Truth Magazine

By Ed Welch

Who has God as their Father? Who has an inheritance that will last forever? Who have brothers and sisters yet they have different last names? Who can receive forgiveness of sins? Christians have all of these things. We have received and continue to receive forgiveness of sins. We have Christ as our Older Brother, we have different parents yet we are brothers and sisters, an inheritance that will last forever and the Creator as our Father. What more can we ask for? What more can a person ask for than adoption into such a family?

Natural Families

In human family relationships, the family will vary in as many different ways as there are families. One obvious fact is that in any family all the members will eventually die and the family will cease to exist except through the children of the children. How many people do you know whose parents are dead and whose brothers and sisters are all dead?

Fathers vary from family to family. They are all susceptible to death and sickness. In many families the fathers have left (some through divorce, some through neglect).

Discipline varies from father to father and between father and mother. Things the child has done against his father are many times remembered by that father even though the sin is over, the child disciplined and forgiven.

The human family, for all of its frailties, is the God-decreed institution for bringing children into the world and for man and woman to live togther. The world is dependent upon the family unit for its future and its stability, however, the human family functions for a short time (if at all) on this earth before it is terminated by disease, death or divorce.

God’s Family

“Household of Faith” (Gal. 6:10) and “Household of God” (Eph. 2:19; Heb. 3:6) are used in reference to God’s family. God’s family also is established by its components: Father (Rom. 15:6; 2 Cor. 1:3-4; 11:31; Eph: 1:3-5), Christ the firstborn son (John. 1:18; Rom. 8:29; Heb. 1:6) and adopted children (Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:5; Eph. 1:5) of God who receive an inheritance (Eph. 1:11,14,18; 5:5; Col. 1:12).

What sort of family is this? How does it compare with the human family? What advantages are there in the family of God? In this family God is the only parent. Jesus the Christ is His only begotten Son and Christians are adopted children. In this family there is only one center of all authority (Matt. 3:17; 17:5; Eph. 1:15-23); there is no doubt as to who is in charge. God’s commandments apply to all equally (Acts 11:1-18; 17:23-31; Rom. 2:1-16; Eph: 2:11-16). God is eternal (Gen. 21:33; Deut. 33:27; Isa. 40:28) and there is no sickness in Him (1 Tim. 6:16; Jas. 1:13,17) and with one parent there is no divorce. There is no earthly family that has this sort of stability in its parents. God has shown no neglect, He has demonstrated His concern by fulfilling His plans (Eph. 1:1-14; Rom. 8:18-30). He not only forgives His erring children, but He remembers their sins no more (Jer. 31:34). Children talk about the status of their parents and how important they are. Who is more important than God

Christ is our Older Brother. He is God and was with man in human form for about 33 years (Lk. 3:23). He was tempted in all ways (Matt. 4:lff; Lk. 4:2; Heb. 4:15), yet He overcame and was sinless (Isa. 53:9; 2 Cor 5:21); thus being the perfect sacrifice (Heb. 10:1-12) and the perfect example (John 14:6,7). He has received all authority from His Father and does only the will of His Father (Mk, 14:36; Lk. 22:42; John 3:34; 15:10). Like all older children, He sympathizes with His brothers and sisters, mediating- interceding-reconciling them with the Father (Heb. 8:6; 7:25; Rom. 5:10-11). Children talk about the things their brothers or sisters have done. Who can claim a nobler Brother who has had more of a good effect on the world, who has shown such a good example to His brethren and has such great authority?

The other children are adopted. This shows the concern of God the Father to mankind. The children are not only adopted, but they receive an inheritance that is eternal and good. No other children receive forgiveness of their sins which weigh as millstones around their necks (Acts 2:38; 1 John 1:5-10). A person who has no living family has, in Christ, a complete, eternal family. The Father has told His children how they are to treat each other (Rom. 12:9-21; Gal. 6:10; Eph. 5:15-21), their natural family (Eph. 5:22-33; 6:1-4), the state (Rom. 13:1-7; 1 Pet. 2:13-17), and non-Christians (Rom. 12:9-21; Gal. 6:11). What other child can say he has such clear, complete, uplifting instructions from his father; that he has forgiveness of sins; that he has such a great inheritance and closeness to other children?

