Truth Magazine

By Larry R. DeVore

The word “ego” is defined as: “the thinking, feeling, and acting self that is conscious of itself and aware of its distinction from the selves of others and from the object of its thought and other operations” (Readers’ Digest Great Encyclopedia Dictionary, p. 422). The ego is not evil in and of itself. Paul may have been dealing with this in Romans 7, when he said in v. 23; “But I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind, and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members” (NASB).

Perhaps, it is somewhat like the conscience; it depends on how it is trained. Paul said in Romans 2:15b: “their conscience bearing witness, and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending themselves” (NASB).

But let us look further at this word and its variations. An “egoist” is defined as “one who is completely devoted to his own interests; a selfish person.” “Egoism” is defined as: “Inordinate concern for one’s own welfare and interests; selfishness.”

Now, you may be able to see why I titled this article “Edging God Out.” The ego will edge God completely out of our lives, if we are “completely devoted to (our) own interests.” We will have no room for God; we will be leaving him out of our lives. A person who is selfish, concerned only for his own welfare, is a person who is pushing or edging God out of his life. This is contrary to God’s will for us.

We have in Scripture such a man set forth for us to learn from in Luke 12. He tore down his barns to build larger ones and said: “Soul (ego? LRD), you have many goods laid up for many years to come; take your ease, eat, drink, and be merry” (Lk. 12:19, NASB).

But God said to him, “You fool” (v. 20). Here was a man who was devoted to his own selfish interests. He made no provisions to help his fellow man and, most importantly, he completely left God out of his plans! Paul tells us in Romans 14:7, “For no one of us lives for himself, and no one dies for himself” (NASB). Christians are not to be selfish. Again, Philippians 2:2, the apostle writes, “Do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others” (NASB).

How do we edge God out of our lives? There may be many ways, but let us look at some areas of our lives in which we may be edging God out.

We may edge God out of our worship services. What! Never! How could this happen? Brother John Haley pointed this out in his good article “Developing Men Without Hampering The Public Service” (Guardian of Truth, Vol. 33, No. 1, p. 10 Jan. 5, 1989). He said this: “Quality worship then becomes synonymous with worship that effectively meets my needs. Our central question always seems to be, ‘How did this worship benefit me? What did I get out of it?’ Self-enhancement and gratification becomes an object and end within itself.” “Frequently it seems worship today feeds man’s ever expanding ego and exalts his view of himself” (emphasis mine, LRD). “This is just the opposite of God’s intention.” This perceptive observation by an elder in the Lord’s church should make us stop and think, and ask ourselves; “Am I-edging God out of my worship to him?” You may have heard the story about the brother who inadvertently said while praying for the sick: “and we pray that they may soon recover and be back to worship us with thee!” A slip of the tongue? Or are we too self-centered and self-oriented?

We may edge God out of the work of the church. How? Do we give God the glory when good things happen in our work for the Lord? Or do we take the credit? The great preacher and apostle Paul points out the truth for us when he says: “I planted, Apollos watered, but God was,causing the growth” (1 Cor. 3:6-7, NASB). Again, he wrote, “Whatever you do, do all to the glroy of God” (1 Cor. 10:31b, NASB). So then, let us not boast that “I coverted so many,” or “I restored so many,” but let us recognize that the gospel is God’s saving power (Rom. 1:16) and give him the glory (Eph. 3:21).

But we must be on guard lest we edge God out of our personal lives. How can this happen? In many ways. We noticed how it happened to the rich man in Luke 12. We are not immune to temptation. Jesus warned us, just before he told that story in Luke 12: “Beware, and be’ on your guard against every form of greed; for not even when one has an abundance does his life consist of his possessions” (Lk. 12;15, NASB). In the words of the old hymn:

“O, the bitter pain and sorrow

That a time could ever be,

When I proudly said to Jesus

‘All of self, and none of thee.”‘

We may become egotistic about our jobs. I am the best salesman/foreman/worker they have! They cannot get along without me! I have to be there to make decisions/get the overtime/etc. So God gets edged out, there’s no time for him.

