Truth Magazine

By Kenneth D. Sils

During the second week of December in 1997, Clinton Douglas of South Bend, Indiana and I had the blessed opportunity to preach the gospel on the island of Jamaica in the Caribbean Sea. Brother Douglas has preached the gospel in Jamaica a few times and asked me if I would like to get involved in the work of our Lord with him on the island. Never before have I ventured out of America to preach, so after much thought and prayer, I was ready to embark on this most excellent adventure.

On Monday, December 8, we landed in Montego Bay where Errol Lawson, the preacher working with the Cave church of Christ, picked us up and away we went to our preaching destination that evening. Since it takes about an hour and a half to drive 30 miles through the hill country of Jamaica, we had plenty of time to talk about our agenda for the week and to help settle the “culture shock” I experienced at the airport. The plan for the week was for us to preach two gospel meetings: one with the Cave church of Christ on Monday through Thursday on the south side of the island and the other was with the church of Christ at Montego Bay on the northwest side of the Island.

There are many churches of Christ on the island of Jamaica, yet I was made aware of only three congregations that were standing against the institutional practices that have plagued our Lord’s body over the past 50 years. There are two congregations on the southwest side of the island. The church of Christ at Savanna-La-Mar where J.S. Lawson preaches and the Cave church of Christ at Cave where Errol Lawton, J.S.Lawton’s son, preaches. Many preachers from America have been involved in planting the seed of Jesus in these areas, especially in the Cave area, and our Lord has blessed their efforts with an increase of souls. Brother Andy Alexander eloquently wrote about this work in the Guardian of Truth last March and described the evangelism which took place at Cave in 1996. Two years ago, their meeting house consisted of only a foundation with two-by-fours that had a canvas overlapping them. Now, the walls are up and their building is very nice compared to Jamaican standards. Two years ago, this congregation averaged 20-25, but now in two years, their membership is in the mid-forties and still moving up.

Each night of the meeting at Cave, the building was filled with members and visitors alike. One couple that is burned in my memory had just obeyed the gospel three weeks earlier and was so happy that they had found Jesus and knew they could now go to heaven. They were in their eighties! Clinton and I preached each evening and spoke on the basics, including the work of the church and the dangers of using the institutions of men in an attempt to do the work of a congregation. Although we didn’t have any baptisms at Cave, we did have some very promising personal Bible studies with people in that area. A few told us they were going to get baptized if they could get to church on Sunday; yet, it rained on Sunday which makes it difficult for people to come out on the Jamaica roadways.

Over the weekend in Jamaica, we preached a meeting with the church which meets in Montego Bay where Jerry Angelo has been preaching for eight years. The church in Montego Bay meets at the YMCA in town and is about 30 in number. On Saturday, the church decided to meet at Jerry’s house and have a marathon Bible study. One of the young members brought a friend named Keyn and he pounded Clinton and me with questions for almost two hours. There is a lot of denominational doctrine on the island and most of the Jamaicans I met know about Jesus, yet are filled with the doctrines of men, much like people in this country. However, Jamaicans appear eager to listen to other views, especially if you are from America. On Sunday, Clinton spoke at Savanna-La-Mar in the morning and I spoke at Cave. On Sunday evening, both Clinton and I spoke at Montego Bay  where we had a very good crowd, nearing 50! Upon returning, I had several snapshots developed and placed on overhead transparencies to explain the work in detail to the congregation I am working with in South Bend. If you are interested in viewing this presentation about the work in Jamaica, I will do what I can to secure a VCR copy.

The church of Christ appears to be thriving in Jamaica. Although the number of members are small, about 100 for three individual congregations, the heart of the people are zealous and dedicated in serving the Lord. Brother J.S.D. Lawton and his son, Errol are hard working servants of the Lord worthy of our support and prayers. Without their efforts, both congregations on the south side of Jamaica would be greatly hindered. The same can be said for the work of brother Angelo among the congregation in Montego Bay. All three of these men spend a great deal of their personal resources to help members get to worship and provide spiritual leadership and teaching of the doctrine of Christ to make Jamaicans children of our King.

 

The Christians in Jamaica are very much encouraged when their brothers and sisters in America express an interest in their spiritual well-being. In many ways, the church has the same fight of faith that we have in America and they take up this challenge with courage, love and dedication to Christ. Jesus encouraged his apostles to take the gospel of Christ to every creature (Mark 16:15). It was a joy to my heart to see the most precious faith of Christ residing in the hearts of men and women far away from our land and culture. Pray for them and let’s remember to be busy following in the footsteps of Jesus here at home by, “seeking and saving the lost” (Luke 19:10).”

By Floyd D. Chappelear

A ruling by the Massachusetts State Supreme Judicial Court in December has let stand a lower court ruling which allows the state to decide whether or not a parent’s Christian faith might be harmful to the emotional and mental health of his/her own children.

In the case of Kendall vs. Kendall, differences over religion led to the breakdown of Jeffrey and Barbara Kendall’s marriage. When they were married in 1988, the Kendalls agreed to raise the children in the Jewish faith. But tension developed in 1991 when Mr. Kendall joined the Boston Church of Christ, and the gulf between the Kendalls’ religious views widened in 1994 when Ms. Kendall adopted Orthodox Judaism. Although the two were awarded joint legal custody of their three children, Ms. Kendall had obtained physical custody during divorce proceedings.

At the beginning of those proceedings, Ms. Kendall, the plaintiff, sought to have her husband’s ability to share his faith with the children limited. She was upset because her husband was teaching the children that only people who put their trust in Jesus Christ as the Son of God would go to heaven. Mrs. Kendall wanted him to stop.

The lower court agreed, concurring with a previous deci- sion (Melton vs. Melton) which stated that “some limitation of the liberties of one or the other of the parents” could occur in order to “serve the best interests of the children.” Those “best interests,” the court made clear, would be determined by the state of Massachusetts.

