Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

The 23 January issue of the local paper, the Hendricks County Flyer (p. 30), contained an article entitled “Child Abuse Increasing.” According to the Hendricks County Sheriff’s Department, there were nine times as many cases of reported child abuse in 1989 as compared to 1984. The problem of child abuse is not limited to Hendricks County; it is a national problem.

Psychologists, psychiatrists, law officials, welfare department officials, and the courts are working on the problem. They have given much more study to the problem and its cure than I have. Nevertheless, there appear to be some obvious and, perhaps, other not so obvious causes of child abuse. Child abuse needs to be attacked preventively, not just punitively or by assisting the victims. Child abuse stems from a spiritual problem; consequently, I am looking at child abuse from a preacher’s perspective, not a lawyer’s, judge’s, psychologist’s, etc. (although these perspectives deserve a hearing as well).

Child Abuse and the Breakdown of the Family

Much of the child abuse is from step-fathers and live-in lovers. Child abuse is a consequence of the deterioration of the family in American society. A society cannot ignore the divine commandments regarding the marriage relationship without paying the price for breaking it. God ordained that marriage be a lifetime commitment (1 Cor. 7:39; Rom. 7:12). Only the sin of fornication frees the innocent party in a marriage to form a second marriage (Matt. 19:9). The stable family relationship is the God-appointed environment for rearing children.

Parents who change mates like they change clothes, bringing in a mate who has never bonded with the children, create the situation in which child abuse is likely to occur. The “natural affection” which should exist between parent and child is not there (cf. Rom. 1:31).

We can greatly reduce, if not stop altogether, child abuse in our nation by mothers and daddies keeping their marital vows to one another, keeping the home intact. As parents who love one another, we can rear our children in an atmosphere of love, not in an environment of child abuse.

Does Abortion Stop Child Abuse?

Child abuse should not exist in our country, if what the pro-abortion advocates have said was true. We have been told that preventing unwanted children through abortion would end child abuse.

Since 1973, abortion on demand has been available in the United States. Over 20 million children have been put to death in abortuaries in our country. With so many “unwanted children” not having been born, child abuse should have been totally eliminated. Sadly, what was promised has not occurred.

There are more cases of child abuse today than ever before. Norman E. Geisler suggested the reason for this: “Apparently the disregard for human life reflected in the acceptance of abortion is extended from pre-birth to post-birth attitude toward offspring” (“The Bible, Abortion, and Common Sense,” Fundamentalist Journal [May 1985], p. 26).

Where human life is not highly regarded, child abuse will occur. A healthy respect for human life is the first step toward stopping child abuse.

Victims Become Abusers

Child abuse is learned behavior. Children mimic their parents. A child who has been a victim of child abuse in his youth is a potential child abuser. The Scriptures state that the learned habit of sin is passed down from one generation to another (“visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me” – Exod. 20:4). There are second and third generation child abusers prevalent among us. The patterns of conduct learned from the parent are followed by the children and passed down to their children.

We can prevent child abuse by being good parents. Let our children see in us a good example of parental conduct and child abuse will decrease.

The Scriptures prescribe the conduct of parents toward children: “And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4). “Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they be discouraged” (Col. 3:20).

Verbal abuse would end when parents put away from their lives “bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamor, and evil speaking” (Eph. 4:31).

A Spiritual Problem

Child abuse occurs because of distinctly spiritual problems which cannot be cured by government programs and organizations. Being a spiritual problem, a spiritual cure is necessary to change the hearts of men and women.

The influence of the gospel on society has always been wholesome. The gospel, even when it does not convert the world, leavens the society in which it is prevalent. As America becomes more secular, removing God from its classroom and other public forums, the leavening influence of the gospel is methodically eradicated. We can expect more and more social problems to occur, stemming from people who have little or no commitment to live by the ethical standards revealed by God.

What a price we pay for leaving God out of our lives!

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 6, pp. 162, 183
March 15, 1990

By Edgar Dye

Introduction

2 John 6-11 is our text, attitude toward error is our topic, and to discover the proper attitude toward error is our purpose or goal in this series of four articles. To discover this, in our first paper we considered the position of the church – God’s people – in the world. In the second, we made some observations on the attitude of the Father and the Son toward error. (Please read those two again.)

