Truth Magazine

By Robert Jackson

Thus far in our study, we have noticed that departure has been caused as a lack of respect for the authority of Jesus Christ, failing to abide by the doctrine of Christ; a misunderstanding of the difference between the church and a church-the church in the universal sense which is composed of all of God’s people, and a local church under the local arrangement that God authorized in His word. Then we studied how the men of God had warned about departure that would come into their midst because some men would set themselves up to be as God, taking the place of God by giving commandments and people bowing down to them and that they would draw away disciples after them. We noticed as a result of this that we hail one man that eventually claimed to be the universal bishop, taking the oversight of all the churches, violating the very principle which God laid down in His word that elders are to oversee the flock of God which is among diem in 1 Peter 5:1-3. As a result of this, we had Catholicism to have its origin and then out of that came protests, trying to reform the Catholic view-Martin Luther and others-and as a result of that, Protestant Denominationalism.

We have found the results of division that started a long time ago by ~brethrenfdeparting;from the faith resulted in Catholicism and Denominationalism, but then we find men of God went across the country begging and pleading with men and women to go back to the Bible and speak where the Bible speaks and remain silent where the Bible is silent, establishing churches of Christ across this country. But, to and behold, after we got churches planted again, we find that brethren started making their departure again from the plan of God.

In order that we might understand this, let us get before us now the primary work of the local church, the things that God has authorized the local church to engage in and to use its money for. First of all, I find in the teaching of God’s word that the church is authorized to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ. In fact, the business of preaching the gospel of Christ has the preeminence over all other things because only by the gospel of Christ, the power of God, will souls be able to be saved. In Romans 1:16, Paul said, “I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ for it is the power of God unto salvation.” And so then the local church has the God-given right and the responsibility of preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ, supporting the sending out of the word of God. This one cannot question.

Then secondly, the church has the right to gather together to worship-to teach, to edify and build up the members of the body of Christ. We find that since God’s people are come together for worship there must be a place for them to come together. Whether they rent a place, build a place, or meet out under the tree, they must come together to worship God. The church has the right to teach its own members, as the Bible says in Acts 20:28, to “feed the flock of God which is among you.” So then we find that the church has the God-given right to preach the gospel, and secondly to teach its own members and to engage in worshipping God Almighty.

Then thirdly, we need to understand that the church has the responsibility of providing for its own when they are in need. This we find in the teaching of the word of God in Acts 6 and many other places. As we will bring out in our studies, certainly the local church is all-sufficient to take care of its own needs, and therefore they are able to help relieve the needs of others, as we will also point out in our studies.

But then after these churches of Christ started doing the work that God intended for them to do, to and behold, some men decided that they had come up with a very brilliant idea. They had decided in their own minds that some of the local churches out here were very small and therefore, they really could not get the work done like they should. So they decided that what we need is some kind of organization that could bring churches of Christ together in supporting the preaching of the word of God and in taking care of the benevolent cases. So all these would then be able to join together and pool their resources in some manner so they could be able to do more. They talked about “what a good work” this would be, and how much “good” could be done. Thus, in 1849, in Cincinnatti, Ohio, there was born and established the United Christian Missionary Society.

Now the United Christian Missionary Society was an organization, a human organization. The reason I say “human” is because it is not divine. You can not read in the pages of God’s word how to build, establish, maintain, support or give contributions to a society, a missionary society. It is just not in the divine revelation, so a missionary society like the United Christian Missionary Society is strictly a human institution, a human organization-or brought up and designed and planned and schemed by the wisdom of men.

So, in 1849, in Cincinnatti, Ohio, they established the United Christian Missionary Society. It was established by a board of directors. The Missionary Society then said, “You send us a delegate, along with about a 9610.00 contribution, and then the missionary society will send out preachers, preaching the word of God.” But keep this in mind (which a lot of people fail to understand): the United Christian Missionary Society was not only set up to preach the gospel of Christ, but also to build benevolent societies to take care of the poor, and to build colleges, etc. So then, here is a great big organization without any divine authority, built and established by human wisdom and tacked on to the churches of Christ. Churches of Christ could send their money to this institution, and this institution would send out preachers. As a result of it, the United Christian Missionary Society controlled the churches. You have got the churches of Christ operating under a Board of Directors, under a missionary society, which gives it the universal concept of the church.

