Reading, Writing, and Reflecting

By 

Steve Willis

 

Correction?

In my last “Reading, Writing and Reflecting” I reported on the male rock singer who goes by the name of Marilyn Manson. My information was, taken from an issue of the Alberta Report which read: “Manson, 28, a skinny, chin- less Floridian who wears androgynous make-up, Nazi-style clothing, and fishnet stockings, is a Church of Satan minister. He drinks his own blood and has (had oral sex with) male groupies during concerts.”

Since then, Manson has come to Alberta. With reports like the above abounding, his act was shut out of a performance in Calgary, though he did appear in Edmonton. Articles appeared in the newspapers, both for and against the performance. In one of the articles, it was revealed that the American Family Association was helping to spread the an- ti-Manson news by distributing “affidavits from two teenage girls who allege they saw live homosexual acts, child abuse and animal slaughter on stage at one of Manson’s shows.” When Manson’s lawyers sued the AFA for defamation, “it backed down and admitted the ‘affidavits’ were fabricated” (from Medicine Hat News, July 12, 1997, B6).

Now if he didn’t do the acts, I certainly want to withdraw the allegation that he did do the acts. Perhaps there are no affidavits to say he did. However since that issue, there has been another issue of the Alberta Report with Manson as the cover article (July 18, 1997). Manson’s guitarist is quoted from Rolling Stone magazine, as saying, “We’ve done much worse things than that. I had my 11-year-old brother onstage in one of the shows completely naked. It was like child pornography” (34).

I’ll leave it to the magazines to sort all that out. It seems clear enough from other things reported that this is not a musical group that you’d want your children to see, or probably hear.

Don’t Do as I Say!

One recent phenomena in music is the spoken word set to music or sound samples: Rap. There are several varieties of this format. One is called “gangsta” rap. Some songs exhibit brutal feelings of men toward women. Others are against the police and have advocated killing the police.

Many include offensive language, and are marked as such in stores. One producer, Sean Combs, was questioned about gangsta rapper Biggie Smalls, who was gunned down in LA. Smalls had been in a verbal feud with another rapper who was also killed in gunfire. Combs was asked: “You’re a father. Do you think hard-core rap records should carry stronger parental warnings?” He replied, “I don’t have no problem with that. I think kids shouldn’t be able to listen to some albums till their minds are fully developed and ready to digest an album with certain realities on there. There are realities that may be too harsh for young ears. Even though it’s a reality and needs to be said, it may not need to be said to a 10-year old.”

The follow-up question was, “What about a three-year old? Do you let your three-year-old son Justin listen to gangsta rap?” Combs reply, “Well, he can’t listen to the Biggie album (the recently released “Life After Death”). Some things on my album he can’t listen to. He just listens to the singles. The clean-up singles” (Time, Aug. 4, 1997, Canadian Edition, 44). How about a few more “really” cleaned up songs?

Passive Smoking Can Harm You

Passive smoking is defined as smoke you breath when another person is handling the cigarette. Many recent studies have found that smoking is bad for one’s health. This year airline stewardesses filed legal claims that they were physically harmed by having to work in past years in planes where people smoked. Also, tobacco companies made a major a $368-billion capitulation in court cases involving U.S. states health insurance claims. Some companies are even turning in evidence against the others that smoking is harmful and company leaders knew just that.

What is the effect of second-hand smoke on you? Last summer, Time reported, “Get out the gas mask. A major study concludes that non-smokers double their risk of heart disease when regularly exposed to the thousands of chemicals in passive smoke. The researchers warn: if you can smell it, it can harm you” (June 2, 1997, Canadian Edition,

16). So, can you smell it?

Later, under “Where there’s smoke” Time reported, “Boys born to moms who smoke during pregnancy are more likely to exhibit aggressive, destructive, or other problem behaviors. Nicotine may disrupt fetal brain development” (August 4, 1997, Canadian Edition, 10).

Does the love of tobacco or the love of Christ control you? (cf. 2 Cor. 5:14).

What’s Quicker than a Quickie Divorce?

Married couples in Utah, California, and Arizona can now get a quicker divorce than the “quickie” divorce. All they need to do is find the closest Quick Court machine. It resembles an automatic bank teller machine, and will produce divorce papers about as fast. After the papers are later certified by a lawyer, their divorce is official. This process started in Arizona with three machines in 1993. It became so popular in that state that it plans to have 150 machines by the end of 1997.

