Truth Magazine

By Steve Wolfgang

Footnote: “‘Primordial Soup’ and Beyond: How did life arise?” Lexington (KY) Herald-Leader, October 23, 1986, p. B-10.

We had decided enough was enough for these essays on the origin of life (perhaps our readers had too). Then we saw the article referenced above, which reports comments by some attending the Eighth International Conference on the Origin of Life in Berkeley, CA in July 1986. Among those quoted is Cyril Ponnamperuma, whose comments on Francis Crick’s Life Itself have been quoted here. Ponnamperuma repeats the assertion, based on the inability of science to determine how life arose here, that “the process that led to life on earth must have occurred elsewhere in the universe.”

Also quoted is Harvard University biologist George Wald, who is quoted as saying that there must be a billion billion places [in the universe] where conditions might allow life to exist. Of course, this is the same scientist who argued decades ago that “time is the hero of the plot: . . . given so much time [2 billion years], the ‘impossible’ becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time performs the miracles” (in Molecular Basis of Life, 1968, p. 341).

We are reminded of the comments made a few years ago by Robert Jastrow in the conclusion to his book, God and the Astronomers. Founder and director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Professor of Astronomy and Earth Sciences at institutions such as Dartmouth and Columbia, Jastrow has hosted more than 100 CBS and BBC programs on space science. Here is how he concludes his book:

A sound explanation may exist for the explosive birth of our Universe; but if it does, science cannot find out what the explanation is. The scientist’s pursuit of the past ends in the moment of creation.

This is an exceedingly strange development, unexpected by all but the theologians. They have always accepted the word of the Bible: In the beginning God created heaven and earth. . .

The development is unexpected because science has had such extraordinary success in tracing the chain of cause and effect backward in time. . .

Now we would like to pursue that inquiry farther back in time, but the barrier to further progress seems insurmountable. It is not a matter of another year, another decade of work, another measurement, or another theory; at this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries (pp. 115-116).

We do not quote these comments smugly nor intend them (as we are certain Jastrow did not) as a “put-down” of science. But when individuals palm off as “science” what is in reality simply speculation or, worse, a materialistic philosophy or religion (often wrapped in a healthy dose of smug arrogance), it ought to be exposed for what it is. It is faith, pure and simple, and ought not be thought superior to a faith that believes what Scripture says: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.”

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 3, p. 71
February 1, 1990

By Warren E. Berkley

Here is a situation that isn’t hypothetical. It is common, thus worthy of our attention.

In a local church where there is a history of objection to the sponsoring church arrangement and other unauthorized innovations, war breaks out. Brethren “bite and devour one another,” and the ugly result is “envy and self-seeking . . . confusion and every evil thing” (Gal. 5:15; Jas. 3:16). There is a division, perhaps followed by another; snide, sarcastic remarks. Preachers are fired, elders resign, members are agitated and a cold sterile atmosphere takes hold.

In the midst of this turmoil, as impatience and disgust turns into bitterness, there are some who just quit. They join a nearby liberal church, enter into the mainstream of Protestant denominationalism, or entirely give up the matter of religion. Though I’m not altogether satisfied with this description, I’m going to call this: reactionary apostasy.

Reactionary apostasy is usually accompanied by a statement something like these: “I’m fed up with conservative churches of Christ,” or “There has got to be something wrong with ‘conservative church of Christ’ religion.”

This needs to be addressed. So I beg your consideration toward these thoughts. Reactionary apostasy is fraught with at least two flaws.

(1) Rejecting teaching, merely on the basis of misbehavior. Suppose someone were pressed to define “conservative church of Christ” religion. Personally, I’m not comfortable with this label. I would rather communicate with scriptural language and deal with “the gospel,” “the truth,” “the Lord’s church,” or even New Testament Christianity. Yet, in the interest of being realistic and accommodative, and for the purpose of dealing with this matter of reactionary apostasy, .let’s formulate a definition of “conservative church of Christ” religion. Perhaps this religion would entail the following items of conviction:

a. There is “one God, and Father of all, who is above all” (Eph. 4:6).

b. The Bible is the Word of God (2 Tim. 3:16,17).

c. Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah, and is the only begotten Son of God, who died for our sins, but arose and ascended to the right hand of God (Matt. 1:21; Rom. 1:1-4; 1 Cor. 15:1-4; Jn. 1:14,29).

d. Man’s number one problem, and the great tragedy of all humanity is sin (Rom. 1:18-3:23).

e. The gospel is God’s power to save (Rom. 1:16,17).

