Truth Magazine

By Bobby Witherington

Anyone who reads the Bible should be impressed with the sanctity of the home and the God-intended permanency of the marriage union. However, anyone who reads the daily newspaper is bound to be impressed with the fact that the home in our society is in deep trouble and that many marriages are proving to be anything but permanent. Surely some serious studies on this issue are in order.

In the last article, I discussed the husband. In this article, I shall consider the wife. According to Genesis 2:18 God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.” Hence, from this verse we learn it was the Creator who decided that man needed a wife. This was not something that man initially decided for himself. Concerning the wife, there are some seven points we shall make in this article.

1. According to Genesis 2:21,22 the wife was created from the rib of man or more specifically, the first woman (Eve) was created from a rib taken from the first man (Adam). It has been observed that she was not created from his head lest she rule over him, nor from his feet lest he trample upon her, but from his side that she might be near and dear to him.

2. According to Genesis 2:23 the wife whom God created for Adam was “called woman, because she was taken out of man.” Originally, as we learn from 1 Corinthians 11:8, “the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.”

3. In the husband-wife relationship the woman is given a subordinate role. In Genesis 3:16 God said to the woman, “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” According to 1 Timothy 2:12-14 there are two reasons why the wife is to be in subjection to the husband: (1) Because of the order of creation; “Adam was first formed, then Eve,” and (2) because of the fall, for the Scripture says, “Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived fell into transgression.”

4. Because of the fall, woman experiences pain when bearing children, for to the woman God said, “I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; in pain you shall bring forth children” (Gen. 3:16).

5. Woman is the proper supplement to man, for in Genesis 2:18 she was called his “helper comparable to him.” God did not create an animal to be man’s helper; hence, the Bible condemns bestiality. Nor did God create another man to be man’s helper; hence the Bible condemns homosexuality.

6. Woman was designed to be a good thing, for in Proverbs 18:22 the wise man said, “He who finds a wife finds a good thing, and obtains favor from the Lord.” Surely, in view of the fact that it is not “good that the man should be alone,” then man without woman is incomplete; hence, as Solomon said, “he who finds a wife finds a good thing.”

7. The wife, whose character and conduct is according to God’s will, has tremendous influence for good. It was a Sarah who gave birth to Isaac, a Hannah who gave birth to Samuel, and a Mary who gave birth to Jesus. Who could doubt that the ladies, each with a meek and quiet spirit, through their offspring, greatly influenced the world for good? What we need today is not more secular career women, but more women who make it their career to be good wives and mothers.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 21, p. 653
November 7, 1991

By Norman E. Fultz

Departing Kansas City on April 22, I met John Humphries and Jerry Parks in Chicago to travel with them to the Philippines. Having long thought of making the trip, but having never been there, it was my desire to go with someone who had been before so that I might profit from his experience. The long trip over would afford many opportunities to ask of them every question I could think of as to how to make the effort the most profitable possible.

There are several things that a trip of one month’s duration in the Philippines will not accomplish. It will not qualify one as an authority on the condition of all the churches (there are so many of them) throughout that island nation. It will not qualify one as a judge of the worthiness of support of all the preachers, either of those who make their appeal in person or who write (Oh, how many of them will write!) when the visiting American has returned to the States. It will not fully qualify one as to the true condition of the Philippine economy, especially as it affects the poorer classes, in which group most of our brethren are found. It will not allow one to settle all the disputes or areas of discussion that exist among the Filipino brethren. It will not allow one to even begin to meet all the benevolent needs that he sees first hand.

But there are some things that such a trip can accomplish, especially for one who has had a long-time interest in the Filipinos and who has tried to learn as much as he could from others who have gone there to preach and to encourage the saints. Such is my own interest in the Filipino work. Not only have I for many years read the reports of the American brethren who have gone there over a period of some twenty years and talked with several of them about their experiences and the conditions they found, but I have personally tried to verify the worthiness of different men from time to time. Having satisfied my own mind as to their worthiness, I have assisted in raising support for them. In several instances, I have raised funds to help alleviate some of the dire needs arising from catastrophes that seem to strike some parts of the islands with increasing frequency – typhoons, drought, and earthquakes. The latest catastrophe to strike is the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo’s volcano, wreaking devastation over a wide area, crushing their small homes and burying their fields under inches of ash.

I have delayed this writing until the high emotion that builds in one from such an experience has had a chance to subside. That with a view to being as objective as possible in that which is written. My intent is not to give a day by day accounting, but to present some of the conditions that exist and some ways in which individuals and churches may help.

