Truth Magazine

By Donald Townsley

Many good members of the church who would not think of using the vile gutter language of the man of the world, will turn right around and use the euphemistic form of the same words and think nothing of it. Christians need to realize that they will give account for their words, thoughts, and actions. The Lord said in Matthew 12:36: “But I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.”

Following is a list of some of the words many members of the church use without thinking anything of it, but which are euphemisms (softened forms of a word or phrase that is considered less offensive) of the “real thing.”

1. “Blamed” — “damned” — a euphemism (Funk & Wagnall’s Dictionary).

2. “Darn” — a euphemism for “damn” (the curse). (Funk & Wagnall’s Dict. of the American Language).

3. “Dickens” — “the devil” (Funk & Wagnall’s Dictio ary).

4. “What the Deuce” — “deuce” means “devil” (Funk & Wagnall’s Dictionary).

5. “Dog-gone” or “doggoned” — A euphemism for “God-damn” (Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language).

6. “Gee” — a minced oath: “Jesus” (Funk & Wagnall’s Dictionary); a euphemistic contraction of “Jesus” (Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language).

7. “Golly” — a euphemism for “God” (Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language).

8. “Gosh” — a minced oath, used as a substitute for “God” (Funk & Wagnall’s Dictionary); a euphemism for “God” (Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language).

9. “Heck” used euphemistically for “hell” (Funk & Wagnall’s Dictionary); a euphemism for “hell” (Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language).

10. “Goodness” or “For Goodness Sake” — a euphemism for “God” (Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language).

11. “Blasted” — “damned” (Webster’s New World Dic tionary of the American Language).

12. “Confounded” — “damned”; a mild oath (Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language).

Brother and sister, don’t use words that you don’t know the meaning of. If you do, you may find yourself cursing without realizing it!

Note: The following article written 100 years ago is as timely today as it was when first published. It was submitted by Paul K. Williams. It was the front page editorial written by F.D. Srygley in the Gospel Advocate, some time between 1889 and 1900 and is taken from the book, The New Testament Church, edited by F.B. Srygley, 193-195.

The “Baptist and Reflector” refers to the differences and discussions among “us as a people,” and suggests that we ought to agree among ourselves and quit arguing with each other before we push “our plea” for the union of all Christians on the Bible much further.

The brother errs, not knowing the Scriptures. Because we differ in opinions and argue questions among ourselves, it does not follow that we are not united as Christians on the Bible. We have never proposed or desired to unite Christians in any institution that is too narrow to allow them to differ in opinion or argue with each other. We are in favor of giving everybody room to think and liberty to speak for himself.

For myself, I am opposed to any institution that allows no one but the bosses and grand moguls to entertain an idea or express an opinion. For the life of me, I can’t see that I am under any more obligation to agree with Alexander Campbell than he to agree with me. I would never unite with him or anybody else on the Bible on any other condition than that I am as free as he to study the Bible. This is the only kind of union we have ever proposed, and it is the only kind that is practicable or right among men.

Whenever it comes to human organizations in which no one but the framers of doctrinal standards are allowed to do any thinking, I beg to be excused. My thinking apparatus is not very large, I admit, but I claim all the room the Bible allows me in which to operate it.

The Reflector evidently thinks that because every man, with us, is free to think for himself and to differ from and argue with everybody else, therefore we are not united. That is an error. We are united, and the beauty and strength of the union is to be found largely in the fact that it is a union in Christ wherein everyone is allowed to study the Bible and think for himself, without being amenable to ecclesiastic authorities or doctrinal standards of human make.

The Reflector seems to have the old, bigoted idea that if a man should happen to differ from me and undertake to argue a question with me, he must get out of my church and start a little concern of his own. That has been the trouble with religious bigots all along the ages. It takes just such bigotry as that to build up denominations and keep Christians apart. “We as a people” are a rather contentious set, I admit, but we have not yet given in to that idea.

It is just at this point I file my objection to the Baptist Church. One must accept its doctrinal standards, written by uninspired men, or get out of it. Here is the “Baptist and Reflector,” for instance. It could think out some very good ideas of its own and express them in very creditable English if it only had room. But, my! Wouldn’t the Baptist bosses sit down on it with a crash if it should happen someday to think a little thought all by itself, without consulting the doctrinal standards?

