Truth Magazine

By Bill Dodd

In the winter and early spring of 1990, 1 sent several articles to the Arkansas Gazette. The first articles I sent were to challenge evolution and abortion. Those articles never saw the light of day. You see, the first two articles I sent took issue with the views sent in by Gazette readers. Then it dawned on me to apply some insight gained from the “waterfront philosopher,” Eric Hoffer. Hoffer said that the main reason intellectuals like Communism is that Communism’s restricted political system draws more attention to their protests. A democracy does not give them the attention that they think they ought to command. So, I challenged the editors of the Gazette to print my article on abortion; you guessed it, I got written up.

It has occurred to me that perhaps one reason so many bright preachers have gone off the deep-end spiritually is to draw attention through their radical views to themselves. I well remember that in the sixties, some young intellectuals took some cheap shots at Alexander Campbell. Luther Blackmon made the observations that Campbell’s intellectual mantle would fit these young upstarts like a cowhide would fit a canary. Some fit! Also, in this same time frame, I perchance asked Melvin Curry about one young preacher who had been a four-pointer grade-wise at Florida College. He told me that he was not all that impressed with brainy folks anymore. I am quite sure that Melvin appreciates ability used the right way as much as anyone. He was not impressed with the vanity of some spiritual renegades of which he had first hand knowledge. Neither am 1. Incidentally, that young preacher is now an Episcopalian.

It would seem that Jude had the vain intellectual’s number when he penned these words: “and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men’s person in admiration because of advantage” (Jude 16).

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 14, p. 424
July 19, 1990

By Ron Halbrook

Godly women are taught to dress modestly so as to reflect reverence for God and so as to exert a good influence upon men (1 Tim. 2:9-10; 1 Pet. 3:14). Worldly minded brethren tell us that these passages do not forbid such “styles” as shorts, miniskirts, and swimsuits, but forbid only overdressing. They tell us that in the first century there was no problem with women exposing their bodies and that the passages cited above have no reference to such a question. “Besides, nobody thinks anything about it nowadays. No one considers such attire immodest or pays any attention to it except a few grouchy preachers and a few narrow-minded brethren.”

The truth is that some first-century fashions were gaudy and some gauzy – some overdressed and some under dressed a woman’s body. Both forms of immodesty are forbidden by the principles taught in such passages as 1 Timothy 2:9-10 and I Peter 3:1-4. Historians tell us that the silk market boomed in the first century because silk clothing could be designed which “clung to the female form in a way that was infinitely more pleasing to the eye” than traditional fashions. Next, designers decided that “the close-woven Chinese fabric” was “not sexy enough,” so they “re-wove it into a flimsy gauze which left little to the imagination.”

For the average Roman girl-watcher those were golden years, but the moralists raise a fearful outcry. “I see clothes of silk, if clothes they can be called, “wrote the philosopher Seneca (4 BC-AD 64), “affording protection neither to the body nor to the modesty of the wearer, and which are purchased for enormous sums. . . ” Pliny told of garments that “render women naked.” Other writers waggishly referred to clothes I made of glass” (Robert Collins, East to Cathay: The Silk Road [New York: McGraw-Hill, 1968], pp. 44-46).

Notice Seneca’s reference to costly array which violates the principle of modesty when worn, both of which are mentioned in 1 Timothy 2:9-10.

In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

The new fashion rage is pushing ” see-through blouses,” ‘racy peek-a-boo garb,” and all sorts of “gauzy merchandise. ” As Laura Akgulian observes, “The ‘power’ of these clothes resides in the fact that they’re hardly clothes at all. They are lingerie masquerading as day wear.” Akgulian is working on a book about women and fashion. Her article “See-through chic is sheer effrontery to females” appeared in the Houston (TX) Chronicle, 21 March 1989, p. 11A. She rightly protests the new fashion as outrageous and brazen.

It is embarrassing and disgusting even to read about these new styles, but it will be still more embarrassing and disgusting to be “forced to watch other women parading around” in them. The only thing worse will be when some Christian women get sufficiently accustomed to the new style to wear it. Will some of us become so demoralized and degraded as to show off the new fashion at worship services, as happened with the miniskirts? I shudder to think about it.

We cannot become totally pessimistic when a voice like Laura Akgulian’s can still be heard in our society! In traveling around the country, it is heartening to meet many godly sisters in Christ who have never bowed the knee to the fashion gods of under dress and overdress. There are many godly husbands and fathers who are leading their families in the paths of righteousness. Not all gospel preachers are as silent as the tomb on modesty. Many still speak the truth of God with dignity, kindness, and firmness. When necessary, they can cry aloud and spare not.

