Truth Magazine

By Mark Mayberry

“God washes the eye by tears until they can behold the invisible land where tears shall come no more” (Henry Ward Beecher).

We cannot know for a certainty when Job lived, but there is compelling evidence to believe that his name should be included among the ancient patriarchs. He could easily predate the time of Abraham. His home was in the land of Uz, which was probably in the northern Arabian desert in a territory that came to be known as Edorn or Idumea.

Job was blessed with great abundance and a large family. Most importantly, Job was a righteous man, respected by his peers and servants alike. However, calamity struck Job: all his flocks, herds, and possessions were swept away through a succession of disasters. Even worse, the children whom he adored were all killed. Finally Job himself was beset with a terrible and painful disease. Although he questioned why such calamity should befall him, Job still maintained his faith in God. In the end, his wealth was restored to twice its original value, more children were born unto him, and he died a happy man.

Job struggled with the problem of suffering. Every person will eventually wrestle with the same questions that he faced. We all must come to grips with the problem of suffering and sorrow, pain and agony, disease and death. Thus, the Book of Job is a cherished treasure; its message is timeless. Little did this humble man know that the story of his personal adversity would become a source of comfort to countless millions who, down through the centuries, have faced tragedy themselves. This fact alone might well have been why Job was called upon to endure adversity. Humankind has been taught a valuable lesson from his example.

Summary of the Book

The Book of Job takes the form of a historical poem. The first scene opens with a picture of Job’s great prosperity, and then quickly turns to a discussion between God and Satan. God proudly points to Job as an example of a righteous man. However, Satan challenges God by suggesting that Job is faithful only because of the cornucopia of blessings he has received. The Lord permits Satan to test his theory by removing Job’s abundance, but this honorable man’s faith remains intact. Next, Satan suggests that physical suffering will cause man to curse God. Yet when Job is tried again, Satan is disappointed.

In the second scene, Job still does not curse God, but he does put some hard questions to the Lord. Bewildered and confused, he asks, “Why must I suffer such loss? What have I done to cause God to punish me so severely? What sins have brought on this calamity? Why is God so inconsistent in his punishment of the wicked? Why do the righteous suffer while the wicked prosper? Is there justice with God?” Thus Job challenges God, demanding to know why he has experienced such misfortune.

While Job presents this case to God, three of his friends – Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar – argue against him. Their approach is based on a simple syllogism: God always punishes sin; suffering is the result of sin; therefore Job is more of a sinner than he is willing to admit. They demand that Job confess his misdeeds. Yet, throughout it all, Job maintains his innocence. His faith has not been a put-on; his fidelity has not been a sham. There must be some other answer.

The third scene introduces a young man named Elihu who claims that neither Job nor his friends are correct. God does not act capriciously, as Job claims. Neither is suffering necessarily the result of sin, as his friends claim. Rather Elihu argues that suffering is often used by God to teach man certain lessons and to strengthen a person’s character.

In the final scene, it is God’s turn to speak. The Master of the Universe challenges Job: “What right do you have to accuse God? What power do you have? What understanding? What control? What authority? What wisdom?” The Lord God demands a response, but Job is dumbfounded. God continues to confront Job. He points out the paltry dominion of man. If man fears the large animals of the field, how much more should he manifest awe and respect for the Creator of all things? Through example after example, Jehovah sets forth the overwhelming difference between man and God. Finally, the Lord turns to Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar. Job’s three friends are rebuked for having spoken falsehood. “My wrath is kindled against thee, ” said God, “for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right” (Job 42:7).

Conclusion

Job learned his lesson. In the end, he confessed the greatness and majesty of God; he repented in deep humility (Job 42:16). Job’s humble response demonstrates the depth of his righteous character. This indeed was a man of faith. The book closes with a picture of Job’s restored prosperity.

Then Job answered the Lord, and said, I know that thou canst do every thing, and that no thought can be withholden from thee. Who is he that hideth counsel without knowledge? therefore have I uttered that I understood not, things too wonderful for me, which I knew not. Hear, I beseech thee, and I will speak., I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me. I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear. but now mine eye seeth thee. Wherefore abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes (42:1-6).