Soon some of the men started saying that this thing is just not right. Men like Bro. David Lipscomb, Bro.Srygley, and others stood up and said, “No. The churches of Christ do not have the right to ~ support the missionary society-there is no Bible authority for it!” Men like Bro. Lipscomb and Bro. Srygley challenged these men who were supporting the missionary society to give book, chapter and verse for such an institution. Of course they could not find it. It is not in the word of God. And if they could have found it, all they would have had to do was simply say, “Here it is”-but they could not find it. So when they could not answer men like Lipscomb and others, what alternative did they have? Either to close the thing down or to keep it going and determine to answer their questions with some kind of human philosophy. And here is what they came up with. They said, “Well, look at the good that it does!” “After all, the end justifies the means!” “If it does a lot of good, and the Lord said to do good, and the missionary society does a lot of good, so it has a right to exist.” Men like Bro. Lipscomb and others said, “No, the end does not justify the means, there must be Bible authority for it.” My friend, there was no Bible authority for it, and these men kept pressing the same issue. Finally the people who endorsed the missionary society said men like Bro. Lipscomb, Bro. Srygley, etc. are “anti-missionary-they do not believe in sending out preachers,” and they started calling them “antis.”

Of course that was wrong. Men like Bro. Lipscomb and others believed in preaching the gospel of Christ. They believed in local churches having preachers. They believed in local churches sending out men of God to preach the word of God. They believed in congregations supporting a man away from the field. But these people, in order to get away from them, said, “They are antis,” and that sounded bad! You know what happened? Division started coming again, and it came as a result of a lack of respect for the authority of Christ. It came as a result of men determining to tack on their human inventions upon the church; and therefore this split and divided the body of Christ.

But now stop for just a moment and think with me. Do you think it stopped the missionary society? Here is a lesson that we need to learn and ought never to forget: once you open the gate for something without Bible authority, you cannot close that gate. Something else surely is going to follow. Some of the people who were in favor of the missionary society went right along with the idea that we ought not to have instruments of music in the worship, but now watch what happened. They said, “Well, we have got the society without any Bible authority and after all the Bible does not say ‘Thou shall not have instrumental music.’ The Bible does not say, ‘Thou shall not use it.”‘ So then some of the people began to say, “My, it sounds good,” and “I just like it and I think we ought to have it.”

Do you know that after 1849 when the Missionary Society was established, do you know the next thing that came in was instrumental music. And then do you understand, my friend, that that brought division within the ranks of the body of Christ? Do you not see that they divided the church first over the organization, and then after they had perverted the organization, we find that the worship of God was perverted? Men of God stood up and opposed this, and said that we ought not to use instruments of music in the worship. What did they say? Did they give Bible authority for instrumental music? Did they say here is the book, chapter and verse? Did they say, “We speak where the Bible speaks and we are silent where the Bible is silent-and we will give you the authority for the use of instruments?” No, they just said, “You folks are anti-music, you don’t believe in having music.” That was not the issue. We believe in having music, but not instrumental music. We believe in having the kind of music that God authorized: singing, making melody in the heart (Ephesians 5:19, Colossians 3:16).

But what had happened to brethren? They had already caused division over the organization of the missionary society and then perverted the worship. Then what happened? Well, you read a lot about “Christian Churches,” and you see a lot about “Disciples of Christ” buildings. I will tell you how they got here. They got here as a result of a departure of brethren leaving the faith of God. And I will tell you what you can do, my friend. You can drive by some of the buildings where they have got signs “Christian Church,” look down on the cornerstone, and it will say “Church of Christ.” Do you know why the name was changed? The same reason they changed the organization! The same reason they changed the worship! They perverted the name! The church does not belong to Christians, the church belongs to the Lord.

But then again we have another departure, a complete departure in the body of Christ, and thus we have division within our ranks again. Why? Over a lack of respect for Bible authority, over perverting the organization of the church, over perverting the work of the church and therefore perverting the worship of the church. Brethren, these are the things that have divided us, and that is the reason we are in the divided condition that we are today. There is a difference between the Christian Church and the body of Jesus Christ.

Truth Magazine XXI: 17, pp. 262-263
April 28, 1977

By Irvin Himmel

Several years ago a family moved into a certain metropolitan area and began worshiping with one of several congregations in that city. In a short while they were invited into the homes of three or four different families. They stated later that not one of these families had invited them simply because they were Christians, nor because they were newcomers, but in each case because the people were trying to sell them a particular line of products.

No valid objection can be raised to Christians making their livelihood (or supplementing their income) by selling legitimate and useful merchandise. No one objects to Christians selling products to other Christians. But something needs to be said about a growing practice that is extremely distasteful. And we have heard of some preachers and elders who are chief offenders in this matter.

