Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

The African Christian Hospitals Foundation

• is a tax-free, non-profit organization made up of a group of 58 Christian men, all active members of the church of Christ, whose purpose is to promote mission work through the use of medicine administered by Christian medical professionals.
• receives and distributes funds, medical supplies and equipment, recruits medical professionals and seeks churches of Christ to sponsor them. Many individuals also contribute to this program.
• avoids being a missionary society by insisting that all missionaries be sent by a sponsoring church. The ACHF is responsible for maintaining a relationship with government agencies and insuring that the medical works are run professionally (from “Facts about African Christian Hospitals Foundation,” p.2).

“Is Medical Missions Scripturally Sound?”

Jesus showed compassion for the sick, healed man, sent his disciples out to teach and to heal (Lk. 9:2,6) and taught us to let our lights shine by letting others see our good works and thus bring glory to God (Matt. 5). In the parable of the good Samaritan, Jesus told of the compassion of the one who gave medical care to the man who had fallen among thieves and was severely beaten. The good Samaritan then paid the innkeeper to continue this care (Luke 10). Jesus also pronounced woes upon the Pharisees who had neglected the “weightier matters of the law,” which are mercy, justice and faith (Matt. 23:23). When the question was asked in the judgment scene, “Lord, when did we see you sick and ministered to you?” the answer was “Inasmuch as you did it to the least of these, you did it unto me” (Matt. 25:39,40).

Providing medical care is pure religion (Jas. 1:27). It shows the love of God (1 Jn. 3:17). It fulfills the “law, of Christ” (Gal. 6:2). It changes our words to deeds (1 John 3:18). It proclaims our faith (James 2:17) (From “Nigerian Christian Hospitals,” p.2).

“Dear bro. Hafley, Please notice how many Scriptures are given in answer to the question, ‘Is Medical Missions Scripturally Sound?’ (pamphlet enclosed). Why do you and others in the Guardian of Truth oppose these good works? Shouldn’t we be united in supporting medical missions?”

The note above is a good one, especially since it gives occasion for further teaching. Its spirit is appreciated. Whenever a disciple pleads his case on “many Scriptures,” he deserves to be given a fair hearing. Certainly, if “many Scriptures” establish a thing, none should “oppose” it. Since the Scriptures furnish us completely, utterly and totally “unto all good works” (2 Tim. 3:16,17), no one should array himself against anything they authorize. Indeed, brethren should “be united in supporting” all “good works” of Scripture (2 Cor. 10:5; Phil. 1:27).

Be assured, therefore, that neither I nor “others in the Guardian of Truth oppose” scriptural “good works.” It is not the approbation or condemnation of myself or of “others in the Guardian of Truth” that means anything. Human views and values are nothing. Divine truth is everything. The word of God, the truth given through the Spirit, is all in all. “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is not light in them” (Isa. 8:20).

So, Why Oppose?

The paragraph headed, “Is Medical Missions Scripturally Sound?” contains no Scripture referring to the work of the church – no, not one. However, if a passage did authorize the church to provide medical care, it would not authorize contributions to a “Medical Mission,” an organization separate and apart from the church, which is designed to do the work God assigned to the church. The church is to sound out the word of the Lord (1 Thess. 1:8), but it is not authorized to organize a separate society to do its work. Thus, even if the church were authorized to provide medical care, it could not turn that work over to a human organization.

The pamphlet cited above appears to recognize this when it says that African Christian Hospitals Foundation (ACHF) “avoids being a missionary society by insisting that all missionaries be sent by a sponsoring church.” One wonders if a missionary society could “avoid being” a missionary society if it, too, insisted “that all missionaries be sent by a sponsoring church”? In this way, the missionary organization, like the ACHF, could be “responsible for maintaining a relationship with government agencies and insuring that the (missionary) works are run professionally. ” So, if this were done, would it be scriptural for churches of Christ to fund and finance that organization? If not, why not? Will any of our institutional brethren say yea or nay?

