Truth Magazine

By Norman E. Sewell

It isn’t a bit unusual to hear someone say to a child, “You’re just like your father,” and frequently this is said more in criticism than in praise. Neither is it unusual to hear someone say that a certain child is “a chip off the old block.” With both of these statements it isn’t normally the looks of the child that is being considered, but the actions which show him or her to be like their father or mother. It was with this in mind that Jesus talked with the Jews as recorded in John 8. He ended the discussion with them by saying, “You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do” On. 8:44). If the Jews were like their father the devil, who am I like? What do my actions tell about who I really act like? That is what the rest of this study is about.

As Jesus talked with these Jews he showed them, “You are from beneath; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world” On. 8:23). We learn in verse 30 that some of them believed in him and he said to them, “If you abide in my word, you are my disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” On. 8:31-32). But something about that statement made them reply to him, “We are Abraham’s descendants, and have never been in bondage to anyone. How can you say, you will be made free” (v. 33). Were they Abraham’s descendants? Yes indeed, they were. Had they been in bondage?

They were, in one sense, in bondage at that very time, being under the domination of the Roman Empire, and the Jewish nation had been under the domination of the Greeks, the Medo-Persians, and before that the Babylonians. But Jesus was more concerned with another kind of bondage for he said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave of sin” (v. 34). These Jews, just like many today, were indeed in bondage to sin. Even if every man quit sinning today he would still be in bondage to sin until through the Son he was made free from sin (vv. 35-36). Only the blood of Jesus can make us free from bondage to sin. At this point Jesus acknowledged that these Jews were physically the descendants of Abraham for he said, “I know that you are Abraham’s descendants, but you seek to kill me, because my word has no place in you. I speak what I have seen with my father, and you do what you have seen with your father” (Jn. 8:37-38). Then comes the real key to understanding Jesus’ teaching here. They replied to him, “Abraham is our father. Jesus said to them, If you were Abraham’s children, you would to the works of Abraham. But now you seek to kill me, a man who had told you the truth which I heard from God. Abraham did not do this” (vv. 39-40).

If they were Abraham’s children, why didn’t they act like the one they claimed as their father? Instead, as we noted earlier Jesus said to them, “You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it” On. 8:44). Though most would not admit it, when we practice sin we are the servants of sin (Rom. 6:16; 1 Jn. 3:8). No matter that we may have at one time been baptized for the forgiveness of our sin, when we continue to practice sin our actions show who our real father is, and it is not God.

In these same verses, after Jesus had challenged their claim that Abraham was their father the Jews said, “We were not born of fornication; we have one Father God” (v. 41). And to this Jesus replied, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I proceeded forth and came from God; nor have I come of myself, but he sent me” (Jn. 8:42). There are certain actions that show that we are of God. Jesus shows this in one way in the Sermon on the Mount when he told his disciples and the multitudes, “You have heard that it was said, You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust” (Matt. 5:43-45). Or as John records in 1 John 4, “If someone says, I love God, and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen? And this commandment we have from him: that he who loves God must love his brother also” (vv. 20-21).

Brethren, our actions tell on us. And while we, like the Jews there in John 8, may claim to have God as our Father, when we act like the devil it would indeed be appropriate for our Lord to say to us, “You are just like your father,” and in this case mean the devil. After whom do you pattern your life? Can friends and neighbors see your life (your good works) “and glorify your Father in heaven” (Matt. 5:16)? Are you just like your father?

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 14, p. 7
July 15, 1993

By Al Diestelkamp

While I am personally highly committed to a certain political philosophy, and though I have been known to vigorously express my political beliefs in private discussions, I do not believe “the pulpit” is the proper arena for partisan issues. However, as our society changes, political issues arise that also involve moral and/or doctrinal principles. When that happens it is necessary to teach vigorously and without compromise what God has revealed on the subject. It is difficult to do this without leaving the impression that you are “campaigning” for a particular candidate or political party.

