Truth Magazine

By Harry Osborne

Our country is undergoing another experiment of shifting the burden of solving social ills onto the government and its institutions. This is part of the constant cycle in which people grasp at the promises made that someone else can solve their problems and meet their responsibilities. Much the same type of promises were made to pass the so-called “Great Society” programs of the 1960s. Since poverty, crime and a variety of social ills have increased in the presence of those programs, it is obvious that they have not produced the “Great Society” promised.

In our time, we hear proposals for more government programs promising relief from our present problems. Whether or not the programs are enacted is a political issue which I have no interest in discussing here, but we may note that the basic problems we face in our society are not due to the absence of a governmental program. Murder, theft, immorality, hatred, dishonesty and other forms of ungodliness are not due to the absence of governmental programs, but are due to the wrong actions of individuals. Thus, they will not be solved by instituting a program, but by the proper actions of the individuals responsible.

A parallel can be drawn between the above and the way our institutional brethren seek to solve various ills around us. It seems that these brethren think the way to solve every problem is to set up an institution funded by appeals to various churches and depend upon the institution to do the work for them. This absolves them of personal responsibility to dirty their hands in the work since they did their part by giving into the treasury of the church which then funded the work to be done by the institution setup to solve the problem.

Our liberal brethren consistently justify such efforts by perverting passages which charge individuals with a given work into mandates for a church-funded institution to meet the charge. Lest some think this charge too harsh and our liberal brethren to have been misrepresented, let us look at a few examples of their institutional mind set and the means used to justify their treasured institutions.

Institutionalizing Matthew 25

The following was taken from an article by Larry Frank in the Christ’s Prison Fellowship newsletter of February 1990 appealing for support of the program:

We are frequently asked why and how we go about getting things done in our prison ministry. Considering that we are no doubt the low budget leader of the major ministries in Texas prisons, the question generated a desire to define some of the programs that occur in carrying out the ministry.

First, we believe as members of the body of Christ that we are encouraged by the Word of God to support others who use their individual gifts and talents in serving our Lord, “… for then, we will all go away into eternal life” (Matt. 25:46, NIV). Then the King will say to those on his right hand, “Come, 0 blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink (impact church ministry); I was a stranger and you welcomed me (Homeless-visitor ministry); I was naked and you clothed me (benevolence ministry); I was sick and you visited me (Medical Center Chaplaincy-Hospital ministry); I was in prison and you came to me (Christ’s Prison Fellowship-Prison ministry)” (Matt. 25:34-36, NIV).

Second, Texas State policy and philosophy emanate from Brother Whitt’s “Christ’s Prison Fellowship” and in the Southern Region is under the oversight of the Elders of the Eldridge Road church of Christ in Sugar Land. We implement policy and programs through direct contact with prison officials, chaplains, inmates and families, and the best network of dedicated volunteers that one could expect or hope for (emphases his  HRO).

The context of Matthew 25 concerns the time when the sheep and goats will be separated in the final judgment. According to Mr. Frank, the Lord’s criteria for that separation will be whether local churches created enough bureaucratic institutions and sponsoring churches to fund others to do the work for them. If such were the case, I trust that our brother and those of like mind would have no fear of judgment, for they have created enough to make even Washington jealous.

However, Jesus will not judge me based upon whether I put a check into the plate to help fund a “Church of Christ Chaplain” program to visit the sick. He will judge me on the basis of what I did to personally meet the needs of the sick as I had opportunity. My responsibility to go to those in prison is not directed by the “policy and philosophy” emanating from Mr. Whitt’s institution, nor is it met by laying by in store on the first day of the week so that the local church here may surrender a part of its autonomous work to “the oversight of the Elders of the Eldridge Road church of Christ in Sugar Land.”

If there has ever been a clear statement of the institutional mentality, the above is it! Such thinking betrays the concept that one can fulfill his individual responsibility by proxy to the church and the church can fulfill its responsibility by proxy to an institution. While this thinking is a trademark of liberalism, it is absolutely foreign to the New Testament.

The need presented in Matthew 25:1-11 was not for a “Church of Christ Lamp Maintenance Program” under the oversight of the Elders of the Jerusalem church to facilitate the unlawful centralization of local churches and keep the lamps of foolish virgins shining worldwide. The need was for those foolish virgins to do what was their responsibility to do. In Matthew 25:14-30, Christ does not propose a “Church of Christ Investment Institution” to solve the problem of slothful servants who stuff their masters’ money in holes. He notes the individual responsibility of the one talent servant to do that which was his responsibility to do.