The basis of our union ought always to be as broad as the conditions of salvation. No man has any right to make his plea for union narrower than this. It is wrong to make anything a condition of fellowship which is not essential to salvation. We draw the line here. That which will damn a soul and separate us in the next world should divide us in this; nothing else should.

There are a few men among us who are trying very hard to “organize” the thing called “us as a people,” so as to shut off all investigation and stop all discussion; but they are entirely too narrow in their ideas to fairly represent this reformation. They say that if something of this kind is not done very soon, “our plea” will burst into smithereens, “our organized mission work” will break all to flinders, and “we as a people” will go to smash on general principles; but I think not. The shortest route I know to such a crash is to organize us and undertake to compel us all to quit thinking and arguing and accept the conclusions and carry out the plans of “leading men and papers,” without the liberty to conceive an idea or express an opinion of our own.

By Richard Boone

Wednesday, September 9, 1998, Peggy’s Cove, Nova Scotia: 90 minutes after take-off from New York’s Kennedy airport, an MD-11 jet, Swissair Flight 111, disappeared from radar and plunged into the Atlantic Ocean. 229 people died; known only to God is the number who lost their souls. The most frequent question has been, “How could this tragedy have been prevented?” More specifically, what could we have done to prevent it? Due to our training and locations, likely little or nothing.

A more important tragedy faces us — spiritually lost people die every day; what are we doing to “snatch them from the fire” (Jude 23)? I want to focus on three actions that we may not think about often enough. Paul thought about and practiced them “for the sake of the gospel” (1 Cor. 9:19-23; cf. v. 23). Notice what he did:

He Restricted Himself

To win Jews to Christ, Paul was willing to be Jewish (v. 20). By lineage and upbringing Paul was a Jew, an above-average Jew (Acts 22:3; Gal. 1:14; Phil. 3:5-6). He did not, however, remain a Jew when he learned the truth about Christ (Acts 9:1-22); he began preaching “the faith” he once destroyed (Gal. 1:23-24).

His strong desire was to save his fleshly kinsmen. He was willing to be accursed from Christ that they might be saved (Rom. 9:1-5; 10:1). He was willing to go to any extent lawful in the gospel to win Jews to Christ. Though free from all men, he willingly became a servant to all “that (he) might win the more” (1 Cor. 9:19).

For influence’s sake, Paul was willing to restrict him- self in certain ways toward Jews. He would first go to synagogues to teach Jews about Christ (Acts 13:14, 46). He had Timothy circumcised (Acts 16:3). He took a vow, then shaved his head when it was completed (Acts 18:18), interesting in light of Jewish opposition at Corinth (Acts 18:4-6, 9-10, 12-17). On another occasion, he paid for the completion of others’ vows (Acts 21:20-26). He used the Old Testament to teach Jews, rather than demanding sub- mission to his apostolic authority (Acts 17:2-3; 18:4; etc.). “Fine,” you might say, “But how is this relevant to me?” Excellent question; I’ll proceed with an answer.

Occasionally we are in circumstances where, for the sake of the gospel, we should refrain from certain liberties we have. For example, several years ago a sister in Christ washed her laundry on Sunday afternoons and hung the clothes outside to dry. She was approached by a neighbor who questioned her “working on the Christian Sabbath.” This sister faced a dilemma — continue her laundering on Sunday, knowing that she was at scriptural liberty to do so, or restrict herself “for the sake of the gospel.” She moved her laundry-washing to another day, as I recall. When no violation of Christ’s law occurs, we can (should) restrict ourselves where necessary for the greatest influence on those who are not Christians.

He Released Himself

While Paul was concerned about Jews, he knew his primary mission was to Gentiles (Acts 9:15; Eph. 3:8; Gal. 2:8-9). In Christ he was no longer obligated to keep the Mosaic covenant and its requirements to be saved (Acts 15). As he went to Gentiles he released himself from Jewish restrictions (1 Cor. 9:21).