If someone is invited into a home for dinner or for what he expects to be a purely social visit and then the host tries to interest his guest in buying some product, the guest goes away feeling that he was deceived. What he thought was intended as an act of hospitality turned out to be primarily a sales pitch. Many persons are completely disgusted with this commercialized form of hospitality.

In some congregations the members who sell certain products have shown a tendency to be sociable only toward others who sell or purchase their line of merchandise. A clique is formed that excludes those Christians who do not wish to buy their goods. And so many have been invited into homes only to be confronted with a sales pitch that they now ask when invited to have dinner with a fellow Christian, “What are you selling?”

Most local churches will include several individuals who sell items in their homes, and people have every right to do that. If someone wants to invite other Christians to come to sales meetings and sales parties, that is his lawful right. If one wishes to invite others to his home to demonstrate a product or show a line of wares, that is fine, and if he wishes to give them a free dinner while they are there, that is his business. But let us not resort to unethical or harmful practices to increase our income.

The Bible says, “Use hospitality one to another without grudging” (1 Pet. 4:9). This passage does not teach us to use hospitality as a front for promoting our personal business interests. When someone is invited to be another’s guest to be a potential customer, he ought to be told plainly what the purpose behind the invitation is to avoid any appearance of deceit and to prevent hard feelings.

Perhaps some Christians have not stopped to realize how their sales tactics appear in the minds of others. All of us appreciate genuine and warm hospitality. Probably many of us could show much more friendship toward other Christians than we generally show. And we are aware of how hard it is for most families to have sufficient income to keep up with inflation. But commercialized hospitality breeds resentment and disfavor.

Truth Magazine XXI: 17, pp.261-262
April 28, 1977

By Mike Willis

Within recent years, the amount of pornography which has been printed in the United States has increased more than ten-fold. Practically any minute market in America has pornographic books of many titles available t0 the general public around its counter. The newspapers carry advertisements from theaters which specialize in girly movies and more sadistic portrayals of human immorality. Recently, some have even been talking of “snuff movies,” i.e. movies which record on camera the actual murder of another human being. Surely I am not the only person in America who has noted the increase in the number of movies with reference to which the television networks must append a statement to the effect that the movie might not be recommended for children or immature persons. (I have serious doubts that acceptance of pornography or violence is a mark of maturity.) No one would deny that there has been a violent increase in pornography in our society.

I suppose the thing which is most disconcerting to me is that this increase in pornography is definitely a mark of the general deterioration of the moral fiber of the American people. If no one was buying pornography, the publishers would quit printing it. The fact that more and more pornography is becoming available evidences the fact that more and more American are buying more and more of it. If there were no market, there would be n0 pornography. But, there is a market and what a market it is! In Searching the Scriptures (July, 1976), in an article entitled, “Mind Pollution-Pornography,” Weldon Warnock reported, “James K. Barret, a former Mafia operative and FBI undercover man, wrote in Reader’s Digest, Nov., 1973, that smut was a billion-ayear operation for the Mafia.” Just how accurate these statements are might be hard to determine, but we can rest assured that the publication of pornography is a lucrative business.

Pornography and the Courts

The purveyors of this moral filth have been in a running battle with the courts of this land t0 determine whether or not they have the right to publish their product. I might add, that they have been victorious more often than not. The problem for the courts of America has been two-fold: (1) to write a law which prohibits pornography without, at the same time, relinquishing the right t0 freedom of the press and (2) to define pornography in such a way that it has meaning (most of the definitions given to the word have been so subjective and filled with loopholes that they are virtually useless).

Here is the federal law against obscenity which was passed by Congress:

Title 18 Crimes and Criminal Procedure Chapter 71. Obscenity Section 1461

“Every obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy book, pamphlet picture, paper, letter, writing, print, or other publication of an indecent character; and

“Every article or thing designed, adapted, or intended for preventing conception or producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral use; and

“Every article, instrument, substance, drug, medicine, or thing which is advertised or described in a manner calculated to lead another to use or apply it for preventing conception or producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral purpose, and

“Every written or printed card, letter, circular, book, pamphlet, advertisement, or notice of any kind of information, directly or Indirectly, where, or how, or from whom, or by what means any of such mentioned matters, articles, or things may be obtained or made, or where or by whom any act or operation of any kind for the procuring or producing of abortion will be done or performed, or how or by what means conception may, be prevented or abortion produced, whether sealed or unsealed; and

“Every paper, writing, advertisement, or representation that any article, instrument, substance, drug, medicine, or thing may, or can, be used or applied for preventing conception or producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral purpose; and

“Every description calculated to induce or incite a person to so use or apply any such article, instrument, substance, drug, medicine, or thing

“Is declared to be nonmailable matter and shall not be conveyed in the mails or delivered from any postofftce or by any letter carrier.

