Truth Magazine

By Harry R. Osborne

An interesting debate is raging in modem society over animal rights. It has promise of being a virtual “theater of the absurd.” On the one side, the animal-rights activists are claiming the use of animals to benefit humans is “morally wrong.” Among those on the other side are a group of scientists doing medical research using animals. Many of these scientists accept the theory of evolution and are trying to justify the use of animals to benefit humans as “morally right.”

Now, here is the problem  the animal-rights advocates accept the implications of the general theory of evolution which say that humans and animals are equally the mere chance results of the evolutionary process. Thus, these activists say it is just as immoral to kill or harm an animal as it is to kill or harm a human because there is no discernable difference in them as living creatures. Many of the scientists in medical research accept the same theory regarding the origin of all life and have scoffed at Bible believers who view man as uniquely created with supremacy over the animals by God. How can these evolutionists show the moral right of one product of chance to kill another product of chance? Indeed, this debate will test the very basis of how a secular society can establish what is morally right and wrong while denying the existence of a divine Creator with a revealed will in Scripture.

A few years ago, the focus was on the cruelty of trapping animals to satisfy the extravagant desires of the fur consuming public. Now, the vocal animal-rights cause is denying that man may legitimately use animals for any kind of clothing (including leather shoes), for food, in medical research or in medical treatment that saves human lives. Many animal-rights activists in recent years have clearly stated the basis for their objections to the use of animals in satisfying human need. They have also made clear the extent of their aims.

Gary Francione is a law professor who files suits in animal-rights cases. He views medical research resulting in animal suffering as unjustifiable even if the research brings a cure for cancer in humans. He concludes, “I don’t believe it is morally permissible to exploit weaker beings even if we derive benefits” [quoted in Christianity Today (June 18, 1990), p. 19].

The most well-known name in the animal-rights movement is probably Ingrid Newkirk, director for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). Newkirk founded PETA together with Alex Pacheco in 1980. In 1985, the organization had only 8,000 members. Over the next five years, membership exploded to a level of about 300,000. Newkirk unashamedly declares that there is no moral difference in taking the life of an animal or a human, exclaiming that all have the same feelings. She said, “When it comes to feelings, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy” [Forbes (March 20, 1989), p. 44]. Newkirk and a staff of 65 self-proclaimed “vegans” run PETA. They are radical vegetarians who abhor the use of all animal products including leather, meat, wool, milk, or medicine derived through animal research. Newkirk’s edibility test is, “If it screams and runs away when you go after it, don’t.”

Among that staff is Mary Beth Sweetland, an insulin-dependent diabetic, who takes insulin containing animal products twice a day. She defends this seemingly hypo-critical practice by saying, “I need my life to fight for the rights of animals.” How about that for logic?

In August 1988, Harper’s magazine printed the record of a forum on animal-rights (43-52). When the hypothetical possibility was raised of implanting a pig’s heart to save a human baby’s life, one activist abruptly rejected such as wrong. The activist said the baby’s parents should be made to care about the pig and child equally. Another person in the discussion said, “I don’t want to change [the parents’] reaction. I want human beings to care about babies!” Ingrid Newkirk (head of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) responded, “Like racism or sexism, that remark is pure speciesism!” In recent years, the implanting of baboon hearts to save humans has taken this discussion out of the theoretical realm and into open discussion.

The term “speciesism” was coined by Peter Singer in his book, Animal Liberation, which is the foundational treatise of the animal-rights movement. It argues that there is no logical basis upon which to contend human beings are more important than “other animals.” Singer said, “It can no longer be maintained by anyone but a religious fanatic that man is the special darling of the universe or that other animals were created to provide us with food, or that we have divine authority over them, and divine permission to kill them.” Such ridicule for biblical principles is typical of the leaders in the animal-rights cause.

Michael Fox (director of the Center for the Respect of Life and Environment at the Humane Society of the United States) expressed it this way:

There are no clear distinctions between us and animals. Animals communicate, animals have emotions, animals can think. Some thinkers believe that the human soul is different because we are immortal, and that just becomes completely absurd [quoted in Christianity Today (June 18, 1990), p. 19].