A good example is circumcision. Paul had Timothy circumcised (Acts 16:3), but refused to have Titus circumcised (Gal. 2:3-5). Was Paul hypocritical? No; the circumstances explain the difference. With Timothy, circumcision was expedient (profitable, helpful) because the Jews of that area knew his father was Greek (Acts 16:1, 3). Timothy was circumcised for the sake of influence. Titus’ circumstances, however, were different. The compulsion for circumcision of Titus was from Judaizing teachers as a requirement for salvation. Paul yielded not “even for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you” (Gal. 2:5). Paul knew that circumcision was not required for salvation in the New Covenant, and he did not allow others to bind it as law when God released all men from it.

Other examples include Paul’s association with Gen- tiles (Acts 16:34), clearly a violation of Jewish standards and practice (Acts 10:28). He taught Gentiles from their perspective, not Jewish perspectives (Acts 17:22-31), thus leading them from where they were to where they needed to be. Paul released himself and Corinthian Christians from Jewish restrictions on eating meat bought in the marketplace after it was sacrificed to idols — as long as no homage to idols was involved (1 Cor. 10:23-27). Observance or non-observance of days as a personal scruple was allowed (Rom. 14:5-6).

We pause to note the relevance of this to us. One example will suffice. In the area where I live is a large 7th- Day Adventist population. On Saturday, one community practically “roles up the sidewalks.” If I were engaged in spiritually-acceptable activities on Saturday and learned it was a stumbling block to Adventist neighbors, I would forego them on Saturdays. On the other hand, if I were in an area where my neighbors were of some other religious group, my Saturday activities would likely not offend them. I would proceed freely with those activities. In the first case I would restrict myself “for the sake of the gospel;” in the second case I would release myself from such restrictions, even to discuss spiritual matters with my neighbors!

He Reduced Himself

In verse 22 of our text, Paul “became as weak” to the “weak” so that “(he) might win the weak.” He reduced himself to the level of others so that he might “by all means save some.” Who are “the weak” in this passage, and to what did Paul refer when he “became as weak”?

Perched perfectly in the middle of a discussion of personal liberties, 1 Corinthians 9 reveals Paul’s practice of what he taught the Corinthians in chapters 8 and 10. In chapter 8 he makes two vital points about meat sacrificed to idols: (1) Idols are nothing (v. 4); and (2) Meat is not inherently helpful or harmful in God’s kingdom (v. 8). Verse 7 is the key: “There is not in everyone that knowledge.”

The “weak” person of this context is without adequate knowledge and understanding of some matters. (He is not one engaged in inherently sinful actions, or one who, out of stubbornness or belligerence, is a Diotrephes, 3 John 9-10). In light of one whose knowledge is incomplete, Paul would forfeit his liberty to eat meat (vv. 9-13). Why? “That I might win the weak” (1 Cor. 9:22) . . . “For the sake of the gospel” (1 Cor. 9:23). This “reduction” principle guides one’s conduct before weak Christians (1 Cor. 8) and unbelievers (1 Cor. 10:23-33) alike.

We face situations frequently where we apply Paul’s teaching, especially in teaching the lost. Once I was dis- cussing some biblical subjects with a coworker to lead her to obey the gospel. It was during the “Christmas” season and she asked why I did not celebrate Christmas as “the birthday of Jesus.” I had two options in answering her query: (1) There is no authority to observe December 25 as his birthday, with all the attendant aspects of Bible author- ity; or (2) Ask some questions on her level to provoke her thinking and study. Both options would be acceptable, but since she had no knowledge of the importance of Bible authority, it would have been futile to respond on that basis. I asked some questions that caused her to think and study for herself, and was still able, on her level, to teach about Bible authority. I’m sure you have faced similar circumstances in your Bible discussions with those whose knowledge was/ is at milk stage (1 Pet. 2:1-2; Heb. 5:12-14; etc.). I am also confident that you, like Paul, became as weak to the weak “that (you) might win the weak.”

Conclusion

Tragedies that kill people, like the crash of Swissair 111, occur daily. While they are devastating to those affected by them, a greater tragedy also occurs daily — people who die unprepared to meet God. Our work as Christians is well stated by Paul to Timothy: “Save yourself and those who hear you” (1Tim. 4:16). By the Spirit’s words and by his own life, Paul taught Christians how to better accomplish those tasks — restriction, release, and reduction. This he did, and so must we, “for the sake of the gospel.”