Unless we are educated in and constantly reminded of this matter we likely will have the wrong attitude which will be detrimental to us if not changed. Without the proper attitude we will not continue our warfare of fighting the good fight of faith and fall victim to the mad monster of modernism or other forms of apostasy. So many misunderstand and for that reason may say, “It is wrong to debate!” or “Debates do no good!” or “You people do not preach with enough love!” They seem to forget that Jesus and his apostles often engaged in religious discussions with preachers of error, both privately and publicly, both inside and outside of God’s family. What do you suppose was done in Matt. 4 (Lk. 20:1-8; Matt. 21:23-27); Jn. 8:1-11; Matt. 22:15-22,23-33,34-46; 23; Acts 15? It will not do to run to Romans 1:29 (KJV) to try to find “debating” condemned, for the word there is “strife” which is condemned (2 Tim. 2:24; Tit. 1:9-11).

A study of this matter is imperative because there is only one of two attitudes we can possess: right or wrong! If we depend on the feelings of people, especially the majority, to determine what the right attitude should be, we will have the wrong attitude (Matt. 7:13,14). The Bible is our only source of knowledge of right in this matter.

Attitude of the Apostles

Since there is no better way to learn, we now consider the attitude of the Spirit-filled and Spirit-guided apostles of Jesus Christ and of other inspired messengers of the Lord.

Peter didn’t believe in leaving people alone in their sin and error as various passages attest (Acts 2:22-24; 3:12-19,26; 5:1-11, 26-30, 40-42; 2 Pet. 2:1-22; 3:1-18).

Paul’s actions in this matter help us learn. He reasoned, disputed, discussed, and drew arguments from the Scriptures while preaching the gospel and exposing error under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. He did this in the synagogues with the Jews, with the devout persons and in the market daily with those who met with him (Acts 1328). He did it with his own brethren when they were in error (1 Cor.; 2 Cor.; Gal., etc.). At Thessalonica “Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them (in the Synagogue) and three Sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures” (Acts 17:2). The word “reasoned,” sometimes translated “disputed” or “persuaded,” is found in Acts 17:17; 18:4,19; 19:8,9; 24:12,25, and means “to converse, argue, dispute with others.”

At Athens he disputed in their synagogues with the Jews and those who worshiped (or devout persons) and daily in the market with those who met with him (Acts 17:17). He did the same thing at Ephesus in the Jewish synagogue and in the school of one Tyrannus (Acts 19:1,8-10). He stood in the midst of Mars Hill and charged them with being too superstitious (Acts 17:16-20). “Superstitious” here means 64very reverent to demons” or “very demon fearing.” Paul charged them with being devout without the knowledge of the true God, and said, “Him declare I unto you”; it was ignorant worship or service (see Rom. 10: 1-3). These things he did boldly and was always set for a defense of the gospel (Phil. 1: 17); it’s the same word in 1 Corinthians 9:13; Acts 22: 1; 1 Pet. 3:15, and means “verbal defense, speech in defense of.”

Paul refused to yield to, obey, or submit to false brethren in the matter of false teaching on circumcision (Gal. 2:1-5; cf. Acts 15:1-7ff). Thus he teaches us that it is wrong to compromise with sin and error; and if necessary to debate the cause publicly (cf. Prov. 25:9). He rebuked Peter, a fellow apostle; he rebuked him publicly and wrote it down for all the world to read (Gal. 2:11; cf. 1 Cor. 5:1f).

Religious discussions or religious debates within and of themselves can’t be wrong, whether conducted privately or publicly!

The Book of Jude

There can be no better way to make us aware of what error among God’s people will do or to help us learn what our attitude toward it should be than to review the book of Jude. In this review we shall take note of his attitude toward error and the warnings he issued as a result of error taught and practiced by some in the early church, which he did because of the disastrous effect such had on themselves (the false teaches and ungodly brethren), also because of the possible effect it could have on the faithful. He boldly spoke to save the lost among the brethren and to protect the saved from being lost. If such were not immensely important he would not have spoken of the need to earnestly contend for the faith (v. 3); of those who pervert grace (v. 4); of the fall of angels nor have referred to the fate of Sodom (vv. 6,7); he would not have warned of the ways of Cain, Balaam. and Korah (v. 11); nor would he have warned of the possibility of the faithful losing their faith and falling (vv. 20-24; cf. 2 Pet. 3:17).

