Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

Comes now the news that the Episcopal Church has authorized the ordination of women priests (priestesses?). Someone hand me a stick so I can dust off the seat of their clerical robes-better make it a gospel cudgel. Actually, though, I might as well warn a parking meter that I am going to arrest it for loitering as to rebuke the Episcopal House of Bishops for okaying lady bishops (bishopesses?). The Episcopal Church has every right to ordain women as priests. They have their ecclesiastical laws and political procedure. According to the news media, they passed the policy in legitimate fashion. (Not, of course, in scriptural fashion, but in their legal fashion.) “So what was I that I could withstand their laws? Since you have heard these things, hold your Bible and vilify the Episcopal creed, saying, then hath their Congress also to

the women granted priesthood unto bishops.”

Do you think that a preacher armed only with a New Testament could veto the legislation of a powerful denomination? It is like trying to shoot down a 747 with a BB gun. Imagine hunting elephants with a fly swatter. That is how much effect the word of God has upon Anger, like all other emotions, is God given. Anger is Episcopalian edicts. At present, the word of God is not not sinful or damaging. It is a motivating emotion that their concern, but it will be their judge! They may now disdain it, scorn it, and plant plants which our heavenly Father has not grown, but they shall be rooted up. Except the Lord make the laws, they legislate in vain that do make them. Further, “the word of God liveth and abideth forever.” That is a certain, stedfast truth. It is an awesome fearful fact. Yes, the Episcopal hierarchy can dismiss diatribes with amusement. They can smile benevolently as we shake a worn and wadded up New Testament at them, belief

but one day they will have to answer to it. Their House of Bishops cannot save them then. That is sad, is it not?

“She-Elders”

While on the subject of lady bishops, it might be worthwhile to note that a few churches of Christ have been plagued with them. The Lord does not send frogs, lice or swarms of flies, but occasionally a church will have an outbreak of women elders. Weak, hen-pecked brethren call them “she-elders,” but never to their faces. They might be “disfellowshipped” by those same “she-elders” if they do. The Episcopal Church had to go through a lot of red tape to get their women in as bishops. Churches of Christ have a quieter, less fan-fare approach. The ladies simply usurp an elder’s function after the manner of parasites and bullies. They siphon “power” from their husbands and intimidate others with their “tongue speaking,” or gossip. At least the Episcopal women have to go through diplomatic channels and due process before they can attain to the bishopric, but there is nothing very diplomatic about a lady elder in a congregation of the Lord’s people. They are not overly concerned about lawful means. They seize power like a South American military junta.

However, we can be grateful and thankful that such cases are rare. The Lord has blessed His church with meek, sweet women who exemplify and personify the spirit of Sarah (cf. 1 Pet. 3:6). But one lady bishop in a church of Christ can cause more trouble than a house full of Episcopalian creed makers. If it ever comes up for a vote, mine is cast for repelling and expelling them. If you worship where there is a lady elder in power, you can cast your ballot, too. Have no fear. We will make sure it is kept secret. Our brethren are generally against voting, though, so they have to resort to petitions. The only trouble with a petition is that they are torn up by “she-elders” if they do not happen to agree with them. Besides, a business meeting is too public. Just stay home from them and say there is no scripture for a business meeting. That way you will not have to take part. The ladies may even let you pass communion next Sunday!

Truth Magazine XXI: 31, p. 486
August 11, 1977

By Grant Caldwell

About 7:45 A.M., Sunday morning, October 27, 1976, I was getting ready for morning worship. We were to the last day of our meeting and things had been going very well. Just about that time, my wife came into the bedroom from the kitchen, looked at me and totally collapsed in my arms.

At the emergency room of the hospital, the doctor said she had a bladder infection, gave her a prescription, and said she would get better. On Thursday of that week, however, she was admitted to that same hospital. She was now under the care of two of the finest internal medicine specialists the state of Ohio had to offer. Diagnosis: A bacterial infection, a viral infection, infection in the blood stream, extreme (total) exhaustion. With the infection in the blood stream, the problem had rapidly spread from the bladder to the lungs, throat, and ears, and the doctors feared that it was going to the lining of the brain. The doctors explained that the infections were serious enough, but her physical condition was such that she was having trouble fighting it off.

She was 28 years old and I feared for her life. I was scared, and I prayed. What would I do without her? We had two small children. What would they do without their “mom”? The very thought was almost more than I could bear. But thanks be to God, she made it through. While she is now still regaining her strength, she is alive and very much well.

