Truth Magazine

By Karl Diestelkamp

You have just quoted 1 Tim. 2:9, 10 and are making application of it to the sisters who come to worship in their mini-skirts and who sit with these, hiked up to mid-thigh or above. Before you finish, someone boldly proclaims, “If it bothers you, you must have a dirty mind.” Of course you are supposed to hang your head in shame and with red face retreat to some inconspicuous place to repent. You have been answered!

Says Who? Not So!

This is one man who refuses to surrender the fight to such flimsy defense. I challenge you to reread 1 Tim. 2:9, 10. Now, you define behavior relating to the word “adorn,” in the light of the words “modest, shamefacedness, sobriety” and “professing godliness.” Get your Bible out and defend what you practice.

Some would have us believe that a clear definition and understanding of “modesty” is forever vague and elusive. Of course, this is exactly the same approach effeminates use in reference to the word “long” (1 Cor. 11:14) when defending feminine hairdos on men, and that alcoholics use when discussing “much wine” (1 Tim. 3:3) to justify social drinking. But that smoke screen won’t work. We are still waiting for the definition that will allow the mini-skirt that at the same time will not allow for even more extreme nudity. Brethren, give us the rule by which you walk!

If some sincere brother asks to be excused from passing the Lord’s supper, because his sisters in Christ sit immodestly, he frequently gets the “dirty mind” reply. He is not admitting lust, he is simply seeking to avoid evil and resist temptation. Yet, one man was heard to remark, “If you have trouble with temptation when you see a sister in Christ in a short skirt at worship, you must really have problems when you are on the street where this is seen everywhere.” What is this supposed to prove? Is a man freed from the temptation of lust because the immodest woman claims to be a Christian? Isn’t this really an admission that immodesty is a problem everywhere?

I seriously propose the following comparison. When on the street-in the grocery store at the filling station-at school, etc., our ears are assaulted with profanity, vulgarity and obscenities of all kinds. We must guard our thoughts from any evil thus suggested lest we be led to think on those things. But, when we go to worship services, or into homes of our brethren in Christ, we never expect to hear such language we don’t talk like the world. Likewise, on the street, and nearly everywhere in the world, are to be found immodest women, suggestively displaying their bodies. We must guard our minds lest we be led to think on those things. But, when we go to worship services or into the homes of our brethren in Christ, we should find a haven from such sources of temptation – we don’t dress like the world – Do we?

There is no question that the man must control his thoughts. Jesus warned, “. . . whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart” (Matt. 5:28). More men must do as Job did when he said, “I made a covenant with mine eyes; why then should I think upon a maid?” The man is cautioned to guard against lust at all times, regardless of the way the woman is dressed. Isn’t it logical to conclude that the woman ought to guard against being a source of that temptation, regardless of the kind of men who may be around?

A few years ago a man, whom I know, was as strong as the proverbial “horse-radish” on the subject of modesty. Then his “little girls” became “big girls” and his attitude changed. He says he could force his daughter to wear longer dresses, but if that was the only reason she wore them it wouldn’t help her. That conclusion is debatable-But, to say the least, he did not stop to consider the boys and men that might be helped if she covered up properly. Are you so naive as to think that every boy or man tempted to lust after your immodest, grown up, “little girl” is possessed of a “dirty mind” while she is as pure as the driven snow? If she doesn’t know what purpose the mini-skirt serves, isn’t it high time you repent of your own negligence and direct her into the right course of conduct? We need more husbands who know their place in the family (Eph. 5:23) and who will instruct their wives and daughters regarding modesty. Likewise we need more wives who know their place (Eph. 5:22; 1 Pet. 3:1-51 who will “submit” to such instruction and more daughters who will “honor” and “obey” (Eph. 6:1,2) their fathers.