Other brethren had spoken to me of the culture shock one will receive, but until it is experienced, it remains, for the most part, a phrase which in no way prepares one for what he is about to witness. Even those of us who were reared in extremely poor circumstances in this country are in for a real awakening upon arrival there. My amazement began within the first hour after touch-down at Manila’s Aquino International Airport, but the full impact of it was not felt until some four or five days later. When it did occur, it was a feeling like I simply have not yet been able to describe. One thing I know. Culture shock is not just a phrase. It is for real.

There were five American preachers in the Philippines over a period of about two and a half months. Keith Burnett of Russellville, KY and Carl McMurray of Brownsburg, IN preceded John and Jerry (both of Louisville at the time Jerry has now moved) and myself by about a month. Their stay overlapped ours by a couple of weeks, allowing our paths to cross and affording us the opportunity to compare impressions and find out about each other’s efforts. The one time we were all together at Ben Cruz’s in Manila for a very short time took on the flavor of a family reunion, so joyous was it.

Some who are not familiar with the Philippines might second guess the wisdom of five men being there at the same time. Believe me, when one sees the amount of work to be done, the great number of churches existing, the distances involved and the means of getting to some of the areas, the question becomes elementary indeed. Most of the time we were all working in different regions, and everywhere we went there were those pleading with us to visit their area. It was difficult to make some of them understand that we just cannot go everywhere. But they are so desirous that the work they are doing be seen. Of course, I know that some of that is with a view to hopefully being able to secure support. However, that within itself is not to be faulted. Do American preachers do much differently when trying to raise support to go into some field of labor for which they do not have support?

Arriving in Manila about 1:15 a.m. Thursday, we were met at the airport by a good contingent of Christians who took us to our respective places of stay while in Manila. Both Carl McMurray and I were guests of Noli and Ruena Villamor, both of us being there at the same time only a couple of nights. The Ben Cruz home was John and Jerry’s “hotel,” and it was also the sight of a number of studies when as many as twenty-five or thirty persons would gather. The Vic Tibayans put up Keith I believe. Those good families are so careful to do all they can to make the stay of American preachers a pleasant one. And both Ben and Vic render a valuable service in using their vehicles running back and forth to the airport or to the bus station as the Americans come and go from one region to another.

Whether on Luzon, Mindanao, Cebu or Leyte, or other islands, the Filipino people endeared themselves to us. At Davao City where John and I conducted studies for four days we stayed in the home of Juanito and Erlinda Balbin who expended no small effort in showing hospitality to a house full of others who were present for the studies. At Pagadian City, Ed and Sol Ramiro graciously made their home available to me and J. R. Tibayan, a Filipino preacher who accompanied me, while I presented studies for five days at Sto. Nino district where Jun Apatan preaches. And at Baybay, Leyte, Alberto and Juanita Vivero showed J. R. and me great hospitality as I presented studies for three or four days.

I don’t know the exact number of persons baptized during the efforts in which the five of us were involved. It was estimated at around 200. But we didn’t go there to baptize. Now I’ll admit it was a pleasant experience to wade out into the briny waters of Davao Gulf, Ormoc Bay or the river at Pagadian City and assist people in their obedience to Christ. But our major objective was to visit and strengthen the churches and to encourage and edify the preachers who resorted to the studies. As a novice in that kind of work, I did not have as good a feel for their actual needs as did those who had been there on other trips. I was especially impressed with John Humphries’ great capabilities. Co-working with him in the Davao studies and sitting in two or three other studies he conducted in Manila, I concluded that he had a good grasp of areas of needed study, and he knew how to present it forcefully. I only got to hear Jerry present one lesson, a very good one. On one’s first trip he does the best he can t6 be of the most help he can, his awareness of areas of needed teaching and instruction growing from one field of endeavor to the next. I certainly feel that I have a far better realization of some definite needs now as I look back and think through the experience.

The standard of living for most of the people is beyond the ability of most here to comprehend. The contribution of the churches may run no more than the equivalent of $3 to $5 dollars. Therefore they are not able to do much of anything in the way of assistance to the preachers nor in meeting benevolent needs among themselves. For example, in Pagadian City with the Sto. Nino church, Jun Apaton announced after the Lord’s day morning service that a brother was very sick and needed to go to the hospital but had no money. A special offering was taken. Beside that which I was able to give from the funds U.S. brethren had given me for such cases, the collection was only 92 pesos. The conversion rate in Pagadian was 28 pesos per dollar at the time, so you can easily see the small amount they were able to give.

