Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

The book of Exodus contains the Ten Commandments, one of which is the commandment to observe the Sabbath day. The Lord commanded:

Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor and do thy work: but the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it (20:8-11).

Additional revelation was given regarding the observance of the Sabbath day. The Sabbath observance was commanded to provide a rest for man and animal from their labors (Exod. 23:12). Not even the busy times of the agricultural season, earing and harvest, were justification for not observing the Sabbath (Exod. 34:21). The repetition of the Sabbath commandment in the context of instructions pertaining to the building of the Tabernacle points to the conclusion that the urgency in building the Tabernacle was not justification for neglecting the Sabbath (Exod. 31:1217; 35:1-3).

Punishment of the Sabbath Breaker

God ordained that the man who violated the Sabbath was to be punished with death: “Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death” (Exod. 31:15).

During the wanderings in the wilderness, a man broke the Sabbath law by gathering sticks on that day. The record of his sin was given to illustrate presumptuous sin. Regarding presumptuous sin, the Lord revealed,

But the soul that doeth ought presumptuously, whether he be born in the land, or a stranger, the same reproacheth the Lord; and that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Because he hath despised the word of the Lord, and hath broken his commandment, that soul shall utterly be cut off; his iniquity shall be upon him (Num. 15:30-31).

Immediately following these verses which describe the punishment for presumptuous sin, the record of the Sabbath violator is given.

And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation. And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him. And the Lord said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses (Num. 15:31-36).

To some people the death penalty for violation of the Sabbath law seems too harsh. Should we never understand why the death penalty was demanded, we should have enough reverence for the Lord’s revelation not to criticize the Lord’s judgment. However, the reason for the death penalty can be better understood when we recognize the seriousness of the offence. Writing in the Pulpit Commentary, George Rawlinson described the seriousness of the sin and God’s justice in making the punishment so harsh:

The penalty of death for breaking the sabbath seems to moderns over-severe; but the erection of sabbath-observance into the special sacramental sign that Israel was in covenant with God made non-observance an offence of the gravest character. The man who broke the sabbath destroyed, so far as in him lay, the entire covenant between God and his people – not only broke it, but annulled it and threw Israel out of covenant (Exodus, p. 318).

The Sabbath breaker showed a willful disregard for the Sabbath day, the covenant which God had made with Israel and the God who made the covenant. This was a presumptuous sin punishable by death.

Are There New Testament Parallels?

The Sabbath, along with the rest of the Law of Moses, was nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14-17). Christians are not bound by the Law of Moses to observe the Sabbath, the claims of Seventh Day Adventists to the contrary notwithstanding. This is not to imply that there are no covenant requirements equal in importance in the New Testament.

When Jesus instituted the Lord’s supper, taking the fruit of the vine he described the cup as “my blood of the new testament” (Matt. 26:28). He commanded Christians to remember his death for sin by partaking of the Lord’s supper saying, “This do in remembrance of me” (1 Cor. 11:24). The Lord’s supper was observed regularly (Acts 2:42 “they continued steadfastly”) and was observed upon the first day of every week (Acts 20:7; cf. 1 Cor. 11:20; 16:1-2).

The man who willfully misses the first day of the week assembly to remember the Lord’s death shows a disregard for the covenant and him who died for that covenant to be established. For him to place temporal matters (such as work, recreation, sleep, family, etc.) above the covenant shows a contempt for the Lord who made that covenant.

The forsaking of the assembly is treated as a most serious offence in Hebrews. The writer commanded the Hebrew Christians not to forsake the assembly saying, “Not forsaking the assembly of ourselves together, as the manner of some is” (Heb. 10:25). (Some have equated “forsaking the assembly” with total apostasy. That this is not the meaning of the phrase is evident from the fact that “forsaking the assembly” can become a habit. When it becomes a habit [custom], then total apostasy has occurred. Forsaking the assembly is, therefore, missing the assembly, not total apostasy.) Following the command not to forsake the assembly, he added,

For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins. But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? (10:26-29)

Forsaking the worship of the Lord and the observance the Lord’s supper, is a serious offence – a presumptuous sin – a showing of disregard for the covenant and the God who made it!