No doubt there are some brethren with “dirty minds,” but you won’t hear them complaining about immodest clothing. We do not defend one with a “dirty mind” and neither do you. Then why, pray tell, are so many so eager to defend the sister who wears immodest clothing when they know and she knows that such exposure of her body may be a stumbling block to some brother in Christ? We are tempted to ask, “Who cares about whom?”, but we won’t ask. Since when is it a sign of a “dirty mind” to try to “abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul” (1 Pet. 2:11) and to “abstain from all appearance of evil” (1 Thess. 5:22) or to try to get other brethren (sisters included) to “have the same care one for another” (1 Cor. 12:25)? Wives, mothers, daughters, sisters-just what does your apparel indicate you are professing?

Truth Magazine, XVIII:24, p. 13-14
April 18, 1974

By Jeffery Kingry

“Suppose you had the opportunity to talk with a leading Biblical scholar on a man-to-man basis. Suppose that he was willing )or the conversation to be published. Now, suppose the scholar was the world renown commentator and author Dr. F. F. Bruce, of England’s Manchester University – what would you ask him . . . .” (Fudge, Edward, Gospel Guardian, “Interview With F. F. Bruce,” Jan. 31, 1974, Vol. 25, No. 38)?

Brother Fudge asks an interesting question. What would one ask a world-wide known scholar? Here is an opportunity given by the Lord’s providence which never again may be presented. If one were interested in ingratiating oneself, the question might be designed to draw out a favorable response. If one wanted to build up a reputation as a great scholar, the question might reflect those ostentatious desires. But if one sincerely desired to lead a soul to life, the question might have been, “Why are you not a Christian?”

Questions asked in the Word of God by teachers of truth have always been ultimately designed to lead the sinner unto truth and salvation, no matter what the fame and worldly power of the sinner: “Understandest thou what thou readest” (Acts 8:30)? “Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me” (Acts 9:4)? “O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord” (Acts 13:10)? “Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God” (Acts 14:15).

It is with a great sense of weariness and shame that we find our brethren more interested in intellectual exercise, the “exegesis,” the “theology” of the Bible – the “mental hike” – rather than the application of God’s truth. We are truly “disciplined” in the word of God when we do his commandments (1 Jno. 2:3,4). The man who claims to “know” the Bible and yet does not practice its precepts, deceives himself, and in truth “knows” nothing (1 Jno. 2:5,6).

The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation – not the intellect, the effort, or the charisma of man. What is important, good brethren? Is it the learned commentaries, the sublime books of theology, the college degrees and all they entail? “And I brethren, when I came unto you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. For I determined not to know anything among you save Jesus Christ and him crucified . . . and my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom . . . that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God” (1 Cor. 2:15).

There is so much wrong with what you did, good brethren . . . but basically what is most tragic is that you let a man who perhaps is “not far from the Kingdom of God” leave without ”reasoning of righteousness, temperance, and the judgment to come” (Acts 24:25). What is so unutterably sad, is that you had something to give to him, not he to you . . . and you did not even know it. The truth that could have saved him eternally was not as important to those who should be declaring it as the scholarship of the one they should have taught.

Paul could say, “Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men, for I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God” (Acts 20:26, 27). We have nothing to learn from the unprofitable works of darkness, we are rather to reprove those in darkness that they might see the light (Eph. 5:11). A man’s scholarship is nothing if it costs him his soul. Yet, honor and deference, praise and glory are given to one who is not even least in the kingdom of heaven. There was no love or respect shown unto F. F. Bruce. If you love a man, you give him what he needs. Mr. Bruce needed the blood of Jesus, and those who could have given, did not.

“Unto you, O men, I call: and my voice is unto the sons of man. O ye simple, understand wisdom: and ye fools, be ye of an understanding heart . . . the fruit of the righteous is a tree of lifee; and he that winneth souls is wise” (Prov. 8:1,5; 11:30).

Truth Magazine, XVIII:24, p. 9-10
April 18, 1974

By Herschel Patton

We have been saddened lately by a few brethren, mostly among the young, abandoning strict adherence to a “thus saith the Lord” and casting their lot with liberal brethren, even to the extent of “open fellowship” with the denominations – as advocated by Carl Ketcherside. Several young preachers, who were brought up on “soundness,” are numbered with these. The question naturally arises, how and why did this happen? What led to this radical change in their belief and actions?