While much more could be said, let me share just one other thought. What can folks here, either individually or as a congregation, do? There are many capable preachers adjugded worthy of support who are presently receiving none. Any of the American preachers who have been there has a list of some such preachers. There are many cases of financial need among the members from time to time due to misfortune or natural catastrophe as those mentioned earlier in this treatise. And one of the greatest needs, in my judgment, is for good study and teaching materials Bibles, books, tracts, etc. Even good used song books are a welcomed item to the Filipinos.

Shipping books con be somewhat costly. But the post office has what is known as M-Bag Service. It has a minimum of 15 lbs. or a maximum of 66 lbs. per sack limit, and shipped by surface mail is S.72 per lb. By air it is $5.76 per lb. Talk to your post office for full explanation. Of course, the surface mail will take many weeks to arrive, but the items will serve no less benefit when they do get on site.

I have composed an “Information Questionnaire” which I believe could be of help to those who receive letters of appeal for support from preachers in the Philippines. I would be happy to send a copy of it to any who desires it.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 21, pp. 648-649
November 7, 1991

By Joe R. Price

Paul H. Dunn, former member of the “Presidency of the First Quorum of Seventy” in the LDS Church now holding emeritus status as a general authority, has been the focus of a controversy within the Mormon Church for the past couple of years. It seems that Dunn, one of the most popular LDS lecturers and writers, has been telling exaggerated (if not fabricated) personal stories about his heroism in the Korean War and his experiences as a professional baseball player. The verdict is still out on how much or for how long the LDS Church leaders knew about the deceptive stories of Dunn. Did they let him continue because he was “in demand”?

A headline about this matter in the Salt Lake Tribune caught my attention: “Speaker Says LDS Teachings Suffer From ‘Cute’ Syndrome” (Aug. 10, 1991). Attorney Eric C. Olson (himself a Mormon) presented a paper at the 13th annual Sunstone Symposium in which he suggested that Dunn’s stories are representative of a Church Education System that “may value entertainment and reassurance over honesty, insight and accuracy.” He went on to say, “From the CES (Church Education System, jrp) perspective, no matter how real or how true a principle or, circumstance may be, it is of negligible instructional value, if it does not excite the student or fit the correlated preconception.” The article further explained, “Such a posture, he warned, can lead to a ‘vacuum of relativity’ where a principle appears to be truth only if it bears the right stamp, is spoken by the right person or serves the right purpose. ‘We start wrapping the truth in little finer packages until it is no longer truth,’ Mr. Olson said.”

Mr. Olson’s observations are, quite astute, and are applicable for New Testament Christians. Have we become a people who are interested in truth only when it entertains I am reminded of Romans 3:9-19, where the apostle Paul proposed to lay “to the charge both of Jews and Greeks, that they are all under sin.” Being led by the Spirit of God (Jn. 16:13; 1 Cor. 2:10-13; 2 Tim. 3:16), he used no less than six Scriptures from the law to prove the accuracy of his teaching! I wonder if Paul could get published using that many Scriptures today, especially since he was writing to the “average Christian” (Rom. 1:7). Is truth only appeal or excites us because of the way it is presented (“packaged”) by the teacher, preacher, etc.? I am afraid this is too often the case.

For instance, upon what basis do we conclude that brother so and so preached “a great sermon”? His command of the English language? His use of metaphors, similes and anecdotes? His style and ability to enrapture an audience or “keep it in stitches”? Or, is it the clear, precise message of truth which he presents (2 Tim. 4:1-5)? Please do not misunderstand. A man who masters the ability to speak publicly is a wonderful asset to the kingdom, if he uses that ability to direct attention to the word of God and away from himself. Did you answer the question? Before you do, consider the apostle Paul, who of himself said, “But though I be rude in speech, yet am I not in knowledge” (2 Cor. 11: 6). He did not seek to please men with his preaching, but God (Gal. 1:10-12; 1 Thess. 2:3-6). He did not use flattery (1 Thess. 2:5), human wisdom (1 Cor. 2:14) or philosophy (Col. 2:8) to present truth, but a “thus saith the Lord” (Col. 3:17; 1 Thess. 2:13). Was Paul a great preacher, with great lessons? By most people’s standards, probably not. After all, he was threatened, stoned and imprisoned for his preaching (cf. Acts 9.22-24,29; 13:44-51; 14:19; 16:19-24). That is not how the world treats its “great” preachers! Maybe Paul should have wrapped his message in a “finer package!”

