Truth Magazine

By Michael Garrison

Whether or not parents should discipline their children by spanking is of concern to many. Some actually teach it is wrong for parents to use any physical action as discipline. Others think if they “love” their children, they should not ever strike them in any way as punishment. God’s word provides directions in this matter.

In the pamphlet, For Kids Sake (by an unidentified author and available at some health clinics), the author quotes the Bible at Proverbs 13:24: “He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him” (RVS). The author then tries to prove that a rod was not used for punishment. The author defines the word “rod” as only a shepherd’s rod, staff, or scepter and then states, “it was not used as a weapon or to hurt people” (his emphasis, mg). But when one checks the lexicons, he finds the truth. Strong’s Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary defines “rod” as being “from an unused root prob. mean. to branch off; a scion, i.e. (lit). a stick (for punishing [my emphasis, mg], writing, fighting [my emphasis, mg], ruling, walking, etc.” So, the word was used as a weapon and to hurt people! Then, in Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, “rod” is defined as “a staff, stick, rod . . . specifically (1) used for beating or striking . . . and chastening . . . Prov. 13:24. . . ” Gesenius also shows the word to be used as “a shepherd’s rod, a crook . . . the sceptor of a king. . . ” etc. To ignore all the meanings of a word is not honest.

In “Dear Abbey’s” column for May 22, 1990, Joy Byers of the National Committee for Prevention of Child Abuse, equates spanking of children with child abuse. Certainly, we all oppose child abuse, but proper spanking, as discipline, given in love, is not abuse!

In Proverbs 19:18 we learn, “Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his crying.” Also, in Proverbs 22:15, we read, “Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.”

The word “chasten” above is defined by Strong’s dictionary as a “prim. root; to chasten, lit. (with blows), correct, instruct, punish, reform, reprove, sore, teach.” So, one can be chastened with blows. That is not the only way, but it is a way and to equate spanking with abuse misses the mark of truth!

We learn in Hebrews 12:9-11, “Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh who corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much more be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure (note: they are not condemned for this); but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness. Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them who are exercised thereby.” Those of us who were spanked when we disobeyed our parents as children, now look back and realize it was for our own good that we were disciplined. Parents who love their children will discipline them in appropriate ways. Too, each child is different and needs to be disciplined fairly but firmly.

Dr. Max Rafferty (formerly of Troy State University, Troy, Alabama) wrote an article in the Birmingham (Al.) News (June 15, 1980), in which, after he gives examples of teenage delinquency, murder, etc., writes:

Okay, now what . . . is going on? Have we as a people become so permissive, so craven, so downright chicken, that we are unable and unwilling to defend ourselves against our own young? Where are the paddles, the switches, the hair bushes?

And don’t tell me I’m advocating brutality and “negative motivations.” During the centuries when we laid the wood to potential delinquents, we had the merest fraction of the juvenile crime and terrorism which we see around us today. And you’d better believe it.

I agree with Dr. Rafferty and he gives some good words for all to consider.

Let parents properly discipline their own children in accord with God’s instructions revealed in his Holy Word.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 16, p. 493
August 16, 1990

By Lewis Willis

An article in the Akron Beacon Journal (5-4-90), reports that scientists have succeeded in growing human brain cells in their laboratories. This offers the A possible hope of having these brain calls available to replace those that are damaged. Many years of study remain before the technology can be developed for infusing these new cells into our heads. However, the prospects are challenging, to say the least.

I’m going to put my name on the list to receive some of these brain cells. I’m going to order some Jack Nicklaus cells in the hope that I can learn how to hit a golf ball. I want some Chet Atkins cells to improve my guitar playing skills. If I had some Donald Trump cells, maybe I could make more money. Who knows, maybe one day I could become an instant brain surgeon, like Jethro Bodine on the Beverly Hillbillies. The potential is too great to imagine. It might be difficult to find somebody with desirable brain cells who would be willing to donate them, but I want to get my name on the list, just in case.

In all seriousness, the scientific community envisions this development as a possible solution to problems like Alzheimer’s, stroke or head injuries. All of this notwithstanding, I get concerned about some of our so-called “advancements. ” It seems to me that we have some people who are “playing around” with the natural order of things and the use they are making of some of these new-found technologies is frightening.

Scientists have developed an abortion pill which facilitates in the continued slaughter of unwanted babies. The total now exceeds 20,000,000 abortions in America since 1973! New and better ways to commit this murder are not “advancements. ” It is now possible to know not only the sex of an unborn baby, but whether or not it has any defects. This will help in getting rid of the “undesirable” children. Scientists can determine the sex of a human egg, artificially inseminate it and guarantee a couple that they will have a boy or a girl. It is now possible to control the gender and health of future offspring. Hitler envisioned a “super race” and we now have the technology to produce it. Given the movement in thought toward euthanasia – getting rid of the old, infirm and useless – one has to wonder about the future of the human race. Thus, it is time for concern about where all of this is headed and what use is going to be made of all of these new things we are learning to do.