We may become egotistic about our social/community activities. I am president of the PTA/Lion’s Club/Library Committee. They can’t get along without me/I have to be there/etc. There is no time left for God.

The same principles apply to our recreational activities, our hobbies, perhaps even our families. In one way or another, and it may be very slowly, Christianity gets put on the back burner, and God is edged out of our lives. Jesus said, “Seek ye first the kingdom of God” (Matt. 6:33). If I am seeking the kingdom first, this precludes my being egotistic.

Don’t be an egoist (self-centered). Simply be a Christian. Have a Christ-centered life. This is the way to true happiness and contentment (1 Tim. 6:6-8). Move the ego out and let God in!

“Higher than the highest heavens,

Deeper than the deepest sea,

Lord, thy love at last has conquered,

None of self, and all of thee.”

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 16, pp. 481, 503
August 17, 1989

By Larry Ray Hafley

See what you think of the report below:

SAN FRANCISCO – The San Francisco board of supervisors unanimously passed legislation Monday that officially recognizes gay, lesbian and unmarried heterosexual couples by offering them certificates similar to a marriage license.

San Francisco thus joins three other California cities in officially acknowledging the legitimacy of people who live together outside the bonds of a traditional marriage. The city may accord so-called “domestic partners” employed by the city with health benefits traditionally reserved for husband and wife.

The health measure will be decided after study by a mayoral task force.

“San Francisco is doing something cities all around the country are going to emulate,” said Supervisor Harry Britt, an acknowledged homosexual and author of both measures.

Under the ordinance approved Monday, unmarried couples will be able to obtain a certificate officially recognizing their relationship by publicly filing a declaration of domestic partnership with the city clerk’s office or privately with a notary public (“Gay Couples Accepted,” Commercial Appeal, May 23, 1989, p. A2).

Comments

Mr. Britt might have a fit, but I wonder what of those whose “alternate life style” includes a sexual relationship with an animal? Why are they being ignored, or, worse yet, discriminated against? A “gay” with a way with a goat could use a certificate “similar to a marriage license. ” In this manner, overly-persnickety landlords and sexist zoning ordinances (you know the type – those that prohibit animals from certain neighborhoods) could be circumvented.

Now, please, I do not want any letters from you animal lovers out there telling me that a goat cannot be forced to cohabit with a gay. I am fully aware that goats have their pride and that there are limits to their level of dignity, but gays are not bound by such restrictive, culturally imposed systems which we have received from our puritanical, Judeo-Christian heritage. So, the goat will have to go along with the times. After all, it is almost time for the “Gay” nineties again. I am not trying to get anyone’s goat with these remarks. That would be ba-a-a-ad, and I will not do it by the hair of my chinny chin chin.

Health problems? Odor? Not to worry, the goat can stand it every bit as good as the gay. When was the last time you heard a goat complain about gay odor? See? There is no health problem. Cities could unite in “officially acknowledging the legitimacy (Now, there is a word to ponder.) of people (and animals) who live together outside the bonds of a traditional marriage.” Further, “The city may accord socalled ‘domestic partners’ employed by the city with health benefits traditionally reserved for husband and wife.” All sick goats should receive “study by a mayoral task force,” I always say.

No goat, though, should be given health care benefits if it (the said goat) does not possess “a certificate officially recognizing their relationship by publicly filing a declaration of domestic (that eliminates wild goats) partnership with the city clerk’s office or privately with a notary public.” (Should either the goat or the gay eat the afore-mentioned certificate, the process must be duly repeated before a justice of the peace.) An unlicensed goat should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Our welfare system is rife with fraud, so only certified goats need apply for health benefits. All other goats must butt out.

As replusive and repugnant as a gay-goat liason is (especially to goats), how would Mr. Britt deny gays and goats “equal protection under the law”? Upon what basis could he refuse them? Citing laws or moral codes will have no effect (especially on a. gay). The American Criminal Liberties Union (ACLU) could take this to the Supreme Court. Mr. Britt, Jesse Jackson and Ted Kennedy could lead a Goats Right Coalition parade across the Golden Gate Bridge. They should walk across the bride, but if they drive, under no circumstances should Senator Kennedy be allowed to drive across, given his past history with bridges. Besides, a,goat’s life is sacred, except, of course, when a goat has an abortion. Then it is merely the excising of unwanted cells growing as a mass. (This does not apply to eagles or to other animals on the endangered species list.)