In v. 4 Jude saw apostasy as a fact and a fault due to the heretics, which furnished the occasion for this Epistle. (He was not hollering “Wolf” when there was no danger or no wolf.) In vv. 6-19, take note of how Jude warns of and further describes the heretics, their apostasy and its dangerous results. In vv. 5-7 he sets before us three cases of apostasy and three examples of punishment from the Old Testament as evidence of the fact that the heretics of which he warned also would not escape the vengeance of God. In vv. 8-10 he then applies these three examples of punishment of the Old Testament to the heretics of whom he had warned to show they also would not escape the vengeance of God, and wherein he gives a partial description of the real character of the insidious troublers and corrupters of the churches, which also show us three causes of apostasy: impure thinking, insolent hearts, and immoral habits.

In v. 11 he cites three instances of individual wickedness, which he also applies to the case of the heretics of whom he warned to show the course of apostasy and to prove their error was disastrous and would not long delay its effects. “Woe unto them for they have gone in the way of Cain” (v. 11a; cf. Gen. 4). Cain’s was an example of disobedience, an example of one who followed his own will, not God’s; his was the way of disobedience, hate, murder and ruin. They “ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward” (v. 11b; cf. Num. 21-24; 22:7-13; Rev. 2:14; 2 Pet. 2:15). His is an example of greed. He degraded the prophetic gift for sordid gain. His was the way of greed and seeking to seduce for personal gain. They “perished in the gainsaying of Core” (v. 11c; cf. Num. 16). Korah is an example of railing and rebelling against divinely constituted authority.

In vv. 12-15 Jude describes the character of the heretics against whom he warned. In vv. 12,13 he draws an illustration from nature to describe them, and a vivid description it is. In vv. 14,15 they are to be recognized from the identity of conduct with those about whom Enoch wrote (cf. v. 4). In these verses he tells us they are dangerous, destitute and doomed. In vv. 16-19 he describes their ungodly conduct by declaring they are discontented, deceitful and divisive.

In vv. 20-25 he concludes with a three-fold exhortation, each of which has three parts. In vv. 20,21, as to themselves, they were to be: firm in faith; steadfast in love; confident in hope. In vv. 22,23, with reference to the wicked among them; they were to treat some of them with gentle measures, others with sternness and vigor, but all of them with abhorrence of their sins. Then in vv. 24,25, with reference to God; all were to thank him for his assistance in preserving them, for his grace in saving them, and for his wisdom in keeping them.

Conclusion

Let us, each one of us, learn to follow the example of the apostles and the advice of Jude 3 and “earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints,” because of the ever-present danger of perversion, apostasy, and damnation.

Remember, the Bible is our perfect standard by which we are to be guided in our attitude toward error.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 6, pp. 170-171
March 15, 1990

By Steve Wolfgang

Footnote” J.B. Vawter, “A Brief History of the Iowa Christian Convention,” in J.H. Painter, ed., The Iowa Pulpit of the Church of Christ (St. Louis: John Burns Publishing Company, 1884), pp. 456-457,463.

In 1869, being weary of endless debates about plans, and saddened by the chaos and confusion that was weakening our cause in many places, the church in Iowa, in common with our brethren in other States, were waiting for the plan of cooperation that would be adopted by the General Convention. It met in October, in Louisville, Kentucky, and the plan adopted was known as the “Louisville Plan.” It was well devised system for the organization of our entire brotherhood into one grand army, with its divisions of States and sub-division of districts. Our people were not ripe for so thorough an organization at that time, and while it gave a greater impetus toward organization, it was trimmed and modified and finally abandoned.

Though by some it was violently opposed, and by others considered impractical, I predict that if we ever become a thoroughly cooperative people, we will be found working in harmony with the leading features of the “Louisville Plan,” for the organization and unification of our forces.

At the annual meeting held in Fairfield, September 25th, 1874, work on the “Louisville Plan” reached high water mark in Iowa, with one hundred and twelve churches in active co-operation.