“Whoever knowingly uses the mails for mailing, carriage in the mails, or delivery of anything declared by this section to be nonmailable, or knowlingly causes to be delivered by mail according to the direction thereon, or at the place at which it is directed to be delivered by the person to whom it is addressed, or knowlingly takes any such thing from the mails for the purpose of circulating or disposing thereof, shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both, for the first such offense, and shall be fined not more that $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both, for each such offense thereafter.”

The change in the moral code for America since the writing of that law is apparent to everyone. It is no longer criminal to get an abortion; as a matter of fact, our tax dollars can be used to pay for one! Hence, this has not been the last word of the courts regarding obscenity.

To further determine what is obscene, the U.S. Supreme Court devised a series of tests to determine what is obscene in the Roth v. U.S. case. Those tests are as follows: (1) The Social Value Test. Any material which has any redeeming social value has the full protection of the first amendment to the constitution. (2) Prurient Interest Test. Any material appealing as a whole to lewdness is obscene. The law stated, “A thing is obscene if, considered as a whole, its predominant appeal is to prurient interest, i.e. a shameful or morbid interest in nudity, sex, or excretion, and if it goes substantially beyond customary limits of such matters.” (3) The Patently Offensive Test. Magazines which “cannot be deemed so offensive as to affront current community standards of decency” are not obscene. (4) The Hard Core Pornography Test. If something is classified as “hard core pornography; ” it is considered obscene.

Our readers can certainly see the loopholes in these tests. Who is going to be allowed to determine whether or not a specific object has redeeming social value, appeals to prurient interests, is patently offensive or is, hard-core pornography? Anytime that a local, lower court brought action against a smut peddler, the matter was appealea all the way to the Supreme Court. The justices of the court soon found themselves having to spend long hours perusing obscene literature to decide whether or not it was in violation of the law. Soon, Justice Black issued a statement saying that “federal censorship is not the answer to these problems.” In essence, the Supreme Court has thrown the matter back into the hands of the lower courts and is allowing communities to set their own level for determining what is obscene.

At the present, there is nothing but confusion present in the courts of our land regarding what is obscene. It is ironic, to say the least, that “Christian” America is having more problems with obscenity than atheistic Russia is having. Soviet Russia, in its early revolutionary days was extremely liberal in matters of sexual conduct and laws governing sexual conduct were mild or nonexistent. “But the Russians discovered that the moral decline setting in because of this liberality in the legal code threatened the new society they had envisioned. There were revisions, and today the USSR tolerates no pornography or sexual writings” (Censorship, Obscenity and Sex, Alfred P. Klausler, p. 56).

No Help From the Law

It is obvious that the law is very little, if any at all, help in dealing with the matter of obscenity. Some Christians are persuaded that this is not all that bad. Once society permits the law to legislate any moral standard, trouble lies ahead. During the discussion surrounding the prohibition laws, David Lipscomb wrote, “Not finding that the scriptures ever teach Christians to use the civil power to enforce morality, righteousness, or religion, we have come to the conclusion that a man of God ought not to use it for such ends” (as quoted by David Edwin Harrell, Jr, in “From Consent to Dissent: The Emergence of the Churches of Christ in America,” Restoration Quarterly, XIX:2, Second Quarter, 1976, pp. 105-106). “Elisha G. Sewell, coeditor of the Gospel Advocate, argued that consistency demanded that prohibitionists support the passage of other laws: `To make their work a complete success, they ought to next have stringent laws enacted to force men to reform from profane swearing, and others to force men to obey the gospel of Christ and become Christians. If they have a right to force men to obey God in the matter of temperance, why not in every other respect?” (Ibid., p. 106).

Certainly these statements call attention to a tension which must be faced by proponents of censorship. However, the other side of this same coin is “no censorship.” Our legal codes already enforce a morality which prohibits murder, theft, rape, etc. A moral standard is already being enforced on people. Frankly, I am unable to suggest any legal way of solving this problem without sacrificing to some degree the right to freedom of the press. Hence, I am more and more coming to believe that morality cannot be legislated; it comes through conversion to God.