The Packaging or the Power of the Gospel?

Do we still trust the power of the gospel to save our souls (Rom. 1:16)? When we must have the truth of the gospel packaged in the skillfulness of men before we approve of it, we have lost our faith in the power of the gospel and built our faith upon the abilities of men. Consider a few of the ways our faith can be placed in the packaging of the truth rather than in the truth itself.

1. The appeal of intellectualism. We have nothing against obtaining a college education. To broaden one’s knowledge and appreciation of the various disciplines of learning can be of great benefit. Indeed, elders, preachers and teachers can benefit from whatever higher education they have been fortunate enough to obtain. Yet, when we are only interested in what a gospel preacher or teacher has to say if he holds a B.A., M.A. or Ph.D, we are on dangerous ground (1 Cor. 1:26-2:4).

We are stressing the wrong thing when we encourage people to hear brother so and so preach because of his intellectual attainments. When we are only interested in an “educated” man preaching for us (regardless of his knowledge of and love for the truth), is our prime objective gospel preaching? What of the man’s message? It seems as if the message of God’s word is sometimes taken for granted as we marvel over the educational achievements of the man teaching it. Have we forgotten that the power of the gospel is found in the message which is preached and not in its messenger (cf. 1 Cor. 1:17-25)? Are we interested in hearing a man preach and teach who, by the world’s standards, is unknowledgeable and unlearned? Or, do we “hold out” for the truly educated preacher? I fear we would not have desired the preaching of Peter and John, “unlearned and ignorant” as they were (Acts 4:13)! We must avoid “packaging” the word of God in the wrapping of man’s intellect before we are interested in opening it!

2. The pop psychology PMA approach to gospel preaching. It is a sign of the times. People want to feel good about themselves. They want reassurance that they are “o.k.” More and more brethren want the elders, preachers and teachers to help them define and emphasize this good feeling. Well, I like to feel good about myself, don’t you? And, the Bible teaches that the Christian ought to be the happiest person on this planet (Phil. 4:4-8,10-13; Eph. 1:3; Matt. 5:3-12). However, this is not what we are talking about.

There seems to be an affection on the part of some to practice “pop psychology” from the pulpit and with the pen. The positive mental attitude approach to living espoused by Norman Vincent Peale, Robert Schuller and others emphasizes man’s internal power to overcome depression, guilt and sin. Man fills his own needs, and becomes his own remedy for life’s problems. Such an approach to Christianity puts one’s faith in self rather than in Christ. It sees man as having the answers within himself to overcome the guilt of sin (cf. Jer. 10:23; Prov. 14:12). This is deceptive “packaging” which will leave a person’s soul lost in sin!

3. Emphasize the positive, eliminate the negative.” This approach teaching and teaching has influenced the religion of men for decades (if not centuries). Eventually, it becomes a call to move away from “book, chapter and verse” preaching to emphasize oratory and writing skills. Knowledge of the word of God suffers from such a concept, and so do God’s people (cf. Hos. 4:1-6). While this objective is denied (I certainly hope it is!), the effect remains, nonetheless.

The writing guidelines of one journal suggest that writers use a minimum of Scriptures. At the same time, teachers of the gospel should be at their “creative best,” embellishing their articles with various literary techniques:

Second, we hope you will write for the audience we are trying to reach. We hope to reach the “average Christian.” Each article is thus to be short and limited to one major point. Do not tell us all you know, but what you know most surely. Generally speaking, two or three passages should provide a sufficient base for such articles – perhaps even one. . .

Obviously, what we are after is a piece of journalistic writing. The thrust of the article should be practical, speaking to the real needs of people. The style of the writing should be popular. We urge you to be your creative best: think of interest-catching leads, sharp illustrations, and if appropriate, and if possible, sprinkle in a little wit (Assignment letter, Christianity Magazine, undated).

Such guidelines place more importance upon the “packaging” of the product than upon the truth being presented.