I bring all of this up not to use this paper as a nevus bulletin, but to remind all of us of one of the most serious matters that we must face. Those who are faithful in the service of the Lord and have special jobs to perform such as preaching, eldering, etc., often forget to care about those that are behind us “holding up our hands.” Especially, I believe this is true about our wives. They cook our meals, clean our clothes, keep our houses, and raise our children while we are out seeing to everyone else. And it is all too often that we wear them out.

How often we hear about problems that arise because preachers just did not take enough time to care at home. We have lost so many of our own children while out trying to convert everyone else’s children that “P.K.” has become a by-word with people. And one of the saddest things I know is the number of preachers who have found themselves in divorce courts as the primary participants in the last few years. Some of us (I must confess) have simply put so much on our wives that physically, emotionally, and / or spiritually they have buckled under the strain.

Someone may say, “Well, I don’t have much sympathy for the wife who doesn’t share her husband’s ambition for the cause of Christ.” And I will add that, I do not either. I am not talking about such a woman. But I am talking about good women with human limitations. Some of us take on such a load that our own bodies cannot stand the strain and we have strokes, heart attacks, ulcers, etc. Yet, in all, our faithful wife stands beside us helping us do what we think we must. But sometimes, their limitations as human beings show up, too.

What I am saying is this: The Lord does not expect that we perform in the church to the neglect of the Home. If he does, someone who knows it, please, show us the passage. 1 Cor. 7 applies to the preacher-the elder-as much as to anyone else. Eph. 5 is a law to the preacher and elder just as it is to the other members. My wife and children have the same right to a husband and father and a home-life as anyone else has. And they have the same right to rest and recreation that anyone else has.

I am not upholding a preacher who neglects the work of the church and gives his home-life as an excuse. But just as bad is the preacher who neglects his home-life and offers his work at the church as an excuse. Some of the blame, I suppose, must be put on the church in many places for expecting everything from debating to sink-cleaning from the preacher. But some of the blame, if not most of it, must be put squarely upon our shoulders for taking on more than we are really able to handle.

When we were in school, Brother Homer Hailey used to say, “Boys, remember your wife has a right to your time and your money, too. And your children need a father, too. In my early years I deprived my wife of things she had every right to have because I thought I had to spend it all on the church or put it in the basket. She was put in an early grave. I spent all my time in meetings and failed to spend my time teaching my own children the truth.”

Why, bless his heart, Brother Hailey was recognizing the same problem we are talking about. He was not saying one should not spend on the church, nor was he saying meetings, are not important. But he was saying that one’s home is important, too! Why don’t we give our wives a break. Maybe a night out. (Even if you are broke, the clown with the golden arches is better than another night in the kitchen.) Or how about an evening where you can just sit down, relax, hold her hand, and tell her she’s still the prettiest, most wonderful girl in town and you love her. Anything to give her a break before you break her. I will tell you, brethren, sometimes it is harder for her to sit home and wonder what “hell” you are going through, than it is for you to be out going through it.

Our wives, like ourselves, are human beings. As such, they are creations of the Lord and He alone knows best what care should be given them. Some can withstand more than others, but all have their limitations just as we do. We must “dwell with them according to knowledge” and give to them their just due. Maybe it is time to back up again, and ask, “What are we doing to our wives?”

Truth Magazine XXI: 31, p. 485
August 11, 1977

By Mike Willis

Creation Vs. Evolution

An important court battle is heading toward a climax in Indiana over whether or not public schools have the right to use a textbook in biology which presents the creation account. At the present the opponents of the creation account have won the first round. Two parents, aided by the Indiana Civil Liberties Union lawyers, asked Marion County (Indianapolis) superior court judge Michael T. Dugan to remove the textbook, Biology: A Search For Order in Complexity (published by Zondervan Publishing House, 1970), from its list of state-approved texts. Dugan agreed with the two parents that the textbook should be removed from the list of approved books.

At the present, the schools in the West Clark school district in Indiana are still using the texts. Those who defend the use of the books state that the book presents both theories and not just the biblical account. Opponents charge that the book is “anti-science” and dwells on religion of the fundamentalist type. Too, the judge agreed with the argument that the textbook leaves the student no way to support the doctrine of creation. Of course, the judge had nothing to say about the myriads of books we have had to use which supported evolution and left the creationist no arguments to support his beliefs.

At one time creationists occupied such a strong position that they forbade anyone to even mention the theories of evolution in the classroom. However, the courts stepped in to be sure that both sides of the controversy on how we came to be were presented. At the present, evolution has a death-grip on its opponents. They will not allow another side to be presented in the classroom and the courts are taking their side to enforce the position. That is quite a reversal to what happened a hundred years ago.

