Truth Magazine

By James W. Adams

“Speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ” (Eph. 4:15).

It is evident, even to a casual reader of our text, that the increase of the body of Christ numerically by persons being saved and added to it by the Lord, as well as the spiritual perfection of those thus saved and added, are to be accomplished instrumentally through “speaking the truth in love.” It is quite as evident that the “truth” thus referred to is “the gospel” (Eph. 1:13). It is also clear that this “truth” or “gospel” included the ethical behavior of Christians as well as a revelation of the acts of God in redemption, hence is to be equated with the “doctrine of Christ” (Tit. 2:10). Therefore, all efforts to make arbitrary distinctions between gospel and doctrine are purely gratuitous and have no foundation in the Scriptures. This is manifest from the amount of ethical instruction contained in the letter to the Ephesians (chapters 4,5,6).

The text also reveals that it is not enough to “speak the truth,” as important as that is, but that it must be spoken “in love.” We dare not disregard either aspect of this inspired edict. The expression “the truth” has to do with the content of our teaching. The expression “in love” has to do with motive and manner.

I have been asked to write on this topic in an issue of the Guardian of Truth dedicated to an examination of the teaching and practice of my long-time friend, co-worker in days gone by, and brother in the Lord, Charles A. Holt. I do so reluctantly, for I have long ago given up any hope of effecting a change in our brother’s teaching and practice. I have for almost twenty-five years deplored, dealt with (in the “pulpit” and the “press” and face to face conversations) brother Holt’s vagaries along with those of others who have been aligned with him, but to no avail. I have for a long time now only dealt with the views and practices of these brethren where their influence seems to be creating, or has the possibility of creating, strife and division among brethren and churches. In my judgment, they are more of a sometimes troublesome nuisance rather than a real threat to the churches and the truth.

I am convinced that their views relative to the Lord’s ekk1esia (“church”) contain within their bosom the germ of their own demise. Someone has correctly (when properly defined) noted: “No movement in history has ever succeeded until it has become institutionalized.” This is but to say that no movement which does not result in an organic manifestation of some sort is ephemeral. It is nebulous. It clouds the atmosphere for a moment and disappears as suddenly as and as certainly as it appears. Holt’s errors are not new, as is the case with most false doctrine. Others have held similar views in days past. They were tested and discarded because they are neither rational nor scriptural. Holt’s, Jennings’, and the views of others of like nature will suffer the same fate.

“Speaking In Love”

“Love” in this text is from the Greek agape. To practice this grace, one must always seek the highest good of its object. What is the object in our text, It is the truth? If so, we should speak the truth so as to promote its highest interests. Is it Christ? If so, we must speak the truth always in a manner that pleases him and best promotes his purposes. Is it the person being taught? If so, we must teach the truth so as to promote his highest good. I am persuaded that we must do all three. We must speak the truth in love of Christ, the truth, and the persons whom we address, and we must speak the truth in a manner calculated to promote the highest interests of all three.

One of the chief complaints of brother Holt and his colleagues is that they are never understood and always misrepresented. This charge challenges the intelligence and sincerity of all those who disagree with the published concepts of these brethren and dare to publish their protestations. It is a charge that is arrogant, sinfully judgmental, and palpably false. If one desires for others to speak in love concerning him and his views, he is obligated thus to speak himself. It is a fact easily documented that brother Holt presents his views invariably with scathing denunciations of churches, his brethren generally, and particularly, elders and other preachers. He deliberately magnifies abuses, espouses moot and questionable exegeses of Scripture, scornfully denounces what he calls “traditional Church of Christ positions,” attributes base monetary motivation to preachers who are fully supported by the churches in their work, and scornfully ridicules the professed undenominational status of “churches of Christ.” My files abound with documentation of such. It would take a master magician to equate his approach to these matters with “speaking the truth in love.”

I have no difficulty with brother Holt and those who travel his road doctrinally, so long as they hold their views as personal convictions and do not press them to the disruption and division of the churches. It is the sad truth however that they have never learned the difference between “express” and “press.” The mere expression of their convictions (assuming them to be honestly held) is not the problem. It is the agitation of their views, their pressing for their acceptance, their sense of mission and evangelistic fervor with regard to their propagation, and the consequent strife, division, and broken fellowship which they engender. I have had the sad expreience of following brother Holt where he has labored and propagated his views. The strife, heartache, open division, and totally “unChristlike” dispositions of his supporters and converts to his views which I found in these places are of themselves sufficient evidence of the error of his concepts and the manner of their promulgation. In a word, the attitudes of his converts to his position are the best commentary on the character of his position. J. C. Hare perceptively observes: “To form a correct judgment concerning the tendency of any doctrine we should look rather at the forms it bears in the disciples, than in the teacher, for he only made it, they are made by it.”

Some General Observations

It probably was only a male chauvinist who said, “A woman never believes she loses an argument, because she always knows she is misunderstood.” Brother Holt seemingly believes he is victorious in every confrontation over his views, because he knows he is, as before noted, never understood and always misrepresented.