Conditions A Contributing Factor

Most of these young people grew up in the “thick of the fight” against liberalism. Their parents (some of their fathers were preachers) stood firm for truth, demanding a “thus saith the Lord” for everything, and consequently were opposed, ridiculed, slandered, maligned, and sometimes made to suffer socially and economically by the liberal minded who pressed for unscriptural practices. These young people grew up with “trouble in the church,” and were, themselves, made to suffer as their parents were among those hated “antis,” in the minority, and in many cases put in economic straits. They were sick and tired of all the bickering, contending, debating, and disfellowshipping, going on. They wondered about the love and unity they had heard so much about. They knew true love demanded exposure and dethronement of soul destroying things, and that loyalty to Christ must be maintained, even to the alienation of father and son, mother and daughter, brother and brother, etc., but in the midst of such standing, love and unity seemed obscure. It was a confusing situation. These conditions made those who thus grew up ripe for a teaching (theory) that would allow fellowship in the midst of differences. This is exactly the teaching of Carl Ketcherside. He tells the confused young, there was, and is, no need for all this contending, charging (you are liberal – you anti), and disfellowshipping, and consequently, the suffering you have endured because of it, for the Lord’s word provides for love and fellowship even though there are differences. But, just how does he argue this?

Gospel And Doctrine

It is argued that “the gospel” only involves the things about Christ, the scheme of redemption, and does not include the epistles or instruction given to saints. Such passages as Jude 3 (“Contend for the faith”) and 2 Jno. 9 (“Abide not in the doctrine of Christ”) have only to do with things about Christ and His mission. Therefore the only differences that would break fellowship would be a failure to believe in Christ and obey the gospel. As long as one believes that Christ is the Son of God and obeys the commands of the gospel, he is contending for the faith and abiding in the doctrine. Questions about the worship of saints, organization and work of the church are no part of “the faith,” but merely human opinions and should never divide those in Christ. Now, if these contentions be true, then indeed, what brethren have been contending about, and dividing over, for the past two decades are immaterial. But, are these contentions so?

The Scriptures do not bear out the claim of a difference between the gospel, doctrine of Christ, and teaching in the epistles. Some perverted the gospel Paul preached to the Galatians, not by denying that Jesus had come in the flesh, died, was buried, and resurrected, but by trying to bind practices of the Mosaic law on Christians (Gal. 1:6-7). The “gospel” Paul laid before the apostles and elders in Jerusalem (Gal. 2:2; Acts 15) involved Jewish practices not being bound on Christians. Paul’s charge that, at a certain time, Peter and others “walked not according to the truth of the gospel” had to do with their refusing to fellowship Gentile Christians (Gal. 2:11-14). Truly, the gospel involves more than just things having to do with the divinity of Christ. “Observing all things whatsoever I have commanded you” is just as much “gospel obedience” as being baptized (Matt. 28:19-20). Paul addressed Christians, people who had obeyed the gospel, in Rome and said “I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also” (Rom. 1:15). This gospel that Paul preached in Rome was God’s power to save (vs. 16) and revealed the “righteousness of God from faith to faith.” Are all that is needed to be saved and be the righteousness of God in Christ included in the acceptance of the fact that Christ came in the flesh and compliance with the commands to repent and be baptized? What about the matter of being “raised to walk in newness of life” (Rom. 6:4), and “henceforth we should not serve sin” (vs. 6)? Paul says “the wrath of God is revealed . . . against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth (or gospel Paul preached) in unrighteousness” (vs. 18). Paul’s gospel, therefore, embraced not continuing the practice of sin or uncleanness (vs. 24). The teaching that gospel or doctrine of Christ only involves things about the Christ and not the’ teaching in the epistles, which would allow fellowship among all obedient believers while differing on the name, worship, organization, and mission of the church, is simply false teaching, based on a perversion of the Scriptures.

