Truth Magazine

By Warren E. Berkley

“The parents have a right to say that no teacher paid by their money shall rob their children of faith in God and send them back to their homes skeptical, or infidels, or agnostics, or atheists.” William Jennings Bryan, testifying at the Scopes trials, Dayton, Tenn. July 16, 1925.

If the famous attorney could be here today and make only limited observations into the public school system, I think he would repeat what he said in 1925, and perhaps with more urgency. The secularism that is spreading in our society has found an ally in the public schools. This doesn’t mean that every school, teacher or educational official has been taken captive, but the influence of secularism in our schools (and through our schools) cannot be disputed.’ Evidence follows .. .

1. Humanism isn’t just a philosophy to provoke intellectual discussion.2 It has become a political agenda, championed by the liberal left and advanced by many educators. Humanists believe “that man is just as much a natural phenomenon as an animal or plant; that his body, mind and soul were not supernaturally created but are products of evolution, and that he is not under the control or guidance of any supernatural being or beings, but has to rely on himself and his own powers.”3 If those making curriculum and text book decisions hold to this view of man, don’t you think that will affect their work? What about class room teachers who are humanists? Consider, humanists have said that “the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom, by the teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith. . . . The classroom will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new  the rotting corpse of Christianity … and the new found faith of humanism.”4

2. The Sex Education Movement is on the fast track, and proponents of these indiscreet curriculums have declared success in some states. Here in Texas we must constantly look over the shoulders of our state legislators, the lobbyists who try to purchase them, state and local school board members and the abortion advocacy groups such as Planned Parenthood. Educating children in sexuality, per se, is not the problem. The problems of secular influence become apparent when you start asking questions: [1] Who will teach my children? [2] What will my children be taught? [3] When will they be taught? [4] With whom will they be taught? [5] Can I opt my children out of the program? [6] Will the popular “mixed message” be the theme? “Don’t have sex, but if you do. . .?” [7] If “abstinence” is even brought up, what will the definition be? Another fearful dimension of the modern sex education agenda is the powerful homosexual lobby, and their intrusion into the school room. Consider, if state and local educational officials allow every culture, sub-culture, and interests group to have input into the sex education agenda, the militant gay rights leaders will be in line, right along with the conservative fundamentalists and family values people! It’s already happening, here in Texas and everywhere. If this agenda of perversion is implemented in the schools, homosexuality will be taught as an “alternate lifestyle,” and if your children are mature, articulate and courageous enough to state their objection, they will be labeled as guilty of the politically incorrect crime of homophobia. Anybody who expresses moral outrage or objection to the practice (sin) of homosexuality is  according to the politically correct pundits  homophobic. In some public universities, “Students who express disapproval of homosexuality are, under threat of expulsion, being required to take `sensitivity training’ to cure their ‘homophobia’.”’ (In a recent Andy Rooney column he spoke out: “. . .I disapprove of making condoms available to children because there may be a few boys or girls in the class who are sexually active. The only certain thing that all the talk about sex can do is promote more of it at a younger age.”6

3. Outcome-based Education (OBE) is one of the “politically correct” methods being discussed in circles of modern education reform. In some states, this has become nothing but a professional-sounding label for the same old secular agenda: getting in touch with your feelings, situation ethics, values clarification, subjectivist, affective development … and all this along with lowered academic standards, and  at tax payer expense!’

4. Social Services On Campus for “at risk” children is a growing trend. These “social service centers” are opening up for “business” on campuses all across the nation, taking schools further beyond their traditional academic roles. In some cases, semi-professionals are identifying children who are “at risk,” by applying standards that derive from their own secular agenda. School counselors and paraprofessionals in mental health are labeling children as “disadvantaged,” or “abused,” and in some cases the “evidence” is that the parents are using “inappropriate discipline”; that may mean that the discipline the parents are using is not what the secular, humanist mentality approves.

