Truth Magazine

By Anonymous

A few years ago a preacher’s daughter won the Miss Universe bathing beauty contest. A newspaper reporter asked the girls’ mother concerning the bathing suit competition, “How do you reconcile your daughter’s being in the bathing suit contest with the religion which her father preaches?” The mother looked him straight in the eye and said, “I think that anyone who would think wrong simply has a wicked mind.”

I would not attempt for a minute to justify the lustful look, but the men are certainly not getting any help from women these days! In fact, many of the clothes are designed and worn to make men look! If you don’t believe me, just look at the descriptive phrases and adjectives used for women’s fashions today in the advertisements of your local newspaper. There’s where the story is told in plain language. It leaves no room for doubt or quibbles.

Mary Quant, London fashion designer, who designed and introduced the miniskirt in 1964, is on record as having said, “It is designed to seduce a man” (believe it or not, it didn’t take me long to figure that out). Yet, it would appear that most of the women’s fashions today are designed for similar purposes – if we can believe the advertisements!

The following phrases are taken from one issue of Butterick Patterns’ Fashion News (several years ago).

“Season of Exposure,” “The Looks Are Cool and Vampish,” “These New Skin-Showing Dresses,” “Let’s You Show Off a Long Stretch of Leg,” “Fun and Flirty,” “New Sensuous Dresses, ” ” Snug on Top, ” “New Bare Dresses, ” “Bathing Suits Are Bitsy,” Suits Are Bitsy,” “A Bit of Bra Top,” “Bare and Scooped Down to the Waist,” “Baring the Shoulders and a Lot of Back,” “Torsos Are Super Close to the Body,” “Long Lengths of Leg Dart Out From Under Short Shorts,” “Season of Sensuous, Skin Baring Looks,” “Barest Little Halter Dress,” “A Skimpy Bit of Dress That’s Scooped Out Deeply at the Neckline,” “Two Skinny Straps,” “Deeply Split Neckline,” “Shows a Lot of Skin,’ , “Brief Little Short Shorts,” “Midriff . . Bare and Bold,” “Legs Feel Long and Free,” “Skirt That Stops Short to Show off a Long Stretch of Leg.”

It doesn’t take a Solomon to see where the emphasis is in women’s fashions. But look at the definition of some of the descriptive terms that we found in these advertisements:

“Bold” – “too forward; taking undue liberties; lacking proper modesty or restraint.”

“Snug” – “tight; not loose.”

“Vampish” – from “vamp” – “one who uses her charm or wiles to gain admiration and attention from the opposite sex.”

“Frivolous” — “given to trifling; marked with unbecomed levity.”

“Exposure” – from “expose” – “to lay open to, or set out for, inspection; to exhibit, as goods for sale; to lay or leave bare.”

“Bare” – “baring” – “without clothes or covering, esp. the usual covering; naked; nude; fully revealed; unconcealed; exposed.”

If you will pardon the pun, I would say that those terms are “very revealing.” God’s terms for the dress and demeanor of Christian women are found in 1 Timothy 2:9-10 – “In like manner, also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; but (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.”

Now, notice the definition of God’s terms for the dress and demeanor of the Christian woman:

“Modest” – Gr., Kosmois, “orderly, well-arranged, decent, modest” (Vine).

“Shamefacedness” – Gr., aidos, “a sense of shame, modesty” (Vine). “Shamefastness is that modesty which is ‘fast’ or rooted in the character” (Davies, Bible English, p. 12).

Sensuous” – synonym’s t9sensual,” “pert. to, or consisting in, the gratification of the senses, or the indulgence of appetite; fleshly; devoted to the pleasures of sense of appetite; voluptuous; sometimes, lewd.”

“Sobriety” – Gr., sophrosune, “denotes soundness of mind . . . ‘sound judgment’ practically expresses the meaning” (Vine).

“Chaste” – (1 Pet. 3:21) Gr. hagnos, Signifies (a) pure from every fault, immaculate… (b) pure from carnality, modest” (Vine).

Certainly the tenor of these terms is far different from the suggestivity of the advertisements above. God’s terms teach us that the Christian woman must be different in her daily dress – she must be modest and chaste, with shamefastness and sobriety. How, before God can she do so when wearing the popular fashions as described above – which by their own assertions are bold, bare, snug, sensuous, and daring?

