Truth Magazine

By Cheri G. Reeves

Wanted: Henpecked husbands. Prefer leaders in the church, but any male Christian will do. Must enjoy being con-trolled and be willing to make havoc of the church. May be necessary to relocate church membership. Contact: the Devil.

It reads like an ad in the personals. But it’s a daily plea from the devil. It’s a plea that is often accepted by both the husband and the wife in the marriage relationship. It’s a problem that first disrupts the family, but control of the family isn’t always enough. The hunger for the control commandeers other relationships of relatives and friends, and often takes hold of the local church.

While the Bible teaches that wives must submit them-selves to their husbands (Eph. 5), society dictates a different norm saying their roles in the home are equal. However, some Christian women even take it a step further and ease themselves into a role of leadership in the home. When this happens, the man garners the title of a henpecked husband. Random House Dictionary defines “henpecked” as “brow-beaten, bullied or intimidated by one’s wife.” The Bible defines it as sin.

The woman who runs things at home often doesn’t stop there. Control and usurping authority are both especially tempting to some women. It was a temptation for women in the Bible as well. Jezebel couldn’t stop at only control-ling her home, she controlled Israel in the process. Husbands, have you ever heard your wife say, “Don’t worry honey, I’ll take care of everything”? Ahab did. While sulking over Jabots vineyard (1 Kgs. 21), Jezebel schemed and manipulated until the death of Jabot al-lowed Ahab to take hold of the vineyard. Jezebel’s dominance, allowed by Ahab, caused spiritual decline for Israel. Ahab was said to have caused “all Israel to sin” (1 Kgs. 21:22). Verse 25 of the same chapter reads, “But there was no one like Ahab who sold himself to do wickedness in the sight of the Lord, because Jezebel his wife stirred him up.” Today, leaders in the church are often manipulated into making decisions by women at home. If it’s not the wife of an elder, then it is the wife of any man who has a part in the decision making process of local affairs. After the husbands comply, then the “real” recruiting of other church members begins. And if decisions don’t go her way, the family will sometimes decide to place its membership elsewhere. Some even begin meeting in their homes, where her leadership has already been established.

It’s easy to point the finger at a woman when addressing the problem of a henpecked husband. But it’s just as much of a sin for a man to allow that woman to take control of the family. Not all men will put up with such dictation. When faced with trials and suffering, Job’s wife told her husband to curse God and die. But Job didn’t allow his wife to control his actions. Job 2:10 says, “In all this Job did not sin with his lips.” Adam wasn’t so strong. 1 Timothy 2:14 reads, “And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.” While Adam was not beguiled, he followed his wife into sin.

Men who lose control of their family do it willingly. When the husband refuses to take his proper leadership role, the woman will often take the reins herself. How do they justify such? Various reasons are given. “Well, each to his own,” or “that’s just the way we live.” Or, “we live this way because the wife is more outgoing and has a more flamboyant personality.” God has issued a plan. “Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as also Christ is the head of the church; and he is the Saviour of the body” (Eph. 5:22,23). The roles work together. While the man (v. 25) loves the wife “just as Christ also loved the church and gave himself for it,” the wives are to be subject to their own husbands in everything, “just as the church is subject to Christ” (v. 24). Take special note of the contrasts. The man can no more give up his role as the head (of the wife) than Christ can give up his headship of the church. The husband is the head of the wife as also Christ is the head of the church. And the same is true for women. Verse 24 says, “Just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.” If the wife can give up her subjection to her husband, can the church do the same with Christ?

Women are to love their husbands and be obedient toward them (Tit. 2:4,5). Women don’t need to be domineering and arrogant to be faithful workers for the Lord. It was Sarah who recognized the authority of her husband and addressed him as “lord,” meaning “master.” Sarah’s name is mentioned in that long list of faithful children of God in Hebrews 11. Verse 35 of the same chapter says, “Women received their dead raised to life again. And others were tortured, not accepting deliverance, that they might obtain a better resurrection.” 1 Peter 3:1-6 states, “Wives, be submissive to your own husbands . . . let it be the hidden person of the heart with the incorruptible ornament of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God. For in this manner, in former times, the holy women who trusted in God also adorned themselves, being submissive to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord…”

Men usually don’t appreciate being called “henpecked.” It’s an insulting, degrading term. But a man who allows his wife to become the head of the home deserves the title. I Timothy 5:14 says women are to “manage the house,” not the husband. God made women to be a helpmeet for man (Gen. 2:18) and woman was made to be subject to her husband in the Garden of Eden (Gen. 3:16). It’s the Lord’s plan. Any other falls contrary to his word.