We Americans have been blessed by the fact that we are living in a country that has been influenced by Gods word. Many of our countrymen are working hard to minimize, or possibly eliminate, that influence on our lives and our laws. In doing so, they are challenging and attacking many God-given decrees and principles of truth

Powerful forces are at work to convince people that sins which are an abomination to God should be allowed and even encouraged. Though it has become a political issue, I am not guilty of preaching politics when I teach that homosexuality is wrong. God, long ago, made it a moral issue by describing homosexuality as a “perversion” (Rom. 1:27, NIV). His “righteous judgment” declared that “those who practice such things are worthy of death,” and even warned against the temptation to “approve of them who practice them” (Rom. 1:32).

Another moral matter that has become an equally volatile political issue is the practice of killing unborn babies. Using the euphemism, “Pro-Choice,” advocates of abortion are merely ratifying the actions of men like Pharaoh and Herod who killed babies shortly after they were born. They simply didnt “do the job” before the babies were born. Had Planned Parenthood been on the job at the time, I sup-pose they would have offered Mary the option of removing the “fetus” in her womb. Even at the risk of being accused of preaching politics, the faithful gospel preacher must sound forth the truth that “hands that shed innocent blood” is listed as one of the things that the Lord hates (Prov. 6:17).

I am keenly aware of the danger, when preaching, of “stepping over the line” from moral and doctrinal matters into politics. I dont want to do that! I remember back in 1960, when John F. Kennedy was seeking the presidency, that some gospel preachers used the pulpit and church bulletins to try to persuade people to vote for his opponent. I recently re-read articles written by some of our brethren back then, and though I understand the concerns they had,

I dont believe it was sinful to vote for Kennedy. A vote for Kennedy was no more an endorsement of the errors of the Catholic faith than was a vote for Richard Nixon an endorsement of Quaker belief. However, the present situation is somewhat different. The issue then was whether or not Kennedys loyalty to the Roman Catholic faith would threaten our religious freedom. The issue today is whether by voting for a candidate we are lending endorsement to the evil that they propose.

Bottom line? Im not going to tell you how to vote, but I am going to tell you that someday you will give an account of your vote to God (Rom. 14:12). What will your answer be?

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 14 p. 8
July 15, 1993

By Paul J. Casebolt

During the more than eight years of his fleshly affliction, one of the most difficult things for David to deal with was the constant indebtedness which accompanied his heart transplant. And because of his desire and decision to return to gainful employment as soon as possible after the original surgery, the Social Security Ad-ministration later penalized him in the amount of over 59000 for the partial disability paid to him during his leave of absence from school teaching.

And as if this were not enough, once he qualified for total disability while awaiting his second transplant (which never materialized), the state (WV) disability penalized him more than $3000 when he qualified for federal disability. The bureaucratic confusion is so great (and so typical), that it is requiring the intervention of a senator and a representative to untangle the mess. But the penalties still have to be paid.

Lawyers and accountants are being consulted, which is the last thing a family needs on the heels of a funeral.

Im sorry that I cannot give an exact figure, or even an accurate estimate of what medical bills have yet to be paid, besides the other expenses already mentioned. At no time in the past eight years could the medical providers and the insurance companies (including state and federal social security agencies), tell the family what they owed. It takes at least three months for a claim to be filed, and three more months for a waiver claim to be filed (due to in-state/out of-state treatment).

Even after the final hospitalization, it will be at least six months before the family will have some idea of what is owed. Insurance will cover much of the expense, but we know for certain that the bills will come to several thou-sand dollars beside the ones already mentioned (Social Security and funeral-related expenses). And none of this covers the fact that the family will have no income to speak of other than Social Security benefits (once that is resolved). Sister Joy works one and one-half days per week teaching in a preschool, at minimal wages.

Over the years, several have helped the family with their medical and living expenses, and some (both individuals and congregations) are still helping. And most of this is coming from sources that know the family and their needs. But another of Davids main concerns was not his own health or even his impending death, but what would happen to his family after he was gone. It is not pleasant to be on the receiving end of benevolence, but for those of us who are able to “abound in this grace,” it is still “more blessed to give than to receive” (2 Cot. 8:1-7; Acts 20:35).

We do not mean for others to be burdened, and we expect no one to contribute blindly to an unknown cause. We can only assure you that those of us who are relatives will do our best to help, and that if the family should receive more than is needed, contributors will be notified or the contributions will be returned.

