Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

As we move away from a rural environment, we may forget some of the images from rural settings which have been used to illustrate important spiritual lessons. Sometime ago, an elder used the example of “playing possum” to remind us of our need for action when spiritual dangers threaten. His use of the illustration reminded me of what I had seen as a child.

Some of our readers probably don’t know what the phrase “playing possum” means. Those who grew up in the country do. While growing up in a rural setting in East Texas, I occasionally heard our dogs tree a possum late at night. Sometimes the dogs would continue howling until someone would finally go to the tree and kill the possum. On several occasions, the dogs found the possum on the ground and tore into it. For whatever reason, whether it is a defense mechanism or a reaction to fear, the possum falls over and pretends to be dead when danger threatens. When the danger is gone, the possum awakens from his stupor and resumes his activities. This is what is known as “playing possum.” I have watched our dogs chew on the possum which was “playing possum” until I could hear his bones breaking inside, but still the possum pretended to be dead.

One day, my brother Cecil and our cousin Billy Mochman who were teenaged boys at the time, brought home a possum which was “playing possum.” After the dogs had chewed on it but were unable to awaken it from its stupor, these two young men decided they would make the animal quit “playing possum.” They got a can of kerosene and poured it in the possum’s ear. Nothing happened. You can guess what they tried next. They poured the kerosene all over the possum and lit it on fire. The possum woke up and took off running toward the house in which we lived.

Our house was flat against the ground in the front and was raised about 18 inches off the ground in the back so that it would be level. The possum was running toward the back of the house, blazing with fire. About this time, Momma walked out the back door. Something had to be done to stop the possum from running under the house and causing the house to burn down, so Billy grabbed the possum by the tail. The flames of fire were licking too close to his hand. He began to swing the possum around in a circle so that it would not burn him. Momma was standing on the back door steps and screaming.

About that time, the skin on the tail burned off, it slipped out of Billy’s hands, and the possum hit the ground running toward the cover which the house would provide. Momma hit the possum with the broom handle just as he went under the house. That knocked him out or killed him. Whichever, it saved the house from burning to the ground. All of this proved one thing: you can make a possum quit “playing possum.”

My cousin Billy is dead now and I have never turned my brother

Playing Possum .. .

Cecil in to the Society for the Prevention of the Cruelty to Animals. Perhaps the statute of limitations has expired for his offense. The incident was related to me years later. I have ever since remembered what “playing possum” means.

Some Brethren Play Possum

Brethren used to describe how some handle the threat of false doctrine and false teachers, saying they are like the ostrich who buries his head in the sand. Some still try to pretend that there are no dangers threatening the church. They accomplish this by burying their heads in the sand, like the ostrich. They refuse to read papers or listen to preachers who warn them of imminent dangers to the church. Soon the problems troubling other churches across the nation have invaded their local congregation and a major conflict ensues  a conflict that could have been averted had brethren been alert to the issues threatening the church.

Others “play possum” when danger threatens. They role over and play dead until the danger is passed. Stronger brethren take up the sword of the Spirit and confront the error and false teachers  the wicked men who attack the peace and unity of the local church. All the time they are fighting the error, other brethren are “playing possum.” When the danger is passed, these brethren will arouse from their stupor and talk about how “we” whipped them and drove them from among us.

Unfortunately, “playing possum” with false teaching has become the accepted conduct among preachers in some places. Those who have the audacity to put on the whole armor of God and stand against sin are castigated as “watch dogs,” “guardians of orthodoxy,” and other derogatory terms. These are the terms used by those who say they agree with the truth on such subjects as unity-in-diversity, institutionalism, the sponsoring church, and divorce and remarriage, but never raise their voices or lift their pens to expose the error. The bottom line is this: the false teacher has a higher position on the social ladder among those brethren than does the man who exposes his false doctrine. The highest position on the social ladder, of course, is reserved for that preacher who is too refined to dirty his hands opposing false teachers (his strongest words are reserved for those who expose the false teacher). He states that he agrees with the truth but “plays possum” when the false teacher arrives. However, he awakens to fight like a lion the man who exposes the false teacher!

