Truth Magazine

By Dennis C. Abernathy

As the title of this article states, we want to talk about “name calling,” “one’s attitude,” and “Matthew chapter 23” in connection with preaching the gospel of Christ. There are some today, as there have always been, who do not like it, when names are called from the pulpit. “Don’t attack the denominations,” they say. “It will do no good.” “It will prejudice the hearers and drive them away.” They will accuse you of using “bullying and badgering” tactics under the guise of “preaching the truth.” They will leave the impression that you (in trying to justify name-calling) are just trying to cover up your bad attitude.

I simply ask, “Is it wrong to ever call names (identify the source of sin) in preaching?” Is it wrong to identify a false teacher? Is it wrong to name a denomination and refute their false doctrine? Is it wrong to mark and identify a heretic or a sower of discord among brethren? I just wonder if it is brethren? I have always thought it to be proper to do the aforementioned things in preaching. I have always used the examples of Paul, Stephen, and the Lord Himself for authority to do this: Paul called a man the “child of the Devil” (Acts 13:10). Why did he do that? Verse eight says he was trying to “turn away the deputy from the faith.” Verse 10 says he was “perverting the right ways of the Lord.” Now I realize fully that Paul was filled with the Holy Ghost and his “very words were given to Him by the Father.” Does that mean I cannot preach like Paul preached today, simply because I must use the written word? Are there any today who try to turn people away from the faith? Are there any today who pervert the right ways of the Lord? If one today is doing what Elymas did in Acts 13, would he not be a “child of the Devil”? Then why label one as having a bad attitude for calling a person what he is? I see nothing wrong with calling a person a child of the Devil (after all, what is a person if he is not a child of God?).

I submit to you that the same is true concerning Jesus and what He said in Matthew 23. People still do as the Pharisees did. It has nothing to do with “looking into a man’s heart.” It has to do with his action. Can we not know if a man is hypocritical if he is saying one thing and doing another? That is surely the case with Paul rebuking Peter to his face. Did Paul have to “look into Peter’s heart” to recognize that? (Gal. 2).

Brethren and friends, I do not believe we should “cram the truth down another’s throat,” or “intimidate and harass” one in our preaching. We should use common courtesy in our preaching. We must “preach the truth in love” (Eph. 4:15). But my friends, I do not believe this implies softening down our preaching to “smooth words and fair speeches.” Let us attack error on every hand, call sin what it is, correct the sinner and rebuke the false teacher calling names if we must. H. Leo Boles in commenting on Matthew chapter 23 stated, “This condemnation and warning of the scribes and Pharisees has its practical value -today” (New Testament Commentary on Matthew, p. 441). To that I say Amen!

Truth Magazine XXI: 44, p. 701
November 10, 1977

By Johnny Stringer

A court has recently ruled that five adult followers of Sun Myung Moon be returned to the custody of their parents for 30 days. Moon is a religious charlatan who uses his young disciples (called Moonier) to enrich himself. The parents of these five Moonies argued that their children had been brainwashed into joining Moon’s Unification Church, hence needed to be returned to their parents for a period of “de-programming.”

The April, 1977, issue of Reader’s Digest contains an article written by a parent whose son was successfully deprogrammed. He says that Moonier employ such tactics as depriving their recruits of proper food and rest and programming every minute of their waking houvs, so that they are “psychologically worn down until they’re brought under complete mind control and fall into a trance somewhat like an autohypnotic state where their wills aren’t their own-they belong to Moon.”

Such charges of brainwashing have been made against other cults, and it has been popular in recent years for parents to hire a “deprogrammer” who kidnaps the young cultist and takes him somewhere to deprogram him. The most popular and successful deprogrammer has been Ted Patrick, now serving a jail sentence on charges growing out of his deprogramming activities. I will not comment on the question of whether or not it is constitutional for the court to make a full-grown adult a captive of his parents because of his religious beliefs, but I believe that, apart from that question, some observations on this matter are in order.

First, we should not let the term “brainwashing” lead us to absolve the young convert of his personal responsibility for his sin. It was of his own free will that he first became involved with the Unification Church and came to be in a position which allowed the Moonier to brainwash him. If he had previously looked to God’s word and put his faith in it, his knowledge of truth would have prevented him from being susceptible to the nonsense taught by Moon. Those who permit themselves to be led into error are responsible before God and must pay the price (Matt. 15:14).