Brother Holt has an iconoclastic fixation. He is forever tilting at spiritual windmills which he mistakes for giant aberrations from Divine truth. Sad to say, like Cervantes’ ” Don Quixote, ” he has a lot of good ” Sancho Panzas ” who do not see things as he does, but who loyally try to protect him from his indiscretions. They excuse his activities on the ground that “he is saying a lot of things that need to be said” (they do not specify). In the words of an old proverb, we answer, “He buys honey too dearly who licks it from thorns.”

That our brother possesses many fine qualities, much ability, and preaches needed truth on many subjects is not denied. However, I agree with Charming who wrote: “The consistency of great error with great virtue, is one of the lessons of universal history. But error is not made harmless by such associations. False theories though held by the greatest and best of men, and though not thoroughly believed, have wrought much evil.” It remains true, as Thoreau wrote: “No imposition is too great for the credulity of men.” Therefore, we cannot safely tolerate the pressing of erroneous concepts and practices, however innocuous they may seem at the time, for the most insignificant aberrations have in time become the occasion of great evil.

Our brother has overshot Jerusalem and landed in Babylon doctrinally. If he practices his teaching, his movement will either die or become an organic monster. Movements launched on a plea for the freedom of absolute individualism and repudiation of all organization, as is Holt’s invariably cease to be individual and become organically autocratic and tyrannical the moment they are soundly established. Yet, as Franklin P. Jones said relative to matters political, “There’s nothing wrong with extremists that trying to reason with them won’t aggravate.” Hence, I close pessimistically relative to any hope that what we say will affect for good him who is the object of our remarks.

Conclusion

What I have written are solely my sentiments. Others who write in this issue are not expected necessarily to endorse all said, nor should they be held accountable, but I want it said, and I will defend it if necessary. Furthermore, though I know not what others will say in this issue, I wish to be held accountable for only that which I personally say.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 19, pp. 578, 606-607
October 4, 1990

By Steve Springer

In Acts 26, Luke records a familiar scene of Paul testifying before King Agrippa regarding the accusations made against him by the Jews. There are many lessons that can be drawn from this section of Scripture but I would like to examine the characteristics of those who are present.

1. King Agrippa is described as one who is a pompous dresser (25:23). He was one who was familiar with Jewish customs and beliefs (26:3). He seemed to be a fair man in his judgment of Paul’s case. He let Paul speak on his own behalf. He also did not “play the crowd” with his rulings. Agrippa did not appear to be a man of wickedness and deceit as have been many of those in authority throughout history.

2. Festus was a newly appointed public official; he appears to be a true politician. He was willing to do the Jews a pleasure (25:9), even if an innocent man had to die. He wanted to take Paul to Jerusalem to be judged. Jerusalem was where the “heart and core” of Paul’s accusers dwelt. Festus was a scheming politician.

3. Paul was a man appointed by Christ to preach the gospel to the Gentiles (26:17). He had zeal in doing God’s work. He told of his experiences in persecuting Christians, bringing them into bondage. He told of his determination to put Christians in prison, not only in Jerusalem, but also in other cities as well. He also implied that he had been in high standings with the chief priests (26:12). When Paul saw the risen Christ, he realized he was wrong in his works (26:19), and had a repentant heart.

As Paul testified in his defense, he told of his past and why the Jews now were against him. He simply believed what had been taught about the coming Messiah by the prophets of old. As he spoke, Festus, the politician, interrupted and told Paul that he was crazy for believing in the resurrection of Jesus. Paul was the only one in the room who believed in Jesus, which was filled mostly with Jews and/or those of Jewish persuasion. Note the reply from Paul (Acts 26:25-27), “But he said, I am not mad, most noble Festus; But speak forth words of truth and soberness. For the king knoweth of these things, before whom I also speak freely; For I am persuaded that none of these things are hidden from him; for this thing was not done in corner.” Showing his conviction and zeal, Paul states that he is not crazy and knew what he is saying. Paul then asked Agrippa to answer whether or not he believed the prophets. Not waiting for Agrippa’s reply, Paul said, “I know you do.” Agrippa’s well known response was, “Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian” (26:28).

What if, when Festus told Paul he was “beside himself” and did not know what he was saying, Paul had not replied? What if Paul just thought to himself that Agrippa will not believe me just as everyone else in this room does not? What if Paul had decided to say only the things necessary to save his own life? What if Paul had thought that Agrippa was already religious enough or that he was involved with a false religion as were the others in the room and deserved their spiritual fate?

If Paul had not said what he did in verses 1-27, Agrippa would not have been “almost persuaded.” Paul’s deep faith in God and burning desire to convert the lost motivated him to convert the lost, even trying to convert the lost officials who were judging his case. The intensity of his faith in Christ was felt by King Agrippa who was “almost persuaded” on that occasion.