The Humane Society with which Mr. Fox is associated previously centered on the worthy goal of preventing needless cruelty to animals, a goal well in keeping with the principle of humans as good stewards of the animal world. Now, however, it has been caught up in the extremes of animal-rights activism recently going so far as to denounce bacon and eggs as “the breakfast of cruelty” [Forbes (March 20, 1989), p. 43].

Ironically, the animal-rights activists tell us that humans are not to assume a special place with respect to animals, yet their solutions demand that we do so. It is clear that animals eat other animals without being accused of “speciesism” or “cruelty.” However, they say we must step in with the unique responsibility of treating animals better than they treat each other. Why?

Instead of raising the status of animals to the level of humans, why would it not be just as logical to lower the status of humans to the level of animals? If there is no distinction between humans and “other animals,” why react with any more concern when one “human animal” kills another “human animal” than to “other animals” killing each other? In The New Republic (March 12, 1990), Robert Wright noted this saying, “. . . the logic used by the animal rights activists turns out to play into the hands of the Adolf Hitlers of the world no less than the Albert Schweitzers” (26).

How have we gotten into such a confused mess? Our secular society has largely rejected the authority of God as revealed within the Scriptures. Many people are left with an emotional reaction that values human life and purpose over animal life and purpose, without the basis for the logical foundation of that reaction. When the biologist who believes that all species are merely the chance products of evolution tries to justify the use of “other animals” by humans, what rational basis can he give? He says that animal research must be allowed to benefit man, but that merely begs the question. If both humans and animals are chance products of evolution, the value of one can be no greater than the other. The consequences of the evolutionists’ argument has come back to haunt them.

The Bible has the only rational basis for such values  they are the result of divine order in creation. They were dictated from the owner and creator of all life, God, to his creatures. Thus, God had the right to impose his law. God clearly dictated his order:

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth (Gen. 1:26).

For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet: all sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field; the fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas (Ps. 8:5-8).

This movement is based upon the rejection of God’s order revealed within his word. Given the radical bent of the current administration in Washington, the effects of this movement are sure to grow stronger. It threatens values clearly taught by God. Attempts to answer it through the presuppositions of secular humanism will prove futile. An answer is clear, however, in Bible-rooted truth!

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 4, p. 12-13
February 17, 1994

By Dan Madrigal

Recently, pro basketball star Michael Jordan’s father James was murdered by two young men. Needless to say this event became the impetus for much talk and analysis about a great many things. I want to take the opportunity to do the same, but also to make some biblical observations as well.

The Rise of Violence

Many people have grown concerned about the rise of violence in our society and rightfully so. No one with his eyes open could deny that we live in a time where becoming a victim is a very high possibility no matter where you live. Mr. Jordan was murdered while resting in his car on a rural North Carolina road. I don’t know what it’s like generally speaking in rural North Carolina, but I do know what it is like in Chicago having worked with an inner-city Chicago church for the past four years. I know that there is no way in this world that I would pull my car over and park it to rest on any Chicago street. I don’t even like stopping at some street corners for the red light because of what could happen. Yet, I would probably be comfortable doing so in rural North Carolina. At least I would have been a few weeks ago. Murder, car-jacking, and general all around mayhem is par for the course these days. You probably already know what the lead stories were on this evening’s local news. You got it, murder. If you think car-jacking is bad consider that the twelve-year-old son of one of our members was approached at gun point the other day by another boy, who demanded that he give up his bike.

We know that it is no surprise to us that more crime exists in this country now than at any other time. It is probably no secret as to the root causes. The philosophy that we must use non aggressive methods to deter aggressors has become the practice of choice by many sectors of our society. For example, during the recent basketball championship games in Chicago, Chicago Police Superintendent Matt Rodriguez went on television in public service announcements pleading with the fine citizens of Chicago not to do bad things when the Bulls win the final game. Rather, he should have demanded peaceful celebrations and strongly warned that offenders would be prosecuted swiftly and decisively. Then he should back it up with swift and decisive prosecution. The problem is that even the Superintendent of Police is constrained by legal technicalities that handicap the police.

