Truth Magazine

By Lewis Willis

Last weekend “the Rev.” Barbara Harris was made the first female bishop in the Anglican Communion. Actually, she was made a “suffragan” or assistant bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts. I didn’t realize this but Anglicans regard their bishops as sacramentally appointed successors of the twelve apostles. This event prompted a special four-page article in Newsweek (213-89). The article basically was about the current state of the feminist-movement in modern religion. Early in the article there was a statement attributed to Margaret McMannus of the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, California. She observes that for women, “the issue is no longer equality, . . . the issue is transformation of our religious institutions.”

Feminists argue that Jesus taught mutual authority and involvement but that “his male successors subverted” his plan and created a males-only power structure in the church. In the Bible, God dealt with the heads of the family originally – men like Abraham, Isaac and Jacob – and this was called “patriarchy.” The article I am reviewing says feminist theologians regard patriarchy as “. . . the Original Sin and root of all other social evils: sexism, racism, clericalism, ageism, classism . . . parental subjugation of children and mankind’s technological rape of Mother Earth.” I didn’t realize it was now wrong for parents to have children who were subject to them or who obeyed them (Eph. 6:1-3). However, the feminists don’t seem to have any problem with what the Bible says. They either change it or ignore it.

In the seminaries of the denominations where from 1/3 to 1/2 of the students are women, some radical language changes have occurred. Generic nouns like “mankind” have become “humankind.” God “the Father” is acceptable only if twinned with God “the Mother.” The article says, “As a fallback, God ‘the Parent’ will do.” No longer is their purpose to put more women in the pulpit. “Rather, their aim is a thorough and comprehensive transformation of the language, symbols and sacred texts of the Christian faith – and therefore, of the faith itself.” As an example, “. . . many feminists feel free to adorn their women-church liturgies with replicas of ‘Christa, ‘ a crucifix with a nude female body sculpted in 1975 by Edwina Sandys.” The article had a side by side picture of the two crucifixion scenes. One had Jesus with a male body and the other had Jesus with a female body. Sandra Schneiders of Graduate Theological Union, and a Catholic nun says, “the Gospel portrays Jesus as non-aggressive, noncompetitive, meek and humble of heart, a nurturer of the weak and a friend of the outcast – all-feminine traits. ” Therefore, they would call Jesus a feminist today and they have no problem portraying him with a crucifix with a female body. One has to wonder, when they speak of Jesus as non-aggressive and meek, if they have ever read Matthew 23 and the scathing rebukes Jesus issued to the Jews of his day. Perhaps they were scathing “feminist” rebukes!

Some of the re-interpretations suggested by the feminist movement come as a result of their use of a “hermeneutics of suspicion” – they assume that the Bible’s male authors deliberately covered up the role of women in early Christianity. Here are some of the changes and language they are suggesting Rosemary Ruether of Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary in Evanston, Illinois suggests using “God/ess” in referring to God. This would replace the “God the Father” references. Her term underscores her belief that divine reality is best understood as an empowering “Primal Matrix,” the great womb “in whom we live and move, and have our being.” Of course this will really help!

For “Father, Son and Holy Spirit,” some feminists substitute “Creator, Redeemer and Comforter.” However, in her work, “Models of God: Theology for an Ecological, Nuclear Age,” theologian Sally McFague of Vanderbilt Divinity School urges a Trinity of “Mother, Lover and Friend.” This is profound, isn’t it folks? Jesus has to be portrayed as a feminist according to hospital chaplain Christian Reimers who recently graduated from The School of Theology at Claremont in California because she asks: “Can a woman be saved by a male Savior?” I somehow doubt that a woman with this kind of attitude could be saved by a male or a female Savior. According to Elizabeth Schussler Fiorenza of Harvard Divinity School, the Women’s Movement is now a movement of “self-identified women and women-identified men” from all denominations whose common goal is to re-interpret the Gospel from the perspective of women’s liberation. Somehow I doubt that I need apply for membership.