f. Those who would be saved by the gospel of Christ, must hear, believe and obey that message (Rom. 6:17,18; Mk. 16:15,16; Heb. 5:9).

g. Baptism is essential unto salvation (Mk. 16:15,16; Acts 2:38; 1 Pet. 3:21; Gal. 3:26,27).

h. After baptism, God requires a life of faithfulness (Matt. 28:18-20; Acts 2:42; Col. 2:6,7).

i. Jesus built his church, one body; and it came into existence on the day of Pentecost (Matt. 16:16-18; Acts 2:47; Eph. 1:22,23; 3:10,21; 4:4).

j. Local churches are charged to do the works of evangelism, edification, and benevolence for needy saints (Acts 20:28,32; 1 Thess. 1:8; Phil. 4:15; 1 Cor. 16:1-2).

k. The local church is to be financed by the voluntary giving of the members, as they respond according to their own prosperity (1 Cor. 16:1-2).

1. When fully developed, local churches are to have scripturally qualified elders, deacons and saints (Phil . 1:1; Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:1-3).

m. We are to worship the Father “in spirit and in truth” (Jn. 4:24).

n. Evangelists are to preach the Word (2 Tim. 4:2).

o. As individual Christians and as collective groups (local churches), we are obligated to abide in the doctrine of Christ (2 Jn. 9; Phil. 4:9; Matt. 7:24-27; 28:18-20).

If you can – for the sake of this present study – regard this as a summary of those things believed and taught by “conservative churches of Christ.”

Now here is my point: when people who teach these things become embroiled in battle with one another, and manifest ungodly attitudes to the point of unjustified division, by what reasoning do we conclude that these 15 principles are faulty?

Somebody needs to explain this to me. Am I missing something? When people who teach these things turn a local church into a mess, by what reasoning are we supposed to conclude that these principles are invalid? Help me here.

If a man who believes in the existence of God throws himself into a pile of iniquity, crime and shame . . . should this cause me to question God’s existence?

If a group of people who preach that the Bible is inspired involved themselves in dishonesty, jealousy and other acts of disobedience . . . does this mean that the Bible may not be inspired?

Do we prove that what a man is teaching is false, by pointing to his foolish behavior? No, we must never reject some proposition simply because the one who advances it is inconsistent. We examine teachings; we test doctrines in one and only one way: by the light of Scripture (Acts 17:11).

I’m persuaded, a connection is being made here that doesn’t logically follow! When a group of people bite and devour one another, that doesn’t necessarily mean that everything they have been teaching should be called into question! By no means.

When a “conservative church of Christ” falls into turmoil and disorder, they fell into chaos in spite of the above principles, not because of them. When “conservative brethren” act in a manner that isn’t befitting the gospel, that misbehavior says nothing about the gospel. It says a great deal about lack of commitment, weakness in yielding to temptation, and hypocrisy. But it says nothing about the truth of the gospel, or the integrity of New Testament Christianity!

Anytime there is a big church fight or division, be assured somebody isn’t obeying God’s word! It may be just a few; it may be everybody. But when such an ugly mess arises, it does not mean that everything these folks have taught and stood for is suspect. It means: somebody isn’t obeying God’s word. (When the apostle Peter, in Galatians 2:11-16, ” played the hypocrite,” that misbehavior did not diminish the integrity of anything he had taught on the day of Pentecost!) But, reactionary apostasy faces another problem.

(2) “You can run, but you can’t hide!” When you abandon “conservative church of Christ” religion, where do you go? Liberal churches are not immune from the ugly spectacle of uproars caused by selfishness and stubborn sin. Denominational churches have internal battles, and open political warfare between parties who struggle for power. Where will you go? Paul Harvey often says, “You can run, but you can’t hide!”

Let it be granted, it is a real challenge to your attitude, perseverance and commitment to go through internal strife. And there are circumstances where, for consciences’ sake, one must leave a group and identify with another congregation. But when you find yourself in the middle of an ugly mess, consider that there is a right way and wrong way to react.

I’m saying – reactionary apostasy is not the answer. (1) It is based on an invalid connection, between what a group has taught and the way they act. Misbehavior doesn’t necessarily mean that the teachings have been invalid. (2) Reactionary apostasy takes you somewhere else, with no guarantee that you won’t meet the same ugly spectacle, sooner or later.

Don’t just react out of the subjective emotion of bitterness. Stand for the truth, support those who stand for it; live as you should; resist the devil, and remember “. . . if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another” (Gal. 5:15).

