Truth Magazine

By Robert Jackson

In dealing with the issues that divide us, I have brought to your attention the fact we have been divided within our ranks throughout the years, and as long as brethren have no respect for Bible authority, there will continue to be division, though such ought not to be so. Brethren ought to love the word of God and respect it enough to abide by the teachings of Christ. The missionary society divided us in 1849, then came instrumental music. Then as years went by we had another division within our ranks over the Sponsoring Church, over the benevolent societies, and over the college tacked on to the church. All of these things were without Bible authority. By no means does it mean that we are opposed to a college existing separate and apart from the church, or a benevolent society separate and apart from the church. The thing that we oppose is the fact that they have been tacked onto the church of Christ without any Bible authority whatsoever.

Now then, you know when there comes division within the ranks of the body of Christ and you open the gate for things to take place without Bible authority, there is just no stopping place. Some of my brethren have started preaching, “We can do things without Bible authority.” Well, when you start doing one thing without Bible authority, then somebody else decides to do something else without Bible authority. Then you are just going to have anything and everything taking place in the church, and that is exactly what has happened in our day and time. We have watched, in our generation, things come into the church where there is no Bible authority whatsoever. I have found some brethren who make no claim whatsoever to give Bible authority for it. But yet throughout all the years, the churches of Christ made their plea: We speak where the Bible speaks and we are silent where the Bible is silent. We still ought to make that plea.

Let me show some things that divided us again, besides the benevolent society, the college, the sponsoring church and the missionary society, for an example, the recreational craze that is taking place in the churches of Christ. I have never in my life witnessed anything that has gone over the people any more than the recreational craze within the churches of Christ. I recall that before I was a member of the church of Christ people used to say that it was wrong for churches to be engaged in recreational activities, that the church is spiritual and ought to remain spiritual; and that recreation ought to be outside of church activities. But now today all the churches of Christ who claim to be “on the march” are providing and overseeing some form of recreation for people.

Today we find churches where they have built their gymnasiums. They have got their fellowship halls and they have got their baseball teams. They have got just about everything in the world that you can think of, and they couldn’t give you any Bible authority for it if they had to. In John 18:36, Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world,” but my friend, they have made His kingdom a social institution. It is not any’ different than a social country club. You can get just about everything at a country club that you can find at some of the churches. They have got gymnasiums, they have got fellowship halls, and they have got everything that you can think of.

Now if you think I am wrong in this, let me cite just a few things. In the paper in Nashville, Tennessee, there was a young man who graduated from David Lipscomb College. It was his desire to go out and to be a preacher. Here is what he said, “I want a church with a gym where I can work with the kids, teach them healthy living, and keep them off of the street.” Now notice, he said, “I want to have a church with a gym.” Now wouldn’t it be wonderful if he had said, “God said to have a church with a gym”? Wouldn’t it be wonderful if this young man, or whoever has taught this young man to have this desire, said, “Now here is the Bible authority for this recreation, and you can build a gym.” When you establish the authority for recreation, then you can build the gym. But so far, no one has given any Bible authority for it. He just said, “I want to have one.” Do you know what the feeling of people is today? “If I want something, I’ll get it!” “Let every man do that which is right in his own eyes!” But that is not so with the teachings of God’s word. There needs to be Bible authority for it.

Notice what else he said, “I think I could do more work because being in shape makes you feel better.” Well, now that is wonderful-get a gymnasium, work out, and you will feel better. But I wonder if anybody can give any Bible authority for it? I wonder if anyone could give a scripture-chapter and verse-where you ought to have a gymnasium? And then he said, “I suppose most people picture preachers kind of fat and disagreeable.” So then, if we build a gym we could slim him down. He would have a very pleasant personality, and everything would go along just fine. But I wonder if they can give us Bible authority for that? We are not concerned about getting preachers any slenderer and making them have a better personality. What we are concerned about is, “Where is there Bible authority for the church to be engaged in such activity as this?” This is what has caused division within the body of Christ.

But let me read to you again in the Nashville papers. I was reading one morning: “The East Nashville League: Dan Mills Club-23, Jackson Park Church of Christ-5.” Now I would like to know where there is Bible authority for the church of Christ to have a baseball team, a basketball team or a football team? They call it the Jackson Park Church of Christ team. But someone will say, “Well, the money is not used from the church.” Then why does it have the right to use the name “Church of Christ”? I don’t read anywhere where anything else has the authority to tack “the church of Christ” onto it. It violates Bible authority. When you talk about having baseball teams and basketball teams, you are acting without divine authority, and when you put the name of “Church of Christ” on anything but the church of Christ. When brethren do this — and they aim to do it and they want to do it — then this is what has caused division within our ranks.