Compare that to Louisiana’s recent attempt to make marriages more permanent by instituting “covenant” marriages which limit the reasons that a couple can be divorce. I thought Matthew 19 limited the reasons to one! (Info from Alberta Report, Oct. 6, 1997, 43).

More Divorce Statistics

“If your parents divorce, you’re also more likely to do so” says an article in the August 25, 1997 issue of Time. “Now a study finds that if you experience more than one divorce as a kid, you’re four times as likely to go through multiple marriages as an adult” (Canadian Edition, 12).

Homosexuals on TV

Last Spring, ABC’s Ellen show was featured on many magazine covers as lesbian Ellen DeGeneres’ character on the show decided it was time to make her homosexuality known. Here are a few of the “outing” covers: TV Guide, “Ellen’s Big Outing: Another TV Taboo Comes Tumbling Down as Ellen DeGeneres Opens the Door to Prime-time’s First Gay Lead”; Time, putting words into DeGeneres’ mouth, “‘Yep, I’m Gay’: Exclusive: Ellen DeGeneres ex- plains why she’s coming out/The changing nature of sex on TV,” Out (a publication to “outing” homosexuals) “Come on Out, Ellen! The Water’s Just Fine!” Well, it’s not just fine, according to the Scriptures (1 Cor. 6:9).

TV Guide cited a poll that 63% of regular viewers of Ellen were not planning to watch the coming out show (Alberta Report, May 12, 1997, 29). Yet, the TV show was nominated for one of many Emmys. These nominations and voting for awards was by the Hollywood elite — remember the people who plan, write and act in shows on TV. This year the Gay and Lesbian Alliance is bragging that there are 30 (thirty!) homosexual characters featured in U.S. network series this fall. Spokesperson Chastity Bono, daughter of Sonny and Cher Bono, said that the number of homosexual roles is up 23% from the start of TV’s last season. She said that the outing of Ellen’s character opens possibilities for characters other than the “odd recurring character” (Alberta Report, September 1, 1997, 50).

Is it no wonder that people are getting fed up with some of the programming and policies of the media companies? Did you realize that the Disney company, originally noted for its family-oriented programming, had purchased ABC’s television and radio networks? Last year one large religious body threatened to boycott Disney for their “anti-Christian” and “anti-family” policies. They have released films that have been anti-religion and anti-family values. Homosexuals have used the Disney theme parks openly for gay pride days. Disney did not respond to the hints of boycott, so, this year the same religious group, plus two others decided it was time to boycott the Disney organization (Christianity Today, July 14, 1997, 72). Not long before this decision was made, the Ellen “outing” show aired, and following that show, were others in which the character and her friends tried to “deal with” her sexuality.

In a show aired in October, ABC at least put up a parental warning, for the script called for “Ellen” the lesbian to kiss another woman. This is not the first time there has been a same-sex kiss on TV. However, it may have been the first since the new TV rating system was revised. This warning/ rating has the real Ellen upset. It was reported that she had threatened to walk off the show — though on Larry King’s show the same night, her mother denied that to be the case. My feeling? Let her go.

While on the one hand, activists say that putting homosexuals on TV has no effect on people, TV advertisers are lining up for the best slots to influence people. Did you realize that the Vice President spoke on the matter too? In Los Angeles, Al Gore said, “So many television shows, songs, and movies have dramatically changed the way we see vital issues. In this sense, the very term ‘entertainment industry’ is incomplete. For while you entertain, you also open minds and hearts. . . . When the character ‘Ellen’ came out, millions of Americans were forced to look at sexual orientation in a more open light” (quoted from the Larry King show on CNN, Oct 16, 1997).

Maybe it is fair to point out that another Vice President, Dan Quayle, also spoke about media’s influence on culture, condemning their influence for showing a single woman choosing to get pregnant on TV’s “Murphy Brown” show. Many, including the President, later said that Dan Quayle was right. We need to consider carefully the influence shows like this have on our families.

DeGeneres began her comedy career with a skit wherein she was on the phone to God. Maybe it’s time she and others actually listen to what God said in the Bible.