How Do I Get Into This Family?

First, hear the word of God explaining His will to you (Rom. 10:17).

Second, believe what must be done (Acts 16:11) and have faith that God will do His part (Heb. 11:6).

Third, repent of your sins and set out to follow-Christ (Lk. 13:3,5; Acts 26:20).

Fourth, confess Jesus is the Christ, the only begotten Son of God (Rom. 10:10; 1 John 4:15).

Fifth, be baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost and you will receive forgiveness of your sins (Acts 2:38) and addition by God into the church (Acts 2:47).

Sixth, in order to assure your inheritance, continue in obedience to Christ (Matt. 7:21; Rev. 2:10).

Examples of some others who were added into the family of God: Acts 2:1-42; 8:26-40; 16:27-34; 9:3-20; 22:1-21; 26:9-20.

Life in the Family

Now that you are a Christian, let us look at life in the family. Through His word God has revealed His will to us that we will be pleasing to Him if we obey Him (Heb. 5:9). Part of His will is that we are to do good to all men, especially to the household of faith (Gal. 6:10). We are to bear each others burdens (Gal. 6:2), strengthen each other (Rom. 14:17-19) and not tear each other down (Gal. 5:15; Jas. 3:14; 4:11). These commands are given to us as individuals. This individual responsibility is not so suprising, for in our physical families, if a brother or sister needs help we help them directly, we do not set-up a committee or any organization to help them. By these commands being individual responsibilities, each member of the family should be attuned and responsive to the needs of his brothers and sisters (organizations have no understanding, love or concern).

Being close to each other has many effects: (1) People who see the closeness of this family relationship want to be a member of it. (2) Brethren who miss services are not alone in their problems. They have brethren, who will help and strengthen them. Brethren who are missing services have many different reasons: they are sick, they are watching someone who is sick, they , are visiting (hopefully another congregation), they are losing their faith. By being close to each other these problems can be faced and dealt with. If brethren are not close it is easy to wait (as a normal practice) until the missing brother finally makes it to services and ask the question, “I haven’t seen you at services for a while, why weren’t you here?” This is certainly a poor question, unless you are interested in taking their statement for historical purposes. The question should have been asked while they were missing the services, while they needed help, not after the crisis is past. Asking the question after the crisis is past only makes them bitter and wonder where their brothers’ genuine concern is. This is no way to treat brethren when they need help. (3) Brethren when they are together are more likely to act like Christians and are not so easily tempted. (4) Brethren see how each other live as Christians and therefore by example strengthen each other. (5) When brethren are close to each other they want to work together to do Gods’ will TOGETHER and to do the things that are necessary in supporting the work of the local congregation to the glory of their Father. (6) When brethren are close the attendance of the assembly goes up followed by an increase in new brethren.

A Family In Unity

True Christian fellowship must be based on one thing, the active desire to do the will of God (1 John 1:7). If we do not agree to do His will we are not acting like true children of God and divisions are caused among brothers and sisters and thus children of God are separated from each other and from their Father (Isa. 59:2). In effect not doing the will of the Father is saying, “not Thy will Father, but mine be done” (Jas. 4:11).

Understanding the kingdom/church in the family sense will help us to understand the way Christ prayed to His Father (John. 17:20-23; Mk. 14:36), why we should be emotionally close to Christ and our Father (Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6) and to each other. Understanding the church as a family gives greater dimension to our life in Christ. This true closeness shown by our obedience to our Father’ older Brother and our concern for each other is true fellowship in unity, based on our older Brother’s example, “not my will but, Thine be done.”