I went in a building not long ago, and the first thing that I bumped into was some kind of a “thing” standing there that said, “See Herman the Monster.” Then I went down the aisle and there they had all of their trophies that they had won in baseball. I just wonder: Where did they get their Bible authority for that? Where IS the authority for it? Now my friends, if you know where there is authority for it, I would be glad to preach it. We would be glad to build a gym. I would like to have a gym to work out in. But I just do not believe that the church has the right to build that gym and support it in that work.

Then here was a card that I read in Nashville, Tennessee, where there was a church having a special team night on Thursday, July 13, as a part of the gospel meeting. Now get that my friends, “as a part of the gospel meeting.” “Following the service” (which began at 7:30), “there will be a hooten-nanny party.” Now I want to know where did we ever get the authority for a hooten-nanny party as a part of a gospel meeting? Brethren, just where did we ever pick up all this? The very idea of churches of Christ being engaged in a hooten-nanny party, tacked onto a gospel meeting, and saying that this is going to be a “special team night.” But I will tell you something, brethren, when you start saying that you can do something without Bible authority, that is exactly what you are going to get into. You are going to have people who want to build gymnasiums to make preachers slender. You are going to have people who want to have baseball teams and basketball teams. You are going to have hooten-nanny parties and everything else going on. But you are not going to have any Bible authority for it!

When brethren say we are going to do things like they did in Bible days, they are going to oppose these things and it is going to cause division. The division came not as a result of people opposing the things, but the division was caused over people adding these things on. Now some of the brethren said years ago, “Oh you preachers are making a mountain out of a molehill-there is not anything wrong with the church supporting the orphans home or the college with any Bible authority.” Where are you going to put on the brakes, brethren? Building gymnasiums? Homes for unwed mothers? Hospitals? Where are we going to stop, brethren? There is no stopping place once you let the gap down. There is no way to stop everything from going out, and that is exactly what has happened in the churches of Christ.

Somebody says, “Preacher, you are just anti-recreation.” Why my friends, I enjoy golf. I enjoy basketball. I enjoy working out in the gym. But, I just don’t believe that we have any Bible authority for the church to be engaged in such activities.

Again let me remind you that this also was opposed by brethren before my day. In 1951, the Gospel Advocate Quarterly said on page 229: “Building recreation rooms, and providing and supervising recreational activities at the expense of the church, is a departure from the simple gospel plan as revealed in the New Testament.” Get this: “The church might as well relieve the parents of feeding and disciplining all of the young people at church expense as to take over the job of entertaining and supervising the recreation at church expense.” The Gospel Advocate Quarterly said in 1951 that such is sin, and brethren, I still believe that it is. I want to know, Where is the Bible authority for it? Now, what are the issues that have divided us? The issue that has divided us has been acting without Bible authority — Hootennanny parties, fellowships halls, gymnasiums, etc. have brought division within the ranks of the body of Christ.

But what has this led to? Did it stop there? Why no! It has not stopped there. Today we hear a lot about the “Holy Spirit movement.” We hear about young people getting together and holding hands, and the Spirit moving through them. They “speak” in tongues and they sing spontaneous songs, and have spontaneous prayers, etc. Now where in the world did people ever talk about the Holy Spirit dwelling in anyone personally and giving them this kind of emotional appeal? Brethren, all of this leads up to the fact of the departure from the New Testament order. They are acting without Bible authority. Our young people have been told that you can support colleges, benevolent societies, gymnasiums and such like without Bible authority. Now they are going to have the Holy Spirit movement, and there is not any Bible authority for that either. So how are you going to stop them? Are you going to tell them that they can’t do it? Or are you going to tell them that it is contrary to the word of God? Will you plead with them to come back to the Bible, and speak where the Bible speaks-or are you just going to continue to go on and divide brethren over things for which there is no Bible authority?

What is going to be added next? Instrumental music in the worship! And there are some today who no longer oppose instrumental music in worship. If you can have a gymnasium tacked on to the church without Bible authority, then brethren, what is wrong with bringing a piano into worshiping God without Bible authority? What is wrong with calling the church some other name other than the church of the Lord, without Bible authority? I want you to tell me, where is the stopping place?