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 3, pp. 67-68
February 1, 1990

By Frank Jamerson

The basic assumptions one begins with usually determine the destination he reaches. How do we see ourselves in relation to God? How do we view sin? What is our conception of the church? Is it a resort hotel for “saints,” or is it a hospital for the sick? Do we conceive of those in the church as sinners saved by grace, or as “good people” with whom we enjoy our association?

Before we moved to Lakeland, one of the men in the business meeting asked me: “What do you think is the greatest problem facing the church today?” Now, I am not an authority on such questions, and you may disagree with my answer, but my reply was that we are a “self-satisfied society.” Too many brethren look upon the church as a “social club” composed of good people with whom they enjoy affiliation. Basically, they conceive of it as a hotel for saints, not a hospital for the sick. If we do not consider ourselves as needing the “Great Physician,” we are not apt to be longsuffering and forgiving toward others who are sick.

Let us look at some characteristics of the “resort hotel concept.” You go to a hotel to get away from pressure and responsibilities. It is a place for leisure and relaxation; a place where you want to leave your troubles behind. It is a place to be served. You don’t have to make up the bed or clean the room; someone else is responsible for the work! You want to go home rested, relaxed and feeling good. Does this describe the attitude of many brethren toward the church?

The resort hotel is for those who “have it all together.” Who wants to spend time in a hotel listening to the problems of others, or even sharing his own problems with others? The “hotel Christian” has no sympathy for the suffering, because he is not sick. He is “living right,” like the elder brother who stayed home. He may be jealous, unforgiving and even gossipy, but he is not “living in the pig pen.” Have you ever wondered how the elder brother knew what his younger brother had been doing? Even if he did know, what good did it do for him to repeat the information after his brother had repented? We would have made the elder son a deacon, or maybe an elder, but Jesus ended the parable with the self-righteous son outside and the younger brother who had lived in the pig pen inside. On another occasion Jesus said: “Verily I say unto you, that the publicans and harlots go into the kingdom of God before you” (Matt. 21:31).

We should view the church as a hospital for those who are ill. You go to the hospital for the “big cure.” You know something is wrong and you need the good physician, maybe the specialist, working on you.

God said that we “have all sinned, and fallen short of the glory of God” (Rom.- 3:23), therefore all of us need the Physician. If I have been healed of a disease, will I look condescendingly on someone else who has the disease? The only reason we would look down on another is if we think that his disease is “worse” than ours! Was the rebellion of the younger brother worse than the self-righteous, unforgiving attitude of the elder brother? (Read Matt. 21:31 again!) The fact is that the self-righteous do not consider themselves as being in real need. After all, God is fortunate that they have chosen to stay in his hotel!

What is our attitude toward sinners? How forgiving are we when those who have “wallowed in sin” repent? The answer to those questions depends upon our perception of the Lord’s church. Paul wrote the Corinthians: “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor. 6:9-11). Would the former thieves look down on the former sodomites? Not if they realized that their own “disease” was also terminal!

God’s call is to “all who labor and are heavy laden,” not to those who “have it all together.” It is to those who want to live, not to those who think they are living (Matt. 9:12). The elder brother’s unforgiving spirit may be considered “worse” than the “fornication” of the younger brother because it kept him from fellowship with his father. Any disease that kills us is worse than one that has been cured!

I believe that there is a desperate need for an attitude change in many. We need to look upon the church as a hospital for those who have been cured of terminal illness rather than as a hotel for “good folks” who need no physican. When I understand that the great physican extended mercy to me, and have a heart of gratitude for that cleansing, I will be more compassionate and forgiving toward others who need his healing. (A special thanks to my son Randy and to John Haley for the basic thoughts in this article.)

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 3, p. 69
February 1, 1990

By Mike Willis

The pro-abortion forces, led by the National Organization For Women, Planned Parenthood, and many mainline Protestant denominations have successfully argued abortion rights on national media. Many Americans have accepted the abortionists’ arguments. These arguments need to be examined in studying this topic. Here are some of the more popular arguments used by those in favor of aborting babies.

1. “The mother has the right to control her own body. ” The woman not only has the right to control her own body, but also the obligation. If the woman had controlled her own body, she would not be pregnant and wanting to kill her unborn child to avoid the consequences of her immorality. If she had kept her passions under control and not been guilty of fornication, she would not desire an abortion. Remember, 81 percent of abortions are performed on unmarried women (Parade Magazine [I October 1989], p. 28).