If a person tries to set a piece of wood on fire, he needs to have a strong enough flame that a sprinkle or two of rain will not put it out. If the fire burns strongly enough, it will not only withstand the rain but also catch the wood on fire. What about our fire of faith? Is it strong enough that we do not have to bring it in when it begins to sprinkle a little bit? Can it withstand the “sprinkle” of criticism by fellow workers, rejection by those strangers to whom we speak about Jesus, and abuse by those unbelieving scorners? If not we need to strengthen our fire for the Lord.

Paul exhorted Christians to persevere with these words: “Finally brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might. Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil, for we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Wherefore take unto you the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand” (Eph. 6:10-13).

On many occasions, Paul’s preaching resulted in someone’s salvation. Although his preaching did not convert King Agrippa, it did not release Paul from responsibility for his soul (see Ezek. 3:17-19). King Agrippa faces judgment as one who heard, but rejected, the word of God’s grace. Paul faces judgment free from the blood of King Agrippa. But, what would Paul’s condition have been if he had said nothing? And, what is our condition when we say nothing to our family, friends, and work associates whom we see every day?

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 18, p. 558
September 20, 1990

By Ferrell Jenkins

The Examiner does not oppose a treasury. With regularity it urges its readers to send their contributions to the Truth and Freedom Ministry, Inc. so its spiritual work of speaking and printing their message may continue. They tell their adherents that much good work will fail to be done if they do not give more (5:1, p. 32). The Examiner does oppose a treasury. The writers attack with regularity the concept of a local body of saints maintaining a treasury collected on the first day of the week, administered by the overseers of that group, and used for evangelism, edification, and benevolence.

I have read several articles in The Examiner, most of them by my friend and brother, Dusty Owens, and heard Stanley Morris speak on this subject at the Truth and Freedom Forum in Tampa, Nov. 4, 1989. Brother Morris was introduced as the “principal translator” of The Simple English Bible. Rather than deal with each point made by these brethren, I think it the part of wisdom to set forth a positive case for the local ekklesia treasury. I sincerely and confidently believe that this material adequately answers the contentions of The Examiner.

Other articles in this series will deal with the teaching of The Examiner about the local church. Rather than use the word church, I have chosen to transliterate the Greek word ekklesia. This is the word translated church in so many English versions of the Bible.

Guiding Principles

The reader should keep in mind certain principles as he reads this article. This writer does not oppose a group of saints (ekklesia) in a given locality meeting in someone’s house. In the New Testament an ekklesia did frequently meet in someone’s house (Rom. 16:3,23; 1 Cor. 16:19; Col. 4:15; Phil. 2; et.al.). We understand that individual saints may, even must, use their funds to help others in benevolence (Matt. 5:43-48; 25:35-40; Lk. 10:30-36; Acts 4:36-37; 9:36,39; 20:34-35; 1 Cor. 16:15-16; Gal. 6:10; Eph. 4:28; 1 Tim. 5;16; 6:18; Heb. 13:15-16; Jas. 1:26-27; 2:15-18; 1 Jn. 3:17-18). Individual saints may also use their funds or their facilities – which also cost money – for the support of gospel preachers (Gal. 6:6; 3 Jn. 5-8; Rom. 16:1-2; Acts 16:15; 21:10). The example of some brethren from Corinth seems to belong in this category (1 Cor. 16:17).

Much of the case against the common treasury, made by Owens and Morris, is the abuse which they see rampant in the “Churches of Christ.” We would agree with them that this practice is sometimes abused as other divinely ordered things are abused. The home, the state, and the ekklesia of Christ have often been made into something other than that which God intended. When we see the abuse we should correct it rather than discard the concept. The brethren associated with The Examiner are not the only ones who love the truth and they are not the only ones who are sincere in their belief and practice.

The Treasury in the New Testament

Saints in New Testament times did give a portion of their funds into a common treasury, Incidentally, Jesus and his disciples had a treasury and Judas served as the treasurer, at least for a time (Jn. 12:6). We ha ve records of various women contributing to the support of Jesus and the apostolic band (Lk. 8:1-3). Sometimes the funds got low (Jn. 6:5-7). Groups of people act as one through appointed workers or through their common funds. Let us look now to the New Testament examples of a treasury.

1. The saints at Jerusalem had a treasury. To care for the needy, saints at Jerusalem sold their property and brought the proceeds of the sales and laid them at the apostles’ feet (Acts 4:34-35). In this case we have a treasury and treasurers. Luke singles out the example of Barnabas. He sold his land and brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet (Acts 4:36-37). In contrast to the good example of Barnabas, Ananias and Sapphira sold property and pretended to be bringing the whole amount. You know the story. The funds they brought were laid at the apostles’ feet (Acts 5:2). This account states that even after the property was sold the income remained under the control of the owners. The account implies that they no longer had control after they laid it at the apostles’ feet (Acts 5:4).

Even churches with apostles have problems! As the disciples grew, one ethnic element among them perceived that their widows were being neglected in the daily serving of food (Acts 6:1-6). This was a group activity and must have involved the use of funds. The congregation was instructed to select seven men to look after the need. Since the apostles could not leave the ministry of the word and prayer, it is reasonable to conclude that the oversight of the treasury may have been passed, at least in part, to these men.

