Truth Magazine

By Jeffery Kingry

Faith as described in the Bible is not mere mental assent to the deity of Jesus Christ. Neither is it just the outward acts of obedience which put us into Christ. Faith is a way of life.

There is no difficulty involved in recognizing an individual who has faith in something. I have seen materialistic Communists in S.E. Asia who had such a driving faith in their form of political view that it moved them to leave home and family for decades, to live under primitive conditions, always in fear of death, and dread of capture. They willingly chose this life of lonely furtiveness to further the cause of Communism. I have spoken to atheistic liberals who believe that the hope of mankind rests upon humanism. These individuals are more than willing to spend their lives and their money in the advancement of their ideal. They are eager to gamble their comfort and future on the chance that a man-made utopia might be achieved. To the Christian, to whom this world is but a precursor to life everlasting, this must seem ludicrous. Yet, these children of the world are willing to risk all they are and have, that perhaps, in another generation, good might come. How true it is that “the children of this world in their generation are wiser than the children of light.”

The writer of the Hebrew letter described faith as the foundation of our expectation of all spiritual and physical blessings. Through our faith we have a living hope that God will keep his promise of salvation and heaven, if we continue faithful to him (Heb. 11). Paul further said that “we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for” (Rom. 8:24)? Herein lies the true test of faith. By faith Noah, being warned of God, spent a large portion of his life, and all of his substance constructing an Ark miles from any kind of water. Noah was willing to lay his life and energies on the line that he might save himself and his family (Heb. 11:7). It was through faith that Abraham left the ease and comfort of Ur and struck out through the desert to a place that he had never seen before. He left wealth and means, to dwell in a tent as a nomad, so that some day he might find a spiritual city, like none that he left behind (Heb. 11:8-10). Faith then is not something that is, but something that does.

Can we imagine our heritage if Noah had said, ”I don’t know Lord… A boat that size? The nearest water to float that thing is at least a thousand miles away! And the size that you specified would take years for me and my sons to build; it’s for sure that I’ll get no help from my neighbors. Are you sure that it will be worth all the trouble and expense? Isn’t there some other way for you to save me and my household?”

Would Abraham have been the one God chose for the lineage of Christ if he had been the kind of man that would have said, “Go where Lord, Canaan? I never heard of the place. Just a lot of foreigners out there. And what’s all this business of making me a great nation? You can’t do, anything with a dried up old 75 year old man, and Sarah is way past tier childbearing years. I have so much right here in Ur couldn’t I just be a good steward right around home?”

It all depends on what we think is important. Faith never tried, never stepped out upon, is not faith. The Christian who must see the final good of his work before he begins it does not work in hope or faith. The Christian who questions God’s plan of work for the church with “what good will it do?” is not a man of faith, but one of sight.

The New Testament describes a man who walked by faith: his name was Epaphroditus. This good Christian brought the gifts of the brethren in Philippi to Paul while Paul was in prison. Epaphroditus stayed in Rome to be Paul’s servant, and to see to Paul’s needs. Epaphroditus gave so much of himself that he lost his health and almost died. Paul said, “Because of the work of Christ he was nigh unto death, not regarding his life, to supply your lack of service to me” (Phil. 2:30). The word that is translated “not regarding his life” is a gambler’s word: paraboleuesthai. It means to cast everything down for a chance, or to stake all at a risk. What Paul is saying is that Epaphroditus gambled or put his life on the line, that Christ’s cause might be advanced.

William Barclay relates that there was an association of men and women in the second century who called themselves the parabolani, the gamblers. It was their aim in life to visit the sick and those in prison, especially those, who were ill with infectious diseases. It was through their effort in 252 A.D. that the city of Carthage was saved from the destruction of the plague, even after the heathen had abandoned the city. The church today needs more men who would be willing to gamble with their lives and their resources that the gospel might be preached. Some are not willing to let go even of their purse strings for Christ. “And if, therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust true riches” (Luke 16:11)?

The lives of those Biblical characters who were characterized by faith were men who were willing to stake all they had on the Lord’s promise. Do we have many such men of faith today?