Now, let us apply the same rules to a veterinary clinic. Remember that the Lord showed his approval of being kind and helpful to animals (Lk. 13:15; 14:5). God takes note of the death of a sparrow (Matt. 10:29). The Lord made use of animals during his missionary ministry (Matt. 21:2-7). Shepherds attended his birth (Lk. 2). The good Samaritan used “his own beast” (Lk. 10:34). The care of animals would demonstrate mercy (Matt. 23:23). Horses were used to assist the apostle Paul (Acts 23:23). Numerous noted and noble Old Testament characters cared for sheep (Moses, David, etc.). The animals were saved in the ark. God has used animals to teach spiritual lessons. Hence, a veterinary clinic, an African Christian Veterinary Foundation (ACVF), would be justified (?). Churches could contribute to it and those who brought sick animals could be taught. This veterinary organization would not be a missionary society if it were insisted that veterinary missionaries be sent by a sponsoring church while the organization itself maintained relationships with governmental agencies and insured that veterinary works were run professionally. What say ye, brethren? Would such an organization be “Scripturally Sound”? Or would you howl against it?

Would it manifest pure religion, demonstrate the love of God, fulfill the law of Christ, change our words to deeds, proclaim our faith, allow us to teach and heal, and let others see our good works and glorify God? If so, is it “Scripturally Sound”?

Recreation Foundation

How about an African Christian Recreation Foundation (ACRF)? “Love feasts,” “Fellowship Halls,” “Family Life Centers,” and church owned and operated campgrounds are approved by our institutional brethren (e.g., Bill Jackson, Furman Kearley, Rubel Shelley, Garland Elkins, Calvin Warpula, Dub McClish, Randy Mayeux, Ray Hawk, Richard Rogers, Roy and Mac Deaver, Lewis Hale, Guy N. Woods, Ben Vick, Jr., Bill Swetmon, Gary Workman) to some extent or another. Granting that these various men approve of these items to some degree, what would be wrong with the following recreational missionary mission?

The Lord approves of setting aside time to rest (Mk. 6:3 1; Jn. 4:6). We should follow his example. Jesus will give the saved “rest” (2 Thess. 1:7; Rev. 14:13; Heb. 4:1-11). It is proper to eat and drink and enjoy life. In fact, “it is the gift of God” (Eccl. 3:13). That being true, and seeing that American churches furnish and finance social and recreational activities for their members, and since the editor of the Gospel Advocate contends openly for such church sponsored recreation, I propose the African Christian Recreational Foundation.

The ACRF is to “promote mission work through the use of” recreational activities administered by Christian Physical Education professionals. It “avoids being a missionary society by insisting that all coaches and/or Youth Directors be sent by a sponsoring church. Meanwhile, “the ACRF is responsible for maintaining a relationship with government agencies and insuring that the social and recreational activities are run professionally.”

Will our institutional brethren show us whether they will either endorse or divorce such a proposal? On what grounds do they do so? Are the medical foundations (both human and animal, physical and veterinary) parallel to the social and recreational? If not, how do they differ? Can one accept one foundation and reject the others? If so, on what basis? Institutional brethren need to wrestle with these concepts and questions.

While they are doing so, we might include their institutional orphan homes, homes for the aged, homes for unwed mothers, etc. Could Boles Home and Schultz-Lewis Children’s Home promote mission work as well as benevolent work and “avoid being” a missionary society if they insisted that each missionary was sent by a sponsoring church? Perhaps Ben Vick, Jr. and Guy N. Woods could tell us whether such an “organizational arrangement” would be “Scripturally Sound.” Inquiring minds want to know.

Further, could an African Christian College Foundation (ACCF) be supported on the same basis as the ACHF, ACRF; namely, that its missionaries and math, science and spelling teachers be sent by a sponsoring church while the ACCF looked after relationships with governmental agencies and saw that academic classes were run professionally? Could churches contribute to kindergartens and colleges and avoid being a missionary society in so doing? Remember that Paul “disputed daily in the school of one Tyrannus” (Acts 19:9). And since the Lord said not to forbid little children “to come unto me” (Matt. 19:14), surely we could not deny church support of kindergarten classes and daycare centers. After all, those children have parents who need to be taught!

Just which of these “good works” could we deny? Where is the stopping place? And the end is not yet. If the ACHF is “Scripturally Sound,” all these and myriad others are, too. It is the social gospel gone to seed. Clothing stores could be built and maintained by the principles that would permit ACHF to be called “Scripturally Sound.” “Inasmuch as ye did it to the least of these, ye did it unto me” (Matt. 25:35-40); so, church funded clothing stores could exist (Jas. 2:17) on the very same basis, according to the guidelines of ACHF.

On and on we could go. The truth is that there is no scriptural authority for churches to fund organizations which are established to do the work God gave the church to do. That is true in evangelism and benevolence. The church is not authorized to provide medical or veterinary care. It is not the work of the church to furnish recreation and amusement for its members. There is no Scripture for it.