We might wish for more information about the activities of the ekklesia in Jerusalem, but we must be content with what we have. The book of Acts includes no record of the expansion of the word throughout Judea. Later, however, we read of saints at Lydda (Acts 9:32). Luke refers to the brethren dwelling in Judea (Acts 11:29). Paul affirms the existence of ekklesiais (plural of ekklesia) in Judea and informs us that his work extended throughout all Judea (Gal. 1:22; Acts 26:20). To know the truth one must read everything God has said. The book of Acts was written when ekklesiais were in existence through the Roman empire. Other references from Acts and the epistles will help us to fill out our knowledge of the activities of the saints of that period.

2. The Antioch contribution for Judea. When the Christians at Syrian Antioch were informed that a great famine would leave the brethren of Judea in need, “each of them determined to send a contribution for the relief of the brethren” there (Acts 11:2730). The Greek text says they determined to “send” (Greek: pempsai). The NASB has added “a contribution.” The KJV, NKJV, and ASV use the term relief. The NIV has “to provide help.” The Simple English Bible, which is highly praised by The Examiner movement, states that “the followers of Jesus decided that they would all try to help.” This same version renders verse 30 as follows: “They gathered the money and gave it to Barnabas and Saul. Then Barnabas and Saul brought it to the elders in Jerusalem. “Their use of italics for “in Jerusalem” shows that they were supplying the phrase. They have missed it on this one, but the focus of this article does not allow further discussion.

Brother Charles Holt gave me a much-appreciated copy of The Simple English Bible during the Truth and Freedom Forum in Tampa (Nov. 4, 1989). The SEB states that the believers “gathered the money and gave it to Barnabas and Saul.” Even without the looseness of this paraphrased translation, we can state that the money went into a common fund (treasury) either before it was given to Barnabas and Saul or at the time it was given to them. It is also clear that the elders “dwelling in Judea” received the funds. There was a treasury in Antioch and a treasury (or treasuries) in Judea.

3. The ekklesia at Philippi had a treasury. Paul commends the saints at Philippi because, at a certain crucial point in his ministry, they were the only ekklesia to have fellowship with him in “giving and receiving” (Phil. 4:15-16). This ekklesia had a treasury; otherwise they could not have sent funds to Paul more than once. No group, of any sort, can long operate as one without a common fund (treasury). The only way an ekklesia, like the one at Philippi, can send as a unit is from its treasury.

4. Ekklesiais sent wages to Paulfor preaching. Paul told the ekklesia at Corinth that he robbed “other congregations, taking pay from them, to help you” (2 Cor. 11:8, SEB). This passages has been used effectively in the past to show that a preacher of the gospel may receive wages. The Greek term opsonion is used of pay, wages, or salary (see Lk. 3:14; 1 Cor. 9:7; BAGD, 602). Paul had earlier taught the brethren that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living from the gospel (1 Cor. 9:14). These congregations could not send wages to Paul unless they had a treasury from which to send it.

5. The ekklesia at Corinth had a treasury (1 Cor. 16:1-4). Many questions have been raised about the instructions in this verse. Did the Corinthian ekklesia have a treasury? Did the saints contribute to this treasury each first day of the week? Does this text provide authority for a congregational treasury today? May the collected funds be used for purposes other than benevolence?

Many commentators see the crux of the issue in the phrase “put aside and save” (NASB) or “lay by him in store” (ASV) (Greek: par’ heautoi titheto thesaurizon). Many scholars believe that the laying by or putting aside is to be at home. Others see the context favoring a treasury common with other disciples. Aside from this point, I believe the passage shows that the ekklesia at Corinth had a treasury. Let us look at some of the other terms in the passage.

Collection (Greek: logeia). This word is used only twice in the New Testament, but Deissmann has shown that it was commonly used in Egypt and in Asia Minor “of religious collections for a god, a temple, etc., as St. Paul uses it of his collection of money for the ‘saints’ at Jerusalem” (Light From the Ancient East, 104-107; Bible Studies, 142-144). Paul insisted that the saints put aside funds from their prosperity on the first day of the week so no collection would be necessary when he arrived. If the funds were at home, it would still be necessary to make a collection when he arrived. If there was no group collection, how would Paul know a year later that they had not collected much? See 2 Corinthians 8:10.

That the collection at Corinth involved a group treasury is indicated by the fact that the brethren were able to approve men to take these funds to Jerusalem (1 Cor. 16:3). This shows that a local ekk1esia could make its own decisions (autonomous) regarding the use of its funds.

First day of every week. This is the earliest reference in the New Testament to the first day of the week as a day of meeting for Christians. We know that the disciples at Troas gathered together on the first day of the week to break bread (Acts 20:7). The habitual practice of assembling with other saints is mentioned in Hebrews 10:25. The saints at Corinth came together as an ekk1esia to eat the Lord’s supper (1 Cor. 11:18ff). The theological reason for such a meeting on the first day of the week is built on the resurrection of Christ on that day. A strong case also can be made for the Lord’s day of Revelation 1:10 being the first day of the week.