I do not know of anything in the Scriptures that prohibits scientific study and development. I think it would be wrong to issue a blanket condemnation of scientific endeavors. Many things have been discovered which are helpful in dealing with disease, as well as every day activities of modern man. One would be foolhardy to object to something that has so obviously helped. However, when Paul wrote to Timothy he issued a warning saying, “O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: which some professing have erred concerning the faith” (1 Tim. 6:20-21). This suggests that science could possibly array itself against the purposes of God. It could stand in opposition to that which is right. Such, Paul says, should be avoided. Does it not appear to you that there are times when scientists are dabbling in things that they should stay out of? The things we earlier described are cases in point. Let us pray that wisdom will prevail to change the evils already being practiced, and that we might be delivered from even greater evils that might come.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 16, p. 492
August 16, 1990

By Harold Hancock

A sect exists because of a distinctive philosophy, doc trine, or worship practice. It promotes allegiance to the party and the tenets of the faction. It is “divi sion . . . in contrast to the uniting power of truth” (W.E. Vine, Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words).

Pharisees and Sadducees are two sects spoken of in the Scriptures (Acts 15:5; 5:17). The Pharisees taught people to adhere stringently to their interpretations of the Law of Moses. The Sadducees said there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confessed both (Acts 23:8). Pharisees and Sadducees were segments and perversions of the Jewish religion.

The church was called a sect and was spoken against by its enemeies and by some who misunderstood the nature and purpose of the church (Acts 24:5,14; 28:22). Tertullus was referring to the church when he said Paul was a “ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes” (Acts 24:5). But the church is not a sect. It is not a faction of the Jews nor anything

The man who contends for God’s organizational arrangements in the various relationships he has prescribed, whether in the family on earth or the family of heaven, is the man who has sanctified the Lord. He is the man who truly fears the Lord and who truly submits to his word, power and authority (cf. Isa. 8:5-22). Do not be deceived about these matters. What has God said about our relationships to one another in the marriage unit? what has God said about our duties, obligations and responsibilites as members one of another and of the Lord? Whatever he has said, we had better do it.

Beware lest any man snatch you away as booty or plunder from a raid through means of human wisdom, empty deceit, the tradition of men, and the rudimentary elements of the world and not after the teaching of Christ (Col. 2:8). In the judgment, I would just as soon be the man who denied marital offices and functions (as per Eph. 5:22-33; 1 Pet. 3:1-7), as to be the man who denied the office and work of elders and saints (as per I Tim. 3; Tit. 1, and I Pet. 5).

Would you glorify and sanctify God? Would you have him be your dread and fear? Then, in whatever area or station of life, determine his will from his word and live humbly, obediently and stedfastly therein.

It is all the saved, Jew and Gentile (Acts 2:47; Rom. 1: 16). It is not heresy built on one or two peculiar points of dogma. It is the body of Christ and upholds all truth (Eph. 1:22,23; 1 Tim. 3:15). Paul never admitted the church to be a sect. He answered, “But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy (a sect, hh), so worship I the God of my fathers” (Acts 24:14).

Calling the church a sect did not make the church a sect. Neither were early preachers required to cease to preach “Jcsus of Nazareth ” nor to refuse converts from the region of Galilee near Nazareth because some people alluded to the church as the “sect of the Nazarenes” (Acts 2:22; 3:6; 4:10; 6:14; 10:38; 22:8; 26:9). People’s distorted views and misconceptions of the church did not doom it to defeat or prevent it from growing. The church grew as the word of God increased (Acts 6:7). Truth will overpower the “prejudices” of honest people!

Denominations are religious sects (Webster’s New World Dictionary). Each denomination claims to be a part of Christendom and is separated from all other denominations by distinctive doctrines and names. Some think of the church of Christ as a denomination. It is not. The church opposes division and seeks to unite all in truth as the body of Christ. It is not a faction of the saved; it is the saved (Acts 2:47). It seeks no distinctive name but may be desc4ed by any scriptural appellation – church of Christ (Rom. 16:16), church of God (1 Cor. 1:2), church of the Lord (Acts 20:28, ASV), or church of the firstborn (Heb. 12:23). These are not proper names but phrases that tell whom the church belongs to and who make up the church.

I am sorry some today still perceive the church as a denomination or sect. Their delusion does not make the church a denomination. I do not believe preachers must cease to preach and talk about the “church of Christ” or that churches of Christ must remove their signs from in front of their buildings because some regard them as the “denomination of the Church of Christ.” These people will likely think “denomination!” no matter what phrase we use to describe the church and no matter what sign appears in front of our buildings. They will think “denomination!” until they learn the truth about the nature and purpose of the church.

Obey the truth and be added to the Lord’s church (Acts 2:47); do not join a denomination. Take every opportunity to instruct people about Jesus and his church. Truth is the greatest weapon we have to fight false ideas (2 Cor. 10:4).

Teaching the truth is the way we dispel error.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 16, pp. 490-491
August 16, 1990

By F. David Moyer

There has been much written about the causes of unhappy marriages. As a counselor who has worked with hundreds of couples, I can safely say that nearly everything has been blamed for the breakup of the home, including the family pet.