With a few changes in names and dates, the main feature of the foregoing history could be used for our brethren in other States. As a rule, our failure to work together in sounding out the gospel was charged to some fault in the plan, and hence this constant changing of plans.

The real trouble, carefully concealed by our denominational pride, was that we were not really a missionary people. Opposition to plans, and demanding a “Thus saith the Lord,” was often a cloak of jealousy, selfishness, or to cover up our delinquency, so cunningly devised and persistently worn, as to deceive the very elect. There was always a goodly number of individuals and congregations who were ready to work by any plan, and were continually trying to do something and calling on others to help them. These would never let the subject rest long at a time, and hence this agitation and frequent organization.

The unmissionary preachers were of two classes (including) the opposers, who stay away from conventions and preacher’s institutes, and oppose all societies and organizations for co-operative work. . .

Does this sound familiar?

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 6, p. 167
March 15, 1990

By Howard Ruff

Television has hit a new low, “Geraldo” just did the kinkiest talk show ever.

The eight guests being interviewed – (are you ready for this?) – were all committing – (Gasp! Be sure the children are out of the room) – chastity!

Yes, that’s right. All these single people had decided not to have sex outside of marriage. One of them was even can I mention this terrible perversion in a family newsletter? – a virgin!

Geraldo will stoop to anything.

Even more fascinating, as the studio audience and experts, asked questions and commented, they all felt that these strange people “feared intimacy.” Something must have happened when they were children that caused them to “avoid normal relationships.”

Most of these “freaks” had strong religious reasons. They all claimed they had no “fear of intimacy,” but they had simply decided chastity was the best policy until they were married.

Geraldo asked one attractive 29-year old woman, “Aren’t you afraid that if you meet Mr. Right and you refuse to have sex that he might go away?”

She said, “That’s already happened once, but I didn’t compromise my principles.”

No one in the audience, which seemed to be a cross section of America, suggested that a man who would abandon a young woman because she wouldn’t have sex out of marriage might not be anybody’s “Mr. Right.”

Everyone acted as if this was a perversion, worthy of puzzled or even hostile reactions.

I knew we were a sex-drenched society, moving in the wrong direction towards license and permissiveness over the Seventh Commandment, but until now I didn’t accept how totally society had surrendered. Maybe it’s the Neanderthal crowd I run with, but I assumed that most “fornicators” (ooh, what an out-of-style word) at least felt guilty that their behavior was not society’s norm.

Now us weirdos who believe that sex is a sacred celebration of joy only when it is within divinely established bounds are an endangered species.

No wonder you can’t find a sitcom or movie without a routine illicit sexual situation.

When was the last time you ever saw anybody feel guilty about his extra-marital sex life?

Can anyone who shares my old-fashioned hang-ups deny the similarities between 1989 America and the last days of the Roman Empire? Maybe political activism, lobbying, building wealth, etc. is a foolish waste of time, as we will reap the natural consequences of the deterioration of the most basic building block of a stable society – the family.

The family is a divinely established institution that makes two principal contributions to society:

(1) It nurtures the young. Among all the marnmals, we have the longest period of immature dependency. The family was designed to create a protective environment until the young are ready to cope with an increasingly more complex world.

(2) The family is the mechanism by which values, wealth and traditions are passed on from one generation to the next. It is the medium of continuity.

A society that allows the family to die is only a generation away from its own violent death. All of God’s laws regulating our sexual behavior were designed to preserve the integrity of the family unit. Anything that debases the exalted status of the family threatens civilization.

I am finally accepting the horrible truth that the majority of Americans perceive marriage and sexual self-control outside of marriage as merely a quaint option among many other equally legitimate choices.

Unfortunately, those who control the mass media, especially TV and movies, give only lip service to the family and have declared war on old-fashioned morals.

What’s worse, they have probably won.

(Note: Howard Ruff is not a preacher, but a renown financial advisor, whose writings are read by hundreds of thousands. He is a dedicated family man and a member of the Mormon Church. His morals are straight and his ideals lofty. I appreciate his words on sex outside of marriage and commend them to all. – Billy Moore)

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 6, p. 173
March 15, 1990