Is the Sauce for the Goose Good for the Gander?

Just see if it turns around fairly in the public’s view. A letter to the editor of the Alberta Report, addressed the is- sue of whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to adopt or foster children. So, they turned it around: “. . . Are homosexuals fit to parent foster children? To answer this question, let us take two gay men, dress them up in black suits with clerical collars, and jowl them out a bit. We now have two Christian Brothers from the Mount Cashel Boy’s Orphanage, who sexually abused young boys for years. Defrock these brothers, remove their titles, and a wonderful transformation takes place. They are now considered worthy, by our deluded politicians, to foster children. . . . The homosexual community accuses anyone of objecting to their death style as hating them, but they are sinners like the rest of us, needing mercy. However, they are not fit to foster children and never will be” (Allen Iddings, in Sept. 22, 1997 issue, 3).

False Prophecy

As I was doing a little research on another topic, I came across a “prophecy” about Diana Spencer (deceased), princess of Wales: “. . . I see her married and very, very happy. And there will be another child, a girl. Of that I am certain” (Betty Palko, “clairvoyant”; in March 1995 Miracles and the Extraordinary magazine, 10). Just how wrong can one be? Let us not forget the Bible teaching about such prophets: “And you may say in your heart, ‘How shall we know the word which the Lord has not spoken?’ When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken. The prophet has spoken presumptuously, you shall not be afraid of him” (Deut. 18:21-22).

Just a note: It may seem there are many quotes and references to the Alberta Report. Yes, indeed there are. Since moving to Alberta, I’ve found it a good source to keep up with this kind of information. I hope it is useful to you also.

“I Plead The Fifth, Lord!”

By Harry R. Osborne

Have you ever noticed how politicians answer questions? Most of them will not give a straight answer. One of their tricks is to talk around a subject for a while, but when they are done, they have not said anything. Another trick is to answer a question with, “No comment.” It is as if they have a natural tendency to plead the fifth amendment regardless of the circumstance. Why would someone try to shun an answer and keep a matter shrouded in silence? Why would one not want it to be known where he stands on a question? The most common reason is the fear of opposition from those who may not agree with the stated view. The safe road to avoid taking a stand is to stay quiet or issue a disclaimer to signal neutrality.

The recent efforts to speak plainly on the immorality manifesting itself in our local schools have shown this tendency by some in our community. Very few seem ready to boldly oppose immoral teaching and practice even when they agree that it is immoral. They do not want to offend others. It seems the majority of those in places of influence are more concerned with covering up problems rather than correcting them. The disclaimer put on our article in the newspaper was an amusing example of this to me. Instead of taking a stand one way or the other, it was deemed safer and more politically correct to state their neutrality. The fact is that there is no neutral ground with morality and service to God. We are either for the Lord or against him (Matt. 12:30).

In Bible times, there were those who refused to take a stand for God and his truth. They were always condemned for such cowardice. It was the people of courage who dared to stand against the views of those in places of power who God approved.

Elijah vs. The Powerful In Israel

Elijah was a man who stood in opposition to the wicked ways of King Ahab and his wife, Jezebel. Ahab and Jezebel had introduced the idolatry of Baal to Israel with all of its associated evils. Elijah stood against that system and urged others to oppose it as well. When Ahab came face to face with Elijah, the king’s first words were these: “Is that you, O troubler of Israel?” (1 Kings 18:17). Elijah replied, “I have not troubled Israel, but you and your father’s house have, in that you have forsaken the commandments of the Lord, and you have followed Baal” (1 Kings 18:18). This man of God rightly understood that the one standing for truth was not the cause of trouble. Those who disobeyed God were the reason for problems and the resultant division.

When all of the people were gathered, they had a clear choice. Who would they believe and follow? Their king who had the power over them or Elijah who spoke an unpopular message of truth in opposition to the king. The Bible records the occasion in these words:

And Elijah came to all the people, and said, “How long will you falter between two opinions? If the Lord is God, follow Him; but if Baal, then follow him.” But the people answered him not a word (1 Kings 18:21).

It was a fifth amendment crowd who feared the king more than they loved the truth. However, God gave victory to his truth through Elijah that day when he was used to show God’s power on Mount Carmel. If we wish to be victorious along with God’s cause, we must stand boldly for the truth even in the face of powerful opposition. Silence will not get the job done when the truth is at stake.