Truth Magazine, XVIII:44, p. 2
September 12, 1974

By Luther Blackmon

J. Edgar Hoover, head of the FBI, has repeatedly told us that the greatest factors in preventing juvenile delinquency and crime are discipline and the influence of religion in their lives. Statistics show that a very small percentage of the people in our penal institutions have ever attended church regularly. Less than five percent, I believe. But parents are not impressed. Only 51 percent of the people in this country are even “church related,” as they put it. And only a small percentage of the 51 percent attend worship more than three times a year. In the church of Christ, you can find as many who don’t attend as you can find who do. It would be safe to say that less than 25 percent of the youth attend worship except on “special” occasions. The one thing that would exercise the greatest influence in their lives to keep them from crime and delinquency, to say nothing of the salvation of their souls, the parents don’t give them. They give them money to spend, parks, playgrounds, dance halls, country clubs and nearly everything else that appeals to the flesh. But the one thing that has proven most effective, they deny them: The example of godly, church-going, Bible-reading parents.

There are many reasons for this. One is the utter spiritual bankruptcy of these parents. They care nothing for God until tragedy strikes them or they think they are going to die. Dad spends $25 or $50 a year for newspapers and knows all about current happenings. Mother may belong to the Book of the Month Club, or spends long hours at canasta or some other game. The children know about science fiction and Elizabeth Taylor. They spend an average of 36 hours a week in front of the TV set – smaller children. But the Bible is a keepsake. It is the depository for old pictures and locks of hair. Not much chance of their bieng lost there because that is one book that is seldom touched. On the Lord=s day these parents are too tired to go to worship. So they wash the car or cut the grass or play a game of golf or visit some friends of play poker while their children observe the fine examples their parents are setting. This sort of conduct is understandable in parents who deny the existence of God, heaven or hell, and who believe that the bible is folklore. But for parents who recognize that their children have not only a body and an intellect, but also a soul, there is no excuse. There is no city of refuge where they may hide when the day of reckoning comes. Juvenile crime is constantly on the increase. But don=t blame the kids too much. They did not ask for the kind of parents they have.

(Written several years ago.)

Truth Magazine, XVIII, 45, p. 13-14
September 5, 1974

By James Sanders

Friendship is one of the more noble treasures of life. There is nothing quite like a good friend. When adversity strikes, the good friend is constant. He is the same whether we are in wealth or in need: “A friend loveth at all times, and a brother is born for adversity” (Prov. 17:17). Friendship improves happiness and abates misery. It doubles our joy and divides our grief (Addison). Two are better than one.

Comfort and Candor

Friends are for comfort but friends are also for candor: “Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful” (Prov. 27:6). There is a sincere frankness between friends-a frankness tempered with tenderness. Friendship is something that is built through a labor of love. It is the work of a lifetime. We are bound to other men by every sort of tie: by blood, by fear, by admiration, and by circumstances. But friendship finds its bonds in the tenderness of the heart. Friends are truthful. The friend who will not openly rebuke us is not worth the name. And the man who gives counsel without respecting our feelings, likewise is not our friend.

Close friendships are rare and therefore the more precious. Jonathan’s friendship for David was an once-in-a-lifetime blessing for both. Jonathan loved David as he loved his own soul (1 Sam. 20:16). And when Jonathan died, David lamented, “I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women” (2 Sam. 1:26). The death of Jonathan was an irreparable loss. David never again had another friend like Jonathan. “The loss of a friend is like that of a limb; time may heal the anguish of the wound, but the loss cannot be repaired” (Southey). Close friends are rare and are few. A host of acquaintances is not what helps us. A few close friends are better and stand in a class by themselves: “A man of many friends comes to ruin, But there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother” (Prov. 18:24, NASB).

Warmth and Joy

The warmth of friendship is the best blessing of all. There is that healthy clash between friends which invigorates the soul: “Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend” (Prov. 27:17). Friendship is too good to be believed. Remember how your heart leaped the last time you saw the face of an old friend you had not seen in years? Remember your laughter and your tears-and how time itself seemed to stand still? There was neither Winter nor night as both of you relived the memories of the past. This is friendship and friendship at its best. Heaven will be like this. When we cross the River of Death, our friends will be on the other shore to welcome us. “At last!” they will shout. But no one will weep for there are no tears in that country (Rev. -21:4). Friendship sharpens the countenance. Friendship touches the heart and makes nobler men of us all. Friendship is one of God’s good gifts.