Conclusion

We dare not imply that Christians are bound by the law of Moses. However, we would do well to remember that “whatsoever things were written afore time were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope” (Rom. 15:4). We can learn from the sin of the Sabbath breaker to show a reverence for the covenant and the God who made it.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 4, pp. 98, 118
February 15, 1990

By F. Furnan Kearley, Editor of Gospel Advocate

I read with interest your article in the Guardian of Truth, June 1, 1989. It was quite amusing and humorous in a number of ways. If the issues were not so serious it would be funny.

I concur with the contradictory position in which brother Jackson places himself and the inconsistency of it. However, I am sure that all of us have a number of inconsistencies, but I do belie e that you and those of your position also are caught in the same position of saying bathrooms, paved parking lots, etc. are alright, while rejecting a kitchen or fellowship hall as well as the gymnasium.

Since you presume to know what I believe and put two paragraphs of words in my mouth to brother Jackson, I thought I would take the time to try to share with you my true beliefs. By the way, I do believe that brethren should be very careful in trying to represent someone else’s position and putting words into the mouth of another. I hope you will consider publishing my own views since you have presumed to put words into my mouth and represent me as saying things I did not say.

Concerning the issue of the work of the church and what it may or may not do, I believe that we all are agreed that the work of the church basically consists of the three areas of evangelism, edification and benevolence. Worship, which includes edification, might be further subdivided as to a separate category of activity of the church.

I think we also agree that we determine what God has bound upon us by commands applicable to Christians, by approved examples woven together with commands and necessary inferences which lead to a clear, obvious and necessary conclusion that they are binding on Christians. (Of course, in this area we might have a great deal of difference as to exactly which examples are binding and which inferences are necessary. We agree in principle, but differ in some specific interpretations.)

Further, I believe we are agreed that some commands are generic and some specific. The command to observe the Lord’s Supper is generic and we may use our wisdom as to what kind of containers and how many containers to use. The command to sing is specific and excludes playing. In this conjunction, we are also agreed that we must honor and respect the silence of the Bible. Silence at times permits but at other times silence prohibits. Silence as to owning property and building church buildings is in the area of expediency and permits the owning of property and building of buildings. Silence as to bread and peas with the Lord’s Supper or instruments of music with singing is prohibitive.

It is, of course, in the area of deciding exactly what falls into the category of expedient, what is automatically included and what is automatically excluded that we have our great problems of difference. Due to the history of these problems it behooves all of us to be very tolerant and gracious to the other in discussing and applying these matters.

To become more specific concerning what I believe about the work of the church and what it may or may not build, I believe the elders of the church must ask and answer scripturally the following question before they ever spend a dime of money contributed by those supporting the work of the church: “What is the purpose for which this money is to be expended? Will it contribute significantly to the evangelization work, the edification work, the worship activity or the benevolent work for which the church is responsible?” If the studied answer is, “Yes, it does contribute significantly to these,” then I believe it is permissible for the leadership of the church to expend the money for that item or project. If the answer is, “No, it does not,” then the church and its leaders should not expend any money or energy for that item or project.

The church and its leaders should never expend money and energy for something simply because, “We always have,” or out of mere tradition.

I am enclosing a piece, “The Parable of a Lifesaving Station. ” This parable discusses the, progression of a station whose purpose was to save the lives of struggling, shipwrecked seamen as it made its transition from a lifesaving station to a yacht club or a social club. The analogy concerns how churches can loose their first love and first mission and purpose. They can gradually make a shift from being a soul saving body of Christ and become a social club or organization of religious people who have lost sight of the real meaning of Christ, the gospel and the purpose of the church.

I do not believe that this transition from soul saving to social club is made by the specific items for which the church spends its money or its time and energies. The transition is in the minds and hearts of the members and in the purpose for which they build or obtain these things.

Unless I am sadly mistaken, you approve the use of church funds to build a church building, to put in it bathrooms, maybe a nursery or cry room, to buy toilet tissue, paper towels and other amenities. You justify all of these on the basis that they make a contribution, yea, a significant contribution, to worship, evangelism and edification. I agree fundamentally provided the attitudes of the leaders and the members involves them in the necessary activities of worship, evangelization and edification. However, the moment a church quits really reaching out to save lost souls and do evangelistic work, the toilet tissue is no longer making any contribution to evangelization because the members are not evangelizing.