“Playing possum” antics also exist in local churches threatened by strong-willed brethren who would rather tear a church apart than not to get their way. When such factious men are resisted, some of those whom godly men depended upon to stand with them in facing and overcoming the danger begin to “play possum.” They are as silent as if they were dead.

There have been times when I thought I needed to get Cecil and Billy to arouse brethren from playing possum. When the battle needed to be fought, brethren rolled over and played dead. Sometimes in a business meeting, those who you were counting on for support sat as quietly as a bump on a log while the battle raged. When false teachers are publishing their materials in the journals circulating among us, capable brethren sat back and said nothing, except to criticize those sometimes younger and less experienced brethren who loved the truth enough to resist the error. These were the times when I thought about calling for Cecil and Billy to awaken my brethren who were playing possum.

Playing possum may be a good defense mechanism for a possum, but not for Christians.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 13, p. 2
July 7, 1994

By Larry Ray Hafley

Reproducing After Its Own Kind

(1) One of God’s laws of nature is that seed produces after its kind (Gen. 1). Because of this, alligators do not hatch chickens and chickens do not hatch alligators. Horses do not give birth to kittens and cats do not give birth to dogs. Corn seed does not produce watermelons and water-melon seed does not provide “corn on the cob.”

The same thing is true in the spiritual realm. The seed of the kingdom is the word of God (Matt. 13:19; Lk. 8:11). To “enter the kingdom,” one must be born of water and of the Spirit (Jn. 3:3, 5). Simply put, when one is taught the word of God and is obedient to that word, having believed and been baptized into Christ, he enters the church (1 Pet. 1:22-25; Eph. 5:26; 1 Cor. 12:13). In the New Testament, the seed, the word of God, produced Christians, members of the body of Christ, citizens of the kingdom (Eph. 1:13; 2:16, 19-22; Col. 1:5, 6, 13, 18).

That seed did not produce Catholics and Protestants. It did not give birth to Mormons or Methodists, to Presbyterians or Pentecostals. When men accept the seed of Baptists, they become Baptists; they do not become Lutherans. When men obey the word of Mormons, they become Mormons; they do not become Jehovah’s Witnesses. In the New Testament, when men obeyed the gospel, the word of God, they became “none of the above.” Conclusion? When someone produces a Baptist or a Mormon, he must be sowing a different seed, something other than the word of God. Or do eagles hatch monkeys?

In the Bible, the seed, the word of God, produced Christians (Acts 11:26; 26:28; 1 Pet. 4:16). It did not give birth to denominational churches. There were no Baptists or Methodists, etc. Why should it be different today?

Kindness  A Fruit of the Spirit

(2) “Kindness” is a “fruit of the Spirit” (Gal. 5:22, 23). It must be a part of every thought, word, and deed (Eph. 4:31, 32). One may oppose error with a mean, bitter spirit. God knows (Heb. 4:13)! One may declare the need for peace, unity, and love with a heart poisoned with bitterness. Again, God knows. Not every earnest contender for the faith is pure in heart as he ought to be. Likewise, some rail against ugly, ungodly attitudes with an ugly, ungodly attitude. It works both ways. This article may be motivated by evil motives. It may be read with unloving eyes. God knows, and he will judge. No matter how “right” one may be, no matter how outwardly sweet one may be, God is not fooled. Pray for me that I will be kind, pure, sincere, and provide for honest things in the sight of men and God.

Paul, A Pattern

(3) Paul said “that in me first Jesus Christ might show forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting” (I Tim. 1:16). Paul’s conversion was “a pattern” for us. That particular “pattern” included the command that he “Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). “But,” it may be objected, “the text says it was “a pattern to them which . . . believe on him to life everlasting, not to those who are baptized.” If baptism is thereby excluded, so is repentance and confession (Acts 2:38; Rom. 10:9, 10). “Yes, but repentance and confession are included in what it means to truly “believe on him.” Likewise with baptism.

Paul was “justified by faith” (“we,” Rom. 5:1). Paul had been “baptized into Jesus Christ,” along with the Romans (Rom. 6:3, 4). With the Corinthians, he had been “baptized into one body,” the church (1 Cor. 12:13). The Corinthians had “believed through grace” having been baptized “in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 18:27; 19:1; 1 Cor. 1:12, 13; Acts 2:38). So, too, had Paul. Let us preach this “pattern to them which hereafter (shall) believe on (Christ) to life everlasting.”