There is no logical reason for individual disciples putting aside funds in their home each first day of the week, when they regularly gathered in an assembly on that day. The fact that they did assemble on that day would provide adequate reason for them to pool their funds on that day. Could it not be that the phrase “by him” (par’heauto) emphasizes the individual’s decision according to his prosperity?

Paul had given the same order or direction to the ekklesiais of Galatia. The epistle from which we are quoting is addressed to the ekkIesia of God which is at Corinth and to “all who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1:2). Paul taught the same in every ekk1esia (1 Cor. 4:17). This causes us to expect, and to find, uniformity of practice among the ekkiesiais of the New Testament.

The late W. Curtis Porter prepared a written discussion with A.N. Dugger of the Church of God (Seventh Day) which was published as The Porter-Dugger Debate. Dugger’s sabbatarian theology caused him to deny the existence of a common treasury in 1 Corinthians 16:1-2, and to deny that the meal of Acts 20:7 was the Lord’s supper. Brother Porter set forth in a clear, logical fashion the case for the first day of the week as a day of worship for the people of God. Brethren who are enthralled with the individualistic views of The Examiner would do well to study this debate.

Miscellaneous Questions

Who Controls the Treasury? The apostles were in charge of the treasury in Acts 4 and 5. The funds from Antioch were sent to the elders in Judea (Acts 11:30). The brethren at Corinth were able to decide about the use of their funds (I Cor. 16:3).

For what may the funds be used? 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 is the only passage which tells us the day on which the collection is to be taken, but it is not the only passage which states the use for the funds. We have already shown above that the brethren at Philippi and other brethren of Macedonia had a treasury from which they supported gospel preachers. I am willing to affirm that anything for which the ekk1esia is obligated may be taken from the first day of the week collection.

Conclusion

If we depart from the information revealed in the New Testament about the activities of the ekklesiais, then we are left to our own human wisdom to devise a plan of work and worship. This, my brethren, is dangerous ground. It is exactly the ground on which so many of the articles in The Examiner are built. Brethren, we plead with you to reconsider.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 19, pp. 586-588
October 4, 1990

By Mark Mayberry

In our first article we provided an introduction to astrology. After having defined the subject, we examined the history, prevalence, and appeal of astrology. In this second article, we will see that astrology cannot pass the test of science.

There is no “real world” evidence that astrology works. All scientific efforts to confirm its power have failed. Scientists are agreed: Astrology is a pseudo-science! It is pure fiction. Several years ago some 18 Nobel Laureates and 172 other leading scientists joined together to express their vigorous objections to astrology.(1) Last year The Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP), released a statement saying, ‘Dozens of tests in recent years by scientists can find little, if any, evidence for astrological claims. Horoscopes have been shown under the most rigorous scientific analysis to fail completely in predicting future events.” The statement continued, “If the United States is to continue its leadership in scientific research, it is vital that the public have a clear understanding of the difference between science and pseudo-science, and that decisions be based on the real world without resorting to mystical fortune telling and other primitive forms of prognostication.”(2)

It Has Failed Repeated Attempts At Validation

1. Test by Carlson. “Study after study has failed to support claims that astrology can predict the future or offer insights into personality,” said Shawn Carlson, a physicist at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratories in Berkeley, California. He added, “There is absolutely no merit to the basic claims that astrologers make.” Carlson made one of the most recent attempts to test the power of the stars. He asked 26 respected astrologers to match the personality profiles of 265 people with their astrological charts. They were right only about a third of the time, which is about the same as chance.(3)

2. Test by Barth & Bennett. James Barth and James Bennett, Economists at George Washington University, examined the horoscopes of tens of thousands of men who had reenlisted in the Marine Corps. They were looking for a trend among soldiers that favored astrological signs ruled by Mars, the god of war. However, they found instead an equal number of men who were born under the influence of Venus, the so-called planet of love.(4)

3. Test by Silverman. Psychologist Bernie Silverman of Michigan State University tested the effect of astrological compatibility on marriages. He surveyed astrologers across the country on the compatibility of the twelve Zodiac signs. In studying, 2,978 marriage and 478 divorce records in Michigan, Dr. Silverman found couples whose marriages were made in horoscope heaven united and split up just as frequently as those who were not astrologically compatible.(5)

4. Test by McGervey. In another experiment, physicist John McGervey of Case Western Reserve University in Ohio looked up the birthdays of 16,634 scientists listed in “American Men of Science” and 6,475 politicians named In “Who’s Who in American Politics.” Astrological theory would suggest that these non-average Americans would tend to cluster more among certain signs and certain personality types. However Dr. McGervey found as many Virgos, defined astrologically as weak leaders, as any other sign.(6)

5. Test by Culver. Astronomer Roger Culver of Colorado State University decided to determine whether astrological signs were related to such physical traits as bicep size, baldness, blood type, freckles, weight, neck size, etc. Were Leos more likely to go bald or Gemini to wind up ambidextrous? He found no trends among the 300 volunteers.(7)

