Truth Magazine

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

By Bill Cavender

A few days ago a long-time friend and faithful brother in the Lord phoned to talk with me as he passed near Port Arthur in his work. He phoned to see how the family and I were doing, to tell me of his work in a new congregation begun about two years ago, and to ask my advice.

He lives in a small town, about 6,000 population, near a large metropolitan area, and for years he and his family drove into the city to worship, about 35-40 miles round trip. Desiring to begin a faithful, scriptural church in his own community (there was already a very liberal-modernistic church of Christ in the town), he consulted with several other families from different congregations who are within driving distance of his community, and they agreed together to begin a “faithful” church in that community. They set the date, met in the city hall, and began with thirty-seven people present and shortly grew in number to fifty or more, had a contribution of about $275.00 per week, bought a lot on which to build a meetinghouse, and the future looked bright. Two or three were baptized, several confessed neglect, and all prospects were for a good work, a good church, and steady growth.

Then it began. As the men took their turns preaching at the worship hours and teaching the classes, their opinions began to be expressed, resulting in disagreements, strife and strained relationships. One brother preached on the Lord supper, proving (?) how sinful it is to have and to take the Lords supper on Sunday evening, that this evening supper is “a second supper,” and that if it is after 6 p.m., it is in reality Monday because the Jewish days began at sunset. Brethren tried to teach him the truth but when they would not accept his opinion, he pronounced his anathemas upon them and left  to join himself to the liberal church in town where they also have the Lords supper on Sunday evening!

Another brother in the congregation preached on the sin-fulness of the Bible college (a college where the Bible is daily taught in classes) and how sinful it is for parents to permit and pay for their child to attend such a school. (One family in the church has a daughter in Florida College, Tam-pa, Florida.) Discussion with the brother by this family and other brethren availed not, and even though Florida College is not connected with any congregation, has never taken a contribution from a church and has no intention of doing so, the brother who preached his opinion still insists the college is sinful and this family is committing sin!

And two brethren strongly insist it is sinful to have a wed-ding or funeral in the meetinghouse, although they have no meetinghouse, no one has died, and no one has gotten married. And another young man has preached the past two holiday seasons how sinful it is for the other brethren to give gifts to loved ones, decorate a tree or have a family gathering during the holidays.

My friend concluded in about these words: We have thirty now meeting, hobbyism reigns, relations are strained, there is little love for each other, every opinion is a matter of faith to some, brethren are suspicious of each other, and associate very little with one another. We began so well but have got-ten crossed up over a bunch of opinions.

This is a sad, tragic story but not an isolated case by any means. Many conservative (?) churches are majoring in minors, pushing opinions as matters of faith and gospel, resulting in divided churches, alienated brethren and hindrances to spiritual growth. Many churches and preachers have little influence for good because of extremism. Brethren pride themselves on “standing for the truth” when the truth of God in the New Testament says nothing about the opinions they hold so dear as they make these opinions matters of faith and conscience within themselves. Then they bind these “matters of faith” on others, wanting their con-sciences to be everyone elses guide.

Hobbyism and opinionism have ever been the bane of the Lords work. The missionary society and mechanical instruments in worship hobbies led to division and strife over one hundred years ago, resulting in the Christian Church. In our generation, opinions and hobbies over institutions supported by churches and unscriptural centralized co-operation between churches has resulted in a new sect of liberal-modernistic churches, denominational in attitude and practice, but still calling themselves churches of Christ. On the other hand, many brethren and churches who opposed those innovations of liberalism, have gone or are going to opposite extremes, making all kinds of opinions matters of faith and doctrine. There are the old ones which have ever been with us, such as: sinful to use printed literature; sinful for women to teach a class of children of women; sinful to have Bible classes for different age groups; sinful to have a located preacher; sinful to cut a womans hair or to wear make-up; sinful for a woman to worship without an artificial covering on her head; sinful for a Christian to vote or have anything to do in or with civil government. Then some of the new ones going around: sinful to sing an invitation song; sinful to have Sunday night communion; sinful to have a wedding or funeral in a meetinghouse, sinful to give contribution by check; sinful to put the name “Church of Christ” outside the meetinhouse (it must be “Church of Christ Meets Here”); sinful to send a child to Florida College, etc.

When the world (and the church) so desperately needs good sound gospel preaching, godly living and strong, loving churches, we are giving them opinions, strife and ill-will. Some of us may just go to hell along with the world for such ungodliness if we do not repent.

(Reprinted from Messenger of Truth, Jan. 1975, published by Imhoff Ave. Church of Christ, Port Arthur, TX)

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 14 p. 12-13
July 15, 1993