Consider that God said, “For, the lips of a ruler are to speak the Word of God; and his mouth should not betray justice” (Prov. 16:10). Judges are rulers who are to “detest wrongdoing,” for government is “strengthened through righteousness” (Prov. 16:12-15). “When a ruler, executes judgment, he scatters away all evil” (Prov. 20:8). In the New Testament we are told that “governors … are sent . . . to punish those who do wrong” (1 Pet. 2;14). And rulers do not bear the sword in vain (Rom. 13:1-4). That is if they use it at all.

The Sanctity of Life

There no doubt will be countless people asking the age old question of “why?” Why did this have to happen to Michael Jordan’s father. I have had to do so too. I also wonder if these two young men who snuffed out Mr. Jordan’s life would have actually done so had they known who he was. I have to believe that these young men were probably Michael Jordan fans. They probably have Michael Jordan paraphernalia, or at least Chicago Bulls souvenirs in their homes. Yet, when they were able to detach and disengage themselves from the person that they were killing, it made it easier to carry out their evil deed. It seems that we are increasingly attempting to put a price tag on life. If the person is popular, rich and attractive it is a worse crime than if the person was obscure and unattractive.

The act of random murder, as it contributes to the rise of violence is in itself symptomatic of something very wrong in our society. When we do not punish by death those who snuff out another’s life, as a society we are sending the signal that human life is no more valuable than a loaf of bread. When we as a society begin to marginalize the value of human life, it sends the signal that some human life is more important than other human life. Which is exactly what has occurred with abortion, and now euthanasia ala Dr. Death, Jack Kevorkian. The arguments used for abortion often take on monetary terms. It costs less to abort than to support another person on the public dole. At this rate, we may well improve our economic mess by euthanizing the children that are on public assistance. The devaluing of human life is at the center of the storm of violence and until we as a society repent and turn back to the Bible as the basis by which we view life, things will not improve much. Job stated it well while praising God, “Have you not poured me out as milk, and curdled me like cheese? You have clothed me with skin and flesh, and have fenced me with bones and sinews. You have granted me life and favor, and your visitation has preserved my spirit” (Job 10:10-12).

Parental Influence

Perhaps the most talked about aspect of Mr. Jordan’s death was his life; particularly as he influenced his son Michael. There was immediate commentary by most people in the media about how influential he was in shaping and molding his famous son. The Chicago Sun Times reported how Mr. Jordan years ago built a half basketball court and later a whole court to provide a place for his son and other neighborhood boys to play where he could “keep an eye on him.” What I believe is significant about this is that you just can’t argue with what works. I wonder how careful the parents of Mr. Jordan’s killers were in watching them? I believe that it is safe to say that they didn’t give the same care and attention to their sons as Mr. Jordan did to his. Can we not agree that this is one of the major causes of rising crime. Parents are just not engaged with what their children are doing, and are ignorant of what influences are at work in their children’s lives.

Many social engineers have for years ridiculed parents who are too much of an influence on their own children. They say that children should be reared with as little parental manipulation as possible. According to the “Educators” children need to become autonomous. You see, according to the “experts” too much parental “control” can stifle psychological growth. Parents who strongly influence their children are labeled as misfits. They call this “indoctrination.” One of Donahue’s shows last fall at-tempted to do just that. He had several families on, all from deeply religious and traditional backgrounds. One family was orthodox Jew, another Mormon, and still another “Fundamentalist Christian.” Of course he also had avail-able his expert who normally deprograms cult members. During one of the exchanges Donahue’s expert asked the Fundamentalist’s son to name him one area in which he was different than his dad. This exchange was preceded by footage of the father preaching, and then the son preaching on a street corner. The intent was obviously to suggest that something was “dysfunctional” in this family if the son was just like his father. Yet, the comparisons between Michael Jordan and his father waxed eloquent. Recently, the cable channel VH 1 has been urging its young viewers to “Don’t Be Like Your Parents.”