5. Multiculturalism. In some places, school children are being taught that street slang is just as good as proper English; social integration must take precedence over hard work and a free economy; and the fraudulent agenda and messages of some “minority groups” is part of the curriculum, all in the name of a newly created god, multiculturalism. Cultural assimilation has been elevated to a virtue at the expense of good education in many cases. “. . . Ethnic communities that are committed to preserving some of their cultural values and their heritage should be free to instill these values in their children  at home, at church, in the neighborhood. Surely it is not the office of public schools to promote separatism and heighten ethnic tensions.”‘

6. Re-writing history. In the effort to achieve cultural assimilation, some secularists are busy re-writing the history books  not to correct known error, but to indoctrinate. The revisionists are determined to use public schools as mediums for their activist agendas. Parents, beware!

7. Loss of Parental Oversight. Let me suggest that one thing parents need to look out for in public education is school officials and teachers intruding into areas tradition-ally reserved for parental oversight. The autonomy of parents is sometimes infringed by teachers who see them-selves as self-appointed social engineers and “mediums” who must usher in a new age. This was a heated issue during the term of William J. Bennett, early in his tenure as U.S. Secretary of Education. A Washington Post head-line said it all: “Education Chief Rapped for Supporting Parents.” The article said, “Some of the nation’s established organizers sharply criticized Education Secretary William J. Bennett . . . for his support of federal rules giving parents more control over `sensitive’ subject areas taught in public schools.”9 In some places, public schools may actually drive a wedge between children and parents (see Eph. 6:1-4).

8. Drug Education. Who would be opposed to drug prevention and education programs? We are not on a “witch hunt” when we ask, in regard to these programs, Who will teach it? What will they teach? Do the designers and leaders of the program have a secular, humanistic agenda? I fear that in some of these drug education programs, the students are getting the impression that the rightness or wrongness of drug use is a subjective matter  that it relates to physical danger and is a mental threat, but not necessarily morally wrong. Human potential psychology may be the hidden agenda in some of these projects.10

9. The Creation-Evolution issue is not over. And all the dinosaur hype may indirectly give more credibility to some of the atheistic theories of today’s secularists. “Pictures and replicas of dinosaurs automatically conjure up a false concept of pre-historic creatures which supposedly evolved 175-200 million years ago and became extinct 65 -70 million years ago, long before man came on the scene.’

10. New Age influence is everywhere: in entertainment, the media, retail commerce, politics and schools. New Age influence involves the deadly combination of subjective humanism and secular attitudes with the eastern, pagan concepts of deity. The August 1987 annual convention of The Association for Humanistic Psychology included  under the heading of Humanistic Education  a workshop titled, “Zen Buddhist Ethics and the Caring Classroom: The Application of Zen Buddhism to Educating Children.”12

What Can Parents Do?

Know Your Rights! “First is the power and rights of the parents. It is good constitutional law in our nation that the parents are the primary educators of their children. They have the right to safeguard the religion, the morals, the attitudes, the values, and the family privacy of their children.”13

“Re-double Your Efforts To Educate, Discipline and Influence Your Children At Home. Talk to your children about these things as soon as appropriate. Get help, use resources, and associate with other Christian parents facing the same threats. By all means, get serious about training your children in Biblical values.

“Be active in watching your state legislature, and don’t hesitate to communicate to them and initiate all the citizen input and influence that is legitimate. Much of what happens in your local school district is directly related to state mandates, regulations, standards, and pressures. You will need to watch and participate on the local (school board) level, but some things (like sex education) may be out of the control of the school board, because of state mandates. Before the next legislative session in your state, talk to your representative about these issues.

“Be a Christian, wear the whole armor of God, and spread the gospel everywhere, starting at home. ‘Education is a weapon, whose effect depends upon who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed’ (Josef Stalin).”

End Notes

1Secularism, as defined by Charles Colson (The Body 172): “As an adjective, the word secular means merely `of this world,’ or `of the present age.’ As a world-view, however, it becomes secularism, an ideology that places all emphasis on the here and now. The anthem of modern American secularism is captured in the beer commercial: `You only go around this way once, so grab for all the gusto you can.’ Or as the T-shirts proclaim, `Carpe diem’ Seize the day!  the ultimate existential expression.”

The writer of this article has a tract out on the subject of humanism, in English and Spanish; order from Guardian of Truth Bookstore. Also, The New Age Movement: A Biblical Perspective.

‘Quoted in The Battle For The Mind by Tim LaHaye 63. ‘From The Humanist Magazine, Jan./Feb. 1983.