Still we are left with the quandary, “Why does man suffer?” Even this masterpiece of literature does not answer all of our questions. Job was never given a direct answer as to why he suffered adversity. However, that itself is part of the lesson. True faith does not require an immediate or complete understanding of the workings of God. We cannot know all of God’s wisdom. In some respects we are not even in a position to ask “Why?”

However, the Scriptures do make several matters clear. First, we are reminded that all men, righteous and wicked, will one day stand before God in judgment. Evil men may prosper in this life, but their crimes will be exposed on that final day and they will be swept away like a flood. Secondly, we learn the fallacy of believing that suffering is always the result of sin. Job was a righteous man; he was not being punished for his wrong doings. Finally, it becomes obvious that man is in no position to accuse God of injustice. Man must learn not to blame God for all human suffering. We cannot plumb the ways of God; instead, “the just shall live by faith. ” When all was said and done, Job gained an understanding of the overwhelming might and majesty of Jehovah.

An awareness of these truths will not stop the tears of one who is suffering heartache or facing calamity. But they do challenge us to recognize the sovereignty of God. We must trust in his wisdom and understand that he has a time and purpose for all things, including adversity and suffering. It may not be apparent, but God works providentially’ in life to bring his people into a closer relationship with him, and thereby into greater harmony within themselves and with each other. Through faith, we can triumph over difficulties, even though we may not fathom all the circumstances of suffering (by Mark Mayberry. Adapted from The Narrated Bible by F. LaGard Smith [Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1984], p. 22,1155-1209).

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 14, pp. 424-425
July 20, 1989

By Alan Jones

Much good material has been written on the subject of dancing from a biblical perspective. This article is not written to duplicate or in some way improve on such material.

Have you ever taken time to study dancing from a worldly, historical perspective? I took the time to research the subject at the public library and would like to report my findings to you. Perhaps you are a parent or a teenager conscientiously struggling with the question of whether a Christian should be involved in dancing. Perhaps you have been unimpressed with word studies you’ve read or heard on “lasciviousness” and feel that preachers are “making much to-do about nothing,” binding their personal opinions as the law of God.

I want to share with you some information from the book Let’s Dance, written by Peter Buckman in 1978. Mr. Buckman who has an honors degree in history from Oxford University, examines the development and social acceptance of the modern dance. Mr. Buckman is not a Christian who is trying to condemn dancing (in fact he actually belittles those who do). He writes as an historian, not a moralist. Consider his writing and then ask yourself, “Is dancing something a Christian should be involved in?”

Pre-Couple Dancing and Sex Appeal

We have been born into a world where men and women dance together and we may presume that this has gone on since ancient times. However, this is not so. Note what Mr. Buckman has to say below about dancing in Roman times. Throughout his book, he unashamedly points out the connection between sex and dancing, from how that dancing could be used for sex appeal in the pre-couple days to how that sex is the appeal of the dancing of our time. Here’s the author’s assessment of the “solo” dances of the Roman age:

“The couple dance had not yet arrived, so there was no question of learning how to move across the floor with a partner. But dancing gracefully in public was still a useful means of attracting the attention of the opposite sex” (p. 50).

“Mixt Dancing” Slow in Coming

Couple dancing, perhaps to your surprise (it was to mine) is relatively modern in its origins and took quite awhile to be morally, and thus socially acceptable. According to Mr. Buckman.

“The couple dance as we know it, with a pair of dancers actually touching each other, did not arrive until around the fifteenth century, and even then it was a decorous affair. Among the early cultures even the crudest sexual pantomime rarely involved a touch more intimate than a grasp of the hands. Most dances were sexually exclusive, for men or for women only. Some tribes insisted on the opposite sex absenting themselves from the dance area for certain dances, though these were always of a sacred nature. But, even at celebration, or in mimetic wooing dances, men and women danced in groups at each other, and not with each other. This sort of exclusivity enjoyed a very long life: ‘mixt dancing’ was frowned upon by many Puritans in the seventeenth century, by orthodox Jews, and also by strict Muslims” (p. 43).