Comments on Capital Punishment

Objections are raised every time capital punishment is carried out. “What if you execute the wrong man?” That is a distinct possibility. It is more than sad when it happens, but if executing the wrong man does away with capital punishment, does imprisoning the wrong man do away with jail terms? Sorrowfully, some men have spent most of their lives in jail for crimes they did not commit. Should we, then, do away with jail terms because the wrong man might be unjustly incarcerated?

Capital punishment is called “legalized murder.” “Legalized murder” is a liberal’s term for capital punishment. A liberal likes the expression except when it is applied to abortion. Then he calls it a “loaded, prejudical” description. He prefers “pro-choice” for legalized baby murder. Well, executing murderers is my choice, so I guess I am “pro-choice” when it comes to executing them. But back to “legalized murder.”

If capital punishment is “legalized murder” and should, therefore, be outlawed, is a jail term “legalized kidnapping” which should also be outlawed? Think about it. I cannot kill a killer. I must let the state take care of him. If the state executes him, it is “legalized murder,” i.e., it is as though one had unlawfully killed a killer. Alright, then, I cannot restrain or restrict a bank robber and confine him to a cell in my basement. I must let the state take care of him. If the state puts him in jail, is it “legalized kidnapping”? If not, why not? The argument that forbids capital punishment because it is “legalized murder,” should also forbid a jail sentence because it is “legalized kidnaping,” holding a person against his will.

If a person illegally trespasses on my property, I cannot extort money from him, but the state can make the trespasser pay a fine. If I do it, I am extorting money from the trespasser. Well, if the state does it, if the state makes the trespasser pay a fine, is that “legalized extortion”? Should, therefore, all fines be outlawed? If capital punishment is to be banned because it qualifies as legalized murder, should all fines be banned because they are “legalized extortion”? (Do not forget, too, that the “wrong man” may be fined on occasion.)

What do we have here – no executions, no jail terms, no fines. Of course, such a policy would put a number of Wall street traders, congressmen and Chicago aldermen back on the street – with money. It is too late, though, for Ted Bundy. We just were not enlightened enough to let him continue his “alternative life style” of murdering young women. We fined him (legalized extortion). We jailed him (legalized kidnaping). We executed him (legalized murder). Boy, somebody ought to have to answer for violating his criminal liberties!

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 15, pp. 458-459
August 3, 1989

By Barry Mark Pennington

According to the New World Dictionary of the American Language, one definition of materialism is “the tendency to be more concerned with material than with spiritual goals.” Christ Jesus exposed the taproot of materialism in his statement about the “thorny soil”: “And others are the ones on whom seed was sown among the thorns; these are the ones who have heard the word, and the worries of the world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the desires for other things enter in and choke the word, and it becomes unfruitful” (Mk. 4:18-19). Christ Jesus thus explained to his disciples the destructiveness of material covetousness and worry. It is sad that the Lord’s explanation of the “thorny soil” accurately describes many who profess to be Christians today. Reader friend, because of (1) your worry about this life, (2) your being deceived by wealth, and (3) your lust for material things, you prevent the word of God from having free course in your life! Are you as fruitful as you know you should be?

Worries of this Life

Tremendous amounts of time and energy are drained off one’s life as a Christian because of anxiety, fretting, and despair. Certainly outside negative pressures influence the Christian’s inner thoughts, but the true disciple of Christ recognizes that it is possible to close the door of his heart (mind) to gloom and doom. Hear the Lord: “Therefore, do not be anxious for tomorrow; for tomorrow will care for itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own” (Matt. 6:34). It has been stated that one man had been so accustomed to fretting that he often worried because he had forgotten what he was supposed to worry about! Reader friend, God does not want his people to worry. In Phillippians 4:6 Paul commands Christians to “be anxious for nothing.” “Cast all your anxiety on him (God), because he (God) cares for you” (1 Pet. 5:7), Peter declares.