We could make a laundry list of items found on the expense sheets of various churches and these would include light bulbs, fertilizer for the lawn, air conditioners and many other things. There is no way of composing a list of material items the church might or might not buy until, first, the question is asked, “What is the purpose or use to which this item is to be placed? “

Consider the case of a paved parking lot at the church building. I believe that I have seen non-cooperative congregations with paved parking lots and cooperative congregations have paved parking lots, so I assume we agree that it is scriptural to build them. The justification, of course, would be that they make a significant contribution to worship, evangelism, edification or benevolence. I go along with that and would not seriously challenge it. Though, practically, the church where I preach did not have but a gravel parking lot for thirty-three years. Two years ago we paved the lot and I am certain that I cannot point to a single soul we have baptized since then for whom the paved parking lot over the gravel parking lot was a significant contribution to their decision to obey the gospel. I think we really built it for esthetics and our own members’ convenience. A few more people may come to Bible study and worship on rainy days because there is not as much mud, but, fundamentally, we have the parking lot because the members wanted it and could afford it and it is in keeping with the culture and community in which we live.

Let me contrast two situations and suggest which one might do the most good for evangelization, edification, benevolence and worship. First, a church buys a city block for $100,000, builds a 100’x 200′ building containing 20,000 square feet for $1,000,000. The church uses this building an average of six hours per week for Bible classes and worship plus a few offices every day. This totals about 312 hours for religious purposes for the year.

The same church (and I have a specific congregation in mind) buys 100 acres of land for $50,000 and builds camper cottages, bathhouses, a dining and rec hall and several other facilities for $450,000 for a total of $500,000, one-half the cost of the church building in town.

In these latter facilities they conduct a Christian camp 12 weeks during the summer and ten weekends in the spring and ten in the fall. During the summer the campers average seven hours per day in chapel, Bible class, singing training ‘ devotions and other direct evangelistic and edification activities. This totals 42 hours per week and 504 hours for the summer. The 20 weekends have 12 hours of direct spiritual activity for a total of 240 hours.

The Christian camp over a one year period accomplished two and one-half times as much teaching, edification and evangelization as the church building located in town. It cost only half what the church building in town did. Which is the best use of the Lord’s money? Both of these are operated completely by the church and are completely under the control of elders. No para-church is involved.

Concerning the gymnasium, about which you talked so much in your article, I have never stated a position publicly orally or in writings so far as I can remember. This is simply because it has never been an issue with which I have been concerned or where I have been and no one has asked my views concerning it. Since you attribute to me views about it without knowing what they are, I thought I would tell you. Before I would take a position on whether it is right or wrong, good or bad, to build a gymnasium, I would need to see a thorough justification paper indicating clearly what the purpose for this was, how it was to be intended to be used and what was hoped to be accomplished. I would like to see some evidence from a similar program and how many have been led to Christ in obedience to the gospel, how many people have been retained in the church and how they have grown spiritually as a result of the use of the gymnasium. If I could be convinced that the gymnasium makes a significant contribution to the worship, edification and benevolent program of the church, I would be for it. I would not at all be surprised but that a good, well planned program conducted in one could make it more valuable than our paved parking lot which cost $20,000.

Furthermore, I do consider fellowship to be a part of the work of the church. I know that we agree that disfellowship is a part of the work of the church. However, there can be no disfellowship unless there is first fellowship. Now, obviously, I know that fellowship is a sharing in Christ Jesus, but it does include growing to love, appreciate and care for one another. This cannot happen sufficiently with people looking at the back of one another’s heads in a formal worship service or in a Bible class where a teacher is lecturing and again people are looking at the back of one another’s heads. Genuine Christian fellowship comes when people are involved in one another’s lives or working side by side and shoulder to shoulder in the cause of Christ, but fellowship does include getting to know each other, sharing our work, our hobbies, our families and other interests and activities. It is only when people really grow to love one another that they are going to miss one another enough for disfellowship to have any meaning. Fellowship, then, in the full total sense of the word, including friendship and brotherly love which is one of the Christian graces, is a part of the work of the church.

I certainly am on no campaign for churches to build gymnasiums. The campaign I am on is for churches to use their buildings to the glory of God more than four or five hours per week. I believe it is a sin for a church building to sit 95 percent or more empty 162 hours per week. Church leaders will have to give answer to God in the judgment for having wasted the Lord’s money in building costly edifices and refusing to use them.