Now when we talk about issues that divide us, the thing that has divided us is the fact that brethren have gotten away from speaking where the Bible speaks and remaining silent where the Bible is silent. I believe that the church ought to be the church, that it ought to remain the church, and not be identified as a social club or a fellowship hall or have anything else connected to it. I believe that our young people should respect the church as a spiritual institution. We beg and plead with you to be baptized into Christ, be added to the body of the Lord, and then be identified with a local church which continues to say, We speak where the Bible speaks. Yes, there is division. But division was brought about by a lack of respect for Bible authority!

Truth Magazine XXI: 21, pp. 325-327
May 26, 1977

By Mike Willis

In recent months, brethren have turned once again to reconsider the basis of our justification before God. To those familiar with restoration history, this theme is not new; brethren wrestled with it and with the denominational perversions of it in the early years of the attempt to restore New Testament Christianity. Some among us today are making the same mistake as the denominationals regarding the basis of our justification before God. Hence, I think that this material on justification should be useful to our readers. What Is Justification?

The basic idea of justification is to be declared legally innocent-to stand before God without accusation and thus be recognized and treated as righteous. We use the word “justify” in a different sense today; for example, someone says, “I was justified in spanking my child” and means that he had a sufficient cause for giving the child a spanking. That is not the way in which the word “justification” is used in the Bible. It refers to man standing approved before God, spotless and without sin, because his sins have been washed away in the blood of Jesus. That this is its basic idea is seen in these passages: “Who will bring a charge against God’s elect? God is the one who justifies; who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us” (Rom. 8:33-34).

There have only been two ways of being justified before God ever suggested to man: (a) through sinless perfection and (b) through forgiveness. The former method is also referred to in the Bible as justification through works; the latter is referred to as justification through faith. To help us contrast these two methods of justification, I want to reproduce this chart to make the following contrasts crystal clear:

By Works of Law	By Faith in Christ
1. Meritorious (Rom. 4:4).	1. Gratuitous (Rom. 3:24).
2. To the sinless (Gal. 3:10).	2. To the sinful (Rom. 4:5).
3. Stands before God:	3. Stands before God:
a. Without pardon (Rom. 3:20).	a. Through pardon (Rom. 4:6-8).
b. Without grace (Rom. 4:4).	b. By grace (Rom. 3:24).
c. Without Christ (Gal. 2:21).	c. Through Christ (Rom. 3:24).
d. Without faith (Rom. 4:14).	d. By faith (Rom 3:28).
e. Without obedience of faith (Rom. 4:14).	e. Through obedience of faith (Rom. 4:12).
4. Results in:	4. Results in:
a. Boasting (Rom. 4:2).	a. Exclusion of boasting (Rom. 3:27, 1 Cor. 1:31).
b. Reward as a debt (Rom. 4:4).	b. Reward as a gift (Eph. 2:8).

With this chart before us, let us itemize some of the distinctions between justification by works and justification by faith:

1. Justification through the works of the law is an earned salvation; justification through faith is by grace. The man who has lived a sinless life has earned his salvation. Hence, Paul wrote, “Now to the one who works, his wage is not reckoned as a favor but as what is due” (Rom. 4:4). God should grant the man who has not sinned salvation because He has no basis on which to condemn him. On the other hand, the man who is justified by faith is justified by grace, because God, in His mercy, has forgiven him of his trespasses. Paul again wrote, ” . . . for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 3:23-24).

2. The man who is justified by works must be sinless; the man who is justified by faith is a sinner. If the man who is trying to be justified by works is going to be justified at all, he must never sin because he who sins is under the curse of the law (Gal. 3:10). The man who is trying to be justified by faith is seeking to be justified through the blood of Jesus Christ. “But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness” (Rom. 4:5). He freely recognizes that his transgressions classify him as an ungodly man and petitions God for forgiveness. When he is justified, he is justified on the basis of being forgiven.

3. The standing before God of the two parties is very different. The man who stands before God justified by works stands before God (a) without pardon (because he has not sinned); (b) without grace; (c) without the need of Jesus Christ. The man who stands before God justified by faith stands before God (a) through pardon (Rom. 4:6-8); (b) by God’s grace (Rom. 3:24); (c) through Jesus Christ’s blood (Rom. 3:24); (d) by faith (Rom. 3:28); and (e) through the obedience of faith (Rom. 4:12).