This point brings us to the matter of parental failure. The anguish which parents experience when their children join such cults is understandable. They become so terribly concerned for their children’s welfare that they hire a professional deprogrammer to kidnap their children, or they seek custody of their children through the courts. It seems to me that their concern is a wee bit late. They had about twenty years in which to influence and mold the thinking of their children, but failed to take proper advantage of it. Had they used that time to instill in the hearts of their children a love for God’s truth and devotion to it, their children would be prepared to recognize the errors of deceivers such as Moon.

I do not know what my children will do when they become adults, but their mother and I are doing our best to provide such training and guidance as will lead them to be Christians. If after the years of teaching which we provide, they still join up with some cult such as Moon’s Unification Church, we will consider them to be responsible for their own decision. It will break our hearts, but we will realize that they knew the truth, hence are without excuse for their sins. Consequently, we shall have them neither kidnapped nor legally returned to our custody for deprogramming-not after twenty years of efforts to prevent them from being led into religious error. We will have already had our opportunity with them.

The problem is that parents fail to provide their children the spiritual training they so sorely need (Eph. 6:4). As a result, their spiritually ignorant offspring are susceptible to the propaganda of such false teachers as Moon. Having thus failed to avail themselves of the twenty years they have already had to influence their children, they kidnap them or seek legal custody so that they can now have a chance to influence them away from the cult.

The religious leaders can also be blamed. It may be that the parents attended church regularly and took their children to church; but the teaching the children received from their parents and preachers did not ground them in truth and give them something in which to deeply believe. Rather than pointing them to the scriptures as the authoritative teaching by which their lives should be governed (2 Tim. 3:16-17), the parents and “pastors” probably told them that one church was as good as another and that it did not matter what one believed or practiced as long as he was honest end sincere!

Finally, it should be pointed out that those who have preached religious tolerance, proclaiming that we should not condemn other beliefs, opining that one church is as good as another and that it does not matter what we believe as long as we are sincere, have absolutely no business acting disturbed and distraught when their children become Moonier. If one church is as good as another, Moon’s Unification Church is as good as any. Yet, while some will tolerate many religious beliefs, they draw the line when it comes to such cults as Moon’s. The truth is, however, that any religion not taught in the scriptures is just as destructive to the soul as Moon’s religion is. I would just about as soon my children join the Unification Church as any other church not found in God’s word. Religious error condemns (2 Thess. 2:1012), whether it is propagated by Sun Myung Moon or by Billy Graham is immaterial.

Truth Magazine XXI: 44, p. 700
November 10, 1977

By Jeffery Kingry

Human sexuality is a topic that needs to be taught in the home, in Bible classes, and from the pulpit. Both youth and adults need information and understanding of sex as God designed it and intended it.

Now, many may be offended by such a bold statement. “What? Sex from the pulpit?!” The crucial issue is the lack of understanding of the nature of sex education I am referring to. The misunderstanding most people have of sex education grows out of a limited view of sex. Sex is sometimes equated with intercourse. It is much more than this. Sexuality also involves roles, relationships, and attitudes. It is an integral part of our total being, permeating our personality and including all of our relationships from infancy onward.

The current upheaval in sexual conduct is reflected in the confusion and lack of real knowledge of human sexuality by the world. Mechanical experimentation by “scientists” into the physical operation of intercourse demonstrates one sadly limited view of sex-as if answers to human sexuality could come from a minute study of the progenitive act. Experimentation in trial marriages, group marriages, free of sex in the masculine and love, the exploitation media, unisex attempts to destroy feminine distinctions, women’s liberation propaganda, the move to deify sex (and the reactionary effort to demonize it) all painfully demonstrate widespread and deeply ingrained ignorance of sexuality as God has created and planned it.

Just as sex is not limited to physical union, so sex education is not limited to reproductive education. To be sure this information is needed, but the functions of the body are easily learned in any biology class. There is a wealth of tasteful and accurate material available to aid the parent in answering questions and in giving positive knowledge in this area. But in addition to facts of life, godly sex education also gives proper place to attitudes toward sexuality. Proper sex education involves our place and role as male and female, husband and wife, parent and child, and of our relationships to others of our sex. Godly sex education teaches moral values concerning our sexuality, the right and wrong of sexual behavior.

