Truth Magazine

By Connie W. Adams

Get Out Your Money

At least two of the colleges are now all out after contributions from churches. Last summer Batsell Barrett Baxter of David Lipscomb College wrote to churches all over the country soliciting contributions to that school. Along with his letter he sent a copy of an ad in a Nashville newspaper in which he had reported that Charlotte Avenue in Nashville had contributed to David Lipscomb College for over 50 years. In a letter dated November 29, 1971, Baxter made a second appeal to churches. First he thanked churches which had already responded. He said:

“We deeply appreciate the way in which many congregations across the Land are concerned that this program of teaching the Bible – the most extensive program undertaken anywhere in the world so far as we are able to determine – may continue. We are grateful for the number of contributions received since this request, and we are hopeful that, as you make your financial plans for 1972, you will include this effort in your budget.”

Later he said “Many congregations are presently helping to pay the cost of this teaching of the Bible.”

Now comes Freed-Hardeman College with the same plea. In November, 1971 they also mailed out a letter with this statement:

“As one of a thousand churches being asked to contribute $100.00 between now and January 1, 1972, you will be joining forces with other interested congregations in furthering the great cause of Christian education at Freed-Hardeman.”

For years we have been trying to tell some brethren that institutionalism was a “package deal.” The same principle which allows church contributions to benevolent institutions will allow church support of the schools. We also tried to point out that the orphan home in the budget was not the real issue, but a softening up campaign to get the schools in the budget. My question is this: What are those brethren now going to do who vehemently said they would leave if the congregation where they worshipped ever put the colleges in the budget? I predict that most of them will just gag a little and then swallow. Baxter was right when he said “they stand or fall together.” The trouble is that both of them “fall” for want of scriptural authority. But, let the liberal churches get out their money. It would not do to be called an “anti” on this question. It will also be very interesting to see what Reuel Lemmons of the Firm Foundation will have to say since he is on record as saying there is no difference in a church supported college and a missionary society. In fact Baxter said in his letter of November 29, 1971, “In a very real sense, this is one of the most extensive mission efforts being undertaken anywhere.”

Speak, Brother Lemmons, we are anxious to hear what you have to say.

Sex at Sunday School

The December 27, 1971 Newsweek magazine reports that the Unitarian Universalist Association is now showing in Sunday School some very explicit sex education films depicting intercourse between adults as well as scenes of various kinds of perversion. These are said to be “franker” than any of the materials ever used in the public school sex education courses. The children are urged to make their own, decisions and “not to impose their own views.” It is reported that Unitarians hope this course of study will be adopted by the public schools. This extreme case but illustrates why some people in various denominations are greatly upset and honestly wanting to find something that makes sense in religion. Brethren, are you listening? The radical changes in denominationalism provide many good opportunities for alert soul winners to find receptive prospects.

Preacher, Anyone?

The November 22, 1971 Christian Chronicle carries an ad from a preacher as follows:

“Progressive, born-again preacher seeking congregation where Biblical preaching is appreciated. I refuse to be bound by traditionalism! Excellent references available. Willing to move anywhere the Spirit seems to direct. Ten years experience.”

Hurry, brethren, this fellow must be something on a stick!

Movie Ratings

A reporter for the Jefferson Reporter, a weekly suburban Kentucky paper, interviewed the managers of several drive-in movies about the movie rating system. The manager of the Valley Drive-In in Louisville was asked what was the difference in a movie with a “G” rating and one with a “GP”. He was quoted as saying “Mostly the cussing.” In case you have been thinking that a GP rated movie would be acceptable for the family, just remember that the language gets pretty blue. Have you noticed the increase in profanity on TV programs this year? Maybe the country needs a rating system for TV.

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 21, pp. 6-7
March 30, 1972

By James W. Adams

Reaction, rebellion, and revolution are much used words in today’s vocabulary. Those who savor these expressions the most imagine themselves to constitute a sort of “liberation front.” They cast themselves in the role of Twentieth Century “messiahs” whose mission is the deliverance of modern man from the demoralizing and dehumanizing enslavement to “materialism” which he endures under the tyrannical rule of the so-called “authoritarian establishment.”

Many countries of the world in recent times have undergone revolutions instigated by reactionaries. Reacting against the enslavement of dictatorships, they have rebelled and overthrown their oppressive masters in a quest for liberty. Instead, however, of achieving true freedom, they have simply exchanged one dictatorship for another. This is what happens invariably when a revolution is inspired by Communists. Reaction against political enslavement does not necessarily result in enlightened freedom. The revolutionary often becomes enslaved to the demands of reactionism, hence operates under compulsion and coercion rather than as a result of free, enlightened choice.