4. The man who is justified by works can boast (Rom. 4:2) because he has earned his salvation; God is obligated to give salvation to the sinless man because he has earned it (Rom. 4:4). On the other hand, the man who is justified through’ faith has no personal grounds for boasting; he can only boast in what God through Jesus Christ has done for him (Rom. 3:27; 1 Cor. 1:31). His eternal inheritance is a gift from God (Eph. 2:8).

Although we can theoretically speak of two systems of justification, practically there is only one system of justification because no man can live a sinless life. “We have all sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23). No man can be saved through the works of the law (Rom. 3:19, 20; Gal. 3:10; Rom. 7:9) because he cannot perfectly keep that law. Had men been able to be justified through perfect obedience to a law, the law of Moses would have been just as sufficient to save us as any law which God could have provided. Hence, the system of justification through works renounces a need for a Savior (Gal. 2:19-20) and, thus, frustrates the grace of God. Anyone who professes that man can be saved through perfect obedience to the law renounces any need for Jesus Christ.

Salvation Through Works

I know of no more abused term today than “salvation through works.” Today, “salvation through works” is taken to mean any system which. says that man’s eternal salvation is conditioned upon his personal response to the gospel. For example, I am charged with teaching “salvation through works” when I preach that a man must believe, repent, confess and be baptized in order to receive forgiveness of sins. Too, some among us assert that we are teaching “salvation through works” when I teach that a man must repent and pray for the forgiveness of the sins which he commits following his becoming a Christian. Both charges only reflect the ignorance of what is meant by “salvation through works” as it is used in the Bible.

If you have understood anything that I have said thus far, you will now understand that “salvation through works” is a biblical term which refers to a system of justification based on perfect obedience to law. Those who are using the term “salvation through works” to refer to either the “plan of salvation” or the need for repentance and prayer in order to obtain forgiveness of sins committed after baptism are either ignorantly or willfully perverting a Bible term. I know of no one among us who is teaching “salvation through works” in the biblical usage of the term! All charges to that effect are absolutely groundless.

Salvation Through Faith

Salvation through faith, though a profound Bible doctrine, is very much misunderstood. It is, as has already been shown, the only means whereby men can be saved. Since so many misunderstood salvation through faith, let me make one or two observations about it. First of all, faith is not a work whereby we merit God’s salvation; rather, it is a condition for receiving His grace. If I said, “I will give you one million dollars if you will walk around this block backwards,” no one who walked around the block backwards and received the million dollars would think that he had worked to earn that money. He would perfectly understand that walking around the block backwards was a condition which the man met to receive the money.

Secondly, the external acts of faith manifest as much reliance, if not more, on Jesus as does belief itself and, therefore, may become conditions of salvation just as certainly as faith is a condition of salvation. This being true, baptism is as much a condition of salvation as faith is. Let us clearly understood that one is not earning his salvation when he is baptized into Christ; rather, he is simply meeting another condition in order to receive his salvation. For this reason, we read of the “obedience of faith” (Rom. 1:5; 16:26) in the great book which speaks of justification through faith. In the example of Abraham who was justified by faith, Paul showed that Abraham was justified before God when he took God at His word and did what he said. The faith which justifies is an obedient faith!

Any blessing which is conditioned on the obedience which springs from faith is scripturally represented as conditional on faith itself for whatever is suspended on an outward manifestation of faith is thereby suspended on the faith thus manifested. This is exactly the reason James wrote, “You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected” (Jas. 2:22). Hence, though faith cannot constitute the grounds of justification (only the blood of Christ can be the grounds of justification) any more than perfect obedience can, yet the blessing of God may be conditioned as much on obedient acts as on the act of believing itself.

Some brethren have no proper concept of justification through faith. They seem to understand that one has made salvation dependent upon “salvation through works” the moment he states that one must obey any of the commandments of God in order to be saved. One of two things is true: either salvation is given to man conditionally or unconditionally. If it is given unconditionally, then all men will be saved since Christ died for all men. However, if it is given conditionally, then man must in some sense respond to God’s grace in order to receive. If there is so much as one response required, that one response deserves to be labeled “salvation through works” to the same extent as if there are five responses required to receive the gift of salvation. Actually, the obedience to the commands of God are conditions of salvation and cannot properly be called “salvation through works.” Labeling these conditions for salvation as “salvation through works” is only a theological smokescreen being used to justify fellowship, with those who refuse to obey God’s word!