Romans 14 Also Perverted

In this chapter, Paul teaches that brethren who differ about observing days and eating meats must not “set at naught thy brother.” Likewise, it is claimed by “open fellowship-minded-brethren” that those who differ over the use of instrumental music in worship, the organization and mission of the church must not disfellowship one another. After all, they say, brethren differ over many other things (war question, the covering, posture in prayer, etc.) and continue fellowship, so why not with reference to matters over which we do disfellowship?

According to the teaching in this chapter, brethren may differ over things which are personal and individual in their nature, wherein “to his own master he standeth or falleth” (Rom. 14:4), and continue fellowship. For one to press his feeling on others to the violation of their conscience in so acting would be wrong. To apply this passage to actions that do involve others, as worshiping with instruments of music, contributing funds to be used in unscriptural endeavors, or being a part of unscriptural body functioning, is to misapply it, or pervert it. The passage is properly applied, however, to such private, individual matters as the war question, posture in prayer, and the covering. This is why brethren may continue in fellowship with those who differ with them on individual matters, but not with those who would involve them in unscriptural actions.

Love, Peace, And Harmony

These desired virtues, we are told are found among the liberals but lacking among the conservatives (antis), and are impelling motives for identifying with the liberals. The majority having embraced unscriptural practices, and believing them to be matters of indifference, naturally feel no need to contend or furnish proof for their actions. All opposition is brushed aside with “just a bunch of antis” and their teaching involves platitudes on love and declarations of “the good we are doing.” On the other hand, we are charged with spending our time discussing the issues, examining every thing in the light of Scripture, and seeking to “cast down every imagination” contrary to truth, which,, we are told, creates confusion, animosity, and indicates a lack of love.

Love, peace, and harmony are indeed necessary virtues. But, love will not close it’s eyes to destructive and damning forces, and there can be cries of “peace, peace, when there is no peace.” And, there can be an ecumenical harmony that is a far cry from the “unity” taught in the Scriptures. Paul loved and desired peace and harmony as much as anyone could, but he “would give place by subjection, no, not for an hour,” to some who would bind unscriptural practices on others, “that the truth of the gospel might continue” (Gal. 2:5).

True love, peace, and unity are exhibited more by those who are continually “proving all things,” “contending for the faith,” “convicting the gainsayer with sound words,” “pulling down strong holds,” “casting down imaginations,” “speaking the truth in love,” and “marking them that cause division contrary to the doctrine learned” than by those who wrap themselves in the contented blanket of deception or self-righteousness, beaping out ear-tinkling platitudes.

These perversions of Scripture and feigned virtues have, indeed, led some away from truth, and our hearts ache for them. Our efforts and prayers are aimed at opening their eyes with the eye-salve of God’s word that they might see, and turn, before they die.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:24, p. 8-9
April 18, 1974

By Ronald D. Howes

In the front of the rising tide of Satan’s servants, one will find the hard-selling, pamphlet-passing servants of the Watchtower. They are well-trained, attractively dressed and smooth talking. They keep right up with the latest techniques of salesmanship and are fantastically successful in doing their job.

The Organization, as seen today, exists because of the determined efforts of a few dedicated men around the turn of the century. Charles T. (“Pastor”) Russell incorporated the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society in 1896 as an outgrowth of his earlier efforts. He is personally responsible for most of the strange beliefs of the “Witnesses,” including the nature of the spirit of man, the existence of torment in Hell, and their own peculiar brand of premillennialism.

The mantle of leadership passed to J. F. (“Judge”) Rutherford on the death of Russell. Presently Nathan Knorr rules in the tower and continues in the grand tradition of his predecessors. During his tenure of office, the Witnesses have doubled. Nathan Knorr, however, differs significantly in his approach to the work. Both Russell and Rutherford loved publicity and more than once got into trouble with the papers of their day. Knorr rules quietly and apparently absolutely. We ought not to underestimate the ability of these men to do what they have set out to accomplish.