Conclusion

The church looked upon in the family sense is a magnet to Christians and non-Christians. To the Christian it provides the only source that helps him to obey God, receive forgiveness of his detestable sins, live in this world without being enslaved to it and the encouragement-love-warmth that makes living more than just getting by. To the non-Christian, he sees a closeness not achieved in his own family. He will always have family, he has a chance to be with those whom he believes are pleasing to God-a chance for him to be pleasing to God, and a chance to be free from his yoke of sin.

The family of God is the only family/organization through which eternal life is offered (Eph. 1:3-14). There is no doubt as to the will of the Father. His sincerity is shown by offering His only begotten Son that man might have forgiveness of sins in the short term and eternal life in the long term. This is only offered in Christ (Acts 4:10-12). How can we neglect such a great family salvation and how can those who are not Christians keep their eyes and hearts away from such a desirable family-salvation?

Truth Magazine, XX:2, p. 10-12
January 8, 1976

By Jimmy Tuten, Jr.

“For we know in part, and we prophesy in part, But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away” (1 Cor. 13:9-10). It will be the purpose of this writing to discuss the meaning of the expression: “when that which is perfect is come.”

The Problem Stated

There are basically two positions on this verse of Scripture. One position asserts that the expression refers to Christ, i.e., to the perfect state in heaven following the second coming of Jesus. Barnes says, “the sense here is, that in heaven-a state of absolute perfection-that which is ‘in part,’ or which is imperfect, shall be lost in superior brightness” (Barnes On The New Testament, Vol. 5, p. 254). Lenski says that the imperfection referred to still exists and that it will be removed only at the Parousia (a term denoting the second coming of Christ) of Jesus. He says “An entirely new way of apprehending, of seeing, and of knowing shall take its place” (Interpretation of I and II Corinthians, p. 566). It is thought that verse twelve of 1 Corinthians thirteen is the sustaining factor involved in this position.

The other position (one that harmonizes with the rest of the New Testament) is that the expression refers to the complete, perfect will of God made known to man through the process of Divine revelation. The position is clearly stated in the following quotation: “these gifts were to continue in the church to guide and instruct it until the completed will of God was made known” (Lipscomb, A Commentary On The New Testament Epistles, p. 200). Certainly men and women could only reach the stature of the fulness of Christ after full knowledge of God’s plan for man was revealed (Eph. 4:11-15).

The Context of the Passage

1 Cor. 12-14 is a section of Scripture dealing with “spiritual gifts.” It is introduced with the expression, “now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant” (verse one). The whole of this chapter is devoted to the enumeration of these gifts, three of which are mentioned in verses eight through ten of chapter thirteen. In addition to showing the more perfect way of love, chapter thirteen shows the duration of the spiritual gifts. They were to be operative until that which is “perfect” is come. Chapter fourteen concerns itself with a discussion of the regulation of these gifts. Observe therefore that the context clearly reveals that the spiritual gifts were given “in part” and that it was these items that were to be done away with (1 Cor. 13:9-10). When Paul says, “we know in part, and we prophesy in part,” he had reference to the revelation of God’s will that was then being made known through “prophecies,” “tongues,” and “knowledge” (1 Cor. 13:8). This is more evident by the statement: “Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?” (1 Cor. 14:6, italics mine, JTT). The spiritual gifts, miraculous in their nature, was God’s way of communicating His will to the early church. The early church did not have the will of God in written form as we have it, so God gave the church provisional gifts until written law was provided. Then the provisional, spiritual’ gifts were superseded, by the.; perfectly revealed will (Jas. 1:25; 2 Pet. 1:3). This becomes evident when one observes the contrasts of 1 Cor. 13:

(1) Contrast between spiritual gifts and love.

(2) Between that which fails and that which shall not cease.

(3) Between the part and the whole, the incomplete and the complete.

(4) Childhood state and the state of maturity.

(5) Knowledge in part and full knowledge.