Unity-In-Diversity

(4) Certain elements of “unity in diversity” are being smuggled in among the Lord’s people. Listen for the key, “catch” phrases below:

A. “We can no more think alike than we can look alike.” Since we cannot look alike, we are supposed to conclude that we cannot “think alike.” Hence, we may teach and preach different doctrines and still be accepted of God, according to some (cf. 2 In. 9; Jas. 5:19, 20; 1 Tim. 6:3-5). Jesus is either the Son of God or the illegitimate son of an immoral Jewish woman. Is this one of the items about which we cannot “think alike”? May we teach it both ways and be approved of God (2 Tim. 2:15)? Baptism may be “for the remission of sins,” or it may be an outward sign of an inward grace, designed to manifest salvation which occurred before. Is this one of the things about which we must not be expected to “think alike”? Shall we preach it both ways? Is Jesus now reigning on David’s throne, or must we yet expect him to come and set up his kingdom? May we preach it both ways since we cannot be expected to “think alike”? We may sing with or without a piano or an organ. Shall we preach and practice it both ways? We cannot “look alike,” so shall we be expected to “think alike” regarding instruments of music? What about the seven ones of Ephesians 4:4-6  one body, one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one Godare we to be expected to “think alike” regarding the “oneness” of these items? Are there many churches, many Lords, many Gods, many baptisms, or are we expected to “think alike” concerning those things? Are we expected to “think alike” regarding the sinfulness of homosexuality and polygamy?

Since we can “no more think alike than we can look alike,” what will those who espouse that view say when I say that I cannot “think alike” with them in that view? Do they expect me to believe that we can no more think alike than we can look alike? Yes, they do. They expect me to “think alike” with them. But that contradicts their statement! Since I cannot look like them, how can they expect me to think like them regarding it? Accordingly, I must reject the premise of their clever little statement.

B. Salvation is in a Savior, not a system; Pardon is in a Person, not a pattern. True, salvation is in the person of Jesus Christ, but we must also “hold fast” to that “form (mold, pattern, system) of sound words . . . which is in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 1:13; 2:10). Jesus, the person, is “the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him” (Heb. 5:9). However, the Lord does not give that eternal salvation until one obeys “that form (mold, pattern, system) of doctrine which was delivered” to him (Rom. 6:17, 18).

One receives the person of Christ by receiving the word, the system, the pattern (Col. 1:5, 6; 2:6; 1 Thess. 2:13). If you have not received his word, his system, his pattern, you have not received him!

One rejects the person of Christ by rejecting the word of Christ. “Then said Jesus (the person) to those Jews which believed on him. If ye continue in my word (the pattern, the system), then are ye my disciples indeed” (Jn. 8:31). “If a man love me (the person), he will keep my words” (the pattern  Jn. 14:23). When some “went back” and walked no more with the person, Christ, the apostle Peter said, “Lord to whom (to what person) shall we go? Thou hast the words (the pattern, the system) of eternal life” (Jn. 6:66-68). The words, the plan, the pattern, the system of the Savior, “they are spirit (spiritual), and they are life (life giving)” (Jn. 6:63). Jesus said, “He that rejecteth me (the person), and receiveth not my words (the pattern), hath one that judgeth him: the word (system of teaching) that I have spoken shall judge him in the last day” (Jn. 12:48).

“If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father” (1 Jn. 2:24). It is “the word of God” that abided in them (Cf. 1 Jn. 2:14). Hence, if the word of God (the pattern) abides in you, “ye also shall continue in the Son (the person).”

Make this note: Whenever a man starts talking in pious tones about “the person” of Christ and begins to denigrate “the form (the pattern) of sound words,” that man has a doctrine that will not stand the scrutiny of the Scriptures. Beware of him! He would feign point you to Christ in order that he might bring in his error unawares. “Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness” (2 Pet. 3:17).

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 13, p. 6-7
July 7, 1994

By Harry R. Osborne

Is there any thought of modesty in this day and age? A few years ago, you could stay away from the beach and avoid the exhibitionism. Now it seems like you cannot go around the block without being confronted by someone in an outfit which used to be associated more with a porno-graphic movie than public attire. What in the world has happened to the concept of decency?