Brethren, we must not become so discouraged that we quit speaking out in behalf of righteousness, godliness, and modesty. When my wife and I wrote the editor of the Houston Chronicle thanking him for printing Laura Akgulian’s article, he printed our letter in the “Viewpoints” column (2 Mar., p. 3H). We must not be ashamed of the gospel. We must not be afraid of the frowns of our neighbors and relatives (and even some brethren). Compromise and concession cause our lights to grow dim in this world of darkness and sin. With childlike faith in the Lord, with courage and conviction, let us resolve to “shine as lights in the world, holding forth the word of life” (Phil. 2:15-16).

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 14, p. 427
July 19, 1990

By Larry Ray Hafley

“And at that time there was a great persecution against the church . . . and they were all scattered abroad” (Acts 8:1). “I wrote unto the church; but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not” (3 Jn. 9). The “church” is “they,” “them,” the saved.

Saul breathed “out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord” (Acts 9:1). He laid waste “the church ” (Acts 8:3). Saul did “much evil . . . to (the Lord’s) saints” (Acts 9:13). He “persecuted the church of God” (Gal. 1:13). Saul “destroyed them which called on (the Lord’s) name” (Acts 9:21). He “persecuted the church of God” (1 Cor. 15:9). Saul put “many of the saints . . . in prison” (Acts 26:10). He was zealous, “persecuting the church ” (Phil. 3:6).

The believers whom Saul beat and imprisoned were the saints which called on the Lord’s name – note it well – “in Jerusalem” (Acts 9:13,21). Who were these people “at Jerusalem “? They were the ones who believed, repented and were baptized “in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” “at Jerusalem” (Acts 2:5,36-38). These people are collectively referred to as the “saved,” “the church” (Acts 2:47; 5:11), “which was at Jerusalem” (Acts 8:1).

People in Antioch heard the preaching of the Lord, “and a great number believed and turned to the Lord.” Further, “much people were added unto the Lord.” These saved people were “the disciples (which) were called Christians first in Antioch.” Collectively, they referred to as “the church” (Acts 11:20-26).

Why Such Repetition?

Why be so redundant about a point that no Christian denies; in other words, the saved are the church? First, the fact often is acknowledged without its implications being fully appreciated or clearly understood. Second, certain brethren are uncomfortable with the “exclusivistic” nature of the church. They rail and revile against being “legalistic, narrowminded, bigoted,” but they offer no scriptural alternative to the body of the saved. Third, many devout souls in denominationalism repudiate “the one true church” concept. Their prejudice against the truth is born partly of ignorance. They need to be instructed in the way of God more perfectly. Fourth, sincere believers, hearing the taunts of brethren and religious friends, begin to question the truth which they mentally accept. They must be reminded, grounded and settled, rooted and built up in Christ and established in the faith.

Ask Yourself:

(1) Does the Bible teach the saved constitute the church, the body of Christ (Eph. 1:22,23; 2:16; 4:4; 5:23)? Are there saved people who are not members of the church (Acts 2:47; 1 Cor. 12:12,13,20)?

(2) What must one do to be saved (Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:36-38,41; Heb. 5:8,9)? What does it mean to obey the gospel (Rom. 5:1; 6:3,4,16,17; 10:9,10)?

(3) When the Bible refers to “the church,” does it refer to a Protestant denomination, i.e., a Baptist, Presbyterian, or Lutheran Church? Does it refer to the Roman Catholic Church? If not, to what does it refer? If yes, prove it.

(4) If one contends for the New Testament system as outlined in the first segment of this article, is he doing wrong? If one argues for something other than what the New Testament reveals as shown in the first section of this essay, what authorizes him to do so (Gal. 1:8,9; 1 Cor. 4:6; 1 Pet. 4:11)?

(5) Were the saints and disciples, whom Saul persecuted, redeemed by the blood of Christ? Since this group is the church, are they the church which Jesus “purchased with his own blood” (Acts 20:28)? If not, what church was it?

Finally: No sympathy should be extended to compromising, apologizing brethren who seem bent on blurring the New Testament’s vision of the church. No Christian should feel guilty or ashamed of the truth regarding the church. Rather than draw back unto perdition, the saved need to be more bold, more militant in their efforts to make known the spiritual nature of the body of Christ. The church is the sphere of salvation. It is the room and realm of the ransomed and the redeemed. It is the glorious church, the product of the glorious gospel. It is th6 blood bought Spirit born, heaven bound, kingdom of the Prince of Peace. God purposed it, promised it, preached it, perfected it. Jesus loved it and gave himself for it, and all who have been born again are in it.