Concluding Comments and Observations

The pamphlets quoted at the beginning cited Jesus’ sending of the twelve “to teach and to heal” (Lk. 9:2,6). Observe that “whosoever will not receive you, when you go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them” (Lk. 9:5). If the passage is applicable, what does ACHF do when a patient, with an IV and a catheter inserted, refuses to believe on the Lord?

What does the ACHF say about James 5:14,15? What of Trophimus (2 Tim. 4:20), Epaphroditus (Phil. 2:25-27), Timothy (1 Tim. 5:23), and the father of Publius (Acts 28:7,8)? As there were no missionary societies, so there were no medical boards supported by churches in the New Testament. There were no benevolent societies built and maintained by the churches of Christ. Churches did not furnish dining rooms, cafeterias, gymnasiums, kindergartens and day-care centers for general use. There were no sponsoring churches wherein one church was the agent for other churches, providing oversight and direction for the work of other churches (Acts 14:23; 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:2).

In the New Testament, there was singing (Eph. 5:19). So, we sing. There were no mechanical instruments of music. So, we do not use them. There was the breaking of bread “upon the first day of the week” (Acts 20:7). So, we do. There is no “Bible” for taking the Lord’s supper on Wednesday. So, we do not do it. Believing, penitent adults were baptized (Acts 2:38; 8:12). So, we do likewise. There were no babies sprinkled. So, we do not do so. Money was collected upon the first day of the week (1 Cor. 16:2). So, we do. There were no chariot washes, fig suppers or olive oil sales to raise money. So, we do not have pie suppers, rummage sales, pancake breakfasts or car washes to raise money.

By applying these same principles to ACHF, you will see why we oppose such works. We shall continue to do so. If someone shall supply us with “Scripturally Sound” reasons and answers to our questions, we shall happily and readily receive them.

But, alas, the argument and pleadings above will fall, I fear, on deaf ears, blind eyes and hardened hearts. The twin serpents of institutionalism and the social gospel (“spiritual humanism” if you will) are constrictors whose bodies squeeze every vestige of life from their ensnared, encoiled victims. Their devouring appetites are as silently and subtly deadly as that of an inoperable tumor whose presence is not detected until it has accomplished its murderous mission. It is the nature of the beast.

In the 1940s and 1950s institutionalism was a baby fresh from the egg. All, even its defenders, were aware of its treacherous tendencies and its ill history, but as a wriggling babe it could be controlled or contained, or so they hoped. After all, who can let a poor, little orphan starve and who can deny the need for “Christian” education? So, they fed and clothed it by stuffing its insatiable jaws with money, money and more money. Then, the baby became a monster with hissing in its fangs. It bred and developed corollary institutional structures with even more powerful and voracious desires. Soon the “baby” was ruling the house, demanding similar, subsidiary partners and scoffing with its flicking, forked tongue at the mild and muted protests of its former mentors and masters.

Do you doubt and would you dismiss my morbid, lamented imagery? If so, look about. The mystery of iniquity doth already work. The simple needs of Tennessee Orphan Home have given birth to African Hospitals. Herald of Truth, the initial mother church, overseeing the funds and function of thousands of churches, has evolved into the Crossroads and Boston Church, the epitome and consummation of the sponsoring church concept. Herald of Truth condescendingly ignores its objectors, its former supporters, and preaches its worldly gospel of pap and mush that Lutherans laud and Presbyterians praise. Abilene Christian University teaches evolution and defies its puny opposition with whitewash and ever more liberal teaching while its money, power and influence march on, unabated, unabashed, unimpeded.

“We do many things for which there is no Bible authority,” and “Where There Is No Pattern” (Athens Clay Pullias, David Lipscomb College, 1957) have given rise to the “New Hermeneutics” of Richard Rogers, Randy Mayeux and Bill Swetmon. The Gospel Advocate (How long has it been since you have heard a liberal from the 1950s refer to it as the “Old Reliable”?) is no longer the voice of orphan homes and Herald of Truth. It is the general, vague, soft, above-the-battle underbelly of institutional theology. Its articles arc limp-wristed liberalism, afraid to fight, unable to lead. It no longer rings with power and authority. As such, it is lost to the more conservative minded liberals. It has no teeth to bite and no fists to fight. Indeed, its efforts were the fostering voice of the present developing, enveloping apostasy. It is powerless to turn back. Ironically, it is not progressive enough, not broad enough, for the young princess of the liberalism at Abilene or the denominationalism of Kip McKean and the Boston Church or the Garnett Road church in Tulsa.