I believe the churches should be conducting daily Bible schools. Some might use the term, “Childcare institutions,” but by childcare I do not mean the secular type. I mean a situation where the church takes advantage of the opportunities provided by our culture and offers haven to children from 7:30 in the morning to 5:30 or 6:00 in the evening. During this time the children should be told Bible stories, shown video cassettes of Bible lessons, played audio cassettes of Bible lessons. They should sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. They should memorize verses. They should learn, learn, learn all they possibly can about the Lord Jesus Christ, salvation and his church. They should learn to love one another and have the love of Christians showered upon them.

Then I think it would be good when the children are age six for the church to use its church building to continue to operate a Christian school and to watch in behalf of the souls of the children by teaching them all subjects from a Christian standpoint of view rather than turning them to the public schools that are filled with atheists and infidels and many ungodly, immoral people. (I am delighted for every Christian who is teaching in the public schools, and we need more and more, but I know from study and experience that there are far too many teachers who are exerting a wrong influence on children, teaching them evolution, humanism, materialism and other forms of ungodliness that undermine the faith of the children.)

Hebrews 13:17 says that leaders in the church watch in behalf of the souls of children and must give account for them. Leaders of our present generation have watched many a child have his faith destroyed by evolution while saying it is a sin for the church to teach the child science. It is far better for the church to teach the child science from a Christian point of view and help the child develop a good trade by which to make a livelihood in a Christian environment along with Bible teaching then to send the child into an environment that destroys his faith and soul.

Now, brother Hafley, you know a little bit more about what I believe. Obviously, these matters are very complex and still I believe it would be difficult for you to put words into my mouth and fully represent what it is that I believe, teach and practice.

While I did enjoy some of the humor in your article, I do want to mention that I think your reference to brother Guy N. Woods was not in good taste. I will assume you meant it as a humorous one, but I believe that it is not appropriate humor for a Christian to think that it would be just as well for another Christian to be dead.

May the Lord bless you abundantly in your studies and may we all study together to love the truth, seek the truth, find the truth, know the truth, obey the truth and be united in the truth.

You may know brother John T. Lewis and brother Ed Holt who are two of my most beloved mentors. I had total respect for them and have every reason to believe that they will be in heaven and, therefore, I certainly extended to them the right hand of fellowship. I am afraid that before their deaths they did not extend to me the right hand of fellowship, but I extend to you my right for you to believe and practice as you do, following your conscience. I hope that you can grant me the same as a brother.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 3, pp. 77-79
February 1, 1990

By Lewis Willis

I wish there were some wonderful place

Called the Land of Beginning Again,

Where all our mistakes and all our heartaches

And all our selfish grief

Could be dropped like a shabby coat at the door

And never put on again.

I first heard the poem above many years ago. It made a lasting impression on my mind but I never saw it in its entirety. In a meeting at Alliance, Ohio a few weeks ago, I quoted the first two lines, which I remembered, stating that I wish I had the entire poem. It just so happened that Jack Jones, the local preacher, had a copy and he typed it up for me as I have printed it above. I do not know the author but I still like the thought.

Had the author known the Truth of God, he would have known that there is a Land of Beginning Again. That Land is the Land of New Testament Christianity. It is the Land of Redemption or Salvation. It is the Land wherein Newness of Life is realized. It is the Church, the Kingdom, the Vineyard, the Body of Christ. It is that place where lost men lay aside their sins like a shabby coat. It is a place where those sins are washed away by the blood of Christ, never to be reckoned against us again. How we should thank God that there is such a Land!

Sin condemns us and separates us from God (Jn. 8:24; Isa. 59:1-2). Sin is the taskmaster of Satan with which he enslaves us to his devilish will (Rom. 6:16-18). Men commit sins of all kinds which cause the loss of the soul. Sins like: fornication, covetousness, malice, blasphemy, filthy speech, lying and a host of other things too numerous to mention (Col. 3:5-9).

But Paul said that Christians “have put off the old man and his deeds.” Those deeds are that which we take off like an old coat and we are supposed to throw them away. We, and our abominable sins, are “buried” with the Lord in baptism (Rom. 6:4). The old man of sin, dead in those trespasses and sins (Eph. 2: 1), is buried in a watery grave. However, unlike every other “burial,” we are said to be “raised up from the dead” to “walk in newness of life.” This is the Land of Beginning Again! The apostle Paul once said, “Therefore, if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new” (2 Cor. 5:17). This is the realm where we are God’s people, holy and beloved. It is a place where kindness, humility, meekness, long-suffering, forbearance and forgiving one another are bound together in perfect love (Col. 3:12-15). It is here that we begin all over again in an innocency like that of a child. All the sins have been washed away and we stand before God without spot or wrinkle or any such thing (Eph. 5:27).