Though the mother has the right and obligation to control her own body, she must remember that the baby is another body – not her own body. She has no right to decide that this other human being has no right to live, whether that other human being be inside or outside her womb. Civil law is beginning to express concern for the mother’s obligation toward the unborn in recent decisions regarding the birth of babies who are drug addicts. Some mothers have been charged with crime became they have taken drugs which caused their babies to be born addicted to drugs. If we can hold the mother responsible for her treatment of her unborn child when she takes drugs, how much more should the mother be held responsible for making a premeditated decision to kill that child!

Furthermore, for the sake of argument, let us concede that the unborn child is the mother’s body. What would we do with a woman who willfully mutilated her own body? If we saw a woman make a conscious decision to cut off her arm, what would we do? We would put her in some kind of protective custody while we treated her for insanity – insanity which was demonstrated by destroying her own body. But women who claim that the unborn baby is their own body willfully destroy a part of their own body, all the while claiming to be sane. That does not make good sense.

2. “The unborn is not really human until it is born.” If it is not human, what is it? Is it mineral, vegetable, or animal? If it is animal life, is it horse, cow, pig, cat, or just what? To ask the question shows the foolishness of the argument! If a scientist could produce a fetus from non-living matter, he would assert in every scientific journal which would publish his material that he had “created” human life! But our abortion advocates deny that the unborn baby is human life!

The only difference in an unborn and born baby is location and developmental size. Developmental size changes after birth just as certainly as it changes before birth. Hence, one could not rationally argue that the unborn is not human because of changes in developmental size.

We protect the unborn of other species, why not protect unborn babies? Stealing an eagle’s egg or disturbing its nest is punishable by a fine of up to $5,000. Is this because an eagle’s egg is eagle life, a potential eagle? Perhaps, we need to declare babies an endangered species, so our laws could protect them. Inasmuch as 20 million unborn babies have been destroyed since 1973 in America abortuaries, being an unborn baby is probably the most risky time in a person’s life – more risky than exposure to other health risks such as cigarette smoke, cancer producing agents, etc.

3. “It’s better to abort a child than to abuse one. ” What more severe form of child abuse can be committed than to kill a child? Abortion is the worst form of child abuse! If killing the unborn to prevent possible child abuse is justifiable, why not go to those homes where there is actual child abuse and kill those children to prevent child abuse?

. This argument presupposes that aborting unwanted children will cut down child abuse. With 20 million unwanted babies having been killed by abortion in America since 1973, child abuse should be totally eradicated in our society by now! However, that is not the case. There are more cases of child abuse today than ever before. Norman E. Geisler su2eested 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).

4. “We cannot legislate morality. ” Abortionists have made every effort to legislate morality since 1973. They not only have wanted to legislate that “abortion is acceptable” but also to use our tax dollars to pay for their abortions! Inasmuch as the Supreme Court has decided that states have the right to restrict abortions, we will see whether or not abortionists think that morals can be legislated! Already they have stepped up activity to legislate their moral standards, throwing aside all of their objections pertaining to legislating morality.

We legislate morals every day. If morality cannot be legislated, we need to remove from our law codes these moral laws which have been incorporated into criminal law: murder, rape, incest, stealing, anti-slavery laws, civil rights legislation. The issue is not whether or not morality can be legislated but whose morality will be legislated! Shall the moral standards of humanism, atheism, and other non-Christian perspectives become the morals of our country, or will Christian ethics be legislated? Shall the majority (those from a Judeo-Christian heritage) be controlled by the minority (those from non-Christian background) or vice versa?

5. “People are going to have abortions anyway, so we may as well legalize it. ” If this argument is valid. it should be equally valid with other criminal acts. Since people are going to commit murder, rape, incest, child abuse, and wife abuse, we may as well legalize them. Stating the argument make it absurdly obvious.

Laws do affect behavior and change attitudes. That has been clearly recognized in the civil rights legislation. Making racial discrimination a crime has made equal housing and equal job opportunities more readily available for minorities. Making abortion illegal will change attitudes and conduct of those who are law abiding citizens. Those who are not law abiding citizens will have to be incarcerated, whether their crime be rape, incest, stealing, racial discrimination, or murder (whether of the born or unborn).

6. “Making abortion illegal will result in mothers dying in back alley abortions. ” Legalized abortion has not saved lives, it has cost lives – 20 million lives since 1973 when the Roe vs. Wade case was decided. If abortion was made illegal, some would violate the law, turning to those who would perform illegal abortions in back alleys. Some would die in back alley abortions. But, how can a few hundred mothers who would make a willful decision to violate the law and die in a back alley abortion chamber compare to the 1.5 million babies which are slaughtered each year in American abortuaries? If we grant that 500 women would die each year in back alley abortions chambers, we still would have reduced the death rate by more than 99 percent.