I make only this one request: please do not call the family and ask them what their financial needs are. As of now, they dont know, and neither does anyone else, and the ordeal of trying to explain this only adds to the scope of problems already “sufficient unto the day.” The family can use relief now, and any help can be sent to Mrs. David Joy, 313 S. 4th Ave., Paden City, WV 26159.

If I can clarify any questions, you can contact me at (304) 758-4228.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 14 p. 9
July 15, 1993

By Ken Marrs

The title of this article may strike sonic as presumptuous. it may appear to a Jew that I am suffering from such arrogance that 1 can believe my wisdom is qualified to weigh and conclude for all, flatters of the utmost importance – I assure you, I am no scholar, no selfstyled expert, nor do I labor under any delusion that I am unusually wise. The only wisdom I may demonstrate has come from Gods revelation, and admittedly, I do not always live with it or by it on a daily basis. What I have to say is neither profound nor original. Anyone with the ability to objectively observe the world and culture we live in will probably have already colic to a similar conclusion. That being said, I humbly submit my thoughts.

The Problem

I recognize that worldliness, materialism, secular humanism various doctrinal errors, etc. arc all formidable and seriously threatening forces that confront the Lords church. While priorities may be subjective and differ, 1 believe the #1 problem facing the church, and this nation for that “latter, is the inability and/or unwillingness of people to definitively state an action as being absolutely right or wrong. To set a standard of right and wrong that does not change is seen as unrealistic, and o suggest that man is obligated to adhere to it is seen as narrow-minded, judgmental, arrogant and almost unforgiveable. To say that something is absolutely right is necessarily to say there are other things that are absolutely wrong, and this is totally unacceptable in todays world. Consequently, moral resolution is the rule of the day. The only absolute is that there are no absolutes.

Modern Causes

How did we get to this point in our thinking? While this attitude may have surfaced periodically through history, 1 believe the propulsion of todays problem, is found in the sexual revolution of the 1960s in general, and in two literary works specifically. In 966, Dr. Joseph Fletcher published his book Situation Ethics. This work simply reflected the current and increasingly prevalent thoughts of a “New Morality. His premise as a situationist was basically that love was the only law that could dictate an action in any given situation. Notice:

The situationist follows a moral law or violates it according to loves need  only the commandment to lo9ve is categorically good. Everything else without exception, all laws and rules and principles and ideals and norms, are only contingent, only valid if they happen to serve love in any situation . . .

In other words, if it is done or said with love, anything and everything is acceptable.

Three years later, Thomas Harris published his immensely popular Im OK, Youre OK. Like Situation Ethics, Harris book reflected the growing permissiveness in society, and actually helped fuel it. Clearly, this was a major move towards universal self-justification.

The “icing on the cake” has come in this past decade via the “New Age” movement. If you are familiar with the various teachings (whose spectrum is as wide and as varied as the colors in the rainbow), you will no doubt be aware that one of the basic tenets is that every individual is God. As God, I determine what is right and wrong for me and my situation. As God, I and only I can rightly judge myself. I cannot judge you because you are God too. As a God, each individual is the exclusive Judge and ruler of his own “universe.” In other words, everyone “does his own thing.” Sound familiar? “In those days there was no King in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (Judg. 21:25). Truly, there is nothing new under the sun.

Early Effects

The effect this has had upon the Lords church can be seen in the institutional churches of Christ. In the 1960s we began to hear about the call to “preach the man, not the plan.” In other places it took the form of “Gospel vs. Doc-trine” (less law and more love). As more emphasis was being placed upon the life of Jesus and less emphasis upon his words, there came an inevitable break from the “book, chapter, and verse” mentality that so distinguished the restoration spirit (actually their ties to a scriptural anchor had been severed in the division over the “sponsoring church” controversy in the early 1950s, and though previously warned, it took a few- years of “drifting” before it was readily apparent to others that the true precedent that had been set).

Now, as our societal “wisdom” is increasingly extolling the virtues of “tolerance,” there is tremendous pressure to accept into their fellowship instrumental music and women leadership of the church, among other things. Many are already openly fellowshipping the “mainline Protestant denominations,” and when confronted with the scriptural prohibition of such, the cry is being voiced for a “New Hermeneutic.”

