Truth Magazine

By Jeff Asher

If you have been watching the media over the past month or so, you have noticed the tremendous “play” that has been given to what are called “the animal rights activists” in this country. They have protested against everything from laboratory testing upon animals to fur coats and cage eggs.

When these “activists” protest they use such terms as “torture,” “maim,” “bash,” “burn” and “suffer.” America’s animal husbandry industry has been accused by them of cruelty to animals because chickens, hogs, cattle and other animals spend their entire “lifetimes” in cages or stalls where their hooves or feet never touch the ground or anything but concrete which is regularly hosed and sanitized.

The most recent outrage, in my mind, occurred in Aspen, Colorado this week. The mayor of that city with the help of the national animal rights activists legislature committees managed to get before the public for a vote an ordinance which would have prohibited the sale of fur coats. Had this lobby been successful in passing the ordinance fur businesses which sold furs exclusively would have been forced out of business and over 100 other retail outlets that handled fur items would have been restricted.

Fortunately, the measure was defeated by a two to one margin; however, not without the cost of an election and $250,000 spent by various special interest groups in this little town of just under 4,000.

Yet, the most appalling thing to come out of this was the statement made by Katherine Thalberg, the mayor’s wife and co-founder of the Aspen Society For Animal Rights. She said: “The real issue is whether it is all right to kill animals to make fur coats.” These folk are questioning the morality of making and wearing fur coats.

Now, I do not own a fur, do not desire a fur, nor can I afford a fur. But, these kinds of statements concern me because they represent a warped picture of morality and actually demean something much more precious, Human Life.

Recent letters in our own local newspaper exemplify what I am talking about. A gentleman associated with the local chapter of the SPCA wrote and referred to animalkind as our “fellow living beings” and “companions on this planet,” leaving the impression that their existence and purpose on this earth were equal with our own. Now, friends, I’ll be the first one to condemn kicking dogs, drowning cats or pulling wings off butterflies, but the fact is there is no animal equal in value to a man, and there is nothing immoral about using animals to feed, clothe and enrich human existence on this planet.

What Ms. Thalburg, and others like her, have forgotten, or perhaps just do not believe, is that God created man in his own image (Gen. 1:26) and gave him dominion over all the rest of creation. Animal life and human life are valued differently by God. Solomon wrote: “all go unto a place; all are of the dust; and all turn to dust again. Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth” (Eccl. 3:21). That which is in the likeness and image of God is man’s immortal spirit which God values above all else upon this earth. Jesus said: “for what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?” (Matt. 16:26)

God has decreed that it is immoral for one man to take another man’s life (Exod. 20:13), that those who do so are worthy of death themselves (Gen. 9:6), and that civil government has the duty to execute God’s vengeance on such murderers (Rom. 13:4). However, it was God himself who made the very first fur coat (Gen. 3:21) and gave animalkind to mankind for food (Gen. 9:2,3). Therefore, I am certain that is is right for man to raise animals for food, clothing and labor.

However, God did legislate proper treatment of animals – but this did not exclude killing for food and clothing. Notice some of these laws:

(1) In the seventh year animals were allowed to graze in the fields (Exod. 23:11; Lev. 25:5-7).

(2) On the Sabbath beasts of burden also rested (Exod. 23:12).

(3) The nesting fowl were free from capture (Deut. 22:6,7).

(4) The working beast was to go unmuzzled (Deut. 25:4).

(5) The Law prohibited killing a cow and calf in the same day (Lev. 22:28).

(6) The Law prohibited boiling a kid in its mother’s milk (Exod. 34:26).

The design and intent of these laws were to instill in mankind a respect for the creation and restraint against its abuse. God intended man to “dress and keep” the creation, i.e. to properly manage earth’s resources.

Yet, what is most troubling about this issue is the tremendous inconsistency of the animal rights activists when it comes to moral issues such as capital punishment, abortion, euthanasia and basic ethics. For the most part you will find the animal activist aligned with the “liberal left” and pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia, anti-capital punishment crowd who favor lax laws on marriage, homosexuality, drugs and alcohol.