Most importantly, everyone should (1) obey the Gospel and enter this Land of Beginning Again, and (2) strive with diligence to walk its glorious paths in a way which sustains this new beginning. We should know more than we did as a child so we should not be making as many mistakes as we made before. When we do sin, we should quickly correct them according to the Word (Acts 8:22). If we fail in this, we mar our garments again and waste the blessed opportunity we had of Beginning Again.

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 3, p. 72
February 1, 1990

By Linda J. Cruz

My daughter will never be a cheerleader. Oh, she’s got the coordination and the enthusiasm, but the love of God and his word prohibit cladding oneself in a skimpy little uniform and parading around on display for a crowd. That alone is sufficient, not to mention the lewd and suggestive routines that pass as cheers today. Some professional teams more accurately refer to their cheerleaders as “dancers.”

Nor will she be likely to learn any form of dance. I would be willing for her to train in ballet or tap provided she be allowed to dress in modest apparel, not in a skin-tight, body hugging leotards and tights as the practice is today. This same problem with modest apparel will probably prevent her from a study of gymnastics. Again, I would be glad for her to train and reap the benefits of such physical exercise but not at the expense of her soul.

“Oh, they’re just little girls,” some will protest. That’s right – little girls who grow into big girls. What magic age is the right one to begin instilling modesty in a child? At 10, 14, or 17? When do you teach children to keep their bodies covered and chaste? When does a parent begin to make a distinction in the way the world dresses and in the manner in which God’s people clothe themselves? Do we allow them to dress immodestly all through the formative years and all of a sudden impose restrictions at puberty? I believe that it’s never too early; Timothy knew the Scriptures from his childhood (1 Tim. 3:15).

Others argue, “Why make the teen years more difficult than they have to be? It’s cruel to make the child look so different.” First of all, these attitudes reveal a lack of Bible knowledge. We are to be pilgrims (Heb. 11:13), not conformed to this world (Rom. 12:2). Secondly, we don’t have to look like alien creatures. (It may one day come to that at the present rate of undress dictated by the fashion world.) We don’t have to wear veils or neck-high and foot-low dresses to be modest, but if our mode of dress serves to set us apart, then so be it. We should be like Moses . . . choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season (Heb. 11:25). Look at the example of Noah: only eight souls of the world’s population were abiding in righteousness. We all want our children to excel, to be outstanding in some area, to stand apart, to be a leader rather than a follower. Why, then, are we so reluctant to allow them to be different from the world in manner of dress? Dressing immodestly can make the teenage years more difficult and more trying than necessary; and often with devastating results. Many fear the attention that will be given to one who dresses differently. But when it comes down to it, attention is the motive behind dressing scantily, so the argument fails. If dressing modestly in a world that gives no thought to being chaste is the greatest sacrifice that we or our children have to make, then we should all thank God that our sacrifice is so small.

“You’re just an old-fashioned fuddy-dud, behind the times and ignorant of what’s in style,” is usually an excuse given by the young. Yet, it is possible to be fashionable and stylish without parading and prancing our bodies before the world. There are still long-enough, high-enough and loose-enough clothing styles to choose from for most any activity we participate in. I go to the beach (yes, in the water, too) wearing a shirt and knee length pants over a bathing suit, and I daresay I have just as much fun as those who are making public displays of their bodies. Regardless of popular customs, God’s law has always called for modesty. You will recall, after their disobedience and realizing their nakedness, Adam and Eve made “aprons” of fig leaves for themselves but God clothed them in “coats of skins” (Gen. 3:7,21).

In warmer climates, we hear, “It’s too hot to wear so much. Less is cooler.” If the pioneer women of this country could wear long dresses, often with long sleeves, pantaloons, boots, and who knows what all else, what am I complaining about? They wore these things laundering and cooking over an open fire, working in the field, etc. I can certainly wear modest clothing when I have air conditioning, electric fans, stoves, and other such labor saving devices which I am blessed with. You can be sure, however, that if fashion designers tomorrow declared shorts, halters, cropped shirts, tube tops, etc. to be out of date and passe, such clothing would be abandoned in the blink of the eye, regardless of the weather.