Waiting to take center stage next is homosexuality. There are some who have already “re-studied” this issue and have now come to the conclusion that promiscuous homosexuality is what is being prohibited in the Scriptures. As long as a “same-sex marriage” is monogamous, this is acceptable and pleasing to God. There can be no mistake about it, the modern preachers of the “new morality” (Phil Donahue, et al.) are having a major impact upon the religious community.

Closer To Home

Has this affected churches of Christ that have taken a stand against “institutionalism”? Alarmingly, there is more and more sympathy in the Lords church for being “tolerant” of peoples circumstances, though they are living openly in sin. Gospel preachers and elders are catching more “heat” because they have the arrogant nerve to stand up and proclaim someones action as sinful. We are being told that abortion, gambling, social drinking, and adulterous marriages, among other things, are matters of personal and private concern, and those who oppose such in other peoples lives are sowing discord and “out of line.”

We are told that to stand up and speak out against an individuals sin is “building fences.” The fear is that we will alienate the church from the people in the world. In reality, a “fence” has already been “built” by the sinner when he chooses to do that which the New Testament prohibits. The “fence” is not between the church and the world, it is between the sinner and the Saviour. To allow this separation to remain without warning or informing the sinner is indifference and pure selfishness on our part. In a rush to be acceptable and “socially correct,” we allow the sinner to remain unacceptable and “spiritually incorrect” with the Lord. Is this being a “light unto the world”?

A few years ago I had a conversation with a woman who had visited our congregation. She stated that it was “un-Christ-like” to condemn and individual. My response: Jesus always loved the individual, it was this very love that he called us to (Jn. 15:9-13). However, no one can read Matthew 15 and conclude that our Lord was “tolerant” of all peoples lives. Jesus indeed made moral judgments and condemned sinners. He called the Pharisees “hypocrites” (15 times), “vain worshippers,” and “blind leaders of the blind.” In Titus 1.12, 13 the apostle Paul agreed that Cretans were “liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.” Stephen told the Jews in Acts 7:51 they were stubborn resisters of the Holy Spirit.

The point is not that we have the right to be condescending and call people ugly names. We do not. The point is that our Lord and his early disciples never shrank from the task of confronting sin in the lives of anyone. If the teaching of the minister or the Bible teacher is not to delve into and address the daily lives of people, then what on earth does the word “walk” in Galatians 5:16-25 mean? If the evangelist is not to bring to light the sin of another, then what, pray tell, is 2 Timothy 4:2-5 talking about?

What brethren must realize is that when we stand for something, we automatically and necessarily stand against the things which are contrary (go back and read John 15:18-25). If we embrace the worlds message of “tolerance” as the true yardstick of love, how are we going to convince our neighbor that faith, repentance and baptism are compulsory? What reason could we give to a weekly observance of the Lords supper as opposed to a yearly observance, other than “we just prefer a weekly observance”?

Conclusion

Although we will continue to battle various issues within and without the body of Christ, I am convinced the force behind most of the present and coming controversies will be the devil-inspired, society-driven philosophy that no one can make any moral judgments. Nothing is absolute, everything is relative (“thats your interpretation”). “Tolerance” is the true mark of a loving disciple, and “subjectivism” is the final authority for each individual.

The next time you hear a defense of someones unscriptural teaching or practice, see if you do not recognize some of these sentiments. As we are now beginning to see in the institutional churches of Christ, the next step in this progression is from “tolerance” to “pluralism.” Can that too be far behind for us?

Footnotes

Fletcher, Joseph Situation Ethics, Philadelphia: The Westminster Press (1966), pp. 26, 31.

The term “New Hermeneutics” is somewhat ambiguous, but it is basically a set of interpretive rules arbitrarily composed by the student to allow any and every religious practice desired. For a further look into its nature and effect, I suggest you read The Cultural Church (Nashville: 20th Century Christian, 1992) by F. LaGard Smith.

“Pluralism” is the universal and gratuitous acceptance of all thoughts, beliefs, and actions, sensitivity and accommodation to diversity. The “pluralist” is proud of his ability to please as many as possible.

(Editors Note: This article should have been included in the previous issue of articles written by California preachers at the request of brother Ron Halbrook. Somehow this article became separated from the others. We apologize to brother Marrs for the error.) Gr

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 14 p. 6-7
July 15, 1993