The arguments of abortion proponents are unconvincing. They should be rejected as unsound.

How Abortions Are Performed

If most of us could witness an abortion, we would walk away in disgust at what we witnessed. If we could see the remains of babies which have been aborted, we would turn away in horror. Here are the graphic descriptions of the “Four Ways To Kill n Unborn Child.”

1. To abort an early pregnancy the doctor inserts a tube through the opening of the womb and connects it to a suction apparatus. The vacuum is so powerful that the baby is instantly broken up into a fluid mass of blood, tissue, and cartilage. It quickly passes through this tube and is collected in a bottle.

2. In the curettage technique the doctor stretches or dilates the mouth of the womb to admit a forceps or currette. He then reaches in and drags or scrapes out the baby and after birth. The surgeon must work by touch alone, often cutting the baby into several pieces in order to get it out. The head may be crushed with the forceps to reduce its size for withdrawal. Bleeding is profuse until the womb is scraped completely empty. The bits and pieces of the baby are then disposed of.

3. Larger babies to be aborted may require an abdominal operation similar to a Caesarean section. The womb is cut open and the baby is lifted out. It usually squirms and moves its arms and legs. It tries to breathe and may manage a fee ble cry. If the lungs are too immature to function normally it will soon stop moving, but frequently the heart continues to beat for several hours before it dies.

4. The doctor can stick a large needle through the mother’s belly wall and into the womb. After withdrawing some fluid, a strong, sterile, saltwater solution is injected – in effect pickling the baby alive. The baby may thrash about for a few moments, but soon it becomes perfectly still and dies. In about 24 hours labor will start and the already dead baby is delivered. This technique can be used right up to the very end of pregnancy (“Four Ways to Kill an Unborn Child”).

The aborted babies are then disposed of, either being treated like trash, sold for collagen, used for experimentation Oust like laboratory rats), or otherwise discarded.

“Diary of An Unborn Child”

One of the – most touching pieces of material published against abortion, has been the “Diary of An Unborn Child,” a hypothetical record of a baby inside its mother’s womb. The material below is physically accurate in detailing the maturation of the unborn baby. I think it will touch your emotions, just as it did mine.

Dairy of An Unborn Child

October 5 – Today my life began. My parents do not know it yet, I am as small as a seed of an apple, but it is I already. And I am to be a girl. I shall have blond hair and blue eyes. Just about everything is settled though, even the fact that I shall love flowers.

October 19 – Some say that I am not a real person yet, that only my mother exists. But I am a real person, just as a small crumb of bread is yet truly bread. My mother is. And I am.

October 23 – My mouth is just beginning to open now. Just think, in a year or so I shall be laughing and later talking. I know what my first word will be: MAMA.

October 25 – My heart began to beat today all by itself. From now on it shall gently beat for the rest of my life without ever stopping to rest! And after many years it will tire. It will stop, and then I shall die.

November 2 – I am growing a bit every day. May arms and legs are beginning to take shape. But I have to wait a long time yet before those little legs will raise me to my mother’s arms, before these little arms will be able to gather flowers and embrace my father.

November 12 – Tiny fingers are beginning to form on my hands. Funny how small they are! I’ll be able to stroke my mother’s hair with them.

November 20 – It wasn’t until today that the doctor told mom that I am living here under her heart. Oh, how happy she must be! Are you happy, mom?

November 25 – My mom and dad are probably thinking about a name for me. But they don’t even know that I am a little girl. I want to be called Kathy. I am getting so big already.

December 10 – My hair is growing. It is smooth and bright and shiny. I wonder what kind of hair mom has.

December 13 – I am just about able to see. It is dark around me. When mom brings me into the world it will be full of sunshine and flowers. But what I want more than anything is to see my mom. How do you look, mom?

December 24 – I wonder if mom hears the whispering of my heart? Some children come into the world a little sick. But my heart is strong and healthy. It beats so evenly: tup-tup, tup-tup. You’ll have a healthy little daughter, mom!

December 28 – Today my mother killed me.

Conclusion

We can sit in the peace and tranquility of our homes and read an article such as this one about abortion. We enjoy the beauty of God’s creation, experience the joys of life, and have the opportunities to participate in the decisions regarding the future of our nation. We can do these things because our mothers did not choose to have an abortion! I can sit with my family around a table to eat cake and ice cream on 22 July because I had a birthday. Don’t you think every child has a right to a birthday?

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 3, pp. 66, 86-88
February 1, 1990