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 17, pp. 524-525
September 3, 1992

By Doug Matlock

One of the problems we face today is permitting ourselves to become too busy. The problem is not that we are too busy working for God, but we are too busy with life, making a living, recreation, family and friends to serve God. We crowd out the real and lasting things from our lives for that which is temporal, transient and fleeting. If a person in torment could relive his life on earth, he would be far more concerned with saving his soul than with pleasing others and simply enjoying himself.

When we become too busy let us see the effect it will have in our lives.

I lose my sense of true values: I emphasize the material rather than the spiritual. In Matthew 16:26 we see that nothing is more important than the soul. Youth and beauty fade into wrinkles and frailties of old age. Worldly wisdom is of no profit when we leave this life. Fortunes can be lost overnight. Friends can become enemies, but through it all the soul lives on.

My children grew up as unbelievers. We not only hurt ourselves when we are disobedient but we to us for examples and direction. In torment you will realize you neglected them, failed to teach them about God and his will. Because we were too busy our children are headed for the same place.

The Lord’s church suffered. I lost my influence for good in the community among the lost. I he church was not helped by my efforts in teaching, working and serving God. I remember one that was too busy with his job to attend services for about six months. How can one claim to put the kingdom of God first and allow himself to be hindered like that?

My soul was lost. Since I lost my sense of values, it was just not important enough for me to give my time and attention to. I was just too busy to go to heaven. Thus my sentence is Matthew 25:41 “Depart from me ye cursed into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels.”

Do you want this to be the story of your life? This may have been your story also. But you are more fortunate than those already in torment. You can change all that by becoming a Christian if you are not one already and by being faithful to God also starve spiritually and deprive those looking by putting him first in every phrase of your life.

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 17, p. 513
September 3, 1992

By Steve Wolfgang

Footnote: Richard John Neuhaus, ed. Theological Education and Moral Formation (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Ferdmans Publishing Company, 1992), pp. 211-213.

Richard John Neuhaus, editor of the conservative journal First Things, also edits the Encounter Series of volumes published by Eerdmans, of which this is volume 15. Readers of this journal might also be interested in other volumes in the series, particularly volume 2 (Unsecular America) and volume 5 (The Bible, Politics, and Democracy).

Typically, each volume reports a conference in which four to six featured speakers delivered prepared addresses, following which those speakers and perhaps a dozen others join in a panel discussion of the issues raised in the prepared speeches.

This particular volume reports a conference at Duke University and offers some rare insight into the state of the denominational mentality in America, and I offer excerpts from three different sections of the round-table discussion for your amazement.

George Marsden, Professor of the History of Christianity in America at Duke University Divinity School and author of Fundamentalism in American Culture and Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism in America, speaking of the crisis of authority in many American seminaries today:

George Marsden: “What we need to do,” he said, “is to go back to Christianity. We should start talking about God and the authority of the Bible. We should pray and teach the liturgy. But in most Protestant seminaries, if we went back to that kind of Christianity and came out with it as authoritative, we’d get kicked out. You might be able to get away with it at Duke because of its traditionalist ethos.”

“Is Duke really that different than, say, Union in New York?” Neuhaus asked the group.

Geoffrey Wainwright took up the question: “While teaching at Union in New York, I always felt that the assumption was that Christianity was wrong unless it could be shown to be right. At Duke the assumption is that, on the whole, Christianity is the agreed-upon basic, though there are problems here and there that can be debated.”

“At what point would you get kicked out of the University of Chicago Divinity School for authoritatively teaching orthodox Christianity?” Neuhaus asked.

“When you offended the feminists or the relativists or the gay caucus,” Marsden answered.

“How might you offend the relativists at Chicago?” Neuhaus probed.

Marsden replied, “By implying that Christianity is a religion that has some exclusivism. By implying that relativists weren’t Christians. After all, if you’re talking about traditional Christianity, you’re going to have to isolate and argue against ways of believing that are different from traditional Christianity.”

“George, you’re saying that there is a normative Christianity,” Neuhaus observed. “For example, if someone doesn’t believe in the resurrection of Christ, then he or she isn’t a classical Christian.”

“Yes, and if you say certain people aren’t Christians, you’ll get booted out,” Marsden responded.

“Do you really mean you’d get fired from the faculty?” Richard Hays asked with a note of disbelief.

“Well, you’d get hooted down and eventually called a crank,” guessed Marsden.

“I question that,” said Hays. “I think we’ve allowed ourselves to get buffaloed, to be intimidated into thinking that we could never say anything like that.”

Then Neuhaus continued his line of questioning. “How much could be changed if seminary professors taught more confessionally?”