I am convinced that Arthur Custance’s evaluation of the present attitudes toward evolution are accurate; he said,

“But when a theory which is tentative is presented as fact, it no longer serves to inspire questions but rather to predetermine answers. To my mind, this is the present position of evolutionary theory. It has become Pact’ and to challenge it is to run the risk of excommunication. In Medieval times, too, excommunication was one of the penalties for challenging the accepted view of things. At that time the teat of whether any new theory was true or false was, a John Randall points out, whether it fitted harmoniously into the orthodox systems of belief and not whether it could be verified by experiment. Thin is exactly the position today; ecclesiastical dogma been replaced by biological dogma which, as ‘dogma,’ has been detrimental to the troth” (The Doorway Papers (In: Genesis and Early Man, p. 75).

It will be interesting to watch to see if the courts of this land reverse the decision they made one hundred years ago which gave the classrooms the right to present both sides of how men came to be.

Women as Roman Catholic Priests?

The National Federation of Priests’ Councils, which represents 113 local councils of Roman Catholic Priests, voted in its recent national convention to ask the Vatican to permit women to become priests and deacons and to eliminate all sexist language in official prayers of the Catholic Church. What the Catholic Church decides to do with this request will be interesting.

Should they ignore it? Most likely they will since the small group in America represents such a minority of the total number of Catholics in the world. However, if they are consistent, they should censure these priests for not accepting the authority of the Catholic Church. The official voice of the Catholic Church has already stated its position that women cannot be priests; yet, these priests refuse to accept that. Therefore, it seems that the church should censure these priests for rebellion. Yet in today’s climate, that would not be too popular so I doubt that this will be done.

Should the Catholic Church change its position and allow women to serve as priests? If they do, this is going to have serious repercussions for their claim to papal infallibility. For years, the papacy has forbidden women to be priests stating that it was not according to the will of God. If they now accept women as priests, this will be a change in positions, a total reversal of their previous stance. How would the Catholic be able to maintain its position of papal infallibility? If it is wrong to allow women to be priests, the tolerance of them as priests would be sinful; if it is right for women to serve as priests, the centuries during which this was withheld from them was sinful. The Catholics are between the proverbial rock and hard place. Which way can they go?

Drinking: American’s Number One Drug Problem

Recently I made a comment in a sermon which prompted a response from one of our members regarding the subject of drunkenness. I requested that he give me some literature regarding the prevalence of problem drinking in the Armed Forces since he was a major in the Air Force. Within a week, he gave me a copy of Alcohol Abuse Is More Prevalent in the Military Than Drug Abuse, a Report to the Congress of the United States. Although one must take into consideration that the problems of drinking would probably be statistically higher in the military than in civilian ranks because of a number of reasons (the military is filled with single, young men; the places in which many are stationed are isolated, leaving the men nothing else to do; etc.), the truth of the matter is that drinking is a problem for all Americans and not just for the military. However, since I have rather current statistics on how badly the military is affected by drinking problems, I want to relate them to you.

“A study by a private research organization on drinking practices and problems in the Army, based on questionnaires sent to 9,910 personnel and completed in December, 1972, showed that:

— 20 and 32 percent of officers and enlisted men, respectively, are heavy or binge drinkers, and an additional 17 and 35 percent, respectively, have drinking problems.

— Army duty time lost in 1973 because of drinking was estimated to be about 2,200 staff-years and the cost was estimated to be about $17 million in pay and allowances alone . . . .

— Over half of the non-senior officers and over half of all junior enlisted men believed it was all right to get drunk once in a while as long as it did not become a habit, and 28 percent of the junior enlisted men believed it was all right to get drunk whenever one felt like It . . . .

A semiannual opinion survey completed In Europe by the Army in February 1974 showed 27 percent of the 1,759 Army personnel sampled had a potential alcohol problem . . . .

In March 1975 the Navy Issued a report on drinking problems which was based on, questionnaires sent to 9,508 Navy personnel. This study showed that:

— 37 percent of the enlisted men, 26 percent of the male warrant officers, and 18 percent of the male commissioned officers had drinking problems described as ‘critical,’ ‘very serious,’ or ‘serious.’

— 19 percent of the enlisted women and 9 percent of the women officers had drinking problems described as ‘critical,’ ‘very serious,’ or ‘serious.’

— 15.6 percent of the enlisted women and 24.3 percent of the enlisted men reported at least some lost work time or inefficiency at work during the 6 months preceding the study because of drinking or Its after-effects. The percentage for officers were 17.5 for females and 17.7 for males. . . .

A study performed by the Navy Medical Neuropsychiatric Research Unit, San Diego, California, estimated that the Navy loses about $52 million annually from absenteeism, decreased efficiency, and poor decisfonmakin& due to fig . . . . It did not include the costs of hospitalization, outpatient treatment, medications, or legal services for these individuals.”