Like most movements towards shamelessness, the mass media has aided in the degeneracy. On the covers of a few recent magazines at the check-out stand in the grocery store, I have seen the following bold printed leads:

 “Is it lingerie or clothes? You decide!”

 “Clothing or lingerie, who cares? Its pretty!”

 “Summer’s Sexiest Clothes”

 “The good, the bad, and the see-through”

Is it any wonder we are surrounded by a bunch of Madonna clones in our time? An article by John Leo in U.S. News & World Report entitled “Haute porn, hard-core couture” chronicled the growing influence of pornography upon the fashion world. It is disgusting!

On magazine covers and television shows about the latest fashions in swimwear, the leads are all similar. They speak of “sexy,” “revealing,” “eye-catching,” “hot,” and “provocative” styles. A recent survey showed that the average span of fabric between the armhole and leg hole on a one-piece bathing suit is between four and six inches. It is clear they were not designed that way to facilitate swimming.

Some interesting poll results were reported in the December 1982 issue of Psychology Today. They asked people, “What is your primary reason for going to the beach?” Of the men, 69% said it was “to watch the opposite sex.” Of the women, 40% said it was “to be seen.” That which was being shown and watched is very obvious, given the attire typical of the beach.

The Bible clearly condemns such lustful displays. It instructs “that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shame fastness and sobriety; not with braided hair, and gold or pearls or costly raiment” (1 Tim. 2:9). Let us examine a few of the things said about that which characterizes “modest apparel” and that which conflicts with it.

Shame fastness

The Bible says the modest clothing that should be worn is associated with “shame fastness.” What does that mean? The original word from the Greek referred to a sense of shame or modesty which is rooted in the character. In other words, it is that inner decency which recognizes the lack of clothing to be shameful.

The word of God speaks of the lack of full clothing or “nakedness” as being shameful (Rev. 3:19; Isa. 47:3; 2 Sam. 6:20; Jer. 13:26). However, the Bible term “naked” does not refer to nudity, but a lack of needed clothing to protect one (Jas. 2:15-16). The book of Job speaks of one who “stripped the naked of their clothing” (Job 22:6). How could one strip the clothes off of a person who was already nude? Thus, the “nakedness” which is shameful is not just total nudity. Isaiah spoke of the uncovering of the thigh as resulting in nakedness being uncovered (Isa. 47:2-3). Since many modern fashions totally expose the thigh, how do you think God views them? “Shame fastness” is that which would cause one to blush if seen without being fully covered. It is a rare quality in our time! However, it is a quality demanded of those who would please God.

Sobriety

The Bible also says that modest clothing is associated with “sobriety.” The sobriety under consideration is not solely speaking of being free from intoxication due to alcohol, although that may be involved, but is describing a state of sound judgment. W.E. Vine makes these comments (Expository Dictionary of N.T. Words, IV:44-45):

It is that habitual inner self-government, with its constant rein on all the passions and desires, which would hinder the temptation to these from arising, or at all events from arising in such strength as would overbear the checks and barriers which “shame fastness” opposed to it.

“Sobriety” would keep one from wearing that which is designed to be the “sexy,” “revealing,” “eye-catching,” “hot,” and “provocative” styles currently in fashion. It would see such as the “attire of a harlot” (Prov. 7:10). It is a needed characteristic today!

Clothing of the Rich

While “shame fastness and sobriety” are the allies of modesty, the New Testament depicts the clothing characteristic of wealth as that which opposes modesty. Paul cautions against being clothed in “gold or pearls or costly raiment” (1 Tim. 2:9). Peter warns “of wearing gold, or of putting on fine apparel” (1 Pet. 3:3). Were these writers merely prejudiced against the wealthy or is something else involved?