Institutionalizing James 1:27

A notice was sent to “Churches of Christ, Greater Houston Area” a few days ago by the First Colony Church of Christ regarding “Preachers’ Luncheon, Month of October, 1993.” In the notice, Homer O. Gainer, “Program Chairman,” informs as follows:

On each Tuesday during the month of October, 1993 we will be privileged to hear speakers who are closely associated with childcare operations. The teaching of James 1:27 remains relevant.

The speakers are: Benny Glover (Boles Home), Gene Boone (Foster Home), Dempsey Simpson (Medina Home), Ed Moore (Sunny Glen Children’s Home).

The first thing that interested me about this announcement was the fact that our liberal brethren no longer go through the charade of calling their institutions “orphan homes.” They correctly call them “childcare operations.” The named institutions have for years been filled with children who have fathers and mothers and cannot properly be called “orphans.” They are institutions which cannot and will not place children in the “home” authorized by God in Genesis 2 for the raising of children.

The second thing which caught my attention in the ad was the abuse of James 1:27 which says, “Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.” Since the children in the above institutions are not orphans, how are they justified in this passage? Obviously, they are not!

Who is given this charge in the text? The same man who is charged to bridle his tongue in verse 26 and to “keep oneself unspotted from the world” in verse 27 is also charged “to visit orphans and widows in their trouble.” Does a local church have a tongue in the middle aisle that needs to be bridled? Does a church-funded institution have one? No, but an individual does.

My individual charge to bridle my tongue cannot be met by the local church and its programs, whether lawful or unlawful. Neither can that responsibility be met by an institution. I must take responsibility for my tongue by acting in ways to control it. Only then have I met the charge of this passage. My individual responsibility to help the orphans cannot be passed off to the local church or an institution either.

The liberals’ attempt to paint us as heartless orphan haters is a lie! The guilt actually rests with their efforts to escape the demands of individual responsibility and place it upon someone else while leaving themselves with only the need to write a check and put it in the plate on Sunday.

Institutionalize It All

A few years ago, I received a brochure appealing for churches of Christ to help fund the Nigerian Christian Hospital, described as a “benevolent work supplementary to the extensive evangelistic ministries” in Nigeria. After the bold heading, “Is Medical Missions Scripturally Sound?,” the appeal attempted to justify the work biblically. It claimed such works to be authorized upon the basis of the good Samaritan (Luk. 10), avoidance of the Pharisee’s neglecting the “weightier matters of the law” (Matt. 23:23), and the customary misuse of Matthew 25 discussed earlier. It then added the following for good measure:

Providing medical care is pure religion (James 1:27). It shows the love of God (1 John 3:17). It fulfills the “law of Christ” (Gal. 6:2). It changes our words into deeds (1 John 3:18).

NCH is serving about 100,000 people who would have no other modem medical facility if we were not there. In an effort to preach Christ to them, we cannot say “go, be warmed and filled” (Jas. 2:16), without attempting to help them.

Yes! It is scriptural, like feeding the hungry and caring for the orphans and widows.

Somewhere in the passages listed, I missed the part about the “Church of Christ Hospital” to fulfill the commands. An examination of the passages shows that they actually charge individual Christians with various responsibilities. None of them has the slightest connection with providing medical services in the name of evangelism!

With that type of exegesis, I wonder if these brethren will build new wings onto their church hospital and justify them with equally inventive uses of Scripture. How about building an aerobics workout center so that the church can fulfill the command to “exercise thyself” (1 Tim. 4:7)? They can ignore the fact that Timothy was the one commanded and that the exercise involved was “unto godliness” rather than physical fitness. How about a heart surgery wing? After all, Jesus wanted to correct it when he saw those whose “heart is waxed gross” (Matt. 13:15) or those with “hardness of heart” (Mk. 16:14). If they charged the same rate as American hospitals, it would be more scriptural  for they could honestly say in the consultation before surgery, “Where thy treasure is, there will thy heart be also” (Matt. 6:21). Space prohibits discussion of other inventive ways to justify further expansion.