The conservative minded liberals of our day (men like Alan Highers, Bill Jackson, Dub McClish, Johnny Ramsey, Ben Vick, Jr., Roy Deaver, Tom Warren, Gary Workman and Garland Elkins) have lost their institutions, the things hev once bred and fed, nurtured and nourished. They have ost Lipscomb, Abilene, Gospel Advocate, Herald Of Truth, nd other lesser known institutional ministries. Within their ~vn ranks, they conduct lectureships, publish books and apers, occasionally spit at the divisive “antis,” and assail veiled, mvstical and mysterious liberalism for which they c unable to account. They see their progeny, their offring, but they deny them. Their slings and arrows against hat they call “liberalism” are as ineffectual as a BB gun ainst King Kong.

What, oh what, would these troubled brethren give if they could turn back the clock! Oh, how fondly must they long for the simple, emotional orphan issue and the mere, harmless presence of a stove, sink and refrigerator in an isolated corner of a “church basement.” Oh, how they would love to hear again the snide little jokes about “Wee Willie, the worried water cooler,” with which they could smite the antis and extend their “kitchen facilities.” Oh, how they would love to see again the innocent, charming face of their muzzled little institutions, nuzzling, gurgling and playing child-like on their breasts! Oh, what would they give to be able again to whip up support for “our” nationwide radio and television program. Devoid of all the choking, denominational machinery and bureaucracy of the present day! But Fifth and Highland in Abilene is now the mother of the Boston Church, in essence. The innocent little Fellowship Hall, which they once compared to old-fashioned “dinner on the grounds,” is now a multi-million dollar Family Life Center, replete and complete with “memberships,” exercise classes, diet center, jogging track, basketball arena, volleyball and badminton nets an the essential locker and shower facilities. That “fifth Sunday” contribution for one of “our” colleges, to support “Christian education,” is not state licensed kindergartens and daycare centers – all of this, of course, is supported by the church, and it is bigger than any fifth Sunday contribution! The dream has become a nightmare.

The men who led the fight for orphan homes, Herald of Truth and for limited Fellowship Hall facilities are now unwelcome in the homes of their children. Oh, how sad it must be to see the abomination of desolation engulf what they have wrought! Oh, how fervently must they crave in the midst of reverie the simple days of yesteryear. But, sadly, those simple days will never come again. They have sown the wind, and they must reap the whirlwind. They have crossed their Rubicon. The bridges have all been burned. Their monsters pay them no mind, and when their greying generation is gone, the apostasy will abound yet more and more. It is inevitable. So history teaches. Read it, observe it and weep.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 1, pp. 12-13, 20-21
January 3, 1991

By Mike Willis

The Lord foretold that the world would hate his disciples. He said, “If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of this world, therefore the world hateth you” (Jn. 15:18-19).

That the world would hate the gospel and its proclaimers has always baffled me. The gospel brings the greatest of blessings to man. I understand why the world should hate the liquor industry and those who sell it; alcohol has contributed to the break-up of many homes, many people losing their jobs, some becoming habitual drunks, many auto accidents, and many deaths. But the world loves its Budweiser and Busch. In contrast, the gospel saves men from sin, promises heaven at the end of this life, opens the door for men to have access to the throne of God in prayer, and gives present peace of mind, but men hate the gospel and its preachers. Is that rational?

Whether rational or not it is true. Paul promised that all who live godly will suffer persecution (2 Tim. 3:12). That promise has not gone unfulfilled. Chafing under the persecution inflicted by the world, some men yearn for a gospel without persecution.

Christianity Without Hatred

In answer to the demand for a gospel which is without persecution, the TV evangelists have responded with the “health and wealth gospel.” These men preach a “gospel” which promises its adherents health and wealth. They preach a “Christianity” which promises the sick that they will be miraculously healed and the poor that they will become rich. They promise that Christians will be the envy of the world because of the riches of God’s temporal blessings to his children. The implication is that obedience to the gospel will bring no suffering and persecution.

In contrast to the message of the health and wealth gospel, Jesus promised these adversities to his saints.

Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues; and ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles . . . . And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death for my name’s sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved (Matt. 10:16-22).