Brethren, we can be doing everything that is within our power to bring our children up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. We can be striving to heed Leslie Diestelkamp’s warning to “Be careful, you’re bending that twig.” We can be striving to mold our children into responsible, God fearing people, but there are other forces working in the opposite direction. Do not fail to consider your children’s classroom either. Nevertheless, we must be true to God in our responsibilities as parents. We must be vigilant in this responsibility, even if it means being viewed as radical. We must take the reigns of influence away from the humanist and social engineers and educators of our children and become godly parents.

My children may never grow up to be superstars. They may never succeed at obtaining great wealth and popularity either. I only pray that my children will grow up to be super in the eyes of God. I pray that they know God and that God knows them. I pray that they are rich toward God and lay up treasures in heaven. And if this is what becomes of my influence over the heritage that God has blessed me with, then praise be unto God and not unto men.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 5, p. 1
March 3, 1994

By Johnie Edwards

A question that comes up from time to time, is whether it is scriptural for one to partake of the Lord’s supper on Sunday evening or for a church to make provision for such serving.

1. Time of day, not a factor. To say that a Christian cannot take of the Lord’s supper at the evening service is to bind the time of day in which the supper must be observed. I no where read in the New Law where the Lord bound the hour of the day. I do read where he bound the day. “And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to bread, Paul preached unto them ” (Acts 20:7).

2. Second supper. Some call the evening communion a “second supper.” For a person to partake of the communion at the evening service, who was unable to attend the morning service, he is not partaking of a “second supper.” It is a first supper to him!

3. Obeying the Lord. If a person partakes of the Lord’s supper on Sunday morning or Sunday evening, he is still just doing what the Lord said do, eating the Lord’s supper. If not, why not? (Acts 20:7).

4. Tarry one for another. Those who come early are to wait for the others to get there. Some in Corinth were eating before the Lord’s supper was being served and also making a feast out of it. 1 Corinthians 11:33 has no bearing on the evening service. If so, we could not partake in the morning, but must wait until the evening folks were present!

5. Some abuse the communion. No doubt, some do, but this has no bearing on the right of a church to provide or a Christian partaking of the Lord’s supper at an evening service. If I am commanded to eat the Lord’s supper no church has the right to deny me the right.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 4, p. 11
February 17, 1994

By Dick Blackford

Several years ago, Foy E. Wallace, Jr. wrote an article by this title in which he pointed out that it was not undignified or discourteous to call names. After all, Christ and the apostles called names of those with whom they disagreed and yet the Bible remained a dignified book. He concluded, his article by saying, “When a paper develops better manners than the New Testament and a preacher becomes more dignified than the apostles, neither is worth anything to the defense of the truth.”

Sometimes preachers and papers are criticized for being too negative. We grant that such is possible and perhaps many of us have done that. But how does one make a positive response to statements toward which he holds a negative position? Where is the philosophy of “always take the positive approach” advocated in the Bible? Paul told Timothy to “reprove, rebuke, and exhort” (2 Tim. 4:2). That is two-thirds negative. Neither Jesus nor Paul felt that it was wrong to take a negative approach when they sustained a negative relationship to an idea or practice. Nor did they think it was wrong to make a direct response to that with which they disagreed. There was no “beating around the bush” (Matt. 15:1-20; 1 Cor. 11:17-34; Gal. 2:11-14). Since then, many great men have signed to take the negative regarding a particular proposition because they believed the affirmative to be in error.

We used to hear brethren say, “We practice an open pulpit. If you disagree with what we teach and practice, we invite you to come and point out wherein we err.” Similar offers were made regarding the pages of bulletins and papers. The Holy Spirit endorsed this open policy by recording both sides of an issue and by recording direct negative responses  by those who were right and by those who were wrong.

When we maintain that no direct response is to be permitted to anything we say and that only the positive approach will be allowed, we are trying to have better manners than the New Testament and are occupying a non-biblical policy. It is a dangerous trend when we seek to squelch open and direct discussion.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 4, p. 4
February 17, 1994