(6) Between seeing things darkly and seeing them face to face.

As has been shown, the purpose of spiritual gifts was to complete Divine revelation. These gifts guided the ship of Zion during the revelation period when God’s will was being placed in written form. When the church reached the “stature of the fulness of Christ” (Eph. 4:13), the temporary gifts were done away.

That which is perfect could not possibly refer to Christ. We know for a fact that the spiritual gifts have ceased! Since the spiritual gifts have ceased we know that the perfect has come. But the second coming of Christ has not taken place! So, that which is perfect could riot refer to Christ’s coming. Then again, the context speaks of knowing fully (1 Cor. 13:12, 9-10). If this refers to knowing with the perfect knowledge that Christ has, then we would be elevated to the position that Christ occupies. This amounts to omniscience which Deity alone possesses. The Bible does not promise the Christian that he will have the full knowledge that Christ has and to the extent that God possesses it. Furthermore, Paul did not say “when He who is perfect is come,” but rather, “when that which is perfect.”

The word translated “perfect” is the Greek word teleios. It is defined as “having reached its end, finished, complete, perfect” (Vine, Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Vol. III, p. 173-174). When used of persons it has reference to attaining the full limits of stature (Heb. 5:14). When used of things it has reference to completion. That the word “perfect” in our text has reference to God’s completed revelation and not to Christ is seen in Vine’s comment: “referring to the complete revelation of God’s will and ways” (Vol. III, p. 174). It should be kept in mind that Jesus promised the Apostles that He would guide them into all truth (Jno. 16:13). If they were thus guided into all truth, then they would have been thus guided during their lifetime. This means that the faith once and for delivered would have been given by the time the last apostle died (Jude 3). Gifts, such as “words of wisdom,” “knowledge,” and “prophecy,” were all necessary vehicles for conveying this truth, but now that truth has been revealed, these are no longer necessary. It is a fact that instruction received directly from God by inspiration has ceased (Gal. 1:11-12). What could spiritual gifts do now, that the Word, fully revealed, confirmed and written cannot do? Nothing! Spiritual gifts or endowments were necessary to reveal, to confirm, and to complete revelation. They are not necessary to its perpetuation. So it is then, that in the absence of the complete revelation of the written Word, the church needed guidance and direction. This God provided through spiritual gifts, but now that His completed revelation has been written and recorded within pages of the New Testament, the church can stand on its own. The fact that God’s full will is revealed and His provisions for saving man is completed; the fact that spiritual gifts served this end, is set forth in Ephesians 4:11-15; please read it carefully!

Conclusion

The Church existed before any of the New Testament was written. The Holy Spirit guided its establishment, filled it with His presence, and wrote letters of instruction to it. The New Testament constitutes God’s will revealed through the Spirit (1 Cor. 2:1-13). Until that Will was revealed and written, the church went through a miraculous age when spiritual gifts served to edify and build it up (Eph. 4:1-16; 1 Cor. 14:4-5, 12-19, 26-33). In this way early Christians could abound “in hope, through the power of the Holy Ghost” (Rom. 1513). The inspired men could go before brethren “in demonstration of the Spirit and of power” (1 Cor. 2:4). The spiritual gifts were like tug-boats, guiding the church through perilous waters. They were necessary to bringing about the completion of the church and to guiding it until revelation was placed in written form. God gave gifts unto men for the perfecting of the saints and the edifying of the body of Christ.

Truth Magazine, XX:2; p. 9-10
January 8, 1976

By Mike Willis

Anytime that one person sets out to review the writings of another, there is a tendency to disagree with everything which that persons says. In trying to avoid the error in which the other wallows, one sometimes falls into an error equally as bad on the other side; in avoiding the Scylla, one sometimes falls into the Charybdis. I am trying to avoid making that mistake with reference to my review of Leroy Garrett’s series on “The Word Abused.”