The Servant Is Not Greater Than the Master

Jesus told the apostles, “The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you” (Jn. 15:20). The world hated Jesus. Their hatred came because Jesus exposed their sins (Jn. 7:7). Those who were wicked preferred darkness to the light (Jn. 3:20). We who are Christ’s servants should not expect better treatment from the world than Jesus received!

Nor did the early Christians receive better treatment than Christ. Stephen was stoned to death (Acts 7:53-8:1); James was beheaded (Acts 12:1-3); Paul was put to death by a Roman emperor (2 Tim. 4:6-8); John was exiled to the isle of Patmos (Rev. 1:9). The next three centuries of church history record the bitter hatred that the world had toward Christ’s disciples.

Why the World Hates Christians

Why does the world hate Christians? There are several reasons for this hatred:

1. Christians are not “of the world. ” Jesus stated that the world’s hatred toward Christians stemmed from the fact that they were not of the world; he said, “If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of this world, therefore the world hateth you” (Jn. 15:19). The wise man wrote, “. . . he that is upright in the way is abomination to the wicked” (Prov. 29:27). Peter stated that the world will “speak evil of you” if you do not run with them to the same excess of riot (1 Pet. 4:4).

Many of our readers have experienced the exclusion and bitter words from the world because they refused to join with the world in that which was wicked. They belittled the Christian as “holier-than-thou,” a “Bible thumper,” and other derogatory terms; they make him the butt of their jokes. Yes, the world still hates those who are not “of the world.”

2. Christians expose their sins. Paul commanded Christians, “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them” (Eph. 5:11). Jesus said, “For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved” (Jn. 3:20). Christians reprove the world’s deeds and the world responds by hating Christians.

If a person doubts that the world hates the righteous, let him conduct an experiment. The next time you hear ungodly men telling filthy jokes around you, quote what the Bible teaches about the practice and rebuke them for their sins (Eph. 5:4). Stand back and watch what happens. The next time you see someone around you drinking, tell him what God says about drinking (1 Pet. 4:3). You quickly will understand that the world hates Christians.

3. Christians teach that there is only one way to be saved. Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh to the Father, but by me” (Jn. 14:6). Peter repeated this doctrine, “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).

The Jews could tolerate the various sects, such as Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Ebionites, Herodians, etc. These sects learned to peacefully co-exist. They could not tolerate Christianity because Christianity taught that there is but one way to be saved. The same was true among the Gentiles. The Gentiles could tolerate the worship of thousands of gods but turned to bitterly persecute Christians because they taught there is but one way to be saved.

The world can tolerate almost any doctrine to be preached from the pulpit, but the world will not tolerate any group teaching that there is one and only one way to be saved. Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Catholics, and other denominations can peacefully co-exist. They cannot tolerate the Christian who teaches, “There is but one way to be saved.” If you doubt this, try telling your Baptist friends who teach a different plan of salvation that there is only one way to be saved (Mk. 16:15-16; Acts 2:38; 22:16). Watch their reaction!

4. Christians threaten the financial prosperity of the wicked. On those occasions when the gospel is so widely believed and obeyed that large numbers of men turn from their sins, the world responds with bitter persecution because their financial prosperity is effected. Demetrius, the silversmith, turned against Paul because Paul’s preaching that idolatry was sinful was interfering with the sale of his silver idols (Acts 19:24-27).

We have witnessed some forms of this same reaction to righteousness today. Abortion is big business. Where protestors at the abortion clinics interfere with the business, the abortionists turn to bitterly prosecute the protestors. Pornography is big business. When Donald Wildmon’s efforts to clean up TV are successful, the pornographers respond with bitterness toward his work.

The tobacco, liquor, gambling, and illegal drug industries also are big business. Where their sources of income are threatened, the world will respond in bitter hatred toward those destroying their business. Marcus Dods wrote,

Persecution . . . is the testimony paid by the world to the disciples’ identity with Christ. The love of the world would be a sure evidence of their unfaithfulness to Christ and of their entire lack of resemblance to him; but its hate was the tribute it would pay to their likeness to him and successful promotion of his cause. They might well question their loyalty to Christ, if the world which had slain him fawned upon them. The Christian may conclude he is reckoned a helpless and harmless foe if he suffers no persecution, if in no company he is frowned upon or felt to be uncongenial, if he is treated by the world as if its aims were his aims and its spirit his spirit (The Gospel of John, Vol. II, p. 206).