Because friendship is precious, it needs to be cherished. We take care of our health; we lay up our money and make our roof tight. But we neglect the best property of all-our friends. Friendship must be cherished. It is worthy of respect. It is worthy of courtesy. It is worthy of tact. There are certain bounds beyond which not even a good friend should venture. It is easy to outstay our welcome in more ways than one: “Withdraw thy foot from thy neighbour’s house; lest he be weary of thee, and so hate thee” (Prov. 25:17). Friendship needs to be cherished and never betrayed. The disgrace of Judas lies in that he betrayed a good friend. His deed has ever since lived in infamy. Not even the soldiers who crucified Christ are remembered like Judas. Friendship is a sacred trust.

(Credit should be paid to Derek Kidner, The Proverbs. His comments were most illuminating. The essay, “Friendship,” by Ralph Waldo Emerson was also rich with suggestions. Some of the thoughts and words I used were from the pen of Emerson.)

Truth Magazine, XVIII:43, p. 13
September 5, 1974

By Mike T. Rogacs

Each year for about three to four months I find myself taking an unpopular stand on a certain issue, a practice which many of my brethren are content to continue to expound and to do. Each year I get so many funny looks and sly remarks that I am simply tired of my stand, and in this article I hearby call on somebody, anybody to show me the scriptural reasons why my convictions on this issue are wrong so that I can put aside this unpleasant task of objecting.

I am talking about someone who can justify to me the yearly warm-air practice of taking off nearly all of a person’s clothing, except for one or two small pieces of cloth which are designed to cover certain areas and to wear this attire in public swimming areas, thereby being thusly clothed in the presence of and with members of the opposite sex. In fact, I wish someone would justify this practice because I, too, greatly enjoy swimming in water and exposing my skin to healthy sunshine. Since I do not approve of God’s sanctified children disrobing to the bare minimum and swimming with those of the opposite sex (unless it is a wife or a husband in private), I have to find private ponds and streams to enjoy swimming and sun-bathing, and finding them is often difficult. I even learned to love the salty sea-water in Florida when a bunch of us boys at Florida College found an out-of-the-way area on the beaches where we could swim out of the view of other people. But not long ago a fellow preacher and another friend wanted to go to a public pool and I had to turn down the invitation to swim in public-after they had tactfully showed their annoyance at my suggestion that it might be wrong for them to also go.

But until someone is willing and able to justify this practice of pleasure to me, I will continue to bear up under the criticism that I am a “nut” or a party spoiler and will continue to strongly object to God’s Holy children swimming with nearly no clothing on, with members of the opposite sex. I had been taught by Christians even before I was baptized in obedience to God’s will that public swimming in modern beach attire was wrong and sinful because it was one form of what the Bible calls lasciviousness. In Galatians 5:19, lasciviousness is named as one of the works of the flesh; in Ephesians 4:19 it is one of the sins of those who are spiritually “past feeling,” those who have had their understanding darkened. It is clear that any form of lasciviousness should not be named among God’s enlightened children.

The definition of the Greek word for lasciviousness is as follows: “denotes excess, licentiousness, absence of restraint, indecency, wantonness” (W. E. Vine). Thayer adds “shamelessness.” Any act which is indecent, shameful, wanton or in excess is sinful. (Webster defines “wanton” as “unchaste; lewd;” “chaste” means “modest, not indecent; restrained and simple in style.”) With these thoughts in mind, can it be said that public swimming is “lasciviousness”? I believe so for the following reasons:

1. 1 Timothy 2:9–At least one half of God’s people are directly commanded to wear “modest apparel with shamefacedness and sobriety.” Oh, yes, in context the reference is to gaudy clothing (1 Peter 3:1-6 also), but the thought is that it is wrong to dress in excess. No First Century woman in her right mind would have dared run around in a swim-type attire, but she might overly dress. Both are excesses: excessively over-dressed and excessively underdressed; both are done to attract the opposite sex.