Paul would not fit the mold of the modern women’s movement very well either. I suspect he would make them rather uncomfortable, if they still have the ability to be uncomfortable, as he teaches: “Let your women keep silence in the churches. for it is not permitted unto them to speak, but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn anything let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church ” (1 Cor. 14:34-35). It is evident that this movement has no regard for the teaching of God’s Word. It is precisely because a violation of this injunction produces the mess I have described from the Newsweek article that we must insist that unholy men and women keep their hands off the Divine Revelation. Leave it as it is as insist that it be followed as a pattern for modem church life. Otherwise, we introduce every evil work imaginable into religion. Modernism says let us make religion relevant to modem circumstances. Faithful people say, if any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God” (1 Pet. 4:11). I shall cast my lot with those who speak what God has taught.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 8, p. 229
April 20, 1989

Losing a dear loved one is a very difficult and emotional trauma. Especially it is overwhelming when that loved one is a congregation of Christ. This is not a physical death that we are speaking about, but a spiritual death that totally destroys a congregation to such an extent that it does not exist anymore.

I believe that it might even be less difficult to survive the death of a spouse or close loved one. It is hard to define my feelings and perhaps I had better explain. Certainly, I look upon the death of a Christian spouse or loved one as a loss, but only for a short time because that loved one will be with us in the presence of our God and Creator, and that gives us comfort. I look upon the death of a congregation of Christ quite differently. I have memories of our fellowship together. I can remember the closeness and concern when each had a need. I remember the tears of sorrow when we share our griefs and the joys of happiness when someone might be blessed. Why do I grieve? Because I won’t even know when you are ill or in grief. I know that you are not physically dead, but out there in the world somewhere dying day by day spiritually.

What caused this? Perhaps I was too naive in assuming you knew more than you really did. Perhaps I assumed you were spiritually stronger than you really were. Or perhaps, I was too naive and assuming in our first attempt at hiring an evangelist.

How I yearn for a return to a year ago! There were forty-five of us then, now only nine. Last Lord’s Day was our last assembly for the remnant that remained. It was demoralizing, much like a funeral. Now that small remnant will go our separate ways. How I wish we had never hired that man!

Brethren, how is one to know what a man believes when he so cleverly conceals his life and beliefs until he has the job? How is a congregation to know when a man and his wife have multiple marriages when references fail to tell the truth? How does one know when a man doesn’t pay his obligations? How, how, how?!!

These things have happened to us. It has destroyed us! It has forced some back into the world and others into unscriptural churches. Charisma takes it toll and the devil reaps the rewards! This is like a “living” death realizing that these loved ones have become so discouraged that they leave the Lord.

Eight years of sweat and tears have gone into the work in this area only to see it put to death in less than six months. Brethren, pray for us, that perhaps with the help of God we might be able in the future to re-establish the work in this area.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 8, p. 228
April 20, 1989

By Larry Ray Hafley

Brother Connie W. Adams will not remember this, but a few years ago he gave me a kind admonition and some great advice. After services one evening, brethren were very generous in their remarks about a sermon I had preached, so I was feeling unduly and unjustly proud of myself. Quietly, brother Adams came to me and said something like this, “Your sermon was fine, but your invitation could have been stronger. You need to emphasize the need for folks to obey the gospel; tell them what they must do and exhort them to do it!”

Well, I thought I had I Besides, a number of people had just assured me how much they “enjoyed the lesson,” so I was,ready to dismiss his gentle reproof. However, as I reflected on it, I could see that he was correct. Rarely do I preach without brother Adams’ words echoing in my heart.

So, preacher friend, how strong is the invitation you deliver? Ladies cap off a meal with a tasty dessert. Comedians end their routines with their funniest lines. How do you conclude your sermons? Brethren, do you listen to bland, weak, feeble, half-hearted appeals for people to obey the gospel? Should not sermons conclude with agressive exhortations and direct invitations for dying men and women to believe and obey the gospel?

I recently listened to several tapes of sermons by Harold. Hazelip, president of David Lipscomb College. His invitations were not designed to tell people how to obey the gospel. He simply said, “If we may help you in your obedience, come as we stand and sing.” He said nothing about how to obey the gospel, nor did he indicate that they needed to do so. He said nothing to exhort and encourage one to obey the gospel. Is this typical? Is it practical? Is it true, scriptural gospel preaching?

I am not an authority on the preparation and delivery of sermons. I dare not set myself up as an advisor or speech instructor. Perhaps, though, there is a need to evaluate and critique the effectiveness of the invitation made to those who need to obey the gospel.

First, the answer is not to be found in eloquence or flowery oratory. One’s words may soar to the heavens, borne aloft on the tongues of angels; they may dive and descend into the fiery abyss of the demons’ den; they may charm, exult, exalt and stir the emotions; they may please the ear and entertain the heart; however, if they do not convict the world of sin, righteousness and judgment, they are whispers of wind whistling through a ghost town.