5. We are victims of the world’s slander. Another reason that the early church suffered persecution was the success of the world’s slander against Chrisitans. They were accused of being cannibals because they ate “the body and blood” of Christ; they were accused of being atheists because they refused to acknowledge that idols were gods; they were charged with insurrection because they refused to confess that “Caesar is lord”; they were charged with breaking up the family because Christianity sometimes separated family members one from another.

Twentieth century Christians also suffer from the slanderous charges of our enemies. We are charged with these following “sins”: (a) not believing the Old Testament; (b) believing in “water salvation”; (c) believing in salvation by works; (d) being narrow-minded and bigoted for believing in one true church; (e) being censorers for opposing pornography; (f) being against a woman’s civil rights for opposing abortion; (g) being right wing radicals who are intent upon binding their radical ideas of right and wrong on others. Yes, twentieth century Christians still suffer from the world’s slander.

Efforts to Avoid the World’s Hatred

No one likes to be hated. Some have reacted to the world’s hatred by compromising the gospel. Recognizing that exposing some of the popularly accepted sins (such as social drinking, immodest dress [including that worn in mixed swimming], gambling, dancing, smoking, etc.) brings the world’s hatred, some do not want these sins condemned and others do not want them condemned from the pulpit on Sunday morning when visitors might be present.

Understanding that preaching there is only the church and one way to salvation brings the world’s condemnation, some do not want preaching which mentions the denominations by name or presents a message which implies that their denominational friends might be lost. Knowing that some of their good, moral non-Christian friends might be turned off by the threat of eternal damnation, some have expressed that hell-fire and brimstone preaching is too negative!

To avert and avoid the world’s hatred, some want to water down the gospel message. First century Christians refused these compromises with the world. What will twentieth century Christians do?

Conclusion

Let us resolve that we shall react to the world’s persecution by considering ourselves blessed to suffer for Christ. Jesus said, “Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for their’s is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you” (Matt. 5:10-12).

Let us be careful not to react to the world’s persecution by a “feel sorry for me” attitude. We Christians are blessed. Even if we suffer for the gospel’s sake, we still have much to be thankful for (Acts 5:41). We have forgiveness of our sins, the hope of eternal life, the promise that God will hear and answer our prayers, the “peace that passeth all understanding,” and many other such like blessings. We have reason to rejoice, even in the face of this world’s persecutions!

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 1, pp. 2, 22-23
January 3, 1991

By Mike Willis

We are delighted to announce the addition of my brother, Lewis Willis, to the staff of writers for Guardian of Truth. Born in 1938, Lewis has been faithfully preaching the gospel since graduating from Florida College in 1958.

Lewis has done local work in Macon, Missouri; Greencastle, Indiana; Kirkwood in St. Louis, Missouri; Valley Station in Louisville, Kentucky; Mound and Starr in Nacogdoches, Texas; Olsen Park in Amarillo, Texas; Irving in Dallas, Texas. He has worked with the Brown Street congregation in Akron, Ohio for the past ten years.

In his local work, Lewis writes a weekly bulletin which is distributed only to the local church and conducts a one-hour call-in radio program each Lord’s day which has a listening audience throughout northeast Ohio. The congregation has consistently had a goodly number of responses to the gospel during the past ten years and is one of the strongest congregations in Ohio, averaging approximately 275 at the Sunday morning worship services.

In addition to regularly contributing to Guardian of Truth, he also wrote a workbook for the Truth in Life series of class literature. He conducts six meetings a year, primarily in northeast Ohio.

Lewis has three children: Andrea, Scott, and Angie. All of them have obeyed the gospel and are faithfully serving the Lord in the respective parts of the country that they live. He was married to his first wife (Frankie) for 30 years before her death to cancer in 1988. Since then, he has married Joyce Feist, the sister of gospel preacher Bill Feist, who holds a doctorate degree in and teaches elementary education at Youngstown State University. She is a reading specialist in the field of elementary education.

Lewis’ articles in Guardian of Truth have been popularly read for many years. He has the unique ability of making sin and error, not only appear to be in conflict with God’s revealed word, but also look foolish, inconsistent, and unattractive. We look forward to publishing his good articles.