Sidney I. Harris states the matter tersely and impressively in Last Things First (Houghton Mifflin). He says:

“I know a man who grew up in a stuffy atmosphere of Victorian piety, and who rebelled at an early age. He is now 50 years old and still rebelling.

His old family home was cluttered; so his own home is starkly simple. His parents were fanatically devout; so he is fanatically irreligious. His relatives were dogmatically conservative; so he is dogmatically radical.

This man thinks himself a “free soul.” He thinks he has burst the bonds of his enslavement to the past. But he is wrong-for he is overreacting to the past, and is still chained to it by his hostility.

To do exactly the opposite is a form of bondage. The young man who rebels from

Babbittry to Bohemianism because it is exactly the opposite of what his father tried to cram down his throat is allowing his decisions to be made by somebody else.

To be free, in the fullest sense, does not mean to reject what our fathers believed; it means to discriminate, to -select, to take on the difficult task of separating our principles from our passions.

Each generation, in some measure, rebels against the last. It is normal and natural and healthy. But it is necessary to know that the aim of rebellion is peace within the soul, and not perpetual revolt.”

All of us have known people who were subjected in childhood to mothers who were fanatics about bodily cleanliness and who, as a result, when adults, made a point of being filthy in their personal habits. We have known men who were denied a college education by their parents, hence literally forced upon their children four years of college training when the children neither desired it nor were capable of assimilating and using it profitably. The illustrations of the principle are endless. A reactionary is not of necessity a free man; quite often he is enslaved by that which made him free. His error is that he makes an end of that which should serve only as an instrument.

Reactionism as such is neither good nor bad, praiseworthy nor reprehensible. Its character is determined (1) by the character of that to which it is a response — is that good or is it bad; is it praiseworthy or is it reprehensible? (2) Its character is determined also by its goals or aims — is it aimless and erratic or is it rationally channeled toward worthy ends? To react against error and evil with the view to replacing it with truth and righteousness is everywhere to be praised. To react violently and purposelessly so as to accept, without the sanction either of reason or truth, the exactly opposite point of view or course of action is neither rational nor praiseworthy. Our reaction to “liberality” in religion should not result in obstructionism and gross “legalism.” Our reaction to the institutionalized church of Roman Catholicism and Protestant Denominationalism should not result in a repudiation of all “organized manifestations of religion.” Oar reaction against church support of human institutions would not lead us to reject all institutions utilized for the accomplishment of religious goals simply on the grounds that they are “human” and “institutions.” Reaction against “materialism” should not lead us to repudiate ambition, a reasonable and decent standard of living, honest labor, bodily cleanliness, and an acceptance of a reasonable share of responsibility in the maintenance of an orderly society. Reaction against hate and division produced by religious controversy should not lead us to accept the spurious assumption that the “law of love” transcends all doctrinal considerations — that Bible love (agape) and a dogmatic faith and orthodox practice are mutually exclusive of one another. Those who thus react are not liberated from sin and error thereby; they remain enslaved to it and coerced by it. This is unquestionably what Paul had in mind when he wrote, “Ye are called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.” (Gal. 5:13.)

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 21, pp. 5-6
March 30, 1972

By Cecil Willis

Don Schollander was voted the beat athlete in the world when he was only 18 years of age. He competed in two Olympics, set 37 American records and 22 world records in swimming. He was voted into the swimming Hall of Fame when but 19 years old. How did a young man accomplish all of this? Not without extreme effort, to be sure.

Schollander tells what it takes to make a champion: “In top competition a whole new ingredient enters swimming — pain. You learn the pain in practice and you will know it in every race. It begins as you approach the limit of your endurance, coming on gradually, hitting your stomach first. Your arms grow heavy and your legs tighten — the thighs, the knees. You sink lower in the water as if someone were pushing down on your back. You can’t hold yourself up; your perception changes. The sounds of the pool blend and become a roar in your ears. The water takes on a pinkish tinge. Your stomach feels as though its going to fall out; every kick hurts like . . . — and suddenly you hear a shrill, internal scream. Then you have a choice. You can back off, or you can force yourself to drive to the finish, knowing that the pain will become excruciating. Right there, the great competitors separate from the rest, for its those last few meters that count. Most swimmers back away. If you push through the pain barrier into real agony, you’re a champion” (Reader’s Digest, June, 1971, p. 224)