Second, the solution is not to be discovered in “death bed tales and grave yard yarns.” Tears and emotional reactions may accompany gospel preaching, but they are the result of convicting truth, not the end in itself (Acts 2:37; 16:29,30). Yes, Felix trembled, but that was not Paul’s goal. It was a consequence of a reasoned appeal to righteousness, temperance and judgment to come (Acts 24:25).

Third, the success of a sermon is not determined by the “amens” it evokes nor by the applause it provokes. Compliments and commendations are not guarantees of success. If so, then Stephen stumbled and Paul was appalling (Acts 7; 13:16-50).

What, then? Consider Acts 2:36-41 and Acts 3:13-26. Peter told the audience the specific things they needed to do. He referred to faith, repentance and baptism, the process of conversion. He told them of the consequences of refusal and unbelief (Acts 3:22,23). “And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. ” He urged them to be obedient. He did not simply, casually say, “If you desire to obey the Lord, let us know how we may assist you,” as’ some men do today. No, he spoke plainly and directly and exhorted them to obey certain terms or conditions in order that they might be saved. He told them they would be damned if they did not (cf. Mk. 16:16; Acts 24:25).

Sinners need to know the awesome consequences of refusing to obey the gospel. Felix knew. A lame, limp-lipped invitation will never cause a sinner to tremble, to depart in anger, nor to be truly converted. There is power and terror in the gospel. Preachers will be held accountable who do not present both with fearless faith and firm forthrightness. If the world wants to bear a mushy mouthed, tear-jerking appeal, send them to a Methodist altar call., It is not a soft, short, vague, general invitation that will lead souls to respond to God’s saving grace. Build faith in Christ and in his word. Convict men of sin and tell them of its remedy and retribution. Strongly urge them to obey the direct demands of obedience – faith, repentance, confession and baptism (Acts 8:12,35,36; 16:32,33). Tell them what awaits them if they do not obey the truth (2 Thess. 1:8; Rom. 2:6-9; 1 Pet. 4:17,18).

Could it be that thoughtless, mindless, aimless invitations are the ruin of sermons that would otherwise be good and profitable? Do not assume that everyone already knows what to do to be saved. Preach the truth. Press it into the hearts of men and lovingly insist that they obey it. God will give the increase, and you will be pure from the blood of all men.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 8, pp. 227-228
April 20, 1989

By Peggy Oliver

Last Wednesday started out like any other weekday. I made my way to class at the nursing school where I am a student, never suspecting what awaited me. Wednesdays are our normal days for guest speakers in my Psychiatric Nursing class, and this Wednesday was no different – but the speakers were. What sat before me was a panel of guests consisting of a gay man and two homosexual women who, as I came to discover, were “together” as a couple and “married in God’s eyes.” They each donned wedding bands, symbolic of their commitment of nearly six years.

The focus of the day, as I had guessed by that time, was homosexuality. The speakers had been invited to give us a “firsthand account” of homosexuality, and to allow us to ask any questions that we might have – all in the hopes of discrediting any rumors we had heard or fears that we might have had. We were informed of a new medical term homophobic – to describe those people “afraid” and unreasonably terrified of homosexuals, stemming from a deep-seated dissatisfaction with their own sexual identity. In other words, it was implied that if one strongly disagrees with their beliefs and practices, then that person should take a personal inventory to become more aware of his or her sexuality, realizing that such feelings arise from insecurity within one’s “sexual orientation.” To put it shortly, if you aren’t comfortable in the company of homosexuals, then you are the one with the problem.

The first to speak from the panel was one of the women. She works as a massage therapist at a health facility here in Memphis. She began by telling us her history, i.e. how and when she “knew.” She said that she had known of her feelings since she was twelve years old, but that she had only acted on them in the past six years or so. She was married twice, both times being extremely unhappy because she knew she was with a partner of the wrong sex. One marriage produced her twelve year old daughter who lives with her and her “partner.” She tells her daughter that she doesn’t care what she may decide about her sexuality – that gay or straight it makes no difference – just as long as she is true and honest with herself and doesn’t live a lie like her mother did for so many years. This seemed to me to be quite a statement in view of Romans 1:24-27. 1 thought to myself how terrible the cycle of sin is – how it takes hold of our entire being, destroying any sense of right and wrong until the two enmesh and one just does “what feels right for them.”