“Part of the beauty of ballet is seeing the body. It’s art. Other clothing would inhibit the movements.” Publishers of pornographic magazines and producers of pornographic films refer to their products as “art.” This in no way excuses them. The human body is a wondrous thing but the fact remains that God demands modest apparel (1 Tim. 2:9). Students of the martial arts wear heavy canvas uniforms which don’t interfere with the artistic aspects, nor with the coordination and precision required of such students. Body hugging clothing is not necessary to enhance their techniques. (And just imagine how hot those uniforms get in a workout period!)

Others compromise with, “Schools require certain uniforms for physical education classes and for team sports.” If I have to deal with the school system regarding standard uniforms, then I must. But I have known others who were successful in and survived such conflicts. Immodesty is immodesty regardless of whether it’s at the mall, on school grounds, on the beach, or assembling with the saints. Lotteries and abortion are sanctioned by the state, but that in no way justifies such sin nor does it change God’s attitude. We must never fail to keep in mind the higher Authority to whom we will answer (Acts 4:19; 5:29).

One of my favorites is, “I can’t control the thoughts of others who look at me. It’s not my problem.” The whole motive and idea behind concern with our looks and appearance is so that others will have favorable impressions and opinions. You are, in essence, trying to exert some control over the thoughts of others when it comes to your appearance. What we cannot control is who looks at us. Walking down the street scantily clad affords no control over who sees what. It may be someone who has a tight rein on their thoughts. Or it may be one who is weak or it may be someone who has impure thoughts and motives. Or it may be someone who is depraved of any morality. We must not be guilty of evoking lust or sinful thoughts in others (Matt. 5:28).

“If you’ve got it, flaunt it,” is the attitude many in the world and far too many Christians. We all want to look our best and receive some acknowledgment for our efforts, but our preoccupation should not be attaining attention for our looks (1 Pet. 3:3,4). We are not to set a stumbling block before others (Rom. 14:13), be it those who would follow a wanton example or those who would be guilty of lusting.

I am amazed at the way some women allow their daughters to dress. Are they blind? But even more astounding is that their fathers would allow it. All men were once young; and men know men. They are well aware of the temptations which abound. Why would they allow their own daughters to so present themselves? It is a mystery to me.

I’ve spoken mainly of female apparel but the same criteria will be the standard for my son. There is no difference in the Bible’s code of morality for men than there is for women. What’s my point? Women should be chaste, covering their bodies, living in a modest and pure way. The same applies for men. Women should wear their blouses and men should keep their shirts on, too. Yes, I’m making these decisions now before my children are of an age to want to participate in such. (My children are ages 6V2 years and 7 months.) I am also insistent that they brush their teeth regularly and not play in the street. I am not doing so to deprive my children, but out of love for them. It is a shame that I have to exclude my children from so many activities – but it’s the devil who’s drawing the lines, and I dare not cross over. I will teach my children the Bible principles behind these decisions and hopefully they will reach the same conclusions. If they do not, it will still be my responsibility to look out for their well-being, both physical and spiritual.

When we submit to the Lord in baptism and commit to living the Christian life, we have to put some activities and actions away. We can’t continue in them and walk in the light. We may need to put some of our clothing away as well. I’m reminded of the Christians in the book of Acts (chapter 19) who had a book burning; I think we may need to torch some clothes, too.

Ask yourself the following:

Is my outfit something I would wear while trying to teach and convert others to Christ? Do I exert a godly influence? We are ambassadors for Christ (2 Cor. 5:20) and we are epistles (2 Cor. 3:2-3).

Is my clothing exemplary of a meek and gentle spirit (1 Pet. 3:4) or does it exhibit a far different attitude?

Are you ashamed to be seen in it by certain people, i.e. elders, preachers, Bible teachers, faithful Christians? (I’m embarrassed when folks stop by and catch me in my yard-work clothes or my painting outfits because it’s not a pretty sight, but I’m not ashamed.)

Is my outfit holy and acceptable unto God (Rom. 12:1,2)?

Do I lie? Cheat? Steal? Murder? Dress immodestly (Jas. 2: 10-11)?

Would I want to be “caught dead in it” (Lk. 12:20a)?

What do I sacrifice by dressing modestly’ What do I sacrifice by dressing immodestly (Lk. 14:28; Matt. 16:26)?

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 3, pp. 84-85
February 1, 1990