Avoiding The “Cute” Syndrome

Of course, we should do our best when preaching, teaching or writing the truth of God. We are thankful for talented writers, teachers and preachers who can effectively communicate God’s word. As God’s fellow-worker (1 Cor. 3:5-9), the preacher must do the best he can to present truth. As hearers of that word, we must demand that the truth be presented, and then fully obey it. The people of Ezekiel’s day expressed a desire to hear the word of the Lord. Some even viewed Ezekiel as a “great preacher.” But they refused to obey the word of God which he preached (Ezek. 33:30-32). However, because Ezekiel’s message would come to pass (and not because he thrilled his audience), there could be no denying that God’s prophet had proclaimed God’s word to them (v. 33). Ezekiel, Paul, or any other preacher of God’s word could only be regarded as “great” (effective) when their message was the truth of God. Effective preaching and teaching is not determined by the teacher’s flowery language, perfect prose or journalistic technique. It is defined by teaching everything which is profitable for the salvation of men, “the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:20, 27; 1 Tim. 4:16; 2 Tim. 4:2).

The churches of men have long since given in to the temptation of making their message “cute.” Entertainment, excitement and reassurance is the order of the day. Mr. Olson’s assessment of the LDS Church’s educational program is an example of what can happen when one becomes more interested in impressing an audience than in accurately presenting the word of God. The truth suffers and souls are endangered as a result. We must not become victims of such devices.

Do not be deceived by the “packaging” which men often call the word of God. We must “preach the word!” The package may at times be crude, but the product must always be genuine (2 Tim. 3:16-4:5). Beware of the “cute syndrome!”

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 21, pp. 651-653
November 7, 1991

By Keith Greer

He who does not love does not know God, for God is love (1 Jn. 4:8).

On June 18, 1991, at 5:15 p.m., my grandfather, Dillie Perry Greer, finished his course on this earth. That following Saturday, with his wife of more than 61 years, five children, thirteen grandchildren, and thirteen great grandchildren, we laid Grandpa to his final rest. As they did that day, tears run down my cheeks as I remember.

My memories of Grandpa are many and varied. He gave me my first haircut, and since I was the first grandchild, I was blessed in my early years to be around him a lot. Even though he was very strict with me, he always did so with kindness that made me understand that he cared dearly. Not much escaped my Grandpa’s watchful eyes.

When I was about ten, Grandpa instructed me not to pick the strawberries until they were ripe. I love strawberries and decided I couldn’t wait. Well, he caught me and said, “Keith, I told you not to pick them. Go get me a switch.” Thinking that I could delay the punishment, I looked for hours, until dark. Then, I came in and told Grandpa that it was too dark to find a switch. To the best of my recollection, Grandpa had the eyes of a bat, and yes, I was punished. I brought the punishment on myself and, yet, never once did I doubt Grandpa’s love for me. That’s why he corrected me. “He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him disciplines him promptly” (Prov. 13:24). Grandpa always disciplined promptly!

There are many things that I admired about Grandpa. His oldest son, my Dad, did many things that hurt him, and I know he didn’t approve or understand. Yet, not once did I even hear him say a bad word against my Dad. Why? He loved him, of course!

Grandpa had another special quality that stood out. He was the most contented man I have ever known. By the world’s standards, he wasn’t a wealthy man, and, yet, if you were around him, you might think that he was the richest. Always thankful for what he had and understanding that it all came from God, he was a faithful steward (Jas. 1:17; Matt. 25:23). “But godliness with contentment is great gain (1 Tim. 6:16).

Going to my grandparents’ home, we were always made to feel welcome. The house would be filled with his kids and grandkids, and Grandpa would just beam with pride. I didn’t always do the right thing. Yet, Grandpa’s love for me never diminished. He had a strong hand and tough standards, God’s standards. Never compromising, but with compassion and love he led by example.

In April of this year, I went back to Lowell, Indiana for a gospel meeting. Grandpa came three nights to that meeting. (He would only be able to attend one more worship service afterwards.) On the last night of the meeting, I was standing by the stairs, and Grandpa came up to me with that big, wide grin on his face and said, “Keith, you’ve become a real fine gospel preacher. I’m very proud of you.” Today, that is very special to me, because Grandpa had much to do with why I am a preacher. As I was returning to Las Vegas, I went to say goodbye to Grandpa the next day. We hugged, and I kissed him and told him I loved him and would miss him. Grandpa was crying, and I was crying because both of us knew that this would be our final goodbye on earth!

Grandpa taught me many lessons during his life, and it was my privilege to speak at his funeral. Grandpa was very close to me, and he loved his family dearly, but he loved God first! The greatest comfort that he leaves me, and the greatest example of his life is that he left with eternal hope. For, you see, he died in Christ! “For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring those who sleep in Jesus” (1 Thess. 4:14). Thank you, Grandpa, for your time, patience, understanding but most of all for your gift of love!

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 21, p. 647
November 7, 1991