The other woman spoke next, and I must say that her story wasn’t any better. She, too, had been married previously, but decided after her divorce to “try” bisexuality. After all, she said, she had many lesbian friends, and they all seemed so free and comfortable. After that experience, she decided to become completely homosexual, and sought to establish a solid relationship. But, she added, if she were to become a lesbian, it would have to be openly, because her character demanded that she not hide what she was. Here is a good case against those who argue that homosexual feelings are inborn and there is nothing to be done to counteract them. This woman chose, out of the lust of her heart to do what which is completely against any law of nature, and to do it openly and shamelessly. She now insists that she is happier than she has ever been, that her relationship with this woman is true and undefiled, and that the companionship she feels with this woman could never be had with a man because men are by nature tyrannical. By the way, this woman is a counselor with the Memphis City Schools.

The male member of the panel spoke next, and began by contrasting himself with what he says is the stereotypical image of the gay man. He always ‘knew” he was gay but didn’t “come out” until he was 28 years old. Of course, that made him doubly strange in society’s eyes because, “I mean, let’s face it, here I was, a 28-year-old man who should have been sexually active for about 12 years now, and I had never had a sexual experience . . . then when I did have one it was with a man.” What kind of sickness has invaded our society that dictates that someone is abnormal if he or she is a virgin past age 16? The flippant attitude toward the sexual relationship that God ordained was more than quietly pervasive, it was blatant! I sat in stunned silence listening to the three of them toss vulgarities back and forth between themselves, and aching in my heart as I heard them proudly describe in vivid detail their perverse sexual practices. The language used was appalling and crude, and it hurt me deeply to think how these people were poisoning their children’s minds and souls. What astonished me even more was the reaction of the instructors of the class. They sat chuckling and nodding their heads as if to say, “You all are so right . . . isn’t it great that they are so open with the sexuality?” I felt nauseated.

To add insult to injury, the group proceeded to describe their home lives, emphatically stating that their relationships are no different than those of heterosexual couples – that they argue about trivial things, have trouble with their teenage children, cut the grass on Saturday afternoon, and go to church on Sunday. I couldn’t believe it! How could they, in any stretch of the imagination, sit there and claim to have any religious convictions? How could they sit there and proclaim their families are like any others when theirs are diametrically opposed to the family system that God created? The whole event was to me a gross display of gay activism and a slap in the face of Christianity.

Following this panel was a man suffering from AIDS. He, too, was and still is a practicing homosexual. He is involved with a man now who knows he has AIDS, and says that they take extreme precautions during any intimate interaction. Unfortunately, he didn’t use such gentle terms, and I was again bombarded with language too vile to repeat. He related to us how the acceptance of his disease had led him through a sort of spiritual awakening, and how he is back in touch with God now and intends to live a long, long time. He, too, is active in a local Baptist church with an “AIDS Ministry.”

Obviously, the morning’s events disturbed me greatly, and today I had opportunity to discuss my feelings with some fellow students and one of the faculty members who was present when they spoke. I found myself being challenged by the teacher who, like all the others is very “pro-choice,” if you will. As I defended my feeling from a Bible standpoint, I was met with oppositions of “You can’t make that judgment,” and “the Bible is just interpretation,” and others. When I spoke on homosexuality being wrong and sinful, I was met with, “Wrong in whose eyes?” I was told, or rather it was “suggested to me” that perhaps I should change my views and be a little more open-minded, because there are “two sides of the coin.” I felt myself becoming more anxious and I could feel the tears developing deep inside me – why should I change? If I compromise my faith in that area, I must compromise it in every area. If I give up my morals here, I must give them up everywhere. If I accept that the Bible cannot be trusted because it has been translated so many times, then I have a God who cannot be trusted to give me his word, completely as I need it for salvation. If I believe that the Bible cannot be trusted, then my life is worthless and my faith is vain – I haven’t a leg to stand on.

So how have I learned from this experience? I have been able to voice my beliefs to others, and hopefully make an impact through something that I might have said from God’s word. I have realized even more deeply and strongly how precious and dear my faith and salvation are to me. I have reflected on how fallible man is, and that there truly is “a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.” And I have realized just how terribly perverted society can be when under the control of sin.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 8, pp. 225, 247
April 20, 1989