Conclusion

Though the degree of the brazen misuse of Scripture has changed as our liberal brethren sought to justify their unauthorized institutions, the fact remains that they were initiated by misusing and abusing Scripture. It has gotten to the point now that even some of our liberal brethren are increasingly uncomfortable with the proliferation of institutions among them. The arrival of the “Bread for the Hungry World” program jointly funded by “churches of Christ” and Christian churches has caused this element to react in horror. They do not like the ultimate end of institutionalism, but they still want to hold on to the “innocent, little orphan homes.” It is about time that they wake up and realize that their institutions are neither for “orphans,” nor are they “innocent.” As they awake to this realization, let us be ready to help teach them the nature of individual responsibility and call them to join in the true practice of pure and undefiled religion.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 2, p. 13-15
January 20, 1994

By Larry Ray Halley

That “we preach too much doctrine” is one of the charges against the church. This criticism is as old as the doctrine of the Lord itself. “Ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine” (Acts 5:28). The Jews did not like it in the first century, and our critics do not like it today. Truly, “there is nothing new under the sun.”

The “doctrine of Christ” is the teaching of Christ (2 Jn. 9; Matt. 28:20). “The doctrine of the Pharisees” and “the doctrine of the Nicolaitans” was the teaching of those sects (Matt. 16:12; Rev. 2:15). Some say that “the doctrine of Christ” is simply teaching about Jesus, but “the doctrine of the Pharisees” was not “about” that group itself, but, rather, the teaching of the Pharisees, i.e., what they taught. Hence, “the doctrine of Christ” is the word of Christ, the “commandment” of Christ (Jn. 7:16; 12:48, 49; Col. 3:16).

Some have said that “we over emphasize doctrine in our preaching.” What doctrine (name one) is overly emphasized? They tell us that we need to give more stress to “spirituality.” It has been said that “Baptists have more spirituality in their little finger than we (Christians) have in our entire body.” The remedy for this is “less emphasis on doctrine.” “We are cold, formal, ritualistic. There is no joy in our service, but just look at the denominational people; they may not have all of our right answers, but they have the spirit, the joy, that we lack.”

Chart #6 (see next page) illustrates the complaint and the truth.

Is there “too much emphasis on doctrine”? (Our critics have a doctrine. It is this: We over emphasize doctrine. That is their doctrine. Do they over emphasize their doctrine, or are we the only ones guilty of doing so?) Let us note the Bible’s emphasis.

1. Romans 6:17, 18  “But God be thanked that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.” Shall we limit the amount of “doctrine” that is to be “delivered” to lost sinners? If so, who is able to tell us the correct dosage? This “form of doctrine” included baptism “into Christ” (Rom. 6:3, 4). It was made known “for obedience to the, faith among all nations” (Rom. 1:5). Shall we hold back the flow of such “doctrine” lest it flood the hearts of men with the knowledge of God?

2. Romans 16:17  “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.” Observe that “the doctrine” was “learned”; therefore, it had been taught. Does this passage indicate the importance of doctrine? Does it diminish doctrinal concerns? How serious are “divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine”? What does the text indicate?

3. 1 Timothy 1:3  “As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine.” Paul, why did you tell Timothy to remain at Ephesus? I left him at Ephesus that he might command some that they teach “no other doctrine.” Was doctrine important at Ephesus but not at Houston, Memphis, Indianapolis, Louisville or Los Angeles? Should preachers today “charge some that they teach no other doctrine” ? Well, should they? “If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine” (1 Tim. 4:6). Would Timothy have been “a good minister . . . nourished up in … good doctrine” if he had not put the brethren “in remembrance” of the doctrine of Christ in contrast to various departures “from the faith” (1 Tim. 4:1-3,13,16)?

4. 1 Timothy 4:16  “Take heed unto thyself, and unto thy doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.” Should Timothy have lessened the emphasis that he gave in taking heed unto himself? Should he have neglected to take heed unto himself? No, of course not. Should he have softened the emphasis that he gave unto the doctrine? “Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine” (1 Tim. 4:13). If Timothy should restrict time given to teaching matters of doctrine, should he also take time away from “reading”? Does this passage indicate that “the doctrine” is important or unimportant?

5. Titus 2:1  “But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine.” This “sound doctrine” was “his (God’s) word” (Titus 1:3); it was “the faithful word” (Titus 1:9), “the truth” (Titus 1:14). “Sound doctrine” is “the glorious gospel” (1 Tim. 1:10,11). Shall we de-emphasize “the glorious gospel of the blessed God”? Who will do it?