‘Jeffrey Hart, “Not Just An Alternate Lifestyle,” McAllen Monitor, July 28, 1993, 6-D.

6 Andy Rooney, “Andy’s Startling Confession,” McAllen Monitor, Aug. 13, 1993.

‘For more research into OBE, write to CEE, Box 3200, Costa

Mesa, CA 92628, or call (714) 546-5931.

‘The Way Things Ought To Be, Rush Limbaugh 213.

‘The De-Valuing of America, William J. Bennett 46.

10For an excellent discussion of various drug education programs, see Why Johnny Can’t Tell Right From Wrong, William Kilpatrick, Simon & Schuster, 1992 (Chapter 2).

“Dinosaurs Attack Children!” Dick Blackford. Searching The Scriptures XXIX:11 [November, 1988], 252.

1 ‘The New Spirituality by Dave Hunt & T. A. McMahon, 43. “The Teaching Of Values In The Public Schools,” by Phyllis Schlafly, The Phyllis Schlafly Report, Oct. 1989.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 3, p. 17-19
February 3, 1994

By Randy Blackaby

A rapidly growing segment of American children are growing up without parents. Not since the end of the Civil War has the United States had so many orphans. But today’s children have not lost their parents to the devastation of war but to radical feminism, humanism and a morally devoid secularism.

Divorce, bastardy and socialistic welfare, all condemned in the scriptures, have joined to so profoundly assault the home that the so-called “traditional” family has become the anomaly.

The secular view of divorce is that it is as often as not inevitable, completely normal and often good for everyone involved. Virtually all stigma and sanctions have been removed and divorces are treated like coldsa temporary discomfort to be “recovered” from in time.

About half of all marriages in this country today end in divorce.

Approximately 25 percent of all children born today will do so without the benefit of their parents being married. More than 60 percent of black children will face life as an illegitimate.

Socialistic programs have eliminated the perceived need for fathers because the economic support role that God assigned men (1 Thess. 3:6-15; 1 Tim. 5:8) has been supplanted by government welfare payments that encourage illegitimacy.

Biblical patterns for the family are scoffed at by feminists and other social radicals. There is talk of “redefining” the family. The word “choice” has become the euphemistic battle cry for those who would elevate personal selfishness to the same plane as moral standards.

The traditional or biblical family structure virtually has disappeared from television, replaced by images that seek to normalize the deviant. The last episode of “Murphy Brown” this year showed its star having a baby out of wedlock. The event was portrayed as wonderful and the absence of a father as irrelevant.

If we disregard for the moment the radical feminists who believe marriage is only a tool of male domination and focus on mainstream America we still find an all too popular consensus that marriage is not that important and that immorality is an anachronistic concept in the ’90s.

But God teaches that truth is unchanging (Ps. 100:5) and that man is not able to direct his own steps without divine guidance (Jer. 10:23). We are further taught that “There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death” (Prov. 14:12).

These biblical truths are powerfully supported by the social and moral results we are seeing in our nation as everyone does what is right in his own eyes.

Just look at what the destruction of the family has done for us.

Children in single parent homes are six times as likely to be poor as those in traditional families.

Children with only one parent are two to three times as likely to have emotional and behavioral problems.

Statistics show these same children to be more likely to drop out of school, get pregnant as teens, abuse drugs and be in trouble with the law.

Youngsters with only one parent or living in step families are much more likely to be victims of sexual abuse at the hands of boyfriends or step dads.

Numerous studies find that divorce has fueled the growth of an underclass. The numbers are astonishing. The pro-portion of children in poverty increased from 15 percent in 1970 to 20 percent in 1990. Half of single mothers live in poverty, compared to 10 percent of married couples with children.

The negative effects of ignoring God’s pattern are also seen in education, or the lack of it. Educational spending in constant 1980 dollars has more than doubled since 1960 but nearly every measure of school performance has dropped.

Educational failure obviously is not primarily a matter of insufficient investment but rather is based on emotional impairments brought about by the absence of parents and turmoil in the home. Schools now look more like emotional emergency rooms than instructional centers. Larger and larger investments of time and money are placed in stabilizing kids damaged by broken homes.

