Truth Magazine

By Harry R. Osborne

Over the past few months, my articles in our local newspaper column have discussed the degenerating morality evident in American culture today. As one steps down the slop of dissipation is taken, the next step seems easier and less perverse. When a society accepts promiscuity, it is not so hard to accept homosexuality. When it accepts that, other perverted behavior seem less horrifying.

That process has been underway in our society. One corrupt practice has led to the next until it seems difficult anymore for many in our world to see anything as wrong. Whether it be the popularization of promiscuity, homosexuality, sadomasochism, violence, or one of the other topics of smut, the road to debauchery in our time is frequently traveled.

No where is this fact more evident than in the sordid world of popular music stars. Rock and rap celebrities have been in the front of the procession of profligacy. Even their names show the trend. A recent survey of rock and rap publications showed “at least 13 bands named after the male genitals, 6 after female genitals, 4 after sperm, 8 after abortion and one after a vaginal infection.” An article by John Leo reviewing the survey also showed “at least 10 bands named for various sex acts, 8 including the F-word” and a host of other perverted examples (U.S. News & World Report, 19 March 90, p. 17).

Newsweek (20 May 91) commented on another example of the same problem. They noted, “MTV’s two favorite passions remain the environment and young women in exotic undergarments. After Madonna, no one is pushing the undergarment envelope as hard as Christina Amphlett of the Australian band Divinyls, whose hit, `I Touch Myself,’ raises pop vulgarity to a new low.” The article went on to say, “When it comes to smut, Amphlett is obsessed. . . .” Billboard magazine, a music trade standard, devoted an en-tire section in the publication to what they termed the trend towards open “autoeroticism” being displayed by Amphlett and Madonna. The magazine noted the display of such pro-vocative behavior on their album covers, in their videos, and during their concerts.

Without a doubt, the most noted example of open vulgarity is the popular music star, Madonna. Her stage name and early work seemed designed to satire that held sacred. Her attire popularized undergarments worn without anything else leaving little to the imagination. Her lyrics endorse one vulgar theme after another from promiscuity to homosexuality and other degeneracy.

Madonna is at the forefront of “gay and lesbian rights” activity especially in conjunction with the so-called “National Organization for Women” (NOW). Madonna is also a vocal advocate of “abortion rights,” the euphemistic term for the movement seeking the freedom to murder babies in the womb with impunity. In short, Madonna has sunk about as far into the gutter of ungodliness as possible and actively seeks others to join her.

In a 1990 article entitled “Rock, Roll and Raunch,” People magazine reviewed Madonna’s “Blond Ambition” tour. The stage performance described in the article sounded more like an X-rated peep show than a music concert. The most tame thing they say about her material is that “the star sings coyly of the joys of sexual spanking. . . .” The rest of the content cannot be reprinted here. Her movie “Truth or Dare” was reviewed by the same magazine and said to go further still into the quagmire of sleaze.

Having read of Madonna’s antics in the past, I did not think it possible for her conduct to get any more disgusting. I was wrong. A few weeks ago, the following appeared in an article entitled “Too Hot for Tokyo” in the Houston Chronicle (4 Sept. 92, p. 2A):

A Tokyo publishing house is so horrified by the photos of Madonna in her new book, Sex, that it has refused to publish it in Japan. Kadokawa, a major Japanese publisher, had agreed to pay $1 million for Japanese rights to Sex, but when the owner saw the red-hot pix (taken by fashion photographer Steven Meisel) the deal was kaput. The New York post reports that photos being considered for the book include one showing Madonna having sex with a dog. The editors at Warner Books are not as uncomfortable with the photos as their Japanese counterparts.

How far will it go before our society stands up and shouts, “enough!”? If Madonna’s actions have not sunk to the bottom of the gutter, I do not know what else it would take. Even a pagan society like Japan’s is caused to balk at such depravity. However, the “entertainment industry” in our country is ready to push the filth to make a buck, the Bible speaks of such depravity and its ungodly progression. Paul warned, “But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived” (2 Tim. 3:13). Never be misled, there is a degenerating influence of evil.

In the recent newspaper articles, I have written on the perversion of homosexuality (Rom. 1:26-28; 1 Cor. 6:9-10). Some of the readers have wondered aloud whether homosexuality was all that bad. I have been asked why I could not just leave the homosexuals alone and learn to accept their practice. I have been told that it is their right to choose an “alternate lifestyle.”