This point was well made in a recent letter to the editor from Dr. Robert Bauman, Jr. of Amarillo. He wrote:

I think that [those] who have written to express concern over the use of animals have at the same time presented eloquent arguments against elective abortions! For instance by inserting the words “fetus” and “abortion” into [their] argument we have: “Fetuses that are subjected to agonizing and painful abortions deserve our compassion and protection. Abortions that bash, burn, and maim the fetus while it acutely feels the full effects of the ‘torture’ show just how far we have not come in our advancement of civilization and compassion for our fellow living beings.” I believe that we have an immense responsibility to love and care for our companions on this planet, over which we hold the ultimate power of life and death. After all, the question is not can they reason or can they talk, but rather can they suffer?

Folks, its time to “wake up” and do some clear-headed thinking in this country and see if we can’t get back on the right track morally and spiritually. If we continue like we’re going now the day will come when the old, the aged, the infirm, the deformed and the just simply unwanted will be casually destroyed and discarded, but the furry and four-footed will be protected by municipal ordinance, state law, and constitutional amendment.

Something is seriously wrong with a nation that opposes research on animals that can cure disease and make products safe to use, but allows aborted children to be sold to cosmetic companies for the manufacture of collagen. Where has our sense of morality gone when cities allow “pet cemeteries,” but the mutilated carcases of aborted babies are thrown into a Dempsey Dumpster?

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 14, pp. 436-437
July 19, 1990

By Ed Harrell

Mike, I received your letter of March 19 with a copy of the article that was published in the Guardian of Truth on April 19 while I was in Europe. Since I returned only a few days ago, this is my first opportunity to offer comments.

As you know, your letter did not indicate that you intended to include the material that was published under the heading “Ed Harrell on Divorce and Remarriage. ” For that piece of irresponsible and libelous journalism, I am asking for a retraction and apology.

Having served for many years as the editor of a magazine, I assume that you feel some obligation to obey copyright laws. Could it possibly be that you are so naive that you do not know that you have no right to publish copyrighted material in your magazine without the consent of the author? Of course, I would be happy to give permission for any proper use – but not for the distorted use you made of this historical passage. Or do you think that you have no obligation to know and obey the laws that control the publication of other people’s material? These laws are intended primarily to protect authors from robbery, but they also guard against malicious efforts to distort. Your use of my material is a good example of why such laws exist.

Your publication of a portion of a historical narrative describing the views of early disciples about marriage under the title “Ed Harrell on Divorce and Remarriage” is, I think, legal libel. You know that this passage has nothing to do with my views on divorce and remarriage. It is not only absurd to imply that a historian’s descriptive narrative is his view, it is a clear and malicious effort to deceive. This deception is confirmed by the fact that I have repeatedly stated my convictions on this subject, including many times in recent months. You knew the article you ran did not state my views on divorce and remarriage and the intent could only have been deception.

You have a right, Mike, to say that my convictions on divorce and remarriage are inconsistent with my view of fellowship. Or, if you have some evidence, that I have spoken inconsistently on that subject. Certainly, you have the right and responsibility to say I am wrong. You do not have a right to lie about my beliefs – either legally or morally.

With regard to the major assertions in your article, I offer these brief comments.

1. I have written sixteen articles in Christianity magazine outlining my understanding of the scriptural and historical nature of fellowship within restoration movements. Anyone interested in my views on that subject should read those articles, not Mike Willis’ selective critique of them. In those articles, I have tried to show how the restoration plea has survived in the real world where brethren disagree about biblical interpretations on many important subjects – including pacifism, the covering, and marriage and divorce, to name a few. Brother Willis argues that brethren can not disagree about any matter of consequence/” faith” (not yet giving us his completed list of those matters that are of consequence). I also believe our disagreements are limited by New Testament guidelines. My guidelines are outlined in my extensive series of articles.