Not disconnected is the fact that teenage suicide has tripled in the past few years. In fact, while mortality figures for the U.S. population as a whole declined 23 percent in the 1960s and ’70s, death among white children 15-24 years old increased more than 16 percent. Death by homicide rose 232 percent. And the numbers among black children are worse.

Juvenile crime is skyrocketing and becoming more and more violent. Nationally, more than 70 percent of all juveniles in reform institutions are from fatherless homes.

“Children raised in virtual isolation from human beings, though physically intact, display few recognizable human behaviors,” concludes Barbara Dafoe Whitehead in an extensive article about the family in The Atlantic Monthly entitled “Dan Quayle Was Right.” We are seeing the truth of this every night in the news.

Weaker parent-child relationships are leaving latch-key kids more vulnerable to negative influences, ranging from the perversions they see on TV to the peer pressures of the gangs they join to fill the void in their orphan existence.

Whitehead points to the potential destabilization of our democratic society by these shifts away from biblical standards when she says, “The family is responsible for teaching lessons of independence, self-restraint, responsibility and right conduct, which are essential to a free, democratic society. If the family fails in these tasks, then the entire experiment in democratic self-rule is jeopardized.”

The secularists in our society are aware of all these tragic statistics, declines and decays. But they boldly assert that returning to biblical patterns is not the answer but rather more social tampering.

So you hear almost every day about the great need for “affordable daycare.” It is sadly ironic that just as the last of our old orphan homes are being phased out in favor of real (foster and adoptive) homes, the secularists are devising a new form of institutional care for a new kind of orphan.

But day care is doomed before it begins because the most critical determinant of child well-being is the bond between parent and child. God, of course, knows this and thus commanded both mothers and fathers how to do their respective and coordinated parts in raising children.

Urie Bronfenbrenner, a psychologist at Cornell University, has written that the essential requirement for healthy human development is that “someone has to be crazy about the kids.” God puts it even more simply in Titus 2. Mothers are to love their children and fathers are to rule and set the right example for them.

But the opponents of biblical standards keep the conflict alive by disavowing any connection between family structure or parental failures and the present problems of our youth.

Kenneth Keniston’s view, espoused in 1977 in “All Our Children,” is still as popular as ever. He wrote, “There is nothing to be gained by blaming ourselves and other individuals for family changes. We need to look instead to the broader economic and social forces that shape the experience of children and parents. Parents are not abdicatingthey are being dethroned, by forces they cannot influence, much less control.”

However, anyone who gives the American family a good examination today can see that selfishness (the root of all sin) lies at the heart of family destruction.

Divorce and remarriage are justified in the name of personal freedom and growth. Feminists abandon the home to seek personal fulfillment and achievement and status in the work place. Biblical morality is deemed too restrictive for individual happiness.

The concept of self-sacrifice for the benefit of others is virtually unknown in the secular society.

But if there is a silver lining in the battle between the gospel and secularism it is that God’s ways are glorified when the results are surveyed. By every measure of true individual and societal success and happiness, people were much better off (and are better off) when God’s design and rules for the family are observed. And, the misery we see devastating our nation’s families today is profound evidence that God knows better than we do how we ought to live.

“The secularists in our

society are aware of all these

tragic statistics, declines and

decays. But they boldly

assert that returning to

biblical patterns is not the

answer but rather more

social tampering.”

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 3, p. 7-8
February 3, 1994

By Connie W. Adams

Guy N. Woods

Guy N. Woods, well known author, debater, preacher and former editor of the Gospel Advocate recently passed away at the age of 85. He was laid to rest on December 11, 1993. Among his many debates there were at least three which had profound impact on the institutional division: the Porter-Woods Debate held in Paragould, Arkansas, the Cogdill-Woods Debate held in Birmingham, Alabama and the Grider-Woods Debate conducted in Louisville, Kentucky. These three discussions had far reaching effects in shaping the thinking of brethren on both sides of the controversy over sponsoring churches and church support of benevolent institutions.