Those who are shouting that we are teaching “salvation through works” are doing so for one reason: that they might justify their fellowship with those who are engaged in supporting institutionalism, the sponsoring church, instrumental music, missionary societies, etc. Brethren, do not be deceived by this. Their main purpose is to lead the Lord’s people into an unholy alliance with those bent on making the Lord’s church a human denomination. All of this double talk about “salvation through works” is only an attempt to say that those who are using instruments of music in worship, supporting benevolent and evangelistic societies from the church treasury, and perverting the organization of the New Testament church through the sponsoring church arrangement can be saved without the cessation of their false practices. Are you ready to accept that?

Truth Magazine XXI: 21: pp. 323-325
May 26, 1977

By Donald P. Ames

One of the hardest problems, or so it seems, for many people to grasp is that those who have not heard and obeyed the gospel are lost. They are not lost because no one bothered to preach the gospel to them, but because they have sinned (Rom. 3:23; 6:23)! This was the very reason Christ came into the world (John 3:16); if we could have been saved in our ignorance, there would have been no need for Him to, have died on the cross. If we could have been saved in our ignorance, then the last thing on earth we should want to do is to preach the gospel to people, because in so doing we remove that ignorance and thus condemn all who do not obey. But, the gospel was not given to condemn, but to save (Rom. 1:16). And this is precisely what is accomplished when the gospel is preached to a world that is lost and dying in sin.

Certainly the Bible abundantly teaches that man is accountable to the law of Christ. Paul declared in Acts 17:30 that “God is now declaring to men that all everywhere should repent.” Now, if man was not subject to the law of Christ today, then of what should they repent? Does not repentance imply that you have done that which is wrong? This truth being established, we note that Peter demanded in Acts 2:38 that those present “Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ of the forgiveness of your sins . . . .” He did not say, “For the sin of not obeying the gospel,” but rather “for the forgiveness of your sins.” Thus, they had to have done things that violated the law of Christ-they had to be subject to it already. In 1 Cor. 6:9-11 Paul affirmed that the Christians in Corinth had formerly been guilty of the sins of fornication, idolatry, adultery, effeminate, homosexuals, thieves, covetous, drunkards, revilers and swindlers. To have formerly been guilty of these things clearly demonstrates they were subject to more of a law than having just not obeyed the gospel. Paul also referred to himself as “formerly a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent aggressor” (1 Tim. 1:13). Certainly he realized he was guilty of more than just a disbelief of the gospel.

Ezekiel 3:18 clearly demonstrates that ignorance of the law of God does not excuse the man who is guilty of violating it. “When I say to the wicked, `You shall surely die’; and you do not warn him or speak out to warn the wicked from his wicked way that he may live, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand.” Paul endorsed this principle in Acts 20:26-27, and indeed this is the very reason we need so desperately to feel the urgency to carry the gospel to the world that they might be saved (Mark 16:15-16). We need to remember that the only way to God is through Christ (John 14:6), the only way to be reconciled to God is through Christ (2 Cor. 5:18), and the only way to obtain the forgiveness of our sins (thus to be found acceptable in God’s sight) is by the blood of Christ (Rev. 1:5). Thus to cling to a hope that we can be saved in ignorance is to repudiate the teachings of the word of God (2 Thess. 1:8).

But in view of these teachings, some still persist in returning to Rom. 4:15 and contending that those who have never heard the gospel (and sometimes those who have not yet obeyed the gospel also) are not subject to the law of Christ. To so contend is to deny the plain teachings we have already looked at! This is parallel to the Baptist argument that since Rom. 5:1 says we are “justified by faith,” then baptism is not essential. Such just does not follow. You can not align one scripture in direct contradiction to other plain passages and be “handling aright the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15).

No one can properly apply Rom. 4:15 unless it is kept in the context of what Rom. 4 is discussing. Paul was not affirming here that God had ever excused anyone from being under a law to Him. Even in the Old Testament, the Gentiles were under the moral law while the Jews were under the law of Moses. Chapters 1-3 clearly show that both had rejected God’s laws and thus “all have sinned.” Rather, he is pointing out that the law of Moses had been given to the Jews, and even though they were unfaithful to it, it did not apply to any other. Abraham did not violate it, because it was not given to him. The Gentiles did not violate it, because it was not given to them. In the same way, salvation today is not by means of the law nor are we condemned if we do not keep the law of Moses today, because it was not given to Christians either (cf. Gal. 3). Instead, we are saved by faith-that faith which comes by hearing the word of truth (Rom. 10:17), rendering obedience to it (Rom. 6:17), and no longer permitting sin to reign in our mortal bodies (Rom. 6:12-13).