The Witnesses, as most of the cults do, have a colorful history which makes for good reading. Walter R. Martin’s Kingdom of the Cults, and Hoekema’s The Four Major Cults contain material well worth the price of the books.

The simplest way to find out what the Watchtower teaches is to get hold of their books. I firmly believe that every Christian ought to have a copy of their Truth that Lends to Eternal Life, with significant paragraphs properly noted and cross-referenced to the real truth of God’s word. The “Little Blue Book, ” as it is commonly called, sells for 25c. It is well worth the investment as it gives an insight into he Watchtower’s thinking.

The Soul and Spirit of Man

A . . .the human soul is man himself, then it cannot be some shadowy thing that merely inhabits the body or that can exist apart from the person” (The Truth That Leads to Eternal Life, p. 36.)

“. . . Whereas the human soul is the living person himself, the spirit is simply the life force that enables the person to be alive. The spirit has no personality, nor can it do the things a person can do. It cannot think, speak, hear, see, or feel . . . In that respect, it might be likened to the electric current of a car’s battery . . . .” (p. 39, op. cit.)

Pretty fantastic isn’t it? A “car battery?” Every informed Bible student knows that the Bible does use the term soul to refer to a living creature (Len. 2:7), and that animals have souls as the Watchtower claims. (Len. 1:20, see margin for “life”). However, they limit their definitions of these terms to what they would like the Bible to say. The Scriptures, from which we know that there is more to the soul and spirit of man than an over-charged car battery, are conspicuously absent from Watchtower publications.

As to the validity of the first statement, the New Testament very plainly teaches, much to the chagrin of the Witnesses, that the soul or spirit of man can exist apart from the body.

“We have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens …. Therefore we are always confident knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: We are confident I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.” (2 Cor. 5:1, 6, 8).

“For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart and to be with Christ; which is far better; Nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you.” (Phil. 1:23-24).

Paul says that while “we” (persons, us, etc.) are in the body we are absent from the Lord, and that he was confidently looking to the time when “we” (persons, us, etc.) could depart from our bodies and be with the Lord. In the Philippian reference he wants to depart and be with Christ and contrasts that with abiding in the flesh. That should make it sufficiently clear to those concerned that the “spirit can exist apart from the body.”

Other objections to this view are seen in several related verses throughout the New Testament. For instance in Rev. 1:10 John says “I was in the spirit on the Lord’s day.” Does that mean that he was really “living it up” or that God was charging his veins with DC power from his own voltage regulator? John 4:24 says that “God is a spirit.” Jehovah’s Witnesses are quick to point out that they are the only ones who properly worship the One God, Jehovah. Will they admit that He is merely an unintelligent electrical force?

The real clincher to this whole question is what the Old Testament says about the spirit or soul of man. These references show beyond a shadow of a doubt that the spirit or soul of man has the attributes of personality and intelligence and emotion, that are not just the result of dumb life force. Gen. 41:8 – Pharoah’s spirit was troubled – Was he breathing hard? Deut. 2:30 – Talks of a hardened spirit C Hardening of the arteries? 2 Chron. 36:22 – Spirit of Cyrus is stirred up – Asthma, or St. Vitas dance? Psalm 51:10 speaks of a “right spirit” – Is that the opposite of bad breath? Psalm 32:2 talks of a spirit with guile – Perhaps this is talking about breathing hard.

Last but not least, Jesus said in Matt. 5:3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit.” Is he giving his blessing to all with shortness of breath? Certainly not. These scriptures show us the other side of the coin that Witnesses do not wish to see. Our soul and spirit are not always the easiest thing to define. Sometimes they do mean life, or breath. They are occasionally used interchangeably. But one thing is for sure: Witnesses will have to live with the fact that they can be absent from the body and live and that the spirit of man lives on after death and is more than the life force within us.

(Next: The Watchtower Gospel (Part II): Heall and Punishment)

Truth Magazine, XVIII:24, p. 6
April 18, 1974