In the September, 1975 issue (Vol. XVII, No. 7) of Restoration Review, editor Leroy Garrett considered our usage of Amos 3:3 which reads as follows: “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?”- (KJV). So long as he spoke with reference to this passage, I found myself in agreement with Garrett. Amos 3:3 is part of a series of cause-and-effect statements to establish Amos’ right and duty to prophesy. The context reads as follows:

“Do two men walk together unless they have made an appointment?

Does a lion roar in the forest when he has no prey?

Does a young lion growl from his den unless he has captured something?

Does a bird fall into a trap on the ground when there is no bait in it?

Does a trap spring up from the earth when it captures nothing at all?

If a trumpet is blown in a city will not the people tremble? If a calamity occurs in a city has not the Lord done it?

Surely the Lord God does nothing

Unless He reveals His secret counsel

To His servants the prophets.

A lion has roared! Who will not fear?

The Lord God has spoken! Who can but prophesy!” (3:3-8).

The cause-and-effect statements of this verse are written to show that the only reason Amos, a sheepherder and grower of sycamore figs from Tekoa, could consider himself a prophet was because God had called him. The word in 3:3 which must be dealt with is ya’ad (to agree-KJV); it is a Niphal (passive or reflective verb) verb which is defined as follows:

“1. Reflex. meet with any one at an appointed place, by appointment…. 2. Recipr. to meet together at an appointed time and place, by appointment … Am. 3,3.”1

“1. reflexive, meet at an appointed place…. 2. meet by appointment, Am. 3 3 . . .”2

The point of the verse is that Amos would not have been prophesying had God not called him (after all, Amos was neither a prophet nor a son of a prophet) the same as two people would not be walking together unless they had previously made an appointment to meet each other. The following commentators explain the meaning better than I can:

“The contents of these verses are not to be reduced to the general thought, that: a -prophet could no more speak without a divine impulse than any other effect could take place without a cause. There was certainly no need for a long series of examples, such as we have In very. 3-6, to substantiate or illustrate the thought, which a reflecting hearer would hardly have disputed, that there was a connection between cause and effect. The examples are evidently selected with the view of showing that the utterances of the prophet originate with God. This is obvious enough In vers. 7,8. The first clause, ‘Do two men walk together, without having agreed as to their meeting?’ (no’ad, to betake one’s sell to a place, to meet together at an appointed place’or an appointed time; compare Job ii:11, Josh. xi.5, Neh. vi.2; not merely to agree together) contains something more than the trivial truth, that two persons do not take a walk, together without a previous arrangement. The two who walk together are Jehovah and the prophet (Cyril); not Jehovah and the nation, to which the judgment is predicted. . . . Amos went as prophet to Samaria or Bethel, because the Lord had sent him thither to preach judgment on the sinful kingdom.”3

“The ‘two’ are God’s judgments and the prophet’s word. These do not coincide by mere chance, no more than two persons pursue in company the same end without previous agreement. The prophet announces God’s judgment because God has commissioned him; the prophet Is of one mind with God, therefore the Lord is with him and confirms his words.” 4

“The ‘two’ are Jehovah and the prophet. The prophet had been sent to Israel to carry out a mission from Jehovah; it would be Jehovah’s judgment through the prophet’s word. The prophet’s presence at Beth-el was by divine appointment.”5

Actually, had Garrett stopped with his exposition of Amos 3:3, I would have voiced only an “Amen” to what he said; I might have had some minor disagreements with his exposition but nothing of enough. consequence to have sought to reply to it. Furthermore, I would have concurred that our usage of Amos 3:3 with reference to a discussion of unity was an abuse of the Scriptures. But Garrett did not stop there. No, Garrett used the occasion to propagate his unity-in-diversity basis of fellowship. Read what he wrote:

“It Is Incredible that a misinterpretation could catch hold as this one has on Amos 3:3. One can hear It at college lectureships and from many pulpits, and he can read it in papers, books and church bulletins. ‘Can two walk together except they be agreed?’ is made to teach the people cannot be together, united In Jesus, and enjoying the fellowship of the saints unless they be agreed on everything or most: everything. One opposing societies or classes will insist that if he walks with a man, which Is made to refer to fellowship, the two of them will have to agree on societies and classes. If one is a premillennialist and another Is not, they can never ‘walk together’ until they see the issue alike. If the other fellow has an organ or piano at his church, fellowship is. impossible until he gives it up and comes over to our side, for we have to ‘be agreed’ if we ‘walk together.’ And there is no way, of course, for a Baptist and a member of the Church of Christ to share Jesus together since they are not ‘agreed’ on all the points of doctrine.

“One can only conclude that some dear soul back yonder, a debater or an editor perhaps, lifted that verse completely from its context and gave it this weird interpretation. It Is rather easily memorized, and it makes a good argument for one who has already concluded that unity Is :dependent upon conformity. So it has lived on as part of our “stock in trade, a proof text that unity Is contingent upon endorsement and approval. If you do not ‘agree’ or approve or endorse a person’s position or practice, then unity and fellowship are Impossible. Amos 3:3 says so!

“But this is to brutalize the scriptures. So abusive is this that it not only neglects the context, but ft is made to say the very apposite to what the scriptures really teach on agreement and unity.”6

I deny that the Bible’ teaches unity-in-diversity in the sense which Leroy Garrett means it. (I recognize that diversity within the realm of lawful ‘items is permitted.) Here is the kind of unity in which he believes:

Each of our parties circumvents all this by demanding conformity on ‘the doctrinal issues,’ meaning of course the peculiar doctrinal stance of that particular sect. They might differ on what others divide over, while other differ on what they divide over, but they make sure that all others line up on what they call the issues or else. Quoting Amos 3:3 of course.

“We all admit that there are those basics that we must all accept. This Is why we all agree with the old slogan, ‘In matters of faith, unity; in matters of opinion, liberty; In all things, love.’ The faith that we are all to agree on is a matter of facts of Jesus, not theories about every question that comes up about the work, worship and organization of the church.’ Those things fall withing the category of opinion, and there is to be liberty, and this is why ‘unity in diversity’ is the only things that makes sense. It is the facts about Jesus-the facts are believed, the commands are obeyed, and the promises are accepted-that makes us one and unites us together In Christ. The disposition we make about instrumental music, supporting Herald of Truth, or forming agencies for the work of the church has nothing, but nothing to do with our being in fellowship together with Christ.” 7

“And yes, we may, for the time being, have to meet in separate houses because of our traditional hangups about organs, classes, cups, literature, tongues, or whatever. But it Is imperative that we realize that we are all in Jesus together in spite of these differences; and because we are in Jesus together we are sons of God together and brothers. Thank God, we are brothers! We must accept each other as such even if we do meet separately.

One thing we can do now is to forget about that wildcat interpretation of Amos 3:3. An organic brother and an inorganic brother CAN walk together even if they don’t agree on that issue. And so with all, the rest of the opinions that we have allowed to separate us.”8

With these statements, I am in strong disagreement. Although our usage of Amos 3:3 has been incorrect, the conclusion does not follow that unity-in-diversity is true! There are other texts which demonstrate the veracity of unity-in-truth; the doctrine does not need Amos 3:3 in order to stand. AI am’ willing to forget Amos 3:3 and resort to 1 Cor: 1:10; Rom. 16:17-18 2 Jn. 9-11; etc. for confirmation that doctrinal agreement is necessary for unity.

Actually, Garrett recognizes that doctrinal unity is essential on some points. Thus, he wrote, “We all admit that there are those basics that we all must accept.”9 (Are you saying that one must believe in unity in doctrine, mere bland conformity, Brother Garrett?) That is correct; but, we differ in deciding what these basics are. Garrett is willing to say that instrumental music, sponsoring churches, missionary societies, etc. are not among the essentials. He goes even further to say that they are mere “hangups”-i.e., prejudices that arise somewhere other than through our study of the scriptures. I am not ready to admit that because I do not believe that it is true! If you are willing to concede these points, you are willing to concede what I will not.