The devil works in many ways. He deceives, casts doubt, misuses Scripture and uses other schemes to go after children of God. He’s done wonders at entering and destroying homes in this country. And he starts with the leader. The devil is on the prowl right now, searching for henpecked husbands. Don’t let him enter your home. “Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour. Resist him, steadfast in the faith, knowing that the same sufferings are experienced by your brotherhood in the world” (1 Pet. 5:8,9). While the devil sought to destroy these Christians with various kinds of suffering, he re-mains busy today at the same game, only using different methods. No, he is not so obvious as to take out an ad in the personals. He’s much more subtle. An ad in the personals is written to entice. It is written to capture the attention of its reader. And finally, an ad in the personals is only ultimately successful if answered. Husbands, don’t answer this one!

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 1 p. 12-13
January 5, 1995

By Mike Willis

A television drama features a man and woman who have an almost magnetic attraction for each other. Each person experiences de javu, as only television drama can depict. Later the couple learns, through some mystic that each is the reincarnation of a spirit that existed years ago. They are so attracted to each other because they were lovers in their previous cycle of life. Romantics love the story, although it is filled with pagan concepts of life.

A few years ago, an autobiographical TV mini-series by Shirley Maclaine entitled “Out on a Limb,” taught the concept of reincarnation. In some respects she became the leading spokesperson for the concept of reincarnation. In response, F. LaGard Smith wrote a book entitled Out on a Broken Limb that identified the religious errors of reincarnation. As eastern religions invade the United States, it is important for us to understand what the doctrine of reincarnation is and how it contradicts the revealed word of God in the Bible.

What Is “Reincarnation”?

Reincarnation is defined as “the supposed translation of the soul after death into another substance or body than that which it occupied before” (McClintock & Strong, Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature X:524). Sometimes reincarnation is referred to as the transmigration of souls.

McClintock and Strong continue, “So long, therefore, as the soul has not attained the condition of purity, it must be born again after the dissolution of the body to which it was allied: and the degree of its impurity at one of these various deaths determines the existence which it will assume in a subsequent life” (Ibid. 525).

John B. Noss wrote about reincarnation as follows: “In its Indo-Aryan form it runs like this: the soul of a man who dies does not, except in the single case of one who at death returns into indistinguishable oneness with Brahman, pass into a permanent state of being in heaven or hell or elsewhere; the soul, rather, is reborn into another existence that will terminate in due time and necessitate yet another birth. Rebirth follows rebirth, with the one exception named, in an endless chain. The successive births are not likely to be on the same plane of being. Rebirth may occur for a finite period of time in any of the series of heavens or hells, or upon earth in any of the forms of life, vegetable, animal, or human. It may thus be either higher or lower than the present or any past existence. A man of low social status now may be reborn as a rajah or a Brahmin, or which is more likely, as an out-caste, or even as an animal, a beetle, worm, vegetable, or soul in hell” (Man’s Religions 106-107).

Everett L. Cattel made these comments about reincarnation:

Two other essential concepts are the doctrines of karma (works) and transmigration. The laws of moral action are immutable. Wrong actions inevitably produce punishment, and good actions their reward. This is inescapable in an almost fatalistic sense, and to talk of forgiveness or the canceling of sin is completely unrealistic and does injustice to the noble moral law of cause and effect essential in the universe. Whatever of ill one bears in this life is the product of wrong action in a previous existence, and life’s blessings come from the good that was done. Our works set off reactions as cause and effect and they must work them-selves out to the bitter end. Salvation consists, not of having this canceled or interfered with, but through doing enough good gradually to evolve toward the highest, where one may then experience the enlightenment that we are essentially God. In Him there are no distinctions, even of good and evil, and thus one escapes from the ceaseless round of rebirths (“Hinduism,” Religions in a Changing World, Howard F. Vos, editor, 200).

Hence, reincarnation is not an isolated little idea that may be innocently accepted. Reincarnation is one doctrine in a non-Christian, pagan philosophy of life (Hinduism). It is part of a non-Christian religion that is full of idolatry and many false beliefs. It is tied to its own concept of works (karma) and its own concept of salvation (nirvana).