The Blind Man, His Parents and Jesus

In John 9, Jesus gave sight to a man who had been born blind. When the Pharisees who opposed Jesus asked the man who had made him to see, the man answered unashamedly even over the objections of the powerful Pharisees. At the first, the man knew by the miracle worked that the one working such a miracle must be from God. Therefore, when asked who Jesus was, the man said, “He is a prophet” (John 9:17). Later, when the Pharisees tried to get him to change his testimony, they ridiculed the man for being a disciple of Jesus whereas they claimed to be disciples of Moses. The Pharisees chided, “We know that God spoke to Moses; as for this fellow, we do not know where He is from” (John 9:29). Undaunted, the man replied:

Why, this is a marvelous thing, that you do not know where He is from, and yet He has opened my eyes! Now we know that God does not hear sinners; but if anyone is a worshiper of God and does His will, He hears him. Since the world began it has been unheard of that anyone opened the eyes of one who was born blind. If this Man were not from God, He could do nothing (John 9:30-33).

This man was not a fair weather supporter of Jesus Christ. He was ready to face the opposition and remain the truth regardless of the cost.

The Rulers Seeking Praise Of Men

In John 12, we see another case of the same thing involving those who were themselves in places of power. They did not want to lose their position by confessing Christ. Notice how the Bible describes these people:

Nevertheless even among the rulers many believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they did not confess Him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue; for they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God (John 12:42-43).

Their problem was not one of ignorance. They knew who Jesus was, but were to cowardly to confess him before others. What a shame it was that these people loved the praise of men more than God! It is a sad fact that some still do.

Conclusion

If we are to serve God acceptably, we must realize our responsibility to stand for God and his truth regardless of the cost. At times, it will cost us as others ridicule, oppose and even denounce us. But we must always remember that unmoved. The power of the opponent did not make him fearful.

However, the man’s parents did not exhibit such courage. The Pharisees asked them how their son received his sight. The parents responded, “By what means he now sees we do not know, or who opened his eyes we do not know. He is of age; ask him. He will speak for himself” (John 9:21). This answer was a dodge. They knew how he was made to see, but they were afraid to tell the Pharisees for fear of what they might do in retaliation. The next verses make that clear in the following words:

His parents said these things because they feared the Jews, for the Jews had agreed already that if anyone confessed that He was Christ, he would be put out of the synagogue. Therefore his parents said, “He is of age; ask him” (John 9:22-23).

They were cowards who issued their disclaimer to protect themselves from the Pharisees instead of standing for it is the ultimate praise of God that we seek, not the temporary popularity of this world. Like those of Bible times, we live in a world where standing for truth is not popular. In fact, it is so unpopular that we are sure to be opposed (2 Tim. 3:12). What should we do? Remain silent? Go along with the crowd? Issue a disclaimer to truth? No, we must “preach the word; be urgent in season, out of season; re- prove, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching” (2 Tim. 4:2). Those who justify sin and error will oppose us as will those who sit in silence. But God will bring us to victory with his truth in the end!

A Watchdog Must Be Gentle

By Steve Klein

The Lord’s church needs watchdogs A watchdog sniffs out doctrinal danger and barks the warning. A watchdog remains alert, capable of recognizing a threat and sounding the alarm The watchdogs of ancient Judah were failures in this respect. The Lord reprimanded Judah because “His watchmen are blind, They are all ignorant; They are all dumb dogs, They cannot bark; Sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber” (Isa. 56:10).

Among God’s people today, preachers and elders are especial- ly charged with watchdog duty. As those who rule over churches, elders watch out for your souls, as those who must give account” (Heb. 13:17). The elders of the church in Ephesus were warned of “savage wolves” who would come in among them, not sparing the flock; they were therefore commanded to “watch” (Acts 20:29-31; Tit. 1:9). Similarly, in order to fulfill the ministry of evangelist, a preacher must “convince, rebuke” and “be watchful in all things” (2 Tim. 4:1-5).