The greater man’s unbelief of these fundamental, elementary facts, the more aggressively they must be pressed and presented. When brethren who ought to know better begin to hedge and equivocate and throw out sops for denominational consumption, when they insinuate that the kingdom’s borders may include those in alien camps who have not obeyed the gospel, then the faithful must open their mouths and speak boldly as they ought to speak. There is nothing to be feared in proclamation and declaration of the truth regarding gospel obedience and the church. Do not cower; do not blush, but stand and speak the truth in love, in faith, in hope. Souls are not saved by obscuring and perverting the truth. The lost do not need to be consoled with the thought that they may be in the kingdom though they have not obeyed the gospel as it is written. No, they do not need to be comforted. They need to be convicted and converted. Only the truth heard, believed and obeyed can accomplish that. Preach the word.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 14, p. 431
July 19, 1990

By Bobby R. Holmes

I call your attention to the introductory remarks that are noted in part 1 of this series and to the verses of Scripture used thus far (Exod. 32:1-6,15-28; Mk. 6:14-28). The charges against dancing continues:

E. Dancing and divorce go hand in hand. On the dance floor, men and women are attracted together and time and time again, an affair is begun that ends not only in adultery, but in divorce as well. Again, there is ample evidence that could be used from the divorce courts to prove this.

F. Dancing and lust go hand in hand (Mk. 6:22-23). The same is true today!

G. Galatians 5:19-21 pronounces the condemnation of God on those who become involved in the works of the flesh. One of these “works” is described as “lasciviousness” (v. 19). W.E. Vines says of it (p. 310 of Dictionary of Greek N. T. Words), “A work of the flesh. The prominent idea is shameless conduct.” Henry Thayer says of the word “lasciviousness” in his Greek Lexicon (pp. 79-80), “unbridled lust, excess, licentiousness, wantonness, outrageousness, shamelessness, insolence . . . wanton (acts or) manners, as filthy words, indecent bodily movements, unchaste handling (emp. mine, bh) of males and females.

On the word “revelling” that is found in verse 21 of Galatians 5, Thayer says, “. . hence used generally of feasts and drinking parties that are protracted till late at night and indulge in revelry.” These are accurate and true descriptions of the dance and what takes place both physically and mentally. No one can truthfully deny these things!

I want to note some arguments made in defense of the dance.

A. “There is nothing wrong with a good clean dance. Even the P.T.A. sponsors them.” Answer: I have already pointed out that there can be no “good clean dance” and the P.T.A. should stop sponsoring them. They are contributing to the moral decay of youth.

B. “Dancing is alright if it is well chaperoned. ” Answer: Who, beloved, can guard or protect the mind?

C. “I only dance for the exercise. ” Answer: Other forms of exercise are much better and do not stir evil thoughts (walking, etc.).

D. “Dancing is alright if it doesn’t bring the bodies together.” Answer: Note Mark 6:22-23. What stirred Herod’s heart to lust?

E. “What about square dancing?” Answer: To say the least – your influence as a Christian is lessened. Note 1 Thessalonians 5:21-22 in light of this truth.

I want to conclude with some arguments against the dance.

A. Dancing destroys modesty and shamefastness. Thayer says, regarding the word “shamefastness” (p.14, Lexicon), “a sense of shame, modesty . . . is prominently objective in its reference, having regard to others . . .it precedes and prevents the shameful act” (emp. Mine, bh.)

B. Even if you could truthfully say that you can dance and not lust, what about your partner? Note the admonition of Jesus in Matthew 5:27-28, “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” Note also James 1:13-16. What will make a man want to caress the body of a woman he is dancing with? It is lust aflame!

C. The dancer is always in bad company at a dance. The worst moral characters always attend the dance. Note the admonition to Christians to abstain from evil companionship (1 Cor. 15:32-33). You cannot convert people to the Lord on the dance floor. Try it if you doubt it. I once heard of a young lady who took that challenge and tried to talk to her dancing companion about the Lord. She asked him if he was a Christian. He replied, “No, are you?” She answered that she was and the young man asked, “What are you doing here then?” The world and the Lord don’t mix (2 Cor. 6:14-7:1)!

The dance, the road to hell! Read carefully Galatians 5:19-21 and 1 Peter 4:3-5. These verses not only include the dance (revelling, lasciviousness) but also include the things that accompany the dance (“and such like, Gal. 5:21). Inspiration says they who do such things “shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven.” It is the road to hell! We need to have the heart of Joshua who said, “Now therefore fear the Lord, and serve him in sincerity and in truth: and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt; and serve ye the Lord. And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your father served that [were] on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord” (Josh. 24:14-15). To those of you who preach, who teach Bible classes, who are elders or deacons, who are parents, who are Christians, stand up and be counted! I’m not an “old fashioned” preacher or “living forty years ago.” I’m standing for what is right and against what is wrong! Wrong will never be right no matter how long one waits for it. “Choose ye this day.” “Who is on the Lord’s side?”

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 14, p. 425
July 19, 1990