The Law of Karma

F. LaGard Smith wrote about the law of karma that governs reincarnation, “The doctrine of karma teaches that each soul is working its way to perfection by overcoming imperfections in previous lives. Based upon the clearly accurate observation that no one in this present life is perfect, it is correctly assumed that a person cannot, on his own, reach perfection in a single lifetime. The fallacious conclusion is then drawn that it must take many lifetimes in order for each soul to achieve that goal” (Out on a Broken Limb 71).

Understanding karma is essential to a proper under-standing of reincarnation. Karma teaches these two things: (a) The soul can evolve upward toward perfection until it finally reaches Nirvana (the merging of the soul with the universal soul or universe). (b) This soul can evolve downward. As the soul travels its cycle of re-birth, it evolves upward or downward based on whether one did good or evil in his lifetime. The logical consequences of accepting karma and reincarnation are important.

Souls are not confined to human bodies. Souls inhabit every life form. A mouse has a soul of someone who has not progressed very highly on the way to nirvana, or who because of some great wickedness suffered a regression. That mouse you killed with D-con may have been your grandfather or that spider you kill may be your mother-in-law reincarnated. You can understand why scrupulous Hindu ascetics sweep the path in front of them as they walk lest they step on some animal and kill it.

The Law of Karma and the Indian Caste System The Hindu society in which reincarnation has thrived is a strict caste society. It is defined and defended by the law of karma and the reincarnation of souls. During the period around 500 B.C., the caste system was gradually developed. Over the years it evolved into these following five ranks: (a) Brahmins, (b) Kshatriyas, (c) Vaisyas; (d) Shudras. The last group (e) is the “out-castes,” the untouchables. These were the dregs of society, unclean and without any hope of ever rising on the social scale. Over the centuries, these five groups have fissured into many sub-castes, each forbidding intermarriage with the other. Note how the caste system is tied to the religious doctrine of karma, according to Noss:

When the caste system was linked up with the Law of Karma, the inequalities of life had at once a simple and comprehensive explanation. The existence of caste in the social structures immediately acquired a kind of moral justification. If a man was born a Shudra, it was because he had sinned in previous existence and deserved no better lot. A Brahmin, on the other hand, had every right to exalt his position and prerogatives; by good deeds in previous existences he had merited his present high station. . . . The social consequences of the moral justification of caste was apparent in another direction. Any attempt to level up the inequalities of society and lay a broader basis for social justice and reward now became either impious or morally wrong-headed. To question the operations of the Law of Karma, as fixing the just retribution for deeds in former lives, became the rankest of heresies (Noss 108).

You can understand why one reaches the conclusion that the law of karma and reincarnation are not harmless little doctrines for the rich and idle to play with. Here are some of the consequences of the law of karma.

1. The law of karma leads to fatalism. A person must accept his human condition because it is the repayment of how his soul lived in a previous existence. If he is in a lower caste in India, he should accept it rather than trying to improve his station in life. In contrast, the Scriptures teach human initiative: “Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might” (Eccl. 9:10).

2. The law of karma teaches a faulty responsibility for one’s actions. Every wrong deed will be accounted for, but not before the Judge of all the earth (Rom. 14:12; 2 Cor. 5:10). Rather, it will be accounted for in the next cycle of the soul’s existence. A person yet to be born will reap what you sow.

3. The law of karma is a form of legalism. “Salvation” (defined as reaching nirvana) is attained through works. There is no concept of forgiveness. In contrast, Paul wrote, “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast” (Eph. 2:8-9). “Salvation” through works is the concept behind reincarnation and the law of karma.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 1 p. 2
January 5, 1995

 

By J. Wiley Adams

“My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons” (Jas. 2:1).

“For there is no respect of persons with God” (Rom. 2:11).

“Then Peter opened his mouth and said, of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons” (Acts 10:34).

God does not respect the rich over the poor. He does not value the Jew more than the Gentile. He does not regard the white man over the black man. Earthly prestige carries no weight at all in God’s evaluation of a person who is his child.

In view of this, why do we who call ourselves Christians sometimes set different standards for some in the church than for others? Why do some cater to the educated and well-to-do to the neglect of the uneducated and not so well-to-do. It is self-evident that this often takes place in some places. There are the haves and the have-nots. There are those among us who are still filled with racial bias. Brethren, these things ought not to be.