The champion competitor in sporting events goes through pure agony in order to win a corruptible crown. Nearly every worthwhile thing in life is accomplished at the expense of extreme effort. So it is with running the race set before the Christian. Paul said, “And every man that striveth in the games exerciseth self-control in all things” (I Cor. 9:25). The Greek word translated “striveth” (agonizomai) is a word which we have anglicized to make our English word “agony.” The Christian must exert himself to the point of pure agony, if be would win the spiritual crown. Agonizomai means “to contend,” “to strive,” or to “labor fervently.”

The same original word occurs in Lk. 13:24 where Jesus said, “Strive to enter in by the narrow door.” The Goodspeed translation renders agonizomai in Lk. 13: 24, “You must strain every nerve. . .” The Phillips translation expresses the thought like this: “You must do your utmost to get in.”

Different translations sometime constitute the beat commentaries on a passage of scripture. The Williams translation on I Cor. 9:25 indicate that the person who enters an athletic contest “practices rigid self-control in training.” Beck’s translation words the thought thusly: “Anyone who enters a contest goes into strict training.”

The same original Greek word occurs in I Tim. 6:12 where Paul told Timothy “Fight the good fight of faith.” The word translated “fight” is our word agonizomai. Weymouth renders 1 Tim. 6:12, “Struggle your hardest in the good contest for faith.” The same Greek word occurs in Col. 1:29, “striving according to his working. . . .” Weymouth renders Col. 1: 29, “To this end … I exert all my strength.” The Amplified ‘translation renders this passage: “For this I labor (unto weariness).” Phillips adds, “With all the strength that God gives me,” Beck says “struggling like an athlete,” while the Amplified translation renders it, “striving with all the superhuman energy which He so mightily enkindles and works within me.”

All of these passages indicate the amount of effort which must be expended by the Christian, if he is to please his Master. A piddling, indifferent, half-hearted Christian is detestable in the Lord’s sight. “For let not that man think that he shall receive anything of the Lord; a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways” (Jas. 1: 7, 8).

What kind of an effort are you making in the name of the Lord? Are you “laboring fervently,” “straining ever nerve,” “practicing self-control,” “in strict training,” “struggling your hardest,” “laboring unto weariness,” “struggling like an athlete,” “striving with superhuman energy,” with all the strength which God gives you??? If not, you are merely playing at being a Christian. Like the champion athlete, the Christian must exert himself until he reaches the state of pure agony in service to God. And indeed, when we “have done all the things that are commanded . . .,” we are still “unprofitable servants” (Lk. 17: 10).

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 21, pp. 3-4
March 30, 1972

By Robert W. La Coste

In teaching a young adult class not long ago, I asked the simple question “Why are you a member of the church of Christ, why not some other church, give me some reasons.” A young girl with a sheepish grin on her face hesitantly remarked, “Well I was just raised in the church, it is all I know or have ever known.” That was hardly the answer I was looking for, and much to her embarrassment, that was not really the answer I think she intended to give.

But such is the case! Some children are not “brought up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4). Instead they are “raised in the church,” with the saying meaning no more than coming to the building and looking at the ceiling until the preacher is, finished, for to them the church is the building, where they “cut their teeth on the pews.”

The children are hardly all to blame. They have in many cases seen the indifference, negligence, and spiritual ignorance of their “raisers” (?). Parents, yes, have brought their children to the various services of the church, but never have once stopped to tell their children what the church is, why they are going, and what they are to do in going there! Because of the spiritual ignorance of these parents, they produce naturally after their own kind; unless the child should create his own incentive and learn without parental guidance and spiritual teaching.

Many of these kinds of children are simply “raised in the church” because they know of no better way to express why they have been coming all these years.

What is going to happen to the church: twenty, thirty or even forty years from now if the only answer to why many are members now is “It is all I have ever known”? I cringe, every time I even think about it???

Parents – wake up; teach your children at home, and on the way to and coming back from services why they need to be faithful members of the Lord’s true church. Teach them what the church is all about, its work and mission and what their part is in the, body of Christ!

I hope it is a snowy day in July before I hear that “reason” from someone again. Have you heard it lately? Have you given it???

TRUTH MAGAZINE, XVI: 21, p. 2
March 30, 1972