There were other interesting figures in this report but these should be sufficient to see what a problem drinking has become in the United States. I do wish that I had comparative figures to see how bad a problem drinking has become for civilians. I hazard a guess that it is not much less a problem for civilians than it is for the military.

In the midst of a society which is so troubled by drinking problems, the Christian should stand forth as a shining light. His conduct should be above reproach inasmuch as he abstains from strong drink. Peter wrote, “For the time already past is sufficient for you to have carried out the desire of the Gentiles, having pursued a course of sensuality, lusts, drunkenness, carousals, drinking parties and abominable idolatries. And in all this, they are surprised that you do not run with them into the same excess of dissipation, and they malign you” (4:1-3). It concerns me to hear that some among the Lord’s disciples will defend social drinking when all the world around us needs to see the shining light of a good example.

Truth Magazine XXI: 31, pp. 483-484
August 11, 1977

By Arvin Himmel

God’s word teaches in Prov. 17:15, “He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the Lord.”

All responsible people fall into one of two categories. There are the righteous and the unrighteous, the good and the bad, the just and the wicked. God approves righteousness but condemns wickedness. Some men have the reverse attitude; they defend wickedness and find fault with righteousness.

Justifying the Wicked

Here are some examples of how efforts are made to uphold wickedness:

1. The wicked are acquitted. When the prophet Samuel was old, he made his sons judges over Israel. However, they “walked not in his ways, but turned aside after lucre, and took bribes, and perverted judgment” (1 Sam. 8:1-3). Any wicked person with enough money could have bought his way out of trouble with these judges.

The law of Moses warned the judges and officers, “Thou shaft not wrest judgment; thou shaft not respect persons, neither take a gift: for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the words of the righteous” (Deut. 16:19). This warning often went unheeded. During many periods of Israel’s history the magistrates and rulers set the wicked free in exchange for a “gift.”

Today, people who violate the law often escape punishment by bribes and by hiring smart attorneys who can find loopholes in the law or get a client set free on some legal technicality. There is no honor in the exoneration of criminals and lawbreakers.

2. Wickedness is whitewashed. Sometimes when sin is committed, attempts are made to justify the wicked by acting as if no wrong has been done. A person in an important position is found to be immoral, or one of high rank is proved to be guilty of gross misconduct, but in “Watergate” style the whole mess is quickly and quietly swept under the rug, any statements issued are vague and meaningless, and it is understood that no one is supposed to ask any questions.

Israel’s king David wanted to whitewash his sin, but God sent Nathan to David to let him know that all Israel would see the consequences of what the king had done secretly (2 Sam. 12:12). The scribes and Pharisees were so accustomed to whitewashing their sins that Jesus compared them to “whited sepulchers, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones and of all uncleanness” (Matt. 23:27).

3. Sin is openly advocated. In the present generation numerous groups are loudly endorsing homosexuality, gambling, drinking, prostitution, and similar vices. There is widespread clamor for liberalized laws. Some in high governmental circles of influence have spoken in justification of practices explicitly condemned in the Bible. Courts are freeing the smut peddlers and prostitutes. Crime and immorality increase rapidly because wickedness is justified.

Condemning the Just

The following are a few ways in which the just are condemned:

1. The righteous are afflicted. In Isaiah’s time the leaders of Israel were “companions of thieves”; they loved gifts and acted for reward rather than in the interest of justice, therefore “they judge not the fatherless, neither doth the cause of the widow come unto them” (Isa. 1:23). Amos made a similar charge. He said the leaders “afflict the just, they take a bribe, and they turn aside the poor in the gate from their right” (Amos 5:12).

2. The righteous are falsely accused. Jesus our Lord did no sin but was accused and condemned to die. Although perfectly just, He was accused of “perverting the nation,” forbidding tribute to Caesar, and trying to set Himself up as king (Lk. 23:1,2). Paul, the righteous apostle to the Gentiles, was accused of being “a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes,” and one who had tried to profane the temple (Acts 24:1-6).

3. Just men are shown disrespect. Sometimes men condemn the just by acting with contempt toward the godly. In the church, God-fearing, mature elders are condemned sometimes by a disgruntled individual who did not get to have his personal way in a thing that is purely one of judgment. A young person who is immature and inexperienced ought to be very slow about condemning older men who are wise by reason of experience and many years of careful Bible study, especially if the area of disagreement is only a matter of human judgment.

In conclusion, consider the words of Isaiah: “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight! Woe unto them that are mighty to drink wine, and men of strength to mingle strong drink: Which justify the wicked for reward, and take away the righteousness of the righteous from him” (Isa. 5:20-23).

Truth Magazine XXI: 31, p. 482
August 11, 1977