My first direct acquaintance with brother Woods was in 1960-61 when the elders of the church at Newbern, Tennessee asked me to handle the correspondence with brother Woods and with Roy E. Cogdill leading up to their second debate at Newbern, Tennessee in December, 1961. Later, while brother Woods was editor of the Gospel Advocate and I was editor of Searching the Scriptures we had a pleasant, though pointed at times, correspondence touching several matters of mutual interest. In his later years brother Woods was much concerned with the direction many of his brethren were taking and the speed with which they were moving away from the old paths. Many of the avant-garde institutional men regarded him as a relic of the past while many opposed to institutionalism consider him one of those who helped to open a flood-gate which he was powerless to close in his later years.

The mightiest of men are but mortal. Epic battles are fought by men who must die and then be judged by the God of all the earth who will do right. So, let us pass the time of our sojourning here in fear for all are drawing nearer to the ultimate appointment.

Medical Evangelism Seminar

On January 7 and 8, 1994 a “Medical Evangelism Seminar” was conducted at the Harvey Hotel in Dallas, Texas. This is an annual affair and remains one of the clearest evidences of the social gospel at work among many in the institutional movement among churches of Christ. This event was hosted by African Christian Hospitals Foundation. Reports were heard from representatives of various congregations who collect and disburse various medical supplies to clinics and hospitals in several countries which are staffed by people supported by churches of Christ. These hospitals, so far, are all overseas, but they are funded by U.S. churches. However, there was a group discussion on “U.S. Medical Missions” which listed Inner City, Dallas, Texas, Mexican Border, McAllen, Texas and Appalachia, Jellico, Tennessee.

One segment featured “Helping National Churches Establish Their Own Clinic.” Already, there are hospitals or other medical missions funded by churches in the U.S. which are located in Tanzania, East Africa, Nigeria, Guyana, Guatemala and Mexico, to name a few. There are others. This is all part of the notion that the church must minister to the whole man. The New Testament teaches that the church is a spiritual body whose primary role in the world is to preach the gospel to the lost and repair their souls for a heavenly reward (Jn. 18:36; Rom. 14:17; 1 Thess. 1:8-10). There are times when congregations must relieve those among them in need (1 Tim. 5:16; Acts 6). Sometimes congregations sent help to assist other congregations to relieve those of their own number for whom they could not provide (Acts 11:27-30; 2 Cor. 8:1-15).

I receive several publications from the more conservative institutional men but do not recall seeing anything from any of them in opposition to church funded hospitals and clinics. Do they, or do they not, oppose this social gospelism?

Consider The Source

It is often difficult to know when to respond to critics and when to ignore them. Critics help keep us humble. Constant praise might be pleasant to hear but it also tends to inflate egos. It might be a good idea to consider what critics have to say about us. Somewhere in it all there just might be a kernel of truth which will help us. But all critics are not well-motivated. Sometimes they are on a vendetta, or have some personal axe to grind. Some critics hope to promote them-selves by pulling down another. In such cases it is a good idea to consider the advice given years ago by a wise woman to her son. She said, “Son, if you get kicked by a mule, just consider the source.”

Thanks To Guardian Of Truth Staff

My first year of work as a writer for Guardian of Truth is now behind me. It was difficult to make the decision to close down the work of Searching The Scriptures. Thanks to so many who continue to tell us how much it is missed. I am thankful for the opportunity to write in Guardian of Truth and to serve in other ways in the operation in this publishing business. The entire staff has been congenial and our work together has been most pleasant. I have especially enjoyed the association with Mike Willis. All of us who write for this paper, or work behind the scenes, get our share of criticism. I am sure some is well-intentioned and deserved. But these are men of honor who love the truth and are set to defend it. I do not agree with everything which every writer says on every subject any more than I did when I edited Searching The Scriptures. I do not always like the way some things are said by some writers. Mike would likely say the same. These are strange times in our nation and among the people of the Lord. Winds of change bring mixed emotions. All changes are not bad. But some signal a cutting loose from scriptural moorings. When to say what, and how much to say about it, or allow to be said about it, is not always easy to decide. It is my judgment, for whatever it is worth, that Mike Willis is doing a good job in charting a course for this paper. I look forward to continued efforts to teach the word of God through this medium.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 4, p. 3-4

By Mike Willis

Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? Do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? Do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect(Matt. 5:43-48).