Preachers and their families are often the victims of a double standard. I mean by this that the brethren sometimes require more of the preacher and his family than of others in the congregation. If I understand it right there is one standard for all.

My children have always been taught that we do things because they are right and not because they are the preacher’s children. Being the preacher’s offspring does not mean there is a special manual for them to follow than for the others in the church.

Somebody once asked a preacher years ago why his children were so ornery. He replied that it could be that they played too much with the brethren’s children. Touche.

Why it is that some brethren can run around in scanty apparel but if the preacher and his family did this they would be subject to rebuke by the elders or others? Some brethren smoke but if the preacher or his wife smoked they might fire him. The brethren are often far less demanding of the elders than the preacher and his situation. Why? There is one standard for all. If it is right for one it is right for all. If it is wrong for one it is wrong for all. Elders themselves sometimes deal with the congregation at large with much tolerance but are more rigid on the preacher.

I have known of preacher’s children who became bitter because they were viewed as some kind of oddity by the other members. Some have seen their parents become victims of the double standard and have become furious and rebellious about religion. Indeed I have known of those who left the faith because of the resentment that had built up in them over the years. Is it any wonder that some young men with great ability do not go into preaching? They have seen and heard too much about the double standard.

Let me get on a `real’ touchy subject for a moment. Where a wife has died, after a reasonable period, some preachers found in that situation seek to remarry. Sometimes there are good brethren who have no problem with this provided both have a scriptural right to marry another. In other cases it is like dropping a bombshell.

Sometimes brethren, even elders, have a problem with this. Talk about living in a fish bowl! That couple really will be. The green-eyed monster of jealousy arouses some and the big mouths start talking. Meddling and busy-bodying become the dominant force with some who find this situation a juicy conversation piece. Elders sometimes lose their objectivity in such matters. The couple who is seeking a new happiness with each other instead are made to feel like outcasts. Excuse me but do the Scriptures teach us to rejoice with those who rejoice (Rom. 12:15)? Some who will weep with you find it difficult to rejoice with you. Why is this so?

I have stuck my neck out to write this article. Please let me hear from the readers on this. Correct me if I am wrong. Endorse me if I am right. I look for your response.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 1 p. 3-4
January 5, 1995

By Randy Blackaby

Good people aren’t really that good unless they know how to practice healthy hate. That may seem a bizarre statement, especially from a Christian, but it is true. And, I’ll argue, the Bible sup-ports this position.

Let me explain.

Good people can’t love the way the Bible teaches without hating the way the Bible teaches. That’s paradoxical but true.

Now we’re not talking about malicious and unjustifiable feelings of animosity toward others. Rather, we’re talking about a deep, gutteral feeling of aversion toward what is evil or wrong.

I’m speaking of the sense of repugnance and disdain that wells up inside us when we hear of someone raping, molesting, murdering or maiming another person. This hatred is righteous and critically needed in our society.

The Bible says God hates. He hates idolatry (Jer. 44:2-5). In fact, Proverbs 6:16-19 lists seven things that God hates. Those include prideful arrogance, liars, murderers, hearts that devise wickedness, people who love to do evil, false witnesses and those who sow discord.

So, if God hates, we ought to hate. We ought to hate every false way (Psalm 119:104). The old ’60s slogan that each person ought to “do his own thing” and leave the other guy alone is wrong and unloving.

The church in Ephesus was commended for hating (Rev. 2:6). Why? Because those persons and congregations of persons who are not opposed to wrong are supporting wrong.

As the result of perverted religious teaching that leads people to think love and hate can’t exist side by side, even good people have come to believe that it is unloving to condemn homosexuality, abortion, lying politicians, lazy people who won’t work, adulterers, filthy TV, pornographic movies and false religious teachers.

So, there is an awesome silence in America. As a result, the liberal minority in this nation holds sway. Our children are being inculcated with their anti-religious dogmas and politics. Good people stay quiet. Evil men seek to censor the few good ones who speak up.

It’s time we stir up our righteous hatred of all this evil. It’s time to let our righteous indignation be seen and heard. Our past silence has been an acquiescence to evil.

Now, one last point, lest all this be misunderstood or misapplied. Hatred must be focused on evil and not on people. We must hate evil behavior but love the people practicing it enough to stop them.

God hated sin enough to sacrifice his Son to eradicate it and forgive people who practiced it. He loved sinners enough to save us by the same sacrifice.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: 1 p. 1
January 5, 1995