Major issues of blame fall upon finances, the arrival of children, or new live-in relatives. Sex is an explosive issue, whether a lack of, or a demanding too much of, or extramarital affairs. So also is the demand for rights of “personal space” or attention. At the height of the list is the lack of communication, the inability to express feelings, and the blaming of the partner for holding in feelings that need to be expressed.

If we would take a hard, close, personal look at all the excuses offered for the collapse of the home, the preceding list would teach us that each of those things are only symptoms of the real problem, not the cause itself.

When two individuals complain about an “issue” in the marriage, the real problem is that the two are having difficulty relating to each other in the way God created the marriage to work. They are not abiding by the love principle.

To understand the real issue, and not be caught up in the smoke screens, we need to discern the basic premise which God has ordained for the smooth functioning of any relationship, and that is, “Love your neighbor as yourselj”‘(Mk.12:31). This was called by James the “royal law” (Jas. 2:8).

When we make the application of this law to the marriage ‘ it would translate as, “Love your partner as you love Yourself. ” This is another way of expressing the “Golden Rule” of “Do to others what you would have them do to you” (Matt. 7:12).

Twentieth century mankind has either never learned, or has forgotten this command, because now everyone is demanding their “rights” as the foundation of their relationship. This immediately sets up an antagonistic base in which each person is expecting the other to love (respond and perform) on demand – the right to expect the other person to behave in a certain way. Yet this goes contrary to God’s plan which is based on the love principle.

Consider what Paul said, “. . . husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself” (Eph. 5:28). This is the practical application of Jesus’ royal law. Certainly the same principle applies to the wife as well, and the wife must respect her husband” (v. 33).

Let’s put this concept into usable terms. For the husband to love his wife, and the wife to respect her husband, each must give to the relationship, not demand. “If you could love your wife, and treat her exactly the way you would like to be treated, then chances are she will respond to that love. . . . If you would love her, serve her, lift her up, and praise her, you may get that back, but to demand her to be that way because you have a right to is expect the impossible, and clearly goes against God’s love principle.”

So often I’ve heard husbands complain that their wives will not do what they are told to do, that they will not serve, or clean, or contribute to the home; that all they do is complain and moan about their situation – they are not submissive. (Submission is a dirty word by modern definition and understanding! After all, we have the right to do what we want to do without having to consider another person’s feelings?) The real reason for their dissatisfaction (and hear this men) is that husbands are not loving their wives in the way they would like their wives to love them in return the love principle is not being applied! If you could love your wife, and treat her exactly the way you would like to be treated, then chances are she will respond to that love. But how can you possibly expect her to be how you would like her to be, and not be that way yourself? If you would love her, serve her, lift her up, and praise her, you may get that back, but to demand her to be that way because you have a right to is expect the impossible, and clearly goes against God’s love principle. (The same thing is true for wives as well.)

I’ve never talked to a wife who has difficulty giving of herself to a husband who is kind, considerate, loving, and nourishing; who gives of his time and energy to make her feel like the most important person in the world; who, by his actions and attitudes, lifts her up to be a glorious woman, without any defect or weakness, who is radiant because of the love he showers upon her; and who, by his words, removes any impurity ever perceived. When love is shown, love will be returned; this is the love principle in action. (This is “just as Christ” loving as described in Ephesians 5).

I’ve also never talked to a husband who has difficulty giving of himself to a woman who exhibits all of those same qualities just listed. There are the guiding tenets of the love principle found in Ephesians 5:21-33. When these are applied, submission loses its dirty connotation, and takes on the sense of freely giving of the self to the other because it’s an act of love. The husband voluntarily submits to his wife (v. 21) by the giving of himself sacrificially to his wife as Christ freely gave himself for his bride, the church. The wife voluntarily submits to her husband (v. 22) by the giving of herself to her husband as the church does to her husband, Christ. And what a beautiful relationship comes as a result: no selfish and arrogant demands for rights, but the giving of self in response to the love principle – two individuals who give of themselves and get 100 percent in return.

This principle is described as to its focus of interests in Philippians 2:4, “Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others.” In other words, when you make an emotional and intellectual investment with the other person, you are acting out of love. That’s what Jesus did (Phil. 2:5-8), giving of himself to be of service to the one he loves. He lived the love principle perfectly.

When John wrote of God’s love for us in 1 John 4:10, he said, “This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us. ” God showed his love without us showing it to him first; in fact, we were hostile to him when he showed his love (Rom. 5:8-10). It is not our response to God that prompts his love being shown, but his desire to show love to us. For husbands and wives this character of love must be demonstrated, not in order to prompt or demand a response from the other, but simply to show the love and let them make the choice. With two people showing love in this way, there will be two individuals receiving the gift of perfect, unconditional love, and the formulation of a base which will bring the two together so that neither life, nor death, nor angels, nor demons, nor the present, nor the future, nor any powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation will be able to separate them from the love they share. And that is a marriage which will last through whatever storm or trial may come. They love each other enough to see it through -separation or divorce is never an option.

It is my firm belief that the underlying problem for so many couples is not finances, children, sex, or the family pet, but that they do not love each other enough. This is the message . . . from the beginning: We should love one another” (1 Jn. 3:11).

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 17, pp. 513, 533
September 6, 1990