Since God commands “all men” (Acts 17:30) to repent, and since the grace of God has appeared “to all men” (Tit. 2:11) teaching them God’s way, and we are to preach the saving gospel to “all the nations” (Matt. 28:19) that they might be redeemed from their “sins” (Acts 2:38; 22:16), let us not avoid that awesome responsibility by seeking refuge in the false theory that the ignorant and untaught will still be saved in spite of their sins. Instead, let us be armed with this knowledge and realize the urgency of the hour upon us! It may well be true that “they had it once” (Col. 1:23) and rejected it, but that is no excuse for those dying in ignorance today (Ezek. 3:18)-nor for us to withhold it from them. We are not assisting or helping those who are lost in sin by giving them false comfort in “that was before you obeyed the gospel,” or “but you did not know any better then.” Sin is still sin, and those practicing such will be lost! Let us boldly apply the saving gospel of Christ to all such that men might be saved before it is too late (Col. 3:25).

Truth Magazine XXI: 21, p. 322
May 26, 1977

By Jeffery Kingry

As a Christian, if a brother came to you with a serious personality problem, what would you do? What if you were approached by the family of someone “clinically psychotic?” What response would you make to one who had lost contact with reality in one way or another, either by rejecting the world in paranoia (excessive or violent distrust and rejection of others) or by withdrawing from the world in schizophrenia (loss of contact with stimulus and disintegration of personality)? What would you offer to the person who was chronically depressed and unable to function in their work? If your response would be, “I am not qualified to help” and to send them off to an “expert” in psychiatry, you may have done them the greatest disservice imaginable.

Mental Illness?

When Psychiatry speaks today of “mental illness” they mean a vast spectrum of behavior which is not illness at all. There are organically caused varieties of behaviour that have nothing to do with the mind of man. Schizophrenia, for instance, can sometimes be caused by a brain tumor, or a chemical disorder, like diabetes. These organic causes produce perceptual difficulties: hallucination, blurred sight, crossed dominance in visual perception, hearing disorders, etc. A person’s ability to cope with life may be hindered by drug abuse. “Pep” pills, sometimes taken by people who have to stay awake at a night job, students studying for an exam, or obese people on a doctor controlled diet, can cause irritability, suspicion, and hallucination. Even such “innocent” medication as birth control pills (a hormone pill) can cause personality and behavioral change.

A person’s ability to cope with life’s problems can be affected by toxin buildup in the system by kidney and liver disorders. Lack of sleep can also produce buildups of harmful toxins in the body. Stress produces toxin buildup, and consequent behavioral change. Stress can even kill you. The four year long presidential campaign of Harrison in 1840 killed Daniel Webster. Harrison himself, died of exhaustion after only a month in office, making him the shortest lived president of them all. (And we thought modern campaigns were grueling!) Stress can come in many forms: noise stress, pain stress, the stress of anxiety or grief. Any stress over a long period of time can lead to physical disorders that affect behavior. The “shell-shock” of recent wars is a vivid demonstration of how environmental stress can affect ones ability to function properly.

Humanistic psychiatry does not even consider behavior caused by lust and its product as sin. It does not consider man’s anti-social or irreligious behavior as condemnatory but as “sick.” This “sickness” according to modern thought is brought on by external rather than internal causes. The world (and the brethren) have been so indoctrinated by the psychiatric ethic, that those who have the tools and ability to help those in the grips of sin, often do not. They defer to the “specialist” and his humanistic methods.

After recognizing the place of medicine to deal with organically induced behavior problems, does it necessarily follow that the Christian must defer to the psychiatrist for treating behavior that is sin induced? God forbid. If a person has a physical checkup by a medical doctor and there are no physical causes for his problem, then the counselor who must deal with the “patient’s” problem must be a Christian, not a psychiatrist.

Who Can Help If Not Christian?

Modern psychiatry offers no solutions to one who is a Christian. Often “therapy” and “analysis” makes new problems instead of dealing with those that already exist. There are “therapy-induced” problems that make any real help almost impossible to be received (such as the woman who has told her problems would be solved by finding a lover. She did. She still has her problems, as well as the guilt and complications of the sin of fornication.). In my own experience, I have known of saints who left the Lord, His commandments, the church, and made shipwreck their faith and morality at the insistence of their psychiatrists. One woman committed herself to a mental institution, and left the next day when her counsellor told here that the base of her problem was all of her “hang-ups” in religion.