Understood in this sense, we see that sex education is indeed a prerogative and responsibility of the home and the church. The inherent danger of depending on the school system to provide sex education is that the world is ill-equipped and incompetent to teach what true sexuality is. They may be able to give accurate biological instruction, teach hygiene and provide for physical education, but only those whose faith is centered in God and his revelation can give instruction in attitudes, roles, relationships, and mores. By defaulting on our responsibility we force the young, the misinformed, the confused, and the deceived into seeking answers for their questions elsewhere. God has guaranteed us that those who seek answers in darkness will only find more of the same (Rom. 1:21ff; Eph. 4:1719; Jude 4,7).

The Nature of Sexual Abuse

The basic nature of sexual abuse is centered in ignorance of God’s will. Like all physical and spiritual responsibilities, true gratification, happiness, fulfillment, dignity, self respect, and ultimate salvation depends on faith in God’s teaching and obedience to that will. When men forget God, they lose their bearings and become lost. Seeking to find their own way they only stumble farther away from God and true happiness. In so doing, while believing themselves quite sophisticated, they have indeed become miserably unhappy.

“Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools . . .” (Rom. 1:21,22). The result of such? Men became sodomists, child abusers, homosexuals. Women became lesbians. Because “they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind.” Sexual abuse led to other abuses personal and social (vss. 29-32) until, the ungodly lives of those poor creatures were utterly destroyed: “Receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet” (vs. 27).

All sexual “sickness” stems from a failure to know God’s will concerning human sexuality. Studies of the origins of homosexuality reveal a common denominator: the absence of a father figure to give the child a strong sexual self-image, and the presence of a domineering and overpowering mother figure, often looked upon as a competitive threat. When people have no fixed sexual figure to identify with they “pick up” whatever is about. God’s rules for the family, and for our benevolence to the “fatherless and widows” demands that a strong family with a father as head and leader be set forth as a sexual image. Current women’s lib, day care centers, singles adoption laws, easily procured divorce, and apathy of Christians to provide family and male leadership and guidance to the fatherless will only produce more of the same corruption we see all about us today in “Gay lib.” Godly sexual education in the home would eliminate homosexuality. The gospel can bring the homosexual unto newness of life.

Other forms of sexual abuse-fornication, adultery, venereal disease, prostitution, pornography, illegitimacy child abuse, spouse desertion, divorce, male machoism, female rebellion etc. are all products of ignorance of God’s will or an unwillingness to submit to God’s commandments. Only the faithful can expect “blessedness” in their relationships. Sexual abuse always ultimately brings despair and damnation.

We Need to Teach

We need to instruct the young and the misinformed in the church the proper place and role of the father and mother in the home and to one another. Christians need to know and live according to God’s demands of their sex. The scope of this article is too limited to give all the Bible’s teaching on female sexuality, but just a few scriptures listed demonstrate how much God has given us to help the woman determine her sexual role and relationships (Rules of dress and conduct: 1 Tim. 2:9,10; 1 Pet. 3:3,4. Relationships to men: 1 Pet. 3:7; 1 Cor. 11:3ff; 1 Tim. 2:11-15. Domestic responsibilities: Matt. 24:41; 1 Tim. 5:9-14; Tit. 2:3-5. To husbands: 1 Cor. 7:2-40; Eph. 5:22-23). Scripture instructs the man his responsibilities as a sexual being (Matt. 5:28; Rom. 13:13; 1 Cor. 6:13-19; 1 Cor. 7:1,2; Col. 3:5,19; Eph. 5:25-33; 1 Tim. 5:8; 1 Pet. 3:7).

Only when men and women know who they are and how God wants them to live can they be fully mature spiritually, socially, and physically. In closing I proffer a quote from a brother who has demonstrated in his life a full and proper understanding of God’s will in this area:

“Why did God arrange marriage? . . . God said ‘It is not good that man should be alone.’ One of the functions of marriage therefore, is to provide companionship . . . Man, looked at in one way, is incomplete without woman . . . therefore, a marriage that is the kind that it ought to be is one in which there is companionship. For a man and a woman to be married and be (constantly separated) is certainly not the relationship God desires.

