already given America up. The next step is already in progress.

(4) “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions.” The degrading passions are manifest on every hand. Every minute market in America is filled with pornographic literature which features anything from plain nakedness to homosexuality, to sexual abuse of children, to sexual intercourse with animals. The papers in America are filled with advertisements of pornography films. Abortion clinics are even allowed to openly advertise.

And now, homosexuality begins to show itself once again. The pornography, fornication and adultery which are so prevalent in every aspect of modern society is the seed bed which has produced the harvest of homosexuality which we are now experiencing. The degrading passions are already here. Just how much longer God will allow a nation which is so filled with sin to exist is something which bothers me more and more each day. My knowledge of God’s word convinces me that He will not tolerate it forever; soon He will bring judgment against this nation, although the form which it will take is not known to man.

Conclusion

In the meantime, we who are following God’s word must do what we can to live righteously. I remind you that for want of ten righteous souls, Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed. We can also try to influence our neighbors to become Christians. But, most of all, we must be careful not to be deceived by the wise men of the world into believing that sins, such as homosexuality, are acceptable forms of sexual expression. So long as we hold on to the authority of God’s word, this will never happen.

Truth Magazine XXI: 36, pp. 563-565
September 15, 1977

By Larry Ray Hafley

“Give me six lines written by an honest man, and I will find something in it with which to hang him” (Cardinal Richelieu, as quoted by Henry Kissinger, who was quoted by James Reston, “The Commercial Appeal,” Memphis, Tennessee, April 17, 1976, p. 6).

The devil walks about seeking whom he may devour. Some read about seeking whom they may hang. It is always proper, even in six lines or less, to point out error, but one must be careful lest envy, jealousy and pride cause him to go mote hunting as per Matt. 7:1-5. The cause of truth and righteousness is too important to be burdened with selfish arrogance and egotism. In controversy, issues must remain primary and basic. A personal vendetta results in a number of negative goals. First, the one in error enlists sympathy. Second, the cause of truth is evil spoken of. Third, the reprover loses his influence for good. Fourth, the rebuker loses his soul.

Men often become so tied to false doctrine that their very name is synonymous with error. There is nothing inherently wrong with marking those who lead away disciples (Rom. 16:17; 2 Tim. 2:16-18; Titus 1:10-13). Judgment and discretion must be used, but to shrink from direct, personal conflict is as inexcusable as the afore mentioned personal vendetta. So what can be done? Keep your heart with all diligence, pray, do your duty toward the truth, hate every false way, and love the souls of men.

Meantime, give me six lines written by a dishonest man, and I will try to find something in them with which to help him.

Truth Magazine XXI: 36, p. 562
September 15, 1977