Leaders in churches must understand that being a watchdog is a serious responsibility. A watch- man (or dog) is held personally responsible for the damage done when he fails to issue a warning (see Ezek. 33:6-7; Heb. 13:17). We must also realize that the duty to watch and warn extends beyond the borders of the local church. Paul had deep concern for all the churches (2 Cor. 11:28), and if apostolic examples are still worthy of imitation so should we. As a preacher, Titus was to make it his business to stop the mouths of the many false teachers in every city in Crete (Tit. 1:5, 10-14).

But as important as it is to have alert and active watch- dogs, it is just as important for each watchdog to be well trained in every aspect of his job. An untrained, undisciplined, and uncontrolled watchdog is a greater danger than no watchdog at all. In the real world, we sometimes hear of dogs turning on members of the very household they are supposed to be protecting. We have seen TV news footage of children horribly disfigured by attacks from a neighbor’s watchdog. Sadly, the same kind of thing can and does hap- pen in the Lord’s church.

One key attitude or behavioral trait that every watchdog must learn is meekness or gentleness. In 2 Timothy 3:24-25, Paul is training Timothy to be a good watchdog when he tells him that “a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth.” Yes, Timothy needed to deal with those who were in error, but he needed to do so with gentleness. A watchdog who is never able to confront danger and warn against it without starting a dog fight is not doing his job correctly.

 Gentleness is an outgrowth of proper attitudes toward oneself and others. With respect to others, the gentle watchdog is acting from motives of genuine love and concern. He knows that biting and devouring another is not consistent with his mission to serve, love and protect (cf. Gal. 5:14-15). If there are enemies, the watch dog lets you know, but it gives his hearers no pleasure. Paul demonstrated the heart of a faithful and loving watchdog when he told the Philippians that “many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ” (Phil. 3:18).

With respect to himself the gentle watchdog knows nothing of pride and everything of humility. He is humble because he sees himself as he is. He is, after all, a dog. He knows that he too is fallible, capable of making mistakes and committing sin. As he attempts to correct or restore a brother overtaken in “any trespass” he does so in a spirit of gentleness,” considering himself lest he also be tempted (Gal. 6:1). No matter who he is dealing with, he is “gentle showing  all  meekness  unto  all  men”  because  he  knows that he himself has at one time or another been “foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful and hating” others (Tit. 3:2-3).

Watchdogs are so greatly needed among God’s people today. We need watchdogs who are alert, vigilant, faithful, and gentle. And we need watchdogs who can read an article like this and profit from it, even if it has stepped on their tails.

Who Divided the Lord’s Church?

By Lindsay A. Allen

What better way to hinder the gospel of Christ than to divide the church? Thus, in 1849 and 1859 respectively he (Satan) introduced, through his emissaries, the missionary society and instrumental music.

 Those who take a firm stand on a “thus saith the Lord” for all they believe and practice in their service to God are accused of splitting the Lord’s church, and are labeled with such unworthy epithets as “antis” and “orphan home haters.” This is a serious charge of the greatest magnitude, for it is much more serious to divide the spiritual body of Christ than his physical body. Such a false charge demands a forthright and honest reply, and above all it must be scriptural. The purpose of this article is to do that. Let it be understood in the beginning that the author of these lines has no ill will toward any person, much less his own brethren. Contrariwise, since he and his brethren are cut from the same gospel pattern, he has nothing but love and goodwill toward them. The only purpose of this article is to search out the truth concerning this charge, for Jesus said, “Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free”; “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth” (John 8:32; 17:17). Paul reminded the Thessalonians that God would send a “strong delusion” to those who did not love the truth, that they could believe a lie and be damned (2 Thess. 2:10-12).

In order to have a firm background for the study of division in the Lord’s church, it would be helpful to make a brief survey of division in the church in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Such a survey will show the true nature and cause of such divisions.

The restoration movement began on American soil in the early years of the nineteenth century. Its purpose was to restore the Lord’s church in doctrine, in work, and in worship as it was in the beginning. The “battle-cry” of this movement was in perfect harmony with its purpose — “Where the Bible speaks, we will speak, and where the Bible is silent, we will be silent.” What a noble undertaking, and far superior to previous efforts to reform Roman Catholicism and to reconcile the animosities and differences among Protestant denominationalists.