The teaching of “sound doctrine” includes teaching men how to live, how to conduct themselves (Titus 2). “The things which befit sound doctrine” are the same things that “becometh the gospel of Christ” (Titus 2:1; Phil. 1:27). Our lives reflect, either positively or negatively, upon the doctrine, the gospel of Christ  “The aged women . . . may teach the young women . . . that the word of God be not blasphemed. . . . Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters … that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior in all things” (Titus 2:3-5, 10, 11).

But what if men do not approve of such preaching? What if they seek to have such matters removed? What if they oppose the speaking of “the things which become sound doctrine”? What shall we do? “These things (“the things which become sound doctrine”LRH) speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee” (Titus 2:15). If men “despise thee,” if men oppose your unrelenting emphasis on “sound doctrine,” you will either have to please men or please God. The choice is yours.

6. 2 Timothy 4:2-4  “Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season, reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when men will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own

“TOO MUCH EMPHASIS ON DOCTRINE”

1 Bible Emphasis – Rom. 16:17; 1 Tim. 1:3; 4:16; Titus 2:1; 2 Tim. 4:2-4; 2 Jn. 9; Jas. 5:19, 20

2 1 Tim. 6:3, 4 If anyone advocates a different doctrine, and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, he is conceited and understands nothing;

3 Do Critics Emphasize Their “Doctrine” That We Emphasize Doctrine?

4 Make Critic Cite A Specific Doctrine That

Is Over Emphasized

lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.” Does “in season, out of season . . . with all longsuffering and doctrine,” mean that we should not “go overboard” on doctrine or teaching?

The fact is that there are modern day complainers who have “itching ears.” They say, “Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things” (Isa. 30:10). They want their ears to be tickled because their spirits have been pickled by the “cares of this world.” They have been enamored by the wisdom of this world. They have a latent sympathy for the doctrines and commandments of men. They would rather suppress the truth of God than to express it, especially if it exposes their sins or offends their friends in error. They will not admit it to you, of course, but they do not like the pinch and punch of sound doctrine. It condemns their manner of life and combats the doctrines of denominationalism which they secretly love and espouse. Romans 1:18 tells us that “the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all. . . who hold (hinder or suppress) the truth in unrighteousness.”

7. 2 John 9  “Whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.” Shall we slow down the proclamation of that which causes men to have “both the Father and the Son”? How important is it to abide and continue “in the doctrine of Christ” ? Can one have God if he does not obey and walk in the doctrine of Christ? What does the text teach?

The first disciples “continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine” (Acts 2:42). The “apostles’ doctrine” was “the doctrine of Christ” (Lk. 10:16; 1 Cor. 14:37). Will people continue “steadfastly” in that which we cease to emphasize? It is hard to believe that there are those among us who do not want “the doctrine of Christ” to be impressed on the hearts of men. Some do not like the “doctrine of Christ” regarding divorce and remarriage (Matt. 19:9). Some do not like the “doctrine of Christ” which teaches “modest apparel” (1 Tim. 2:9). Some do not like the “doctrine of Christ” which opposes social drinking (1 Pet. 4:3,4).

Again, they will not tell you that, but they will quietly try to turn you against such preaching because it is “so negative” and “so out of touch with today’s society.” They will seek to convince you that “constant harping” on “how right we are, and how wrong they are” is only a recipe for “disaster.” They will cite a case of someone who was made angry by a “brow beating, doctrinal sermon.” They will tell you that the man was “run off ” by preaching that “attacked his denomination.” Now, they will reassure you that they believe the truth “just like you do,” but they wonder out loud if you do not agree with them that there must be a better way to reach people than by “beating them over the head every time they attend one of our services.” While you are trying to sort out what they have said, you will be told that they do not believe in compromising the truth; oh, no, not that; they just think there should be a “little more balance in our preaching.” Who opposes a “balanced diet” of preaching? No one!

Brethren, their goal is to subvert the doctrine of Christ. They are paving the way for the introduction of their unscriptural doctrines of men. They want a congregation that accepts those who are living in adultery. They want a congregation that will accept them as they engage in social drinking. Some of them want a congregation that will accept a Baptist with his Baptist baptism and extend to him “the right hand of fellowship” with a wink and a smile. Some of them want “humming” in addition to “singing” in worship  yes, humming! They do not oppose the Lord’s day contribution, but they believe it is scriptural to take up a collection on Wednesday night, too. There are even those who are “wrestling” with the idea that one may be saved by faith, before and without water baptism. “If anyone advocates a different doctrine, and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, he is conceited and understands nothing” (1 Tim. 6:3,4). They are all members of the church. Their influence is spreading, “and their word will eat as doth” cancerous gangrene (2 Tim. 2:17).