“God made man and he knew what would be best, and God made man with (sexual appetites) …Ther is nothing dirty about it; and nothing is unclean about it; there is nothing. immoral about it; and we ought not to act like there is. But, just as God made man with certain desires, ther are right and wrong ways to gratify these desires. God made man with an appetite for food; he gets hungry. There is a right and a wrong way to gratify that desire. The right way is to work for our food. It is wrong to steal food. We ought to teach our children that God created them with a desire for food, and that the only logical, reasonable, scriptural way to get it is to work for it.

Just as God has proscribed our (hunger), so he has proscribed (our sexual appetites) . …Any effort to get around the basic regulation of Gos is wrong and sinful, and we need to teach our children that it is” (Hiram O. Hutto, Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage, pp. 3,4).

Truth Magazine XXI: 44, pp. 698-699
November 10, 1977

By William C. Sexton

In the first article, we sought to establish (1) God does have a marriage law; (2) it can be and often is violated; (3) the consequences of that violation is sin; (4) unless that sin is forgiven one is lost and cannot enter heaven; and (5) to have those sins forgiven, one must comply with God’s terms of forgiveness, if he is a child of God or an alien. Now, we would like to focus our attention on types of violations. You may be surprised to see us point to this aspect of the subject. However, I suggest to you that herein lies the potential for prevention. Knowing is not enough; an essential part of being able to avoid mistakes and wrongs is to know what mistakes and wrongs are.

I. Default (withholding or deprivation, 1 Cor. 7:2-5). Every man is to have his “own wife.” Likewise, every woman is to have her own husband. A husband that does not give himself to his wife is not observing God’s rules! Likewise, a wife that does not give herself to her own husband is violating the law of God. Worse things have occurred in the marriage relationship due to this basic violation. Prostitutes have recognized this (some have said that if wives served their husbands well they would be put out of business). Such is true. I am convinced that if some husbands had endeavored to satisfy their wives as they deserved, then “another man” would not and could not have entered the picture.

Marriage is designed to meet a very basic need of man, the sexual drive, which is a part of every “normal” man and woman. Paul, the inspired apostle of the Lord pointed to that and specifically charged each not to “defraud ye one the other;” he pointed to the danger that one is placed in when he has withheld from him that which is to be supplied in the marriage relationship. “Satan” is well aware of that basic need and will. take advantage of the deprivation to “tempt you . . . for your incontinency” (v. 5). Abstinence in this area is to be done only with the “consent” of both, only for a short duration, and for a higher purpose (“that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; . . .”). I suggest that a violation of this basic need has led to many a broken home and broken lives; it will produce a multitude of souls in hell for an eternity.

“Love” of the wife by the husband is demanded by the Lord (Eph. 5:25). He who withholds this is violating God’s law, depriving his wife, and injuring his potential for happiness here and now and forever. Submission of the wife to her “own” husband is, likewise, demanded by the Lord (Eph. 5:22). She who withholds this is disobeying God, hurting her husband as well as those who view her life as a Christian, and playing in the flames of hell. May we, beloved, see the Lord’s law. Believe it. Be careful that we apply it, speak it, and love it! Be not violaters of God’s law, least ye be broken by it!

II. Triangle (creating a three party system 1 Cor. 6:16-18). By bringing in a third party, one is guilty of turning a two-party-God-approved relationship into a three-party-God-disapproved relationship. At this point, it is necessary that we look at the meaning of two words: adultery and fornication. English generally distinguishes between them on the basis of being married or unmarried; (1) “fornication” being defined as sexual intercourse between unmarried individuals and (2) “adultery” being between a married person and one other than the one to whom he is married. The Greek words from which these words are translated are: (1) Porneia-fornication; it is the general term that is used to describe all kinds of illicit sexual intercourse; (2) Moicheia-adultery is the specific act of illicit, unlawful sexual intercourse between a married person and another. So, in the New Testament, the ford fornication is the broader term and would, at times, embrace the concept of “adultery” too. But, I suggest to you that there are at least three types of “adultery” spoken of in the New Testament (Matt. 5:28 “heart”; Matt. 19:9 “marry another”; Jn. 8:4 the “act”).