It should be emphasized at this point that the battle-cry of the restoration movement was nothing new — it is simply a re-statement of the truths taught in the New Testament. In 1 Corinthians 4:6 (RV) the Apostle Paul reminded the Corinthians not to go beyond the things that were written; in 1 Peter 4:11 the Apostle Peter said, “If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God”; and John reminds us (2 John 9-11) that “whosoever goeth onward and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God.” Brethren, what the Holy Spirit is saying here is that the Bible, the word of God, is complete and needs no additions or subtractions; it must not be tampered with in any manner, for it meets man’s needs. As someone has well said, “The gospel God gave is adaptable to the man that he made”; it equips the man of God for every good work (2 Tim. 3:16-17). It is man’s responsibility to study it, to believe it, and to obey its precepts.

The restoration preachers preached the gospel without fear or favor to over-flowing crowds who were hungry for something that would satisfy their spiritual needs. The time was ripe for religious reform for denominationalism was torn asunder, corrupted, and hopelessly divided by the doctrines of men. Thousands, even whole congregations, responded to the gospel call, were baptized into Christ and became New Testament Christians. These Christians met on the first day of the week to eat the Lord’s supper (Acts 20:7), to sing songs of praises to God (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16), to lay by in store (1 Cor. 16:1, 2), to engage in prayer to God (Acts 2:42) and to preach the gospel as was done in New Testament days. These meetings continued in peace and harmony, but not for many seasons for Satan, the arch-enemy of mankind, was ready to strike at the success of the gospel. It is well to remember that Satan, who works through carnal men, does not work haphazardly but has definite plans and schemes to perfect his work. What better way to hinder the gospel of Christ than to divide the church? Thus, in 1849 and 1859 respectively he introduced, through his emissaries, the missionary society and instrumental music.

These two innovations not only divided the church, thus creating ill will and bitterness among brethren, but corrupted the worship and dethroned God. The feelings created by animosity and ill will grew so intense that brethren who opposed these innovations found themselves locked out of their places of worship. Appeals to the courts were futile and only added fuel to the fires of division. Numerous efforts were made to settle these divisions on Bible grounds, but to no avail. These conditions existed for the next fifty years with brethren leaving their home congregations and finding separate places of worship. The larger group of brethren who had initiated and defended these innovations are today known as “Disciples of Christ” and are among the most liberal denominations in the nation; they have added numerous unscriptural activities besides instrumental music and the missionary society, even to open membership of the believers in Christ. Brethren, this is an object lesson teaching us the danger of going beyond that which is written. We cannot afford to be a part of that history that will repeat itself!

A Brief Survey of Some of the Divisions in the Restoration Movement in the Twentieth Century

The twentieth century has proven to be turbulent with changes. The industrial revolution has brought many major changes that have lifted the face of the nation. The building of business enterprises to do the work that God gave the church, and the introduction of numerous innovations have corrupted the church and will lead to apostasy. The last two decades have seen a decided change in the substance of preaching. Sermon topics today consist principally of moral and ethical lessons that deal with the issues that beset our nation. Many of these sermons are scriptural, timely, and need to be preached, but brethren, that is not the full gospel. Jesus said, “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature” (Mark 16:15). Regardless of what else preachers may preach, the fundamentals of the gospel must not be put on the “back burner.” There is no substitute for the gospel, for it is God’s power to save the sinner (Rom. 1:16, 17). In the division of the nineteenth century those who opposed innovations were the smaller of the two groups; after separation they soon grew to be the larger, for the preachers preached the gospel without fear or favor — it brought results! Brethren, what I am saying here is this: the church will die without the gospel!

In 1906 the U.S. Bureau of Census listed the non-instrumental churches of Christ as a separate and distinct group. This separate listing of churches of Christ was both timely and encouraging, for it gave the brethren a solid place in society. In 1910 the church at Columbia, Tennessee established the Tennessee Orphan Home that was moved to Springhill, Tennessee in 1935. The advent of the orphan homes brought a new era to the disciples for they and their children’s children would experience strife, alienation, and division throughout the remaining part of the century. It is safe to say that the orphan’s home has divided more churches of Christ than any other one innovation. The late Luther Blackmon sums up the influence of the orphan’s home in this short statement: “The Orphan’s Home is the key that opened the treasuries of the churches of Christ to human institutions.” The key that opened the treasuries of the churches was its emotional appeal, for there is nothing that touches the human heart more than the cry of a hungry orphan child. Satan knew that this device would get the job done (2 Cor. 2:11)! Many brethren followed their emotions, not the Scripture!