After reading the article about Madonna’s new book, I thought about how far these “open-minded” folks are willing to go. Would they leave Madonna and her dog alone and learn to accept their practice? Do Madonna and her dog have a right to choose this “alternate lifestyle”? Would they apply the same reasoning to an incestuous practice? A child molester? How far would they go? The same Bible that condemns a relationship with an animal or a child condemns such with one of the same sex. In fact, two places in the Bible associate the perversions by condemning them in ad-joining verses:

Lev. 18:22-23 — “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. Nor shall you mate with any beast, to defile yourself with it. Nor shall any woman stand before a beast to mate with it. It is perversion.”

Lev. 20:13-16 — “If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. If a man marries a woman and her mother, it is wickedness. They shall be burned with fire, both he and they, that there may be no wickedness among you. If a man mates with a beast, he shall surely be put to death, and you shall kill the beast. If a woman approaches any beast and mates with it, you shall kill the woman and the beast. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood is upon them.”

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 4, p. 21-22
February 18, 1993

By Jady W. Copeland

In our first two articles we set the stage for the remaining lessons by showing that, (1) The mission of Christ in the world and his purpose for us while we live here is spiritual in nature — namely, the salvation of souls, and (2) God is the master of our lives and controls all that the Christian does. We are the “servant of him whom we obey” (Rom. 6:16).

At the very root of being “possessed by our possessions” is the sin of covetousness, which is idolatry. In Colossians 3:5 Paul writes, “Therefore put to death your members which are on the earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry.” Idolatry is the worship of a false God, and the Hebrew word involved the idea of vanity or emptiness. An idol is nothing, except as one builds up a “god” in his own imagination. When Paul went to Athens, he found a “city given over to idols” (Acts 17:16). An idol is nothing; it deserves no worship from reasonable and sensible men. When Paul saw the idols he aught men of the true God, not an imagined one that had no power. He taught of the Creator. He spoke of One from whom all men of earth came; of One in whose image man is made.

Men make images and believe they represent the real “god” that has power — but in reality, there is nothing but the statue and the imagination in the idolator’s mind.

One of the Ten Commandments of the law was, “Thou shalt not covet” (Exod. 20:17). Covetousness is “to fix the desire upon” and it is right or wrong depending on the object of that desire. The desire to worship a god other than the Creator (Jehovah) and the exercise of that desire (worshipping the idol) is wrong.

One of the pre-requisites of discipleship is that “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other or else he will hold to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon” (Matt. 6:24). Covetousness has its roots in selfishness, and unlawful desire for something that will serve me. In the parable of the rich fool (Lk. 12:130, Jesus refused to be a civil judge regarding the settling of the brothers’ inheritance but he warned them about covteousness. I believe it is very significant when he said, “a man’s life does not consist in the abundance of the things he possesses” (v. 15). Man’s life here is honoring and serving God our Maker, not making money. Our economy, our way of life and ease of living have caused us, perhaps, to rationalize that we need much more than we really do, and having convinced ourselves that we need a certain standard of living the man will get two jobs (and neglect his duty to God), and the woman will leave her place as ruler of the household to join the work force because “we need the money to make a living” when in reality it is to maintain the standard of living to which she has been accustomed. But now note verse 21 in this parable: “So is he who lays up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God.” Note the contrast — treasure for himself — not God. Yes, I believe covetousness is rooted in selfishness.

While we will not try to enumerate all of them here, think of the sins that come out of covetousness. But Paul spells out one very plainly: “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows” (1 Tim. 6:10, NKJV). James MacKnight’s comments are noteworthy here: “I have spoken thus sharply against covetousness, because the love of money is the root of all the sinful passions and actions of men; as may be seen in the false teachers, some of whom eagerly desiring money, have wholly corrupted the doctrine of the gospel, and have pierced themselves all around with many sorrows, occasioned by the stings of conscience, and the fears of punishment” (MacKnight on the Epistles IV:261-262). A good question for each of us is, “Am I really satisfied with the material possessions which God has given me?” (1 Tim. 6:6)

Discontentment and anxiety over material things argues for little faith on one’s part. Let’s notice a few of the points Jesus made as recorded in Luke 12:22-34. First a simple command, “. . . do not worry about your life, what you will eat; nor about the body, what you will put on” (v. 22). To enforce this and make it understandable to all, he gave two illustrations with which the people were familiar. God said the ravens and the lilies are well taken care of by God (who would deny it?) and man is greater than either. Will not God take care of you? Why would one think otherwise? Jesus answers, “0 ye of little faith!” Does that concern you? It should concern us when we worry about the necessities when we know God takes care of the lilies and birds.

Then in verse 25 Jesus drives another point home: the utter uselessness of worrying about material things. It does no good. Now notice verse 26: “If you then are not able to do that thing which is least (add to your stature, JWC), why are you anxious for the rest?”