To have brothers who share the common faith is a rich blessing to my life. We both rise up and call our parents “blessed” because of their influence in leading us to Christ.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 1, p. 8
January 3, 1991

By Lewis Willis

This is an article about an article. Michael Medved, co-host of the weekly PBS television program, “Sneak Previews Goes Video,” is the author of the article I am reviewing. I would like to print the article in its entirety, but it is a copyrighted article and that is not permissible. He delivered an address at Hillsdale (Michigan) College on March 5, 1989. It was printed in the college paper and re-printed by Reader’s Digest (July 1990). The significance of his article, I think, is that it was written by a movie critic, and not by a preacher. What he said needs to be circulated in the religious community.

I happily confess to you that many of the movies that he refers to I know nothing about. I finally broke down and went to see the movie, Dick Tracy, a few weeks ago. It was the first movie I had gone to in a mighty long time. Thus, I don’t know much about what is happening in ‘the movie making business. From what I have seen and read, however, it appears that not much that is good can be said about many of them.

Medved said of Martin Scorses’s The Last Temptation of Christ, that it was an experience “about as uplifting as two hours and forty minutes in a dentist’s chair.” He calls the movie industry’s endorsement of that movie “perhaps the most grotesque illustration of the pervasive hostility to religion and religious values in Hollywood. ” He pointed out that for many years Hollywood depicted preachers and the religious community with “popular and sympathetic portrayals. ” However, he says that Hollywood has swung to the other extreme in the last 10 – 15 years. If Hollywood today refers to a preacher, he says, “You can be fairly sure that he will be crazy or corrupt – or both.” He cites as illustrations the movies Monsignor, Agnes of God, Salvation!, Pass the Ammo, and Riders of the Storm. Medved says that in these movies “some of the best actors in the business . . . play well-intentioned idealists overwhelmed by the cynicism and hypocrisy of the church hierarchy.” He said these movies I I savagely satirized greedy and greasy evangelists lusting after sex and money.”

Medved says that, “Industry insiders insist that movie makers are merely responding to the beliefs and prejudices of the film-going public.” He observes, however, that all of these movies with their anti-religious sentiments, without exception, “were big disappointments at the box office.” The producers who launched these projects to slam religion “lost millions of dollars.” By contrast, Medved wrote, films which presented religion favorably, like Chariots of Fire, Tender Mercies and A Cry in the Dark, had strong audience appeal and made millions for their producers.

He asks, “Why hasn’t Hollywood gotten the message? Why do savvy producers continue to authorize scores of projects that portray religious leaders as crazed, conspiratorial charlatans . . . ?” He explains that it is hard to escape the conclusion that, “for many of the most powerful people in the entertainment business, hostility to traditional religion goes so deep and burns so intensely that they insist on expressing that hostility, even at the risk of commercial disaster . . . If writers and directors take a swipe at religion in one of their films, no matter how clumsy or contrived that attack may be, they can feel as if they’ve made some sort of important and courageous statement . . . By sneering at zealots and deriding conventional religious beliefs, a film maker can win the respect of his peers, even if his work is rejected by the larger public.”

Mr. Medved referred to a 1982 survey of the key figures in the movie business. Only four percent regularly attend any religious worship. He said, “Most movie makers assume a patronizing attitude toward religiously committed people because they know so few of them personally. ” Thus, the only way these people know about religion is to observe religion in its most public form – through tele-evangelists like Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Bakker. We certainly know how they portray religion! If these are the only religious people that film makers know, I suppose we should be thankful they portray religion as favorably as they do.

Finally, Medved says that movie attendance by Americans has declined in the last forty years. In 1950 almost 58 million Americans went to a movie each week. Today, only 22 million do. He says, “Americans are giving up on contemporary movies because they see their own deepest values so rarely reflected – or even respected – on screen. Hollywood, the mighty engine of popular culture, is hopelessly out of touch.”

As I said earlier, the significance of this article is that it sounds like it was written by a gospel preacher. I personally find hope in a situation when the people of the world assume the same posture about a matter as God’s people assume. We have known for a long time that movies were blasphemous to God and corruptive of our young people. Now even movie critics not only observe this, but they are beginning to speak in opposition to the trend. When people of influence in the film making business start saying, “Stop this nonsense,” perhaps the film makers will listen.

In the meantime, let God’s people continue to be on the alert where movies are concerned. Do not support them or encourage their antireligious efforts in any way. Of course, the best support you can give them is to buy a ticket. If the movie is bad, stay at home! If more of us would do so, fewer of these films would be made. Parents, you sustain a special obligation to steer your children away from films which portray religion unfavorably or which pander filth.

Guardian of Truth XXXV: 1, p. 9
January 3, 1991