Modern psychiatry readily admits that the same percentage of patients get better without analysis as do with it (This Week Magazine, “Farewell to Freud”, 9/8/66, as quoted by Adams in Competent to Counsel, p.3). Two out of three inmates in mental institutions eventually show improvement regardless of the treatment given. Modern psychiatry interprets this as a direct result of its expert treatment. The fact of the matter is that the same ratio got better 100 years ago in the barbarious “lunatic asylums” without the benefit of modern hypnosis, psychoanalysis, cold baths, shock treatments, placebos, etc. (Time Magazine, Feb. 14, 1964. p. 43).

Psychiatry operates on the assumption that sinful or bizarre behaviour is caused externally rather than issuing from the heart of man (cf. Jas. 1:14,15). Freud, the “father of modern psychiatry and psychoanalysis” was a Jew, and called himself a “hopeless pagan.” He divided man’s spirit into three parts: (1) The Id – the animal or “natural” part of man which includes all selfish drives, aggression, and the sex urge. The Id, accoring to Freud, was constantly seeking expression through the (2) Ego – or the conscious part of man, the man of the moment. The part of man that held the Id in check and was responsible for all of man’s problems was the (3) Superego. The superego was defined as the “conscience” of man, or the “socialized” man. The superego is supposed to be an artifical part of man formed by the pressures to conform presented by home, parents, school, teachers, peers, society, religion, and other man-made institutions. The problem of human behaviour, as Freud saw it, was a natural result of the conflict between the id and superego. The resultant “subconscious” conflict produced feelings of “false guilt” and anxiety that bore fruit in unusual behaviour by the ego. The “medical model” is still used in varying degrees by today’s psychiatry. The psychiatrist relieves the patient’s conflict by taking sides with the “id” against the superego. The patient is told to “ventilate” his feelings in various ways (it is dangerous to not express our feelings of hostility and lust. But, not according to God. Cf. Prov. 14:29; 29:11; 29:20; 22:24,25). By giving vent to anger and pent-up resentments in emotional outbursts, the psychiatrist hopes to prevent the buildup of conflict described earlier between the id and superego. “Resocialization” is employed to break down the patient’s social and moral “hangups.” A recent form of resocialization finding wide spread acceptance is mutual fondling, caressing, and handling in group sessions. Patients have been encouraged to fondle one another in the nude while basking in warmed swimming pools. Masters and Johnson, the “sex-specialists” (who incidentally are divorced and remarried) have set up “training clinics” that provide high-cost instruction by professional counsellors (real prostitutes) in overcoming sexual problems.

Modern psychiatry places the blame for sinful behaviour anywhere but upon the one actually demonstrating it. The “sick” person is not responsible. The “alcoholic” cannot help himself. He has a “disease.” “The sinner is not responsible, religion is responsible;” psychiatry declares, “the home is responsible, society is responsible.” The result is that the state is reluctant to prosecute the “psychopathic killer” or the “socially deprived killer or criminal.” Criminal action is overlooked for the “temporarily insane.” Parents overlook such clear passages as Prov. 23:14 and 29:15-17 and refrain from disciplining their children for fear of damaging their personalities. Brethren in the church are cowed into overlooking such sins as homosexuality, perversion, chronic lying or fault finding, as sickness and send such people off to another town and church with the admonition “see a doctor” (cf. Gal. 6:1-5). Humanistic psychiatry cuts away at the very foundation of our relationship with God, namely, that each man is responsible for what he does (Rom. 2:6-11). The science and the philosophies of men have given us evolution and its inherent rebellion against God’s word and trustworthiness. The “experts” have given us humanistic “higher criticism” with its attempted destruction of the inspiration of the scriptures. “Higher education” has given us the “Doctor of Philosophy” and has robbed man of his moral right to stand justified or condemned according to God’s word. One can no longer read and understand the word of God without a degree and a commentary. This same intellectual structure in the world has given us godless psychiatry. If the scriptures do not give the Christian the tools and ability to deal with basic human problems as promised us by God (2 Tim. 3:16,17), then the Bible is useless, the message it brings is without value, and Christianity is a sham. But I believe God, “according to his divine power has given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who has called us to glory and virtue” (2 Pet. 1:3).

Truth Magazine XXI: 20, pp. 316-318
May 19, 1977