2. In practice, I suspect that the circle of fellowship that I draw is not far different from brother Willis’. Mike’s assertion on page 22 that I endorse any position of divorce and remarriage is flagrantly false. I pointed out in my article that there are many different views on those subjects and that all Christians are left to decide which of those views they will tolerate. I am reasonably certain that all of the staff writers on the Guardian of Truth do not agree about divorce and remarriage. Mike must either tell us what is the acceptable teaching on that subject or outline a principle upon which he tolerates diversity. He has done neither. The latter principle is what I have tried to examine in my series of articles.

3. With regard to your comments about my historical arguments, Mike, I am unclear as to what you are asking. Do you think we should change what happened in the past? Do you think it would be best to ignore what has happened in the past? Do you think we should pay no attention to the practice and arguments of generations past?

Your disenchantment with historical insight rings hollow, of course, since for years you have implored me to update my tract on “,The Emergence of the Church of Christ Denomination.” As you know, you have frequently told me what a marvelous contribution it was to our understanding of the institutional division – despite, I now take it, of its “neoorthodox” sociological slant. (Such innuendo, by the way, is sheer McCarthyism – an effort to attach a prejudicial name to something you don’t like.) I can only assume that you are now withdrawing your offer to publish the updated tract. It strikes me, Mike, that historical insight is convincing to you in direct proportion to whether it supports or contradicts your prejudices.

4. I understand the historical prejudice of brother Willis. His argument flies into the face of the practice of brethren in both the remote and the recent past. He is presenting us with a new truth. Since he has not acted consistently with this view in the past, I assume that he has only recently arrived at it. It was hardly a startling new revelation when I and some other brethren admitted in recent months that we regarded Homer Hailey as a faithful brother. Hailey had been Vice-President and Head of the Bible Department at Florida College for many years and had been held in the highest esteem (unless there is some colossal hypocrisy abroad) by many of those who have recently argued that he is not fit to be used. Many of his present critics have long served on official boards at the institution where Hailey was the head of the Bible department.

5. The intent of my article about brother Hailey should not be misunderstood. I clearly stated that I did not endorse Hailey’s view on divorce and remarriage, a position I believe is wrong. I simply pointed out that the argument on fellowship that was introduced during the attack on Hailey’s view was new and that it called in question the behavior of all of us who had cordially fellowshipped Homer Hailey for many years, as well as others with whom we disagreed. What disturbed me particularly was the fact that many who espoused this new idea on fellowship equated all disagreement with the institutional division of the 1950s. Such simplistic notions, I believe, reveal a troubling misunderstanding of the institutional division. Brother Willis’ arguments reflect a profound ignorance of the real basis of the institutional division. His notion of fellowship undermines the whole concept of restoring New Testament Christianity. It was that concern, not a personal interest in Homer Hailey, that moved me to write on this subject.

There is nothing wrong with new ideas. If brother Willis and others have discovered a principle of fellowship that proves that all of us erred when we associated with one another in spite of differences of conscience, then I am willing to listen. If it requires every congregation in Alabama to divide on the covering issue (a question which implicates the faith and conscience of thousands of Christians), then let us get about the business of cutting apart the congregations. But I am not prepared to accept this new concept of fellowship until brother Willis tells us the basis upon which he is making his decisions about which teachings on divorce and remarriage are acceptable and which are not, and why other matters of faith are irrelevant. My long series of articles in Christianity outlines the biblical principles that have long controlled my relations with other brethren.

6. With regard to a discussion, I am always open to “fair” and “brotherly” discussion. I can not say that I am surprised that Mike does not like the policies of Christianity magazine. My own estimate – though I do not control the magazine’s policy – is that it is doing a good job of meeting its intended purpose. It could be turned into another Guardian of Truth, but I don’t really think we need another paper doing what the Guardian does quite well.

Mike, I have written sixteen articles outlining my views. I have no intention, nor do I have the time, to enter an extended written rehearsal of those views. As you know, I have a full-time career and it taxes me to fulfill my writing commitments to Christianity magazine.