Neither Garrett nor any of his cohorts have proven that instrumental music, sponsoring churches, institutionalism, making recreation a part of the church’s work, etc. are in the realm of lawful items and, therefore, qualified to be considered opinions. I might just as well label one’s doctrine about Jesus in the realm of opinion as to label any of the above. My “say-so” is worth just as much as Leroy Garrett’s “say-so.” If you are willing to accept his “say-so” that instrumental music is in the realm of opinion, you logically must accept my “say-so” that one’s doctrine about Jesus (whether it be the doctrine held by the Jews or modernists) is in the realm of opinion. The alternative to this is to demand that both of us prove by the Scriptures that what we assert is true. Until Garrett and his cohorts can prove that these items are authorized, and therefore qualified to be called expedient items, we cannot treat them as opinions; rather, we must treat them as unauthorized innovations.

Though I am not in disagreement with Garrett’s exegesis of Amos 3:3; I am in total disagreement with his conclusion that fellowship can be maintained between those who oppose instrumental music in worship, sponsoring churches, recreation as part of the work of the church, etc. and those who support them. When you hear brethren methodically trying to discharge every passage which we have used to stop false teachers, you had better beware. Are you ready to concede that mechanical instruments of music in worship, sponsoring churches, recreation as part of the work of the church, etc. are scriptural? That is where they are heading. Personally, I am not going to wait until they get there before I start fighting them!

FOOTNOTES

1. William Gesenius, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Co., 1888), p. 408.

2. Frances Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1907), p. 416.

3. Carl Friedrich Keil, The Twelve Minor Prophets (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1951), p. 260.

4. W. J. Deane, The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1950), Vol. XIV, p. 40.

5. Homer Hailey, A Commentary on the Minor Prophets (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1972), pp. 99-100.

6. Leroy Garrett, “The Word Abused . . . ‘Can Two Walk Together Except They Be Agreed,’ ” Restoration Review, XVII, No. 7 (September, 1975), p. 123.

7. Ibid., p. 124.

8. Garrett, Op. Cit., p. 125.

9. Garrett, Op. Cit., p. 124.

Truth Magazine, XX:2, p. 7-8
January 8, 1976

By Jeffery Kingry

“Orphans reared in a mental institution by caring, mentally retarded women fare much better-physically, intellectually, and socially-than do similar children reared in a state run orphanage by trained but busy, matrons” (Robert T. Trotter, Science News, Vol. 108, No. 41).

With this bold assertion the writer of an article in a leading science magazine cites the unavoidable conclusion of a study on child-rearing spanning forty years.

This thesis was first postulated by H. M. Skeels in the 1930s, and it shocked Psychologists, especially those who believed that intelligence was a strictly genetical inheritance. The Skeels’ study and others like it eventually forced the closing down of the huge institutions of the depression that were used as warehouses for unwanted children.

The original study was made at the Iowa State orphanage forty years ago. The children were kept in bleak barracks, many of the buildings dating back to the Civil War. Infants were stored in cribs draped with white sheets to prevent the children from seeing each other. The infants had few toys and their only human contacts were with busy nurses who did little more than feed and change them on schedule. At the age of two those who survived (There is a 35% death rate among institutionalized infants) were moved into “family cottages” where they ate and slept according to rigid schedule. At the age of six they received a minimal sort of schooling on the orphanage grounds.

The study grew out of a casual observation early in the 1930s by H. M. Skeels of two young girls. Skeels described them as “pitiful little creatures.” The children were always crying, had runny noses, and little or no hair. They were undersized, sad, and inactive, and spent most of their time rocking back and forth on their beds. After testing, it was suggested that the children’s intellectual quotient (I.Q.) was 50 or less. Because of their extremely poor mental and physical condition; it was unlikely that these girls would be adopted. They were transferred to a home for the mentally retarded.