Fornication is a unique sin (1 Cor. 6:16-18). Paul mentions that “every sin” that a man commits, other than fornication, is “without the body;” but fornication is sinning “against his own body.” This verse tells us something about the meaning of being “one flesh.” So, the point, if I understand it, is that when people are “joined” together in the sexual union they are the “one flesh.” This is not saying necessarily that fornication is the worst sin that can be committed, or that it is really any worse than another. But it is saying that it is different from all others, or else I am missing the point completely.

He who will serve God cannot tolerate this sin. God did not tolerate it with Israel (Jer. 3:8). A person who commits fornication in weak moments and then asks to be forgiven, should be forgiven (Lk. 17:3-4). However, when one continues to commit this sin and does not repent and turn to God, a person who is dedicated to God must withdraw from that relationship. A person who will continue to allow such sin to be committed without withdrawing and denouncing it will become a party to the sin (1 Cor. 5:6). Evil is to be recognized, denounced, and separated from (2 Cor. 6:15-18). In our land today, the concept that extra-marital sexual relations is being advanced as being “good” and necessary to “save” some marriages. Such is ungodliness at its peak!

III. Divorce (Putting away a person who has not been unfaithful). Jesus said to “put away,” saving for the cause of fornication, is to cause “adultery” to be committed. Thus, that person who puts away for any other reason would be guilty of violating God’s law. He who so acts, places a person in a position that he is deprived of a need and, thus, tempts him to become a part of a relationship that is not approved of God. Marriage is entered so as to fulfill this need, along with other needs that we have already mentioned. So, let every person who is about to take this step think! Look and see where it will lead.

God tells us that He “hateth putting away: . . .” (Mal. 2:16). Paul dealt with the same concept, as we have noticed before (1 Cor. 7:10-11). First, determine to never depart, but if that step is taken, then be sure that you remain unmarried or be reconciled to the one from whom you departed. Not, enough is spoken about this by teachers and thus young people grow up ignorant of the Lord’s teachings. Therefore, they plunge head-long into something that is to be for life, thinking if it does not work we will “try again.” Are Christians guiltless who allow this to happen, without having done all to advocate the truth of God’s word? I think not!

IV. Remarriage (Matt. 19:9). If a man puts away a wife without her having committed fornication and then marries another, the Bible is as clear as can be that he is guilty of “adultery.” If the one that is put away marries another both she and the one she marries is guilty of adultery. In other words, if two people are married, they divorce and remarry without fornication being committed, then there are four people guilty of “adultery.” This principle is disregarded by many and denied and denounced as “untrue” by many others; some of them claim membership in the “Church of Christ.”

Paul deals with this point in Rom. 7:2-3, not using the exception. If while her husband lives, she be married to “another man” then she is an “adulteress.” Question: a woman marries another man while her husband is alive, so the Bible says that she is an adulteress; now ten years passes, is she any less an adulteress than when it first occurred? What about after twenty years? In fact does time have any bearing on the matter? No! It does not matter if it is fifty years later, she is still an “adulteress.”

Some try to say this woman would be guilty of polyandry. However, the Holy Spirit did not cause Paul to call her a polyandrist; rather he called her an “adulteress.” However, the people who charge her with being a polyandrist would admit that she could not remain such and be pleasing to God; the extent of time she remained would have nothing to do with taking the guilt away. She would have to cease being a polyandrist, if she wanted to become a “saint,” one sanctified by God’s grace and cleansed in the blood of Christ.

There are many theories regarding the violations of God’s marriage law, the consequences, and/ or application of the truth. The next two papers shall be an effort to examine those different theories which are presented by brethren on this matter. I hope that your interest will continue, and that you will give a fair hearing to the things that are said. Then after you clearly understand these concepts, you will evaluate them in the light of God’s word. Having done that, you will then decide what is required of you as an individual; also, you will need then to decide what you feel is required of the congregation of which you are a member.

In closing, however, let us ask the question: Have you violated God’s law in regard to this or any other matter? If so, have you met the requirements to have the transgression forgiven? If not, will you not meet those requirements before it is too late, and you have to suffer the consequences? My prayer is that you have complied with God’s requirements.

Truth Magazine XXI: 44, pp. 697-698
November 10, 1977