Couple Dancing Faces Opposition

After couple dancing was introduced, many different dances for couples were invented and promoted. Among these, the La Volta was considered highly indecent by moralists of the day. The dance was taught with warnings to women. A woman was warned to keep her left hand against her thigh to hold her skirt “lest in gathering the wind it should display her chemise (undergarment) or bare leg.” The instructions went on to say, “I leave you to judge whether it be a proper thing for a young girl to make large steps and wide movements of the legs: and whether in this Volta her honor and well-being are not risked and involved” (pp. 91-92).

As mentioned in a quote above, the Puritans vigorously opposed the introduction of “mixt dancing.” They described the activity as “lascivious dancing to wanton ditties with amorous gestures and wanton dalliance (playing around – AJ)” (p. 104). The Puritans had such an influence that the Continental Congress, on October 12, 1778, prohibited dancing as an activity which produced “idleness, dissipation, and a general depravity of principles and manners” (p. 107)., Yes, it is hard to believe that dancing was once against the United States Federal law!

The Waltz Introduces Close-Dancing

Despite any religious protests and legislation, couple dancing did not die out, but rather gained social acceptance. The next major change in dancing came with the waltz which introduced close body contact between men and women for the first time. Mr. Buckman reports that this change, too, did not come without opposition. He writes, “Naturally the pleasure it gave to the couples who lost themselves in each others arms, who pressed breast against chest, and who, as the music whirled on, embraced each other more and more tightly, itself attracted strong criticism” (p. 104). In parts of Germany and Switzerland the waltz was banned altogether (p. 104).

In 1812, Lord Byron of England, speaking of the waltz, objected to the “lewd grasp and lawless contact warm,” and to the fact that “thin clad daughters, leaping around the floor would not leave much mystery for the nuptial (wedding night – AJ).” Mr. Buckman quickly discounts Lord Byron because “he also objected to mixed bathing” (that doesn’t destroy his credibility with me!) (p. 124).

Imagine waking up to this newspaper article found in the London Times in the summer of 1816:

“We remarked with pain that the indecent foreign dance called ‘waltz’ was introduced (we believe for the first time) at the English Court on Friday last. This is a circumstance which ought not be passed over in silence. National morals depend on national habits; and it is quite sufficient to cast one’s eyes on the voluptuous intertwining of the limbs, and close compressure of the bodies, in their dance, to see that it is indeed far removed from the modest reserve which has hitherto been considered distinctive of English females. So long as this obscene display was confined to prostitutes and adulteresses we did not think it deserving of notice; but now that it is attempted to be forced upon the respectable classes of society by the evil example of their superiors, we feel it is a duty to warn every parent against exposing his daughter to so fatal a contagion . . . We owe a due reference to superiors in rank, but we owe a higher duty to morality. We know not how it has happened (probably by the recommendation of some worthless and ignorant French dancing master) that so indecent a dance has now for the first time been exhibited at the English Court; but the novelty is one deserving of severe reprobation, and we trust it will never again be tolerated in any moral English society” (p. 125).

Despite such pleas from the media, the waltz continued its course from the prostitutes and adulteresses to the nobles to the common people of England and of the world. Allen Dodwort commented in 1885 that the waltz “has for fifty years resisted every kind of attack and is today the most popular known” (p. 127). But, even he said that gentlemen should wait until the dance begins before encircling a woman’s waist. They never should put a bare hand there. If they lacked gloves, they should hold a handkerchief in their hand (p. 127). This was barely over 100 years ago. My how things have changed!

Objections to Close-Dancing Wane

Many religious leaders refused to accept the “closed couple” position required by the waltz until the nineteenth century was well advanced. Perhaps one of the last big attacks on dancing was by “revival” preachers after the economic crash of 1857 which ushered in the “Great Awakening” (p. 116,117).

Yet, despite the efforts of those who spoke out against dancing, society as a whole had less and less objections to it. Mr. Buckman, commenting on the polka, the next popular close dance introduced after the waltz, said, “Despite such complicated instructions, the dance triumphed over all objections and, like the waltz, its steps were incorporated into the other round dances which called for the close hold that no amount of sermonizing could loosen” (p. 146). He said the reason that dancing continued to gain popularity despite objections to its propriety was that “the god of profit was replacing that of the Bible as the chief totem (emblem – AJ) in American life” (p. 116).