In conclusion (and getting back to the principle point), we either serve one god (mammon) or another (Jehovah, our Maker). We cannot serve both. If I place my trust in mammon, what does that say about my faith in God? Does it not say I have more faith in materialism than in the one who created material things? Jesus gave the answer to this problem as recorded by Mark in chapter 10:17-31 — please turn and read this in context. But let’s make this final point: The rich young man “went away grieved” (NKJ) because he was rich. Jesus then gets to the very heart of the matter when he said, “Children, how hard it is for those who trust in riches to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God” (vv. 24-25). Neither is possible — one who trusts in riches can’t go to heaven — he has the wrong god — any more than a camel can go through a needle’s eye. One cannot be saved serving mammon — he must serve God — the very Creator of the things we use to honor him.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 4, p. 18-19
February 18, 1993

By James Johnson

Bruce Hudson and James John-son met in Moscow on 18 August 1992 for what was a preaching experience they will long remember. Our hosts met us at the airport and made arrangements for the train trip to Kharkov. That was another experience that will not be soon forgotten, but we arrived in Kharkov and our local hosts were there to meet us. We spent the mornings studying Russian and the afternoons preaching, studying and writing.

Since we requested that our hosts not separate us they put us in an apartment by ourselves where we had to shop, cook and clean for our-selves. We managed this for about two weeks when they moved us into an apartment with our host who had a large apartment that we could share. Our Russian hosts arranged to print some copies of lesson one for a Bible correspondence course that we had obtained masters of from Steve Wallace. They also got us advertisements in the newspaper and on two local TV stations. We used these media as a means to advertise for a gospel meeting.

When the night of the meeting arrived, I was quite apprehensive as there was no church at all in Kharkov, and I did not know if any would attend. We were pleased that the Lord provided about 15 people at our first meeting. I spoke through an interpreter for about an hour and answered questions for about another hour. This indicated the great interest that prevails throughout the former Soviet Union about things religious. We had good questions throughout our meetings.

We met one who appeared to be either from an indigenous church of the Lord or left from the Russian restoration movement that was forced underground following the 1917 revolution. We did not find any-thing that we disagreed on regarding the work and organization of the church. There were several Baptists that attended who approved of our teaching on morals and doctrine until we got to baptism, and they choked on that. We had no baptisms, but there were three to five who attended the meeting who would have probably been baptized if we had been able to stay longer. We also got an appointment to speak at a school which was held during the day as a result of our speaking at the meeting.

The school at which we spoke on the last day of our stay in Kharkov was one of the high points of the meeting and one that I will long remember. It turned out that the “school” was one for junior KGB trainees. It was ironic that only the year before their senior compatriots were arresting people for importing Bibles and teaching non-state approved religion, and we spoke to them and handed out Bibles freely. Truly the Lord opened a door for us in that city.

Another point of great interest to me occurred at one of our numerous speaking engagements at local schools. In the particular classroom in which we spoke that afternoon, I noted with great irony that the Bible was being taught in the same class-room in which a bust of Lenin hung over the preacher’s head. I took a photo of this startling contrast and it is one that I will always treasure. It reminded me that Satan has made it impossible to even read the Bible in American public schools and there we were in a former “forbidden” city preaching the gospel in a former atheist classroom. It was an irony comparable to the French Bible Society printing the Bible in the very home of the atheist Voltaire less than 50 years after his death.

During our stay we also had the chance to speak with Christians in Kiev. There is a small but active group there which has good potential. We spoke briefly at the services there. We also spoke to men in Dniepropetrovsk regarding the gospel, and they expressed interest in hearing more. One man rode a bus 8 hours to come and speak with us for 2 hours and then took a bus 8 hours back.

When we left Kharkov a number of people met with us at the train station. Even though we had been there only five short weeks there were tears shed as we left because they knew there would be none who would be able to teach them the sincere gospel of Christ in our absence. There were six to ten people who were excellent prospects for the gospel that we taught in our brief visit there and we just barely scratched the surface. From what I could gather talking to brethren and denominational missionaries visiting there, the whole former Soviet Union is like that.

We spent two days in Moscow where we had a chance to meet briefly with Phil Morgan, Greg Gwin, John Smith, Steve Brewer, and Tom-my Porch who were there preaching and teaching during that time. They also experienced great success in this vast land, and their results are reported elsewhere.

The fields are indeed white unto harvest. Pray ye the Lord of harvest that he will send forth reapers unto the harvest.