I would, however, be happy to publicly answer any objections you have to my views – if I were convinced that you are capable of “fair” and “brotherly” discussion. I shall await your explanation of your unlawful and devious representation of my views. If I am convinced that you are capable of an honorable discussion, I would be happy to meet you in some public place one afternoon at next year’s Florida lectures (or at some earlier date if feasible), listen to your objections, give a public answer and respond to any questions.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 15, pp. 455-456
August 2, 1990

By Clinton D. Hamilton

Question: Would you mind expounding Proverbs 11:14, which reads, “Where no counsel is, the people fall but in the multitude of counselors there is safety”?Does that show that in a problem, difficulty, etc. the more persons one can consult there is the probability of correctness?

Reply: Evidently the context here indicates that the rules of government for the people is the topic under consideration. In situations in which these rules do not reflect considerations and deliberations of competent and sagacious people, there is going to be a disaster for them. On the other hand, when there is a multitude of counselors, there is safety. Keil and Delitzsch state that the term used “denotes a multiplicity in unity, circumspect.”

When a people’s destiny is tied to the whims of one or to a few, it is more likely to be to their disadvantage than when there are many wise, competent, and circumspect counselors. There is not under view a personal problem or difficulty. The proverb does not deal with this issue.

A single counselor for a personal problem or difficulty could be either good or bad consequent on the nature and character of the advisor. But because the proverb is dealing with a people under rules or law, one should be cautious about applying it to another situation.

Question: Is it a misuse – taking out of context – to apply James 1:27, “. . . and to keep himself unspotted from the world” to staying away from, not talking to, staying aloof from, a person who has caused hatred by being obnoxious, crude, rude, reviling, mean, intransigent, etc. on a continuing, day-to-day basis. This question is in reference to alien sinners on a secular job, since no Christian could scripturally do such. (He would be an apostate, same as an alien: but would have to repent to get back into relationship with Christ.)

Reply: Unspotted is an adjective from the Greek term aspilos which means not to be stained. In this context, the sense is metaphorical. As a garment may be unstained or unblemished, so shall the child of God remain unblemished, unstained, from the defilement or pollution spiritually and morally that characterized the men who reject the Lordship of Jesus Christ, or the world.

On a job or in other contexts of one’s daily life, there are certainly times when people who are immoral or are characterized by the terms used in this question have contact or association with Christians. We are informed by the Holy Spirit that if we have no such associations we would have need to “go out of the world” (1 Cor. 5:10).

It would be taking the passage out of the intended application indicated by the language used to apply it to not having association on a job with an alien characterized by the terms used in the question. Certainly one would be careful about close associates but association in some contexts with immoral people is impossible to avoid as long as we are in this life.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 15, p. 453
August 2, 1990

By Larry Ray Hafley

Matthew 26:24, the Son of God said, “The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! It had been good for that man if he had not been born.”

If the doctrine of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists and other materialists is true, how could the verse above be correct?

Materialists teach that the wicked are annihilated and exterminated. The wicked dead go out of existence. They cease to exist. It is as though they had never been born. That is what materialists say. However, if that is true, if the materialists are right about the wicked, how, or in what sense, could it be better for them not to have been born? If materialists are right, Jesus should have said, “That man is going to be just like he had never been born.”

Others (like some aspects of certain Catholic doctrine) believe that the wicked will eventually be released from their pain and punishment and rewarded with bliss. But if that is true, it would not be true that it would be better if Judas had never been born, for no matter how severe or how long his anguish, once he endured it, his blessedness would ultimately be better than never having been born. The immediate consequence is that our Lord’s statement would not be true. “God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar” (Rom. 3:4).

Beware of any doctrine that makes void the word of God! Any teaching that contradicts the plain words of the Son of God is false. We need to have a greater faith and confidence in the word of Christ, for it will judge us in that last, great day (Jn. 12:48).

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 15, p. 452
August 2, 1990