Our title was on a sign I saw south of St. Louis. Doubt- less, it was placed there by people with the noblest of intentions. I am sure they meant nothing but the best for the religion of Jesus Christ! However, they could not prove that statement if their lives depended on it. (Sadly, unfortunately, their spiritual lives may!)

How would one prove that Jesus introduced “Christ- mas,” that he is its author?

• He might begin by showing that Jesus was born on December 25. Scholars and historians admit that this is unlikely, or that, even if it were possible, it cannot be proved.

However, even if one were to find a birth certificate citing December 25 as the birthday of Jesus, he still would not have proved that Christmas, as we know it, was “brought to” us by Jesus. All he would have proved is that Jesus was born on that day.

• One might find a prophecy showing that men should observe the birth of the Savior. We find prophecies that tell us to hear, honor and obey the Son, the coming, crowned King of Israel (Ps. 2; 110:1-4; Isa. 11:1-11; Zech. 9:9, 10). But, where, O where, is the prophecy that speaks of the exaltation of his birth as a matter of reverence and remembrance? And, if there be such a passage, where is it tied to December 25 and to the custom and manner of men today?

• By showing that Jesus himself authorized his disciples to observe his birth, one might show that Jesus initiated Christmas. Jesus did say that his disciples were to be taught to “observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you” (Matt. 28:20). In all the revelation of God, where is such a citation to be found? Further, if such an observance were found, would it be in the motive and after the manner of “Christmas” as it is kept today?

For example, Jesus indeed authorized water baptism in his name for the remission of sins (Matt. 28:19; Luke

24:47; Acts 2:38). Baptism can be found authorized by Jesus, but baptism, as practiced by Catholicism bears little resemblance to the baptism Jesus ordered and ordained (Acts 8:12, 38, 39; Rom. 6:3, 4; Col. 2:12). So, even if we were to find Jesus approving of his birthday, are men noting it after the plan and pattern of God? If they are, where do we find that plan? Where is the blueprint for the structure of Christmas as we know it today (Col. 3:17)?

• Finding Christmas in “the apostles’ doctrine” might show that Jesus instituted it (Luke 10:16; Acts 2:42; 1 Cor. 4:6; 14:37). To reject and repudiate the word of the apostles is to refuse God (1 Thess. 4:2, 8). Truly, as Jesus said, “He that heareth you, heareth me.” To hear the word of the apostles is to hear the very word of God (1 Thess. 2:13). Thus, if it can be shown that the apostles told “the Christmas story,” then it can be shown that Christmas is brought to us by Jesus. Where, though, is that testimony? Where is that evidence? We have “all truth,” “all things that pertain unto life and godliness” (John 16:13; 2 Tim. 3:16, 17; 2 Pet. 1:3). Where is Christmas, as seen among us today, displayed in the Bible?

• One could find Christmas was brought to us by Jesus if he could find an approved example of it in the New Tes- tament. Jesus said nothing about the day upon which the disciples were to show his death in the Lord’s supper. The apostles did not specifically and directly command a set day. However, we find that the disciples came together “upon the first day of the week” to “break bread” (Acts 20:7). When we do as they did, when we follow their ways, we are following Christ’s ways (1 Cor. 4:17; 11:1, 2; Phil. 4:9). Thus, we remember and show the Lord’s death in eating the bread and drinking the cup “upon the first day of the week” (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 11:23-26). Now, is there a similar narrative with respect to commemorating and celebrating the Lord’s birth? If so, where is it? Find it, and we may agree that Christmas has been brought to us by Jesus.

Conclusion

We are not doubting or denying that Christ, the Son of God, was born of a virgin and placed in a manger (Matt. 1; Luke 1-2). We are simply saying that the Christmas tradition was not brought to us by Jesus. He did not authorize it. Therefore, as Christians, we cannot observe that which God has not sanctioned (2 John 9).

How many other things, like Christmas, can you think of which God has neither authored nor approved? Infant baptism? Sprinkling for baptism? Easter? Churches be- coming social, recreational, and entertainment centers? If you are tired of worldly religion, why not study the Bible, serve God, and worship with us? If you have questions, we would love to hear from you.