6. Test by Gauquelin. The French psychologist Michel Gauquelin undertook a statistical test of personalities of people born under various signs of the zodiac. In this massive study, he listed 50,000 character traits that typified 16,000 famous people. Gauquelin then labeled each trait according to the appropriate astrological sign. One trait might be characteristic of a Leo, another of a Pisces, and so forth. Finally he looked to see which sign the person was actually born under. He found no correlation between personality traits and the sign a person was born under.(8)

7. Other Scientific Considerations. Astrology fails to adequately answer a number of other important questions. What is the mechanism the planets use to exert their influence over men? Supposedly we are affected by the gravitational pull of the heavenly bodies at the exact moment of our birth. However, this is absurd! At least this is the opinion of Andrew Fraknoi, executive officer of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific in San Francisco, an international scientific and educational organization. “The (gravitational) pull of the obstetrician is six times that of Mars,” said Fraknoi. He also pointed out that the hospital building in which a person is born has 500,000 times the gravitational pull of Mars.(9) So much for the supposed gravitational influence of the planets!

Another fact must also be pointed out. Everyone’s astrological “sign” is wrong! The Zodiac charts were set more than 2,000 years ago, but since then the position of the Earth relative to other heavenly bodies has shifted. The earth is spinning on its axis, wobbling like a top, completing one great loop every 26,000 years.(10) The constellations are no longer in the same relative viewing positions they were in when the Zodiac charts were devised. “In effect, all of the constellations have moved,” said Fraknoi. “This puts the signs of the Zodiac off by one whole sign.”(11) Astrologers have stuck with tradition, even though their maps of the heavens are out of step with reality. Thus, right now everybody is reading the wrong horoscope!

Its Claim to Analyze Character Is Deceptive

We are fascinated by astrology’s claim to be able to reveal a person’s character. However, the system is especially deceitful and manipulative in this regard. Astrologers tell people what they want to hear. This classic technique is used by salesman, hypnotists, advertising experts, and not a few preachers. Psychologist Ray Hyman said, “To be popular with your fellow man, tell him what he wants to hear. He wants to hear about himself. So tell him about himself. But not what you know to be true about him. Oh, no! Never tell him the truth. Rather, tell him what he would like to be true about himself!”(12) This is the key to manipulating other people. The human mind is more willing to accept what is would like to believe rather than what evidence indicates is the truth. As an example, Hyman cites the following astrological analysis:

Some of your aspirations tend to be pretty unrealistic. At times you are extroverted, affable, sociable, while at other time you are introverted, wary and reserved. You have found it unwise to be too frank in revealing yourself to others. You pride yourself on being an independent thinker and do not accept others’ opinions without satisfactory proof. You prefer a certain amount of change and variety, and become dissatisfied when hemmed in by restrictions and limitations. At times you have serious doubts as to whether you have made the right decision or done the right thing. Disciplined and controlled on the outside, you tend to be worrisome and insecure on the inside. . . While you have some personality weaknesses, you are generally able to compensate for them. You have a great deal of unused capacity which you have not turned to your advantage. You have a tendency to be critical of yourself. You have a strong need for other people to like you and for them to admire you.(13)

Sound familiar? Does it describe your personality in any way? This spiel was first used in 1948, composed mostly from a news stand astrology book. Statements that supposedly would describe people born under various signs were combined together. This pitch is designed to apply to everyone but not seem that way. In a controlled study, psychologists gave a group of college students a detailed psychological questionnaire and then made a detailed analysis of each student. They gave the students a copy of their customized analysis and a copy of the fake psychological sketch found above. The students were then asked to identify which was which. Fifty-nine percent of the student thought the fake sketch was a more accurate description of their personalities.(14)

It Fails to Accurately Predict the Future

1. Jeane Dixon. Astrology appeals to our curiosity by claiming to reveal the future. No astrologer is more famous in this regard than Mrs. Jeane Dixon. She has been the psychic star of the last generation, having made thousands of public and private predictions. Her many devout followers think that she has the power. Her critics argue that she is simply a lucky guesser. Jeane Dixon views herself as being divinely inspired. She is a devout Roman Catholic who freely mixes Christianity and the occult. Mrs. Dixon uses a crystal ball, a deck of cards, numerology, astrology, etc. to predict the future. She does, however, credit God with her prophetic powers. “The Holy Mother comes to me. God comes to me. He talks to me.”(15) She claims that her major predictions come from visions she receives as she faces east and recites the 23rd Psalm at sunrise each morning. They also come to her as she kneels before a statue of the Virgin Mary in St. Matthew’s Church in Washington, D C.(16)

Jeane Dixon’s predictions fall into four basic categories:

a. Statements go general and obvious that they cannot possibly be wrong. It took no spiritual gift to predict, as Mrs. Dixon did during the 1960s, that America would be torn by racial conflicts.