To answer that question, we need to find out what kind of clothing was the “costly raiment” or “fine apparel” of the New Testament time. This is not difficult since a great number of historical sources clearly and unanimously tell us about the fashions of the day. The following is an extended quote from Robert Collen ‘s book, East to Cathay: The Silk Road (pp. 44-46), dealing with the introduction of silk clothing into the first century Roman kingdom:

Silk in its natural state clung to the female form in a way that was infinitely more pleasing to the eye than Parthian banners. But Roman ladies did not stop at that. For one thing, there was not enough pure silk to go around at first. And, anyway, it was not sexy enough for those freewheeling days. So, they unraveled the close-woven Chinese fabric and rewove it into a flimsy gauze which left little to the imagination. So unlike Chinese silk was this Roman adaptation that the Chinese, when they eventually saw it, named it “ling,” assuming that Rome was growing a special product of its own. For the average Roman girl-watcher those were golden years, but the moralists raised a fearful outcry. “I see clothes of silk, if clothes they can be called,” wrote the philosopher Seneca (4 B.C. – A.D. 64), “affording protection neither to the body nor to the modesty of the wearer, and which are purchased for enormous sums, from unknown people.” Pliny told of garments that “render women naked.” Other writers waggishly referred to clothes “made of glass.”

Thus, the expensive clothes of New Testament times were the revealing clothes that lacked modesty. It was not a prejudice against wealthy people and the luxuries they could afford which caused the Bible writers to condemn “costly raiment.” It was the indecency associated with such clothing that caused it to be condemned.

Late in the first century, Clement of Alexandria spoke of the same silk fashions as “fabrics foolishly thin, and of curious texture in weaving.” He went on to speak of such as follows (The Instructor, II, XI):

For these superfluous and diaphanous (transparent – HRO) materials are proof of a weak mind, covering as they do the shame of the body with a slender veil. For luxurious clothing, which cannot conceal the shape of the body, is no more a covering. For such clothing, falling close to the body, takes its form more easily, and adhering as it were to the flesh, receives its shape, and marks out the woman’s figure, so that the whole body is visible.

Clement goes on to say that such clothing was associated with “vice” and not with “modesty.” The second century Tertullian described such as “garments which, light and thin, were to be heavy in price alone.” He referred to them as “prostitutionary garbs” appealing to “the pro-vocative charms of apparel.” Tertullian also noted that such clothing was the polar opposite of “modesty.”

In our time, the same is true. Modest clothing which covers the body is relatively inexpensive when contrasted with the price of the provocative styles in vogue among the fashion world. One could buy several decent changes of clothes for the price of one fashionable swimsuit. The centuries have changed, but the principles have not! Such fashions are no more tolerable to God today than they were when he condemned them through the New Testament writers. Let us not take our direction from the sinful fashions of our day, but from God.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 13, p. 10-11
July 7, 1994

By Jamey Hinds

“We love him because he first loved us” (1 Jn. 4:19). “By this we know love, because he laid down his life for us” (1 Jn. 3:16). “Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. He who does not love does not know God, for God is love. In this the love of God was manifested toward us, that God has sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son, the propitiation for our sins” (1 Jn. 4:7-10).

God’s love is astonishingly indescribable. And, yet, his love is limited in that it cannot force anyone to be saved from their sins. Of course, that is the beauty of God’s love he has created us to be morally free in choosing right and wrong.

According to Mark, “Now as Jesus was going out on the road, one came running, knelt before him, and asked him, `Good Teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?’ So Jesus said to him, `Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, God. You know the commandments.’ … And he answered and said to him, `Teacher, all these I have observed from my youth.’ Then Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, `One thing you lack: Go your way, sell whatever you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, take up the cross, and follow me.’ But he was sad at this word, and went away grieved, for he had great possessions” (10:17-22).

Notice Jesus’ love for this man. But even his love was not enough to remove the requirements necessary to be pleasing to God: he had to make an individually responsible choice  a choice we all must make. “But without faith it is impossible to please him, for he who comes to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of those who diligently seek him” (Heb. 11:6). “For we walk by faith, not by sight” (2 Cor. 5:7).

There are those who deny the necessity of water baptism for the forgiveness of sins. And, yet, they proclaim their absolute faith in God’s incorruptible love. They often forget that his love is incorruptible and cannot simply disregard such things as the command to be baptized for the remission of our sins (Matt. 3:13-17; 28:18-20; Mk. 16:15-16; Acts 2:38; Rom. 6:3-14; Col. 2:11-12; 1 Pet. 3:21).

God’s love is magnificently beautiful and pure. It is most powerful and majestic. But it cannot, alone, save us.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 13, p. 9
July 7, 1994