A person’s conduct toward his enemies frequently reveals a dark side of his character. Some men stoop to lying, misrepresentation, mud-slinging, and other vicious activities commonly characterized as “character assassination” to destroy their enemies. On some occasions hatred for one’s enemies actually results in murder, as reading the daily newspaper commonly demonstrates. What was Jesus’ conduct toward his enemies? We read above what he preached, but how did he live?

1. Jesus held no grudges. He taught his disciples to forgive as often as a person repented and asked his forgiveness, even until 7 times 70 (Matt. 18:21-35). He emphasized that one’s own forgiveness is contingent on whether or not he is willing to forgive his brother. He did not allow his disciples to nourish grudges, resulting in bitterness of spirit, hatred, and spite. But more than mere teaching, Jesus demonstrated that he held no grudges when he prayed to the Father saying, “Forgive them; for they know not what they do” (Lk. 23:34). His conduct manifested the proper attitude one should hold toward his enemies. Jesus’ willingness to die on the cross, even for those who crucified him, demonstrates the active good will that love mandates.

2. Jesus bore injury without malice. Peter described Jesus’ attitude toward his enemies when he wrote, “For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously” (1 Pet. 2:21-23). Jesus did not walk around with a chip on his shoulder because of wrongs previously suffered. He never hated anyone, nor did he cruelly mistreat his enemies. He lived what he taught when he said that love “thinketh no evil” (i.e., does not keep an account, a running ledger of wrongs suffered, 1 Cor. 13:5).

3. Jesus was kind to his enemies. The spirit of the world is to be kind to one’s friends and do whatever evil one can to his enemies. Plato described Cyrus saying, “No one did more good to his friends and more harm to his enemies” (cited in Boles’ Outlines 57). There is no evidence that Jesus was ever unkind to his enemies.

As a matter of fact, one of the things that created enemies for him was the kindness he showed those to whom the religious world was generally unkind. The Pharisees condemned Jesus for eating with the publicans and well-known sinners of the world (see Luke 15:1-2). They were appalled that he would be kind to such people. Their criticism itself is a compliment to Jesus’ character. He did not reflect a holier-than-thou attitude toward those whose lives were consumed with sin. Like the Great Physician that he was, he stooped to heal the sick and broken-hearted, rather than contemptuously looking down on them.

He treated the Samaritan woman with kindness (John 4). The Samaritans were considered “dogs” by the Jews. Jesus’ kindness to this woman startled her. She said, “How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? For the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans” (John 4:9). Jesus was no enemy to the Samaritan woman.

4. Jesus was forgiving. I know that is true, for he has forgiven me. Paul was truly amazed at the grace of God manifested in Christ. He wrote, “For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom. 5:6-8).

Jesus’ attitude toward his enemies was shown when he prayed for those who crucified him to be forgiven of their sins. It is shown in his coming to this earth and dying on the cross for us  sinners who were alienated from God.

5. Jesus forbade revenge. In the same vein as Jesus’ words in the Sermon on the Mount, Paul wrote, “Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good” (Rom. 12:21). When men set out on a mission to retaliate for injuries (or imagined injuries) suffered, they are guilty of vindictiveness. Such actions proceed from a malevolent spirit. The spirit of malice is itself a work of the flesh (Rom. 1:29; Eph. 4:31).

The modern movies extol revenge in many of the Rambo type of movies. Gang wars are the result of a spirit of vengeance. Many inner city youths die in gang wars for the purpose of avenging oneself of his enemies. We may pour millions of dollars into the inner city problems but unless the spirit is cleansed of its sinful vengeance, the problems will not disappear.

Sometimes local churches are the battlefields of wounded pride. One man is committed to opposing anything promoted by another man with whom he has become crossed, regardless of how good an idea might be proposed by the man. This is just one way of “getting even.” It is a spirit born of the Devil and not of Christ.

Conclusion

Let us learn from the example of Jesus what our conduct toward our enemies should be. Let us not gloss over sin by excusing our hatred and bitterness of spirit because of some offense or supposed offense against us. Let us pray for our enemies and not nurture a grudge, hold spite, or excuse hatred.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 4, p. 2
February 17, 1994