b. Statements that are open to a host of interpretations. in this regard, I am reminded of the ancient story of Croesus and the mythical Oracle of Delphi. Croesus, king of Lydia from 560-546 B.C., asked the oracle if he should attack the Persian Empire. The oracle replied that if Croesus did so a great empire would fall. He therefore attacked, was defeated, and lost his empire. Croesus sent a angry message to Delphi, complaining that the oracle had lied to him. The oracle slyly replied, “You didn’t ask which empire.”(17) Likewise, a great number of Mrs. Dixon’s declarations are vague and ambiguous. She cleverly states things so that they can be interpreted in a variety of ways. For example, her prediction that in 1963 education would be a fashionable topic of conversation was later said to be a prediction of the school integration crisis of that year.(18)

c. Statements that are dead wrong. An examination of her published prophecies reveals some astounding errors. For example, she said that “World War III will break in October, 1958.” “Red China will be admitted to the United Nations in 1959. ” “Richard Nixon will defeat John F. Kennedy in the election of 1960.” “President Charles de Gaulle will surrender his powers in 1964.” In speaking of the 1964 presidential contest between Johnson and Goldwater, she said, “The crystal ball shows a paper-thin majority for the Democratic slate.” Mrs. Dixon said, “No particularly new or brilliant legislation will be passed by Congress in 1965 (the year of Medicare, the poverty program, the Civil Rights Bill, the education bill, etc.).”(19)

Other predictions that misfired include the following: In 1954 she said, “By 1964 . . . one man – a swarthy skinned part Oriental – will rule the combined countries of Russia and China.” In 1955 Dixon said, “Walter Reuther [CIO President] will make his first bid for the Presidency in 1960, but will not win his heart’s desire until 1964.” On May 17, 1966, she was quoted in the New York Post concerning Fidel Castro: “My vibrations now tell me that he’s nowhere around. He’s either in China or he’s dead. I haven’t been able to pick up his vibrations in a week or two.”(20) Moreover, she prophesied that 1980 would see a great war with China that would devastate mankind.(21)

As you can see, not only are many of her predictions contradictory, but a startling number of them are dead wrong. Not surprisingly, Mrs. Dixon has created an escape route for herself, even when faced with failure. In such cases, she has said that she was shown the correct symbols, but acknowledges that she misinterpreted them. In other instances, she simply will not admit that she was wrong. She still claims that two Russian cosmonauts, a man and a woman, were killed in an attempted moon landing.

d. Statements that are nothing more than lucky guesses. Jeane Dixon has been in the public eye for over 30 years. Anyone who makes hundreds of predictions year after year will eventually get a few right. Yet, even here Mrs. Dixon does poorly. When closely scrutinized, her famous warning of John F. Kennedy’s assassination turns out to be less than awe inspiring. In 1952 she stated that “a young blue-eyed Democratic President elect in 1960 would be assassinated while in office.”(22) This warning was repeated by Mrs. Dixon in a 1956 article in Parade magazine.(23) However, this was the only public forecast of Kennedy’s death that she made. In fact, she later contradicted herself by predicting that Richard Nixon would win the 1960 elections. When he didn’t win, she sidestepped by saying that Nixon was the rightful winner, but the Democrats had stolen the election. In her annual New Year’s predictions for 1963 she said nothing about an assassination.(24)

It is a fact that Mrs. Dixon wrote in 1968 that a “wiretapping” scandal involving President Richard Nixon was “yet to come.” It is also true that she correctly predicted that Georgia governor Jimmy Carter would be elected president in 1976. However, both forecasts should be read in their entirety.

On October 21, 1968, the Washington Daily News published this statement by Mrs. Dixon: “A wiretapping scandal which I have predicted previously is yet to come. It will involve Richard Nixon, but will show him as a sincere man and will help his public image. . . The entire matter will affect Mr. Nixon favorably and would seem to put him in a position to right a great wrong, which would be for the good of the image of the United States.”(25) As everyone knows, the Watergate affair was a disaster for Richard Nixon. He was driven from office and resigned in shame.

Mrs. Dixon’s predictions for the 1976 presidential election appeared in the National Enquirer on March 30, 1976. By this point in his campaign, Carter’s candidacy was surging in the polls. She did not step out very far on a limb to predict that he would win. However, she did chance it: Mrs. Dixon confidently stated, “Jimmy Carter will become President of the United States after a photo-finish race against Ronald Reagan.”(26) As everyone knows, Jimmy Carter beat Gerald Ford in 1976.

One of her most elaborate visions is of the coming of a new savior. Mrs. Dixon says that on February 5th, 1962, a child was born somewhere in the Middle East, who will one day unite all humanity into one all-embracing Christian religion by the year 1999.(27) On this date (February 5, 1962) five planets came together in a rare conjunction. Astrologers around the world predicted earth-shaking events for the occasion.(28) None came to pass. Those who trust the Bible know that Mrs. Dixon’s vision is unfounded and false. This is just another one of her harebrained predictions.

When all is said and done, Jeane Dixon is a person who likes to speculate about world affairs, as well as about the personal lives of her friends. She makes a prodigious number of predictions each year. Some are so vague that they are open to many interpretations. Many are dead wrong. A few are lucky guesses. If anyone makes enough guesses, some are bound to be right. So what? The only thing phenomenal about Mrs. Dixon is the amount of attention that she has been able to gather.