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 4, p. 15
February 18, 1993

By Walton Weaver

The highest truth known by man is God. Man can learn of God’s “invisible attributes, his eternal power and divine nature” by observing “what has been made” (Rom. 1:20), but he cannot come to know some things about God apart from a special divine revelation. When Jesus said, “I am . . . the truth” (Jn. 14:6) he was claiming to be such a revelation. He continues in verse seven, “If you had known me, you would have known my Father also; from now on you know him, and have seen him.” Philip responded by saying, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us” (v. 8). Jesus then said to him, “Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father; how do you say, `Show us the Father’?” (v. 9)

How are we to understand this claim of Jesus, “I am the truth”?

Revealer and Redeemer

1. He reveals the Father. Jesus was not the Father; he was the “only begotten Son” (Jn. 3:16) of the Father. But to see him, he said, was to see the Father. How could this be? Hebrews 1:3 says the Son of God “is the radiance of his [the Father’s] glory and the exact representation of his nature” (NASB). The truth of God was being revealed and made know to men in the person of Christ. Jesus was the embodiment of truth. Because the Word had become flesh and now dwelt among men (Jn. 1:1-2,14), the Father was now being revealed through the Son. “No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God [later manuscripts read, `Son’ here, ww], who is in the bosom of the Father, he has explained Him” (Jn. 1:18). Philip had failed to understand that this was what the Son was doing. When he said, “Show us the Father,” evidently he wanted to see God with his natural eyes, perhaps by some supernatural presence. Jesus was a supernatural presence from the Father, but Philip had not seen him as yet in that way. If only he had “known” the Son, he would have known the Father also (v. 7).

Jesus had been in the midst of his disciples for months now. They had heard his words and seen his deeds (cf. Jn. 5:19-21). But their close association with him had not yet led them to discover the divine perfection of the Father in the Son. Why had they not seen? Prejudice and sin had likely hindered them so that they had not seen as clearly as they should. Jesus seems to think that Philip should have known him better. He reassures Philip, however, by saying, “From now on you know him, and have seen him” (v. 7). The new knowledge they were to have of the Father was so near and so certain that he speaks of it as already present. Future events, such as the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, in addition to the great occasion of Pentecost, would have a tremendous impact upon the minds of his disciples. With their new spiritual insight they would have a much better understanding of both the Father and the Son. Then they will see that the Son was revealing the Father to them.

2. He is redeemer. Any careful student of Scripture knows that Jesus is more than just “a mighty act of God in history” who came to reveal the divine attributes of the Father, such as his holiness, goodness, compassion, etc. The central message in the New Testament is that Jesus of Nazareth is the Savior of men. He came “to seek and to save that which was lost” (Lk. 19:10). He did not come merely to bring God to men (by revealing his divine attributes), but to bring men to God by opening up “the way” to the Father. He was “Immanuel, which translated means, `God with us”‘ (Matt. 1:23), and as the very representation of the Father he did reveal and make known the Father to us. But more than this, as the God-man he would “save his people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21). The fact that he was “the truth” has an important bearing upon his claim to be the Savior of the 7:24-27). His words are “spirit, and are life” (Jn. 6:63), and by them men shall be judged in the last day (Jn. 12:48).

Full and Final Truth

The full truth. He who is “the truth,” and is “full of grace and truth” (Jn. 1:14), is full and complete truth. No one else “among us” could have promised to send the Helper, or the Holy Spirit, to guide the apostles “into all the truth” (Jn. 14:26; 15:26 16:13). Only Jesus who is “the truth” himself could have made such a promise. This “all truth” would not only be the truth, but it would be “the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”! In Jesus “are hid-den all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Col. 2:3); “in him all the fullness of the Deity dwells in bodily form, and in him we have been made complete, and he is the head over all rule and authority” (Col. 2:9-10). It is in him that we gain “a true knowledge of God’s mystery, that is, Christ himself” (Col. 2:2). Our assurance that we have the full truth rests in this fact: ” . . . his power has granted unto us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and excellence” (2 Pet. 1:3).

The final truth. The fact that Jesus is the truth is proof that God has no “latter day revelations.” God is not still making known truth independently of that “all truth” into which the apostles were guided in the first century. This “body of truth,” often called “the faith” in an objective sense, has been “once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). “That which is written” is our sole authority in religion, and we are not permitted to add to it, or go beyond it, nor are we allowed to take away from it (1 Cor. 4:6; 2 Jn. 9; Rev. 22:18-20). Scripture “cannot be broken” (Jn. 10:35) because what has been written is “the commandment of the Lord” (1 Cor. 14:39).

Guardian of Truth XXXVII: 4, p. 6
February 18, 1993