A while later Dr. Skeels, who also had clinical duties at the home for the retarded, visited the wards and was surprised to discover “two outstanding little girls. They were alert, smiling, running about, responding to the playful attention of adults and generally behaving and looking like any other toddlers.” Skeels tested them and found their I.Q. normal. Another test a year later again proved their normal and growing intelligence.

What had happened to these children? The sole difference was that they had been loved, cuddled, talked to, and provided an environment of confidence. They had been placed separately on wards with retarded adults. Each had been “adopted” by a “foster mother” who had plenty of time to devote to a child. Other women on the wards considered themselves to be “aunts” and shared in the care taking responsibilities. Convinced that the stimulating and loving environment of a “family” was responsible for their improvement Dr. Skeels attempted to demonstrate it in a controlled experiment. Thirteen preschool children who were tested as mentally retarded or coming from mothers who were mentally retarded were transferred to the adult home of mental retardation. All of the children came from educationally and economically deprived backgrounds.

These children started with an initial I.Q. average of 64 at 18 months. All gained 7 to 45 points in their I.Q. while at the institution. At age six, the mean I.Q. showed a total gain of 31 points. When seen as adults all were independent and self-supporting. Two other groups of children were placed in the homes of normal families before six months of age. All of these children came from severely retarded or disturbed mothers. In normal families they overcame their “high risk” status and became successful as adults.

The “control group” was not so fortunate. Twelve children, who had been normal as infants, for one reason or another were not placed in homes, or moved to the adult retardation home. After two to four years in the orphanages, it was found that these children were no longer normal in their development. One child with an I.Q. of 99 at 14 months, by age three had dropped to an I.Q. of 54, and by five this poor child’s I.Q. had dropped to 35-severely mentally retarded. By the age of eight, nine of the twelve had been transferred to the institution for the mentally retarded-as residents, not for therapeutic reasons. When seen as adults, ten of the twelve had spent nearly all of their lives in institutions.

“These fit the classical stereotype of the mentally retarded: minimally skilled, unemployed or unemployable: They had a singular barren, affectionless, detached childhood.” The state had taken 12 infants, and at tax-payer expense made mentally retarded adults from normal healthy children. In the words of Skeels, “The evidence speaks for itself.”

Nothing Replaces You

What man can demonstrate by the scientific method God has already revealed in His Word. True religious service before God is to care for the fatherless and the widow in their time of trouble (Jas. 1:27). Contrary to the belief and practice of some brethren, “care” is not provided by institutionalizing them. Providing for the needs of the thirsty man, is to give the thirsty man what he needs and lacks: water. The need of the fatherless and widow is family. Putting them in a building and providing for their food and clothing meets a need, but not the one they really desire, and certainly does not meet God’s standard of “pure religion.” I pray for the day the doors of all orphanages open and the children are allowed to enter and become part of the homes of Christians.

And parents, whoever fails to care for his own relatives, especially those in his own household has in fact repudiated the faith. He has no right to say he is a Christian. He is worse than any unbeliever (1 Tim. 5:8). “Care” is not just caring for the physical needs of a family. A nurse or matron, or robot, could care for these duties. Parents owe their family, before God and at his command, “to love their children … be keepers at home” (Tit. 2:4,5): There is no such thing in the eyes of God. as a “sometimes parent.” May God’s damnation come down in judgment on women’s lib and all day-care centers! These rebellious unbelievers are raising a godless, lost generation. “A. good man leaveth an inheritance to his children’s children” (Prov. 13:22). “A child left to himself bringeth his mother shame” (Prov. 29:15). Brethren, both the evidence and the testimony of God speak eloquently for themselves.

Truth Magazine, XX:2, p. 5-6
January 8, 1976