Conclusion

Society today would laugh at the objections of their forefathers to the waltz and the polka. Certainly dancing has gotten much “dirtier” since then so as to make these dances look “pure,” “wholesome,” and “harmless.” But the introduction and acceptance of these led women down the road to the dancing that is more overtly sexual in nature (all of which Mr. Buckman reveals in great detail).

Every three weeks, I take an allergy shot. The shots are not to cure my allergies, but to desensitize me to them. Through the shots, doses of what I am allergic to are sent into my body; the dose being periodically increased, so that after a while my body will be so used to these substances that they will not bother me hardly at all when I come in contact with them.

What Mr. Buckman reveals in his book, Let’s Dance, is the desensitizing of the world to the lust of the flesh. Gradually, over a few hundred years, the world accepted larger and larger doses of it, until now its conscience is no longer bothered. Mr. Buckman, a man of the world, admits it. Will we?

Sometimes the “sons of this world are for their own generation wiser than the sons of light” (Lk. 16:8). Won’t you and I, as sons of light, admit what a son of the world sees. But, let’s go beyond him and let the appeal to the lust of the flesh bother our consciences, if indeed they are not already desensitized. In light of the history of the modern dance, do you really thing a son of light ought to participate?

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 14, pp. 422-423
July 20, 1989

By P.J. Casebolt

Webster defines name-calling as “the use of disparaging or abusive names in attacking another” (New 20th Century Dictionary). hen we d not know how to assail another’s position, we resort to name-calling.

As children, we have either been the giver or the recipient of such names as “fraidy-cat,” “sissy,” “tattletale,” or “teacher’s pet.” Some may use the terms “hill billy,” “Yankee,” or “Rebel” in a derogatory way. When certain philosophers could not account for the resurrection of the dead, they called Paul a “babbler” (Acts 17:18).

My earliest recollection of a disparaging religious name was the use of the term “Campbellite. ” Alexander Campbell left the Baptist church, was baptized for the remission of sins, and began to exhort others to do likewise. While the Baptists were instrumental in coining the phrase “Campbellite,” other sects followed suit when they could not answer the Bible doctrine of baptism for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38).

Even though Peter and other inspired men preached that baptism was essential to the remission of sins, and though other restoration pioneers in this country preached it before Campbell, the followers of Christ were still called Campbellites. It was ironic that people who wore and honored the names of such men as John the Baptist and Luther, would use other human names in an attempt to discredit someone’s religious position.

When I first began to preach, I was called a “Sommerite” because I held the position that colleges should not be supported from the church treasury, or by any other collective action on the part of the church. Some brethren didn’t even know what Daniel Sommer really taught on the matter, but that didn’t stop them from calling other brethren Sommerites.

Again, it was ironic that one preacher who took exception to an article I wrote along these lines in the old Apostolic Times, ended up being called an “Anti” within the same decade.

The term “Anti” was used (and is still used) in a disparaging way to make up for the failure of some brethren to answer another’s argument. It didn’t seem to matter that the ones who used this abusive term were against some things themselves, or that Jesus, God, Paul and Peter were against (anti) certain practices and doctrines. The purpose of those who use the term “anti” is not to tell what someone is against, whether it be instrumental music, missionary societies, or church support of human organizations and recreation. The motive behind the practice of calling someone an “anti” was to hinder the influence of a brother, not an exercise in fair representation of another’s position.

And the reason that some brethren are not using the term as much as they used to is simply because they are being called “antis” by someone else, and are getting a taste of their own medicine. But I still haven’t heard of anyone apologizing for the prejudicial use of the term “anti” in their own vocabulary.

I have been called a “legalist” because I insist on speaking as the oracles of God (1 Pet. 4:11) and for insisting that others follow the principle of going “to the law and to the testimony” (Isa. 8:20), for religious authority.

But, I have the consolation of knowing that other good men would be called legalists also, simply because they give, and ask for, “book, chapter, and verse.” In the 119th Psalm, David made reference to the word of God 181 times in 176 verses (by my count). And though I could be off a verse or two, David would qualify as a “legalist” if anyone would.