In the American culture Christians must especially be aware of and guard against destructive worry about material things. An old preacher once said that the most sensitive artery in the human body is the one which runs downward to the pocketbook or billfold. Americans are accustomed to having a pocket full of “plastic money.” Credit has almost ruined this country as America is fast falling behind in paying her national debts. How many people have you known personally during the last five years who have fallen as victims to the “credit system”? The typical story goes something like this: (1) Man gets a credit card, (2) Man gets many credit cards, (3) Man’s lust of the eye and the pride of life runs his credit accounts up to the limit, (4) Man suddenly realizes that the time has now come to “pay the fiddler” but the resources to pay are not there (meanwhile, the “new” has worn off the material things he thought he just had to have), and (5) Man worries.

If this scenario ended with worry it would be bad enough, but it does not stop here! Now the man must “moonlight” or convince the wife that she “needs” to work. She enters the work force and he gets several extra jobs “just to make ends meet. ” On and on the story goes. Meanwhile the word of God is ignored and the work of God is neglected or forsaken altogether. Does this sound familiar?

Thus, Christians are often consumed by worries of this life. Worrying about finances will not add a single cubit to your life, reader friend (Matt. 6:27). Past financial mistakes should be repented of and a specific plan for restitution (payment of debts) should be forthcoming. A faithful child of God realizes that fretting is unfruitful. The sin of “over extending oneself” in the realm of credit must be acknowledged to God (I Jn. 1:9), and when God’s forgiveness is obtained the lingering consequences of past mistakes must be dealt with. Paul commands Christians to “owe nothing to anyone” (Rom. 13:8). If creditors are willing to work out an alternate payment plan this will help the Christian who is striving to do God’s will in all things. If the creditors are not flexible in payment options, then the Christian must simply do what he is able to do to pay the debt. Some today are striving to convince themselves that it is scriptural to avoid payment of debt. Meanwhile, subconscious guilt and worry proliferate in their minds.

The Lord’s classic text on worry is found in Matthew 6:24-34. Jesus shows that worry about necessities of life (food, drink, and clothing) is (1) unnecessary (“your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things”), (2) prohibited (“do not be anxious”), (3) futile (“which of you by being anxious can add a single cubit to his life’s span?”), (4) heathenish (“for all these things the Gentiles eagerly seek”), and (5) faithless (“O men of little faith”). May all Christians in America obtain the wisdom necessary to get back to the basics of life.

Deceitfulness of Riches

Wealth is glorified in America. Satan deceives while Christians seek to obtain the goal of riches. It is “conceived and believed” by many that if enough money and worldly possessions are accumulated in a lifetime surely this will lead to happiness. In contrast, the Savior said, “Beware and be on guard against every form of greed; for not even when one has an abundance does his life consist of his possessions” (Lk. 12:15). Many today actually believe that luxuries are necessities. In order to biblically define necessities, consider Paul’s words in 1 Timothy 6:6-8: “But godliness actually is a means of great gain, when accompanied by contentment. For we have brought nothing into the world, so we cannot take anything out of it either. And if we have food and covering, with these we shall be content.”

Most Americans have food and covering, but many are not content. Even Christians find themselves “slaving away” on extra jobs, working long and extra hours in order to obtain more money and possessions. Again, great amounts of energy are drained off the life of a Christian because of the love of money. Some have even “wandered away from the faith, and pierced themselves with many a pang” (1 Tim. 6:10). Attempts are made to justify this obsession with inordinate pursuits of money and worldly possessions. Some well-meaning brother says, “I’ll be able to do so much more for the Lord.” However, in the final analysis, a great majority of all that extra money and those worldly possessions are used in the pursuit of more luxuries! How often have we heard of “get rich quick” schemes luring some brother away from the things of God? Sometimes entire congregations are affected by money-making schemes when unscrupulous brothers attempt to “make merchandise of the brethren” (2 Pet. 2:14-19). The Bible says that “those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a snare” (1 Tim. 6:9).