Obscenity and the Christian

Whereas obscenity is a sticky legal problem it poses no such dilemma to the Christian. The Christian is a man who is totally committed to following the legislation of Jesus Christ. He is committed to following what the New Testament teaches regarding such matters. Whereas moral relativitists might be without foundation in determining what is obscene, the one who clings to the Bible as the revealed word of God has something by which he can measure what is and what is not obscene. Here are some passages which help the Chrsitian determine that he must stay away from obscenity:

1. Mt. 5:28. Jesus said, “. . . I say to you, that every one who looks on a woman to lust for her has committed adultery with her already in his heart.” Any book, magazine, or picture which sexually arouses a person causes that person to violate this command of Jesus. Such a person has committed adultery in his heart when he lusts after the person depicted. Christians will shun any kind of material which produces this kind of lust.

2. Gal. 5:19. Uncleanness and lasciviousness are here condemned by God. Uncleanness (akatharsia) means “the impurity of lustful, luxurous, profligate living.” Lasciviousness (aselgeia) means “unbridled lust, excess, licentiousness, lasciviousness, wantonness, outrageousness, shamelessness, insolence …. wanton acts or manners, as filthy words, indecent bodily movements, unchaste handling of males and females.” Col. 3:5=6 uses some of these same words and instructs the Christian to mortify these deeds in his body.

3. Phil. 4:8. “Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, let your mind dwell on these things.” The Christian is to think about things which are productive of good. He knows that all evil things proceed from an evil heart (Mt. 15:18-20). Hence, he has a responsibility to keep his heart pure (Prov. 4:23).

Conclusion

Hence, while the world is wrestling with the problem of pornography, the Chrsitian knows which is the safe course in which he should walk. God has revealed to him what kind of life he should live. Just as the World is in a turmoil over whether or not administer discipline to children, it is also in a turmoil regarding the problem of pornography. If one listens to the psychologists, not only will he receive conflicting opinions, he will lose his children and soul in the process. The Christian knows which law he must follow when discussing the subject of discipline. Similarly, today the world is in a turmoil regarding pornography with psychologists and lawyers revealing divergent opinions on the subject. But while the world wrestles over which course it is going to take, the Christian knows in which path he should walk. God has revealed that to him. He knows no uncertainity for he knows that God condemns the publisher, marketer, and reader of pornography.

Truth Magazine XXI: 17, pp. 259-261
April 28, 1977

By Bill Cavender

“The doctrine that pleasure is the sole or chief good in life and that moral duty is fulfilled in the gratification of pleasure-seeking instincts and dispositions; living for pleasure” (Webster). Hedone: “Pleasure, is used of the gratification of the natural desire or sinful desires” (W. E. Vine, Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words).

“For we also once were foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures (hedone), living in malice and envy, hateful. hating one another” (Titus 3:3). “Whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not, even of your pleasures (hedone) that war in your members? Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may spend it in your pleasures (hedone)” (James 4:1-3). “Men that count it pleasure (hedone) to revel in the day-time, spots and blemishes, reveling in their deceivings while they feast with you; having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; enticing unsteadfast souls; having a heart exercised in covetousness; children of cursing” (2 Pet. 2:13-14).

Who would deny that hedonism reigns supreme everywhere? The “Playboy Philosophy” is the moral and spiritual fashion of the day. Plain old decency, discreteness, purity, honesty, truthfulness, morality, manners and modesty are as out-of-date and “old foggyish” as the horseless carriage, and mother’s brass scrub-board and number three washtub. With the bikinis, short shorts, mini-skirts, skin-tight and ultra-thin garments, pornographic movies and magazines, topless and naked entertainment, sex education in schools and illicit lust affairs on every hand; with the overwhelming emphasis on sports (more brutal and cruel than ever), fishing, hunting, camping, traveling, weekending; and with the corresponding de-emphasis of worship, Bible study, prayer and spirituality, who would deny that ours is a pleasure-mad, hedonistic world?

Wars, murder, lawlessness, divorce, drugs, alcohol, thievery, hate, malice, envy and strife will remain as long as hedonism is our god. The only answer is faith in the one true God, in His Son Jesus Christ, in the Scriptures, in true repentance and deep contrition for sin, baptism into Christ for the remission of sins, and a faithful life in worship and service to God from henceforth.

Truth Magazine XXI: 17, p, 258
April 28, 1977