I’ve been called some uncomplimentary names because I try to speak plainly enough so that folks can understand what I’m saying (2 Cor. 3:12). But I have never yet had an occasion to call anyone a “viper” (Matt. 23:33) or a “child of the devil” (Acts 13:10).

I’ve been called a perfectionist in a friendly way, and also in an unfriendly way. But when Solomon tells me to do a thing “with thy might” (Eccl. 9:10), and Paul says “do it heartily, as to the Lord,” I can’t help what motive people may have when they call me a perfectionist. Some people may be “slothful” (Rom. 12:11), and can’t stand to be around people who are “diligent” (2 Pet. 1;5,10).

We should be more concerned about what the Lord calls us, than we are about what men call us. There is a “worthy name by which ye are called” (Jas. 2:7). “And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch” (Acts 11:26). While some may use the name Christian in derision and some wearing that name may bring reproach upon it, the name itself came from God (1 Pet. 4:16).

Jesus commended the church at Philadelphia because they had not denied his name (Rev. 3:8). And if we can just hear Jesus call us “blessed” when he comes to call us home, that name will be sweet to hear (Matt. 25:34).

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 14, p. 428
July 20, 1989

By Burl Young

As a father, I have the above statement made to me many times. It was an attempt by my children to justify what they wanted to do by saying that “everyone else” was doing it. Of course, as a caring parent, I tried to be fair, but did not view the fact that what everyone else was doing as proof that the thing under consideration was the right thing to do. I believe that the same teaching needs to be done today in the Church, because some are basing their religious decisions on what “everyone else is doing.” This article will be aimed at that problem.

Society as a whole teaches us that the majority is right. Many times, advertisers will try to convince us to buy their product because “everyone else is.” They will cite numerous statistics to show that they rank as “number one” or that their item is favored by an overwhelming majority of the people. This may be a good thing in advertising, but it certainly should not be used as a guideline in our service to God. If one will look at how God dealt with this people in the Old and New Testaments, he will immediately see that without exception, the majority was wrong. The case of Noah and the people of his day, Sodom and Gomorrah, along with many examples of those in the New Testament are evidence of the fact that a majority quickly becomes a minority in strength when not doing God’s will.

In making specific application to the above, let us notice that just about “everyone” allows trash like HBO, Cinemax and other TV affiliates to bring unmentionable things into their homes. Things that our forefathers would not have even discussed in public, much less brought into our homes in living color (scenes of nakedness, fornication, and the complete acceptance of homosexuals [queers]) are commonplace in the living room in front of our wives, daughters and all so near and dear to us. Does the fact that everyone else is doing this make it acceptable for you to do this?

Another shocking thing that everyone else is doing, is the fact that we in the church are begging to accept into our fellowship as “ok” those people who have been married and divorced, then remarried. Unless these people have divorced according to God’s law, should we accept them? Should we ask them to repent and pray, or should we be “tolerant” of them because “everyone else is”?

In the same vein, “living together” has become a very accepted thing in our society. About six months ago, a lady came forward at the close of the service stating that she wished to be baptized. Because I knew that she was living with a man that she was not married to, I reminded her that she would have to get out of that relationship. Acting somewhat confused, she did, on the spur of the moment, agree to separate from him. However, with the course of time, she did not and continued to live within in that sinful state. We had no choice but not to accept her into our fellowship. Because everyone else was doing what she was, she felt no real sense of shame or guilt in this matter. Shall we continue to sin because everyone else is?

Brethren, the above things are difficult for us, and oftentimes we are tempted to think, “everyone else is doing it,” when we see error in our own fives or in the lives of others. It reminds me of a recent experience I had during a tax audit. I simply mentioned to the nice lady that was checking my records, that a decision she made was not fair. In a very humorous (to her) tone, she chided that she wasn’t trying to be fair, just to do her job. When things are difficult for us because everyone “else is doing it,” we should stop and think how difficult it was the for the Lord Jesus when they nailed him to that awful cross to pay for our sins and the sins of “everyone else.”

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 14, p. 437
July 20, 1989