In some cases, faithful Christians are wealthy and they consistently obey God’s instructions to (1) not be conceited, (2) not to fix their hope on the uncertainty of riches, (3) do good, (4) be rich in good works, and (5) be generous and ready to share (1 Tim. 6:17-18). Every saint of God must honestly assess his own heart in the pursuit of money. Are you spending precious time pursuing riches and wealth while ignoring the work of God? Has the pursuit of money become a “thorn” in your life which is “choking” the word of God? Are you more concerned with money than you are with prayer, Bible study, and worship?

Desires For Other Things

The decade of the eighties, a world of materialism, offers many things which distract Christians from the word of God. Television, video cassette players and recorders, computers, video games, hobbies, sports, recreation, entertainment, ad infinitum lure the people of God away from fruitful work and service in the kingdom. Many of these things are not wrong within themselves. However, when an individual uses any of these things to go beyond the boundaries of God’s law, he sins (1 Jn. 3:4). For example, watching lewd programming (pornography) on television (cable television, satellite dishes, and movie rental houses are easily accessible in this generation) which incites lascivious thoughts and actions, spending inordinate amounts of time and money on computers, video games, and hobbies, gambling on sport events, and involving oneself in sinful forms of recreation and entertainment such as mixed swimming. dancing, drinking parties, immodest dress, etc. are sinful! It is not the purpose of this article to go into detail proving the sinfulness of these things. It is the purpose of this article to state simply that “desires for other things” (generic thorns) choke the word of God and prevent a Christian from being fruitful. May all Christians everywhere determine to remove the thorns from their fleshly material lives. “No soldier in active service entangles himself in the affairs of everyday life” (2 Tim. 2:4).

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 15, pp. 454-455
August 3, 1989

By Mike Willis

Several articles have appeared in a journal circulating among faithful brethren which have discussed fellowship and the divorce and remarriage issue. The articles are important because of the stance taken that Jesus’ law of divorce and remarriage is to be placed in the category of Romans 14 rather than 2 John 9. The position that aliens are not amenable to Christ’s law of divorce and remarriage is not the kind of matters under discussion in Romans 14. Although the author expressed his disagreement with the view that aliens are not amenable he also stated that brethren who teach differently should be received into fellowship on. the grounds of Romans 14.

An extended series of articles on fellowship in which the divorce and remarriage issue is placed in the realm of Romans 14 is in progress. Because of the public nature of the teaching, a private statement of disagreement will not counter the public dissemination of the view that the divorce and remarriage issue belongs in the category of Romans 14.

Is the Doctrine Harmful?

The author places the doctrine that alien sinners are not amenable to the Lord’s law of divorce and remarriage in the same category as the covering, conscientious objector and wedding-in-the-church building issues. The doctrine may be stated like this: the alien sinner is not amenable to the teachings of Matthew 19:9; consequently, he can divorce and remarry for any reason prior to his baptism and keep the mate to whom he is married when he is baptized. This, we are told, is in the same category as the covering issue, conscientious objector issue, and wedding-in-the-church building issue.

I sincerely doubt that our good brother can emotionally or scripturally defend his placing all of these issues in the same category. Would our brother be equally upset if he had a non-Christian daughter coming to the services veiled (or unveiled, depending upon what he believes), choosing to have a wedding in the church building, and entering a second marriage after a divorce for some reason other than fornication? I think not! But, why not? If these all belong in the same category, he should feel the same about each of them. I suggest that emotionally he does not put these in the same category.

Secondly, I suggest that scripturally they do not belong in the same category. The person who violates Matthew 19:9 is an adulterer, guilty of a sin which keeps one out of heaven (1 Cor. 6:9; Gal. 5:19) and out of the fellowship of the saints (1 Cor. 5). Will wearing or not wearing a veil do the same for a woman? Will having a wedding in a church building do the same? I deny that wearing or not wearing a veil and having or not having a wedding in a church building makes a person guilty of sin.

The article described the teaching that alien sinners are not amenable to the Lord’s law of divorce and remarriage as “the minority view.” It reminded us that there are six or seven different positions held by brethren on the subject of divorce and remarriage. Is the purpose of this statement to imply that the truth of God on the subject of divorce and remarriage is so ambiguous that we cannot determine what is right and wrong? Therefore, we should be tolerant of opposing views on the subject.