2. 1984 Conference. In December of 1983, psychics gathered in Jerusalem for the “First Multi-disciplinary Congress of Prognostication and Prediction for 1984.” The four-day assembly brought together 40 mystics from at least six countries. These prophets, who claimed to see the future in everything from palms to planets, predicted a turbulent 1984. The following predictions issued forth from this gathering: Ronald Reagan would not be re-elected to a second term. Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat would be killed in July or August. Syrian President Hafez Assad would also be assassinated. Syria was expected to attack Israel in the spring, touching off a new Middle East war. This would bring on the danger of an American-Soviet confrontation. One participant, Dr. Da Da of India, a yogi wearing an orange turban and robe, said that in 1984 another World War would begin in the Gulf states and continue until 1995. “At the end of the year 2,000, a new spiritual leader will emerge, like a messiah, and there will be peace,” he said .(29)

3. 1983 Conference. Some astrologers, soothsayers and exorcists gathered in November, 1983 for a two-day conference on ESP in Turin, Italy. They put their heads together and came up with the following predictions for 1984. Libyan leader Moammar Khadafy would be assassinated. A wave of unidentified flying objects were to arrive on Earth the following April. There would be notable advances in finding a cure for cancer. Two trains carrying radioactive waste would collide in West Germany, etc.(30)

4. 1979 Predictions. In the fall of 1980, the editors of The Skeptical Inquirer tabulated the predictions of 100 famous psychics for 1979. They listed the top 12 predictions in order of frequency, and then left the readers to judge the accuracy of these psychic visions of the future. The number one prediction of 1979 (made by 86 psychics) was “Longer lives will be had for almost everyone as aging is brought under control.” The second most frequent prediction (made by 85 psychics) was, “There will be a major break-through in cancer, which will almost totally wipe out the disease.” The third most frequent prediction (also made by 85 psychics) was, “There will be an astonishing spiritual rebirth and return to the old values.” And so on. The sixth most frequent prediction (81 psychics) was, “Contact will be made with aliens from space, who will give us incredible knowledge.”(31) Glory be! Marvels never cease!

5. Test by Culver & Ianna. The astronomers Rogers Culver and Philip Ianna checked the outcome of 3,011 specific predictions made during the past decade by well-known astrologers and astrological organizations. Ten percent came to pass.(32)

There is something pathetic, even desperate about such predictions. Psychics always forecast calamities, sickness, assassinations, and global disaster. Their focus is on the morbid, the outrageous, the unreal. Furthermore, they play the numbers game. If enough predictions are made, a few are bound to be right. People remember the correct guesses, and the wrong ones are forgotten. Few ever go back and check to see if the predictions came true. This gives the illusion that astrologists have clairvoyant powers. However, open investigation reveals that this illusion is false. Astrology cannot accurately predict the future.

In our final article, we will see how astrology fails the test of Scripture.

Endnotes

1. The Humanist, September/October, 1975.

2. Paul Recer, “Scientists Find Fault With Astrologers’ Use of Stars,” The Dallas Morning News, May 9, 1988, p. 6D.

3. UPI News Release, Dateline: Boston, MA, June 4, 1988.

4. UPI News Release, Dateline: San Francisco, CA, January 23, 1984.

5. UPI News Release, Dateline: San Francisco, CA, January 23, 1984.

6. UPI New Release, Dateline: San Francisco, CA, January 23, 1984.

7. UPI News Release, Dateline: San Francisco, CA, January 23, 1984.

8. Nigel Henbest, “Misreading the Stars,” Word Press Review, September, 1987, p. 55.

9. UPI News Release, Dateline: Boston, MA, June 4, 1988.

10. Henbest, p. 55.

11. Recer, p. 6D.

12. Douglas R. Hofstadter, “Meta-magical Themas,” Scientific American, February, 1982, p. 20.

13. Hofstadter, p. 20.

14. UPI News Release, April 13, 1985.

15. Bill Davidson, “Jeane Dixon Predicts the Future,” Ladies Home Journal, November, 1965, p. 76.

16. Davidson, p. 135.

17. Cohen, p. 473.

18. Cohen, p. 470.

19. Davidson, p. 136.

20. Hugh Tyler, “The Unsinkable Jeane Dixon, “The Humanist, May-June, 1977, pp. 7-8.

21. (NOTE: No corresponding source information provided in original article).

22. Davidson, p. 74.

23. Cohen, p. 470.

24. Cohen, p. 471.

25. Tyler, p. 8.

26. Tyler, p. 8.

27. Davidson, p. 135.

28. Cohen, p. 471.

29. (NOTE: No corresponding source information provided in original article).

30. UPI News Release, Dateline: Turin, Italy, November 14, 1983.

31. Hofstadter, p. 23.

32. UPI News Release, Dateline: San Francisco, CA January 23, 1984.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 18, pp. 560-563
September 20, 1990