Marsden attempted an answer. “In today’s seminaries you have pluralistic institutions, and you have to be careful about whom you offend. if you go into a seminary classroom and say, ‘Your problem is that you need to be converted,’ what you’re saying is that some people there aren’t Christians. That might not be an appropriate thing to say in a school that isn’t restricted to one denomination.”

Neuhaus wasn’t so sure. “In a theological faculty,” he said, “it should be inescapable that at some point you’re going to be teaching about the idea of conversion. If you make it clear that your understanding of conversion is that it is constitutive of being a Christian, you’re not browbeating the class. You’re simply making clear what your understanding of the Christian life is. And that includes conversion, in the born-again sense and/or in the baptismal-renewal sense. You wouldn’t be a good teacher of the church if you didn’t teach that.”

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 17, p. 522
September 3, 1992

By Burl Young

Some months ago our President said that he was “drawing the line in the sand” as pertains to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and possible invasion of Saudi Arabia. Since the President was speaking metaphorically, we realize that he meant that no more aggression would be tolerated. Likewise, it is time that we who are endeavoring to continue in God’s word, also draw a line. It will be the purpose of this article to show that the continuing ingress of liberalism will not be tolerated. Many reasons could be given, but we shall limit our thoughts to the line that God has drawn between truth and error.

For some time now it has been evident that a great difference exists between brethren in the Lord’s church. Some wish to become more and more tolerant of denominationalism, institutionalism, and worldliness. On the other hand, those who are standing for truth can and will not tolerate such wavering. If this tolerance continues, it will allow the social drinker, adulterous person and denominational errorist to feel at ease in Zion. Let us examine the above errors and what our actions should be toward them.

Where Has God Drawn The Line?

This question is not a hard one to answer if we will only look to God’s word. For instance, where did God draw the line concerning denominationalism? Did God through the Holy Spirit vacillate saying it makes no difference how we worship, or did he give a specific way? God is very specific in the condemnation of denominationalism.

In 1 Corinthians, Paul says, “Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you, or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?” (1 Cor. 1:13)

The above passage should put to rest forever the idea that just any way is acceptable unto God. It does not prove that your are or I am right, but it proves that both cannot be right at the same time if we teach different and conflicting doctrines. So, as for the idea of denominationalism, God has drawn the line, I don’t have to draw one, but merely accept the one he has drawn.

Institutionalism has been, is, and will continue to be a thorn in the side of Christ’s precious church. Where has God drawn the line concerning institutionalism? Has he taught that both ways are correct? Has he taught that it can not be discerned, or that it doesn’t really matter? The answer to all these questions can be answered very easily. God has drawn the line. The line of demarcation is the plain teaching of the Bible concerning the sufficiency of the church. Since God has told us that he purposed the church before the foundation of the world, we surely do not think that we mere mortals can improve upon it (Eph. 3:9-11). Since God has given us all things that pertain to life and godliness, it seems plausible that we should be able to teach his word and understand what he wishes us to do in these matters. For instance there are differences between brethren about the support of human institutions. Since they cannot be found in the Scriptures by direct command, necessary inference or apostolic example, it is easy to see that God has drawn the line forbidding us to participate in such schemes of men. God has drawn the line in the sand concerning these matters.

The final matter we shall examine in this area, is worldliness. It would take more space and time that I have in this article to say much about such a damnable doctrine, but I will say a few things and then show where God has drawn the line.

God has drawn the line against social drinking. Some are teaching that we may drink a little, as long as we don’t get drunk. How much is that? Is it one drink? Two? How many? God has commanded us to abstain from evil (1 Thess. 5:22). Can we not be content to leave such an evil alone? God has drawn the line, we dare not pass.

God has drawn the line against adultery. Contrary to what the modern prophets proclaim, the Son of God declared, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery.” Is this not plain? God has drawn a line.

Finally, and most importantly, is the line of fellowship. After all, if the above teachings of the Bible are true and understandable (and they are), shall we continue to fellowship, endorse and hold in repute those who preach and teach things contrary to sound doctrine? The answer is an obvious and resounding no! God has drawn a line in his word, just as our President drew in the desert sands of the Mideast.

If brethren continue to demand respect for denominationalism, institutionalism, and worldliness, there will be another split in the Lord’s church. Let us pray that those who are advocating the placing of error under the guise of opinion, look once again to the line that God has drawn between truth and error and respect that line.

“Therefore ‘Come out from among them and be separate, says the Lord. Do not touch what is unclean, and I will receive you'” (2 Cor. 6:17).

Guardian of Truth XXXVI: 17, p. 523
September 3, 1992