They are not ready to tell you what they really believe. You would be repulsed if you knew it. So, for now, they will bring you along slowly. They will say all the right things. They will express their reservations with such love and concern that you could never doubt their sincerity and good will. “By their smooth and fair speech they beguile the hearts of the innocent” (Rom. 16:18  ASV). “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ” (Col. 2:8). “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: 2, p. 9-11
January 20, 1994

By Ron Halbrook

“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. … So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them” (Gen. 1:1,27). “In the beginning there was no God, but after a while man imagined and invented God.” Which account is accurate?

A former nun who says man created God is none too smart. Karen Armstrong recently wrote A History of God which claims that God, in the words of a reviewer, “is a product of humankind’s creative imagination” (Time Magazine, 27 September 1993, pp. 77-78). Such nonsense is the product of Armstrong’s not so creative imagination. Solomon wrote about such vain imaginations when he said, “God hath made man upright; but they have sought many inventions” (Eccl. 7:29).

There is no history of God because he dwells in eternity, not in the limitations of time. God rules over history (Acts 17:26). History is the story of man living on earth in the presence of God, at times imagining that God is imaginary.

The charge that man created God banishes man to utter darkness about God, himself, and proper conduct. According to Armstrong’s reviewer, she grants that “the one and only God” found in the Bible gives “meaning and value” to human life and establishes “the dignity of the individual.” Truly, man’s whole meaning and purpose in life is grounded in the reality that he was created by God and in God’s image, and was told by God, “Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man”

(Eccl. 12:13). Man’s meaning, value, and dignity are reduced by Armstrong to the byproduct of his own imagination. In other words, when God is dead, man is dead.

Armstrong is a monotheist who prays “with Jews and Muslims.” Why worship the product of one’s own imagination? How does this differ from worshipping oneself? If there is no God, then man is the highest order of creation and thus assumes the place of God. Satan told Eve, “Ye shall be as gods,” and we are still suffering the consequences (Gen. 3:5). Past generations “who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator,” turned to rampant immorality, violence, and ungodly conduct of every kind (Rom. 1:18-32).

To reveal and confirm his existence, God autographed the universe. “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handiwork” (Ps. 19:1-6). The intricate design and harmonious functioning of the universe remind us of its Creator and Sustainer. “For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God” (Heb. 3:4).

God revealed and confirmed his will to man in the Bible. He left his autograph upon its pages.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

Like the universe, the Bible is made up of many parts which function in perfect harmony to accomplish God’s purpose. Its sixty-six books were written by forty authors over a period of fifteen hundred years and it tells the story of God’s plan to redeem man from sin through His Son Jesus Christ (Jn. 20:30-31). Of all books, it alone reveals man’s origin, nature, duty, happiness, and destiny as ordained by God. The reality of God, the deity of Jesus Christ, and the divine inspiration of the Bible are con-firmed by its fulfilled prophecies and other miracles recorded upon its pages.

“The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God” (Ps. 14:1). Such claims are the result of the deceitfulness of sin, and of men turning from God. Thank God, we can turn back to God and be forgiven of our sins through the blood of his Son. We receive God’s grace when we believe the gospel, repent of our sins, confess Christ as his Son, and are baptized in water for the remission of our sins (Jn. 3:16; Rom. 10:10; Acts 2:38). We cannot “imagine” our sins away by imagining that man created God. “When they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened” (Rom. 1:21). GI

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 1, p. 15
January 6, 1994

By Max Tice

Dear Mr. Stossel,

I wish, first of all, to commend 20/ 20 for its excellent investigative re-porting on so many topics of great interest to the general public. There are very few television programs about which many positive statements can be made. It is, therefore, refreshing to be able to offer such high commendation to yours. Please keep up the good work.

Since I do hold the staff at 20/20 with high regard, I regret that my first correspondence with you has been elicited by a report with which I must take exception. Your effort to explore the effect of spanking children is appreciated, but I believe that it is also incomplete. As you recall, several passages from the Bible which endorse corporal punishment were flashed across the screen. These statements were then contrasted with the views of modern “experts” on the topic, and the Bible was pronounced an outdated and barbaric guide on how to raise children properly.