We do not find the same command given to men, but is it not simple that excess in dress is wrong for them likewise? One brother told me, “But it is different for men. Women do not lust after a man’s body as men lust after women.” Now, how gullible can we get! I have read of and even in my presence have had women and girls admit that when they see men in swim suits, there is a very real element of lust on their part. Perhaps a man can argue that the lust is not as great as a man’s lust, but it still exists! That brother used this thought to expound the opinion that Christian women should not swim in public, but Christian men could. He reasoned that he was not going to be there to lust, but to swim, and since women do not lust after men, he could be there. This reasoning (?) leads us to our next observation.

2. Matthew 5:27-28-Jesus said it is just as wrong to look on a woman and to lust after her as it is to actually commit adultery. It seems clear that a man should not go so far as to put himself in a situation where he will (or “might”) have an extremely easy and abundant view of nearly undressed women (Christian women or not, by the way). You have that easy view when women are in swimming or sun-bathing atire. If it was not so disheartening at the time, I would have split my side in laughter when that brother said that he “didn’t go there to lust” but to swim! Is he not human? Are we not all human? There are many things we may not intend to do, but when we find ourselves surrounded by temptation, it is far more difficult not to yield. Why place ourselves chin-deep in temptation, when it is not at all necessary to do so?

It was also said by this brother that it was wrong for a woman to go swimming in public (but not a man). Why? Are we to assume that all women go swimming to lust? Would that be just as right as his statement or not? But I guess that the brother really meant that someone might lust after her, so she should not even unwillingly tempt another. If that is what he meant, now he is getting on the right track! It is indecent, unchaste, lewd, immodest for a Christian woman (or any woman) to be in a situation where she will be nearly undressed and open to public view and thereby tempt others, even unawares, or be tempted herself. But let us not forget that it is likewise, indecent, unchaste, lewd, immodest for a Christian man (or any man) to be so undressed and to place himself in a situation where it will be quite easy to lust after the opposite sex or give place for them to lust after him.

Let us be honest in our thinking. Why is it that so many people like to “hit the beaches”? Is it only to swim and sun bathe, and no more? Let us not become so naive as to believe that. A great deal of motivation is to find a seemingly socially accepted way of showing off the human body to the world and/or to “enjoy the sights” one’s self. Someone always repeats, “But I don’t go for that reason!” If a person truly wishes only to enjoy the swim and the health benefits of the sun, then why can it not be done in a private area with the opposite sex not in presence? It can be done. I do it. In the past, all like minded Christians have done so to avoid placing themselves in a position to lust or to cause others to lust. When it comes to institutional issues in the church, everyone who is of sound thinking remembers Paul’s exhortation that when you cause a brother to violate his conscience; you sin (1 Cor. 8:12). But it seems that when it comes to personal pleasures, we forget that we sin when we cause another to commit sin, even when we give another the opportunity to lust after our bodies. Remembering that one of the terms in the definition of “lasciviousness” was “absence of restraint,” the unwillingness to restrain one’s self from public swimming, even for influence sake, seems to fit the definition of lasciviousness.

There are other reasons for my conviction on this matter such as 1 Thessalonians 5:22, to “abstain from all appearance of evil,” but I can almost hear the ringing in my ears: “But who says swimming is evil?” People will always close their eyes when a personal pleasure or view is involved. We must learn the lesson that the act of swimming is not wrong. It is the exposition of your body to the opposite sex that is wrong. When I look at today’s standards of morality in society, with sex splashed across the movie screen, in magazines and even in the streets, I almost feel that I am shouting in the dark.

As I mentioned, anymore this seems to be an unpopular conviction to hold among our brethren. The childish reasoning that “Everyone in the community does it. Why can’t God’s people” rules the day. I am weary of the verbal consequences of my holding this view. It would be nice if someone could show me that the scriptures show that God approves of such skimpy atire in public. But no matter how weary I might become, if no one can come up with such a justifying and truthful answer, I must continue to declare that the practice of publicly taking off nearly all of a person’s clothing for any cause is lasciviousness and is therefore sinful.

(Did somebody hear someone whispering something about dancing?)

Truth Magazine, XVIII:43, p. 11-12
September 5, 1974