I remind our readers that the same apostle who wrote Romans 14 also wrote the following:

Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them (Rom. 16:17).

A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself (Tit. 3:10-11).

Who Is a False Teacher?

Our brother assured us that a man is not a false teacher unless he is one who has dishonest motives. In so doing, he made statements which opened gates so wide that even he would not accept the logical conclusions of his premises. He said, “Must we label every person who disagrees with us a false teacher, unworthy of fellowship? . . . . The end of such thinking is rampant factionalism.” This raises questions, but offers no answers.

“Must we label every person who disagrees with us a false teacher, unworthy of fellowship?” The answer is obviously, “No.” This raises another question: “Must we label any person who disagrees with us a false teacher, unworthy of fellowship?” The answer is equally obvious, “Yes.” What determines the difference? Our brother did not say.

Rather, he assured, “A false teacher is surely one whose dishonest motives and/or ignorance distinguish him from the sincere brother who has reached an erroneous conclusion.” The difference between a false teacher and a sincere brother who has reached an erroneous conclusion is his motive, attitude, and disposition. If that is the case, I cannot identify a false teacher without being able to discern his heart and 1 Corinthians 2:11 states that a man cannot know the heart of another man. The position espoused in the article changes a false teacher from one who teaches a doctrine which will lead one’s soul to hell to one with a sinful attitude of heart!

Those who led the church into church support of human institutions (missionary societies, benevolent societies, colleges, hospitals, etc.) were men of honorable reputation. Men like Alexander Campbell, J.B. Briney, Batsell Barrett Baxter, and others were men whose character was impeccable. Their character did not deter the impact of their teaching. They were false teachers on the subjects at issue, despite their moral character.

Many of our Baptist friends have impeccable character. Their doctrine of baptism is wrong, regardless of the moral character of the one teaching it. Those who follow the false teachings of a sincerely wrong “blind guide” will be just as lost as those who follow the teachings of one who willfully perverts the teachings of Christ (Matt. 15:14).

Long-Term Consequences

The article plainly asserts that the doctrinal position that alien sinners are not amenable to Jesus’ law of divorce and remarriage (with the consequence that alien sinners who have divorced for some reason other than fornication, and remarried can be baptized and continue living with their mates) should be tolerated among us. This is the most serious issue from this series of articles. It is an issue which must be addressed. Long after revered brethren whose doctrine is under review have gone the way of all the earth, having passed from the scene of life and gone to face the Creator, those who are divorcing their mates for causes other than fornication will continue in their rebellion against the divine word of God. Those who are teaching that God’s law in Matthew 19:9 does not apply to alien sinners will continue to have their influence, bringing into the church those who have divorced and remarried for every reason. Those who teach that “adultery” in Matthew 19:9 is the act of divorcing and can be corrected by a public confession followed by the continuance of the second or third marriage will continue to have their influence. Christians will divorce and remarry for reasons other than fornication, make a confession that they violated their marriage covenant, and continue living with their next mate. Are these views and those who teach them (such as Olan Hicks, Roy Hall, etc.) to be accepted? Are these differences on a par with the covering issue and conscientious objector issue? The articles on fellowship logically lead to that conclusion. With this, I find myself in serious disagreement.

The issue is not one man, even one very respected man. Unfortunately one man became the focal point because some of his public and private teachings were believed and practiced. The result was division – schism, factionalism -in a local church. We sincerely hope that his teachings do not produce that result again, but they will produce that result wherever this doctrine on divorce and remarriage is taught and practiced.

For this reason, we call for brethren to open their Bibles. Bring out every passage which deals with the subject and let us openly discuss the issue until the truth shines clearly, having been learned from the crucible of controversy. While this is being done, let us be careful to conduct ourselves as brethren in love with the Lord and his children.

We are not afraid of controversy. Truth has nothing to fear. What we fear most is an attitude that believes that false doctrine should not be challenged if it is taught by a prominent man! What we fear is a pulpit, bulletin, or paper which is closed to the expression of disagreement. That, my brethren, is the spirit which leads to sectarianism!

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 15, pp. 450, 461
August 3, 1989