As a minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ and a student of child-hood development, I am compelled to take issue with this conclusion. In the interest of fairness, I am asking that another report on the subject be presented which gives consideration to an opposing view. The fact that such a presentation is needed is what I wish to show in the comments which follow.

I will begin by reinforcing the Bible’s commitment to the propriety of spanking children. As already noted by 20/20’s report, the book of Proverbs makes the following statements:

He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes (Prov.13:24).

Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him (Prov. 22:15).

Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell (Prov. 23:13,14).

Since the term “beat” (selected by the translators of the King James Bible) evokes images of cold-hearted brutality, it is important to recognize that such an idea is not at all inherent in the term. Neither the intensity nor the duration of the act is conveyed. The Hebrew word from which this has been translated simply means “to strike.” Neither is there any implication of a hostile disposition within the one who ad-ministers this discipline. The verses clearly show that the intent of the action is to help, not harm the child. Thus, no sanction is given to the savage behavior of those who mercilessly abuse their children.

As a matter of fact, those who study the Bible realize that it exalts children as special gifts from God worthy of deep respect. See Psalm 127:3-5 and Proverbs 17:6. God’s care for children is further demonstrated in his compassion for orphans. He is called the “father of the fatherless” (Psa. 68:5) and promises to avenge those who oppress them (Exod. 22:23,24). Indeed, it is in the interest of preventing child abuse that mothers are told to love their children (Tit. 2:4), and fathers are warned against provoking their children to wrath (Eph. 6:4; Col. 3:21).

Now, at this point, one might say: “This is all very nice, but the Bible is still dead wrong in its approval of spanking children. It disagrees with the experts who have clearly proved that this form of punishment only encourages violent behavior.” Thus, we come to the question: Who is right? Are modern psychologists who oppose spanking right, or is the Bible right?

First of all, it should be pointed out that not every psychologist agrees with the anti-spanking campaign. It is unfortunate that this fact was never mentioned in 20/20’s report. Instead, the impression was left that all of the experts agree on the subject.

Secondly, thoughtful consideration should be given to the evidence that spanking is, in itself, harmful. How did the “experts” reach this verdict? The men who appeared in 20/20’s presentation failed to cite any case studies or any particular details concerning the procedure that was followed in such studies. Instead, a dogmatic assertion was offered as fact.

The truth is that causation of human behavior is not easily established. A fundamental flaw often ignored in such evaluations is that correlation is not causation. In other words, if a study of a certain population were to yield a positive correlation between spankings and aggressive behavior, this would not demonstrate that the spankings caused the aggressive behavior. For example, a strong correlation can be shown in some populations between race and the crime rate. Shall we conclude that a certain skin pigmentation causes crime? Of course not! Instead, most people readily understand that other variables play a role in delinquent behavior.

In the case of spanking children one cannot prove that this form of discipline encourages violence unless he can first isolate the act of spanking from all other potential influences. Specifically, it would be necessary to exclude the possible effect of parental hostility, modeling of aggression by a host of environmental figures, displays of partiality and other unfair attitudes on the part of parents, failure to clarify the purpose of the punishment, lack of general affection, etc. Unless these and other factors are taken into consideration, the claims of “experts” who attack the act of spanking cannot be taken seriously.

As a matter of fact, in a study involving 157 students at a midwestern university in 1989, variables similar to the ones just mentioned were taken into consideration while researching the effects of spanking. Although aggressive behavior was not specifically targeted, the general impact of corporal punishment upon self-esteem and other personality features was explored. The researchers concluded that “how parents are spanking their children appears to be more important than whether or how often spanking is employed” (Psychological Reports, “Relations of Spanking and Other Parenting Characteristics to Self-Esteem and Perceived Fairness of Parental Discipline,” by Robert Larzelere, Michael Klein, Walter Schumm, Samuel Alibrande, Jr., 1989, 64, 1140-1142).

Since I consider 20/20’s report to be a direct assault upon the reliability of the Bible (whether intended as such or not), I ask that equal time be given to alternative views. There are competent psychologists and other professionals capable of defending spanking as a positive means of discipline. Will you allow their voices to be heard?

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 2, p. 1
January 20, 1994