What Then, Is the Issue That Divides Brethren?

Let us look first of all to the negative: it is not orphan care, all orphans need care; it is not orphan homes, for all orphans need a home. The issue is simply this: do churches of Christ have divine authority to build and maintain, from their treasuries, social institutions? This question begs for a scriptural answer. How far can the church go in the social field? Some churches of Christ are now building and maintaining schools, orphan homes, old folks homes, homes for un- wed mothers, and medical clinics (or hospitals). Brethren, if churches are to build and maintain orphan homes from their treasuries, why engage a human institution to do this work? Do you not believe that the church is sufficient to do all the work that God gave it? The inspired Scripture tells us that the word of God is able to furnish the man of God completely unto every good work (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

Finally, does God not have a plan to care for orphans? Yes! In every age God has cared for orphans. In the Old Testament he exhorted the people time after time to look after widows and orphans. In the New Testament the only passage that deals with the care of orphans is James 1:27; here the responsibility is given, not to churches, but to individual Christians — “Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, to visit the fatherless and the widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.” Brethren, this is God’s answer!

The Social Gospel

The purpose of the social gospel is to improve the quality of human life. To this end many churches are engaged in some kind of social work such as orphan and elderly care, education, recreation, entertainment, and as one preacher put it recently, “just plain fun.” This so-called “gospel” (or pseudo-gospel) is in sharp contrast to the gospel of Christ; one is carnal and thus creates carnality, while the gospel of Christ deals solely and entirely with the salvation of the soul. The social gospel followed the orphan home in influence in the states for several years, but has been more widely accepted than any other innovation and thus, has led more churches away from spirituality to carnality and secularism than any other one innovation.

The social gospel, instead of making the world a better place to live, is laying the foundation for widespread apostasy in the next few years. When churches capitalize on fun and frolic and give little or no attention to Bible study and to spiritual worship, they are preparing the minds of the people to accept any kind of false doctrine or dogma. Friend, the social gospel is subtle and acts as a decoy for it gives to the people a sense of false security — they think they are busy doing the will of the Lord with all their social activity.

This statement may surprise the reader, but the roots of the social gospel reach back to near the close of the middle ages. When the Roman church built schools for priests and went into the education business, began to look after the poor, the down-trodden and the sick, they laid the foundation for the social gospel. During the Protestant reformation the Protestant churches (some time later) took over the role of the social gospel.

In England and in the states, the industrial revolution played a major role in crystallizing the idea of the social gospel. Factories brought multitudes of people from the country into the city to small congested areas which created slums and many other unhealthy situations. Industrialists saw the need of giving some assistance to these poor people, and then later turned the work over to churches.

In the 1950s and 1960s in the states, the social gospel grew rapidly and was accepted by most of the churches of Christ who had already accepted the orphan homes and the schools. The social gospel continues to grow rapidly among some churches of Christ. Even as this article is being written there are churches in this county who are either building separate buildings for fellowship halls or are adding such to their present buildings. These halls will be used for congregational meals, for banquets, for special events during graduation, and there will be basketball goals, volleyball nets, and other athletic equipment.

Brethren, have you forgotten, or have you ever known, that the word “fellowship” as used in the Scripture always refers to spiritual fellowship, never to secular affairs? The auditorium is the only “fellowship hall” you need. Recently I asked a young lady how the church was doing in her community; she said, “Fine, we have just given the grandest program and supper for the volunteer fire department.” Brethren, that bothers me; have you forgotten that the Lord’s church is spiritual, that its work is spiritual, and that the church does not engage in carnal activities?

These things as stated above only lay the foundation for widespread apostasy in the near future. Since preachers do not preach the gospel as they once did, and many churches have given themselves over to fun and frolic, what can you expect of the church in the future?

Brethren, now is the time to get busy; lay aside these carnal works and activities and concentrate on things spiritual. Brother Preacher, preach the gospel; preach the power of God unto salvation to those who receive it (Rom. 1:16, 17). Nothing can take the place of the gospel of Christ. Let us keep the church pure as the Lord gave it to us in the beginning. This is serious business; let us get busy!