Specifically, the court agreed that the children were being “harmed by exposure to [Mr. Kendall’s] religious beliefs” when the father implied that Ms. Kendall would go to hell if she didn’t put her faith in Christ. The Court reasoned that the resulting mental strain and emotional anxiety in the children justified limiting Mr. Kendall’s religious freedom.

As a result, the court ruled that Mr. Kendall “shall not take the children to his church (whether to church services or Sunday School or church education programs); nor engage them in prayer or Bible study if it promotes rejection rather than acceptance, of their mother or their own Jewish self-identity.

“The [defendant] shall not share his religious beliefs with the children if those beliefs cause the children significant emotional distress or worry about their mother or themselves,” the court said. Furthermore, the court ruled that if a disagreement arose between the Kendalls as to Mr. Kendall’s religious activities with the children, then a court appointed interloper would “address the inter-religious conflict.”

Brian Fahling, attorney at American Family Association Law Center, said the implications of this ruling were frightening. “First, the state has taken upon itself the authority to determine when a parent can express his faith to his children and when he cannot,” Fahling said. “The U.S. Constitution grants no such authority to a judge or any other governmental representative.

“Second, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has put a potentially lethal weapon into the hands of those who despise Christianity. With this precedent, a judge can rule that, if Christian teaching causes a child — and ultimately anyone — emotional discomfort, such Christian teaching can be prohibited,” he said.

The consequences of such a ruling could be expanded in unlimited fashion, Fahling said. “What if mom leaves her Christian husband for another woman? Could the father tell his children that homosexuality was a sin?” he asked. “Could a divorced Christian mother tell her children that daddy’s use of pornography is a sin?”

Fahling added that he has never heard of such an insidious ruling, except in Communist countries like the former Soviet Union, where parents were forbidden to teach their minor children about Christ. Communist doctrine insisted that Christianity was a mental illness, and thus dangerous to the health of a child.

By Larry Ray Hafley

Under the headline above, Diane T. Byars, wrote the letter below to the editor of the Houston Chronicle.

On Martin Luther King Day, there was a parade in his honor down Main Street. . . . I stopped to enjoy the music and the parade. But what I saw was very upsetting.

There was a drill team of about 30 young, well- developed, prepubescent girls marching proudly along, carrying a sign identifying their school. The group stopped in front of me and performed their routine — which was very suggestive. I am not a prude and even several people standing near me also were aghast. Their outfits were very revealing — they left nothing to the imagination.

Later, I looked the school name up in the telephone book and was shocked to find that it is an elementary school in the Houston Independent School District. That my tax dollars were used to finance this kind of exhibitionism is appalling to me.

Someone in authority . . . has shown very poor judgment. Someone chose their outfits and got them approved by others in authority. And what about the mothers of these girls? I have two daughters, and I would never let them wear outfits like that.

With teenage pregnancies and single motherhood for 12 and 13 year olds so prevalent, this sort of thing seems to practically encourage inappropriate behavior. With this behavior condoned by those in authority, these young girls are being sent a clear message that early acting out sexually is OK, that teen-age pregnancy is OK, and that dropping out of school to become mothers is OK.

These young girls will never have the opportunity to lift themselves out of poverty if they choose that route. Shame on the school’s administration that dropped the ball here. The parade sponsors don’t intend to promote this (sexual promiscuity, fornication, unwanted pregnancy, LRH), but they might do well to monitor the groups included in their parade so this sort of things does not recur.

I think this is very important. I am afraid for the future of these young people in such a permissive environment.

Amen! And Amen!

What is your first impression of the letter above? Do you find it hard to believe that such a letter appeared in one of the nation’s top ten newspapers? Me, too. I trust that you rejoice that there are still those in this world who will speak up and speak out against lascivious behavior, indecent, immodest apparel, and who will insist that such lewd dress and demeanor never occurs again. Can you say, “Amen,” to that?

“However, While I Agree In Principle . . .”

From criticisms we have heard lately from some of our brethren, I wonder if we might assail the lady’s wonderful words with these curious and singular objections.

First, who does this lady think she is? Who appointed her to be our civic “watchdog”? She is probably part of a group of “snarling curs” who have a “pack dog mentality,” always ready to bite and devour those who oppose their divisive, hidden agendas. Surely, as she herself admits, those in authority did not “intend to promote” the alleged evils to which she refers, so what right does she have to bark against our well intentioned educators? She speaks of appointing monitors. What next — a “moral-monitor” civic police unit?

Second, who gave this lady the authority to define what is sexually “suggestive” and what is impure “exhibition- ism”? Where would she draw the line? How much clothing would be enough to satisfy her definition of modesty? What kind of movement of the body would not be suggestive and exhibitionist? Is she going to provide lists and guidelines for acceptable parade dress and display? If not, she should forbid such things in her own parades, but she should allow others to conduct their own parades as they choose.

If this lady is allowed to define what is suggestive and alluring, and if we allow her to change our public parades, what will we say when she goes after our schools’ cheer- leaders? Before we allow her to set public moral standards, we had better consider what her guidelines will do to the prom and other school dances. If we do not stop this lady here, what else will she want to regulate — the attire and behavior at our public swimming pools?!

Third, each school district is an independent, autonomous unit. Diane Byars has no right to preach her opinions about what constitutes modest dress and decorum. That is for each local district to determine. She may do what she wants with her own family, but she has no right to make laws for other local bodies.

Fourth, since she says that someone “has shown very poor judgment,” she admits that it falls into the category of judgment and, hence, is not a matter of “law and gospel.” Again, lady Byars is usurping a role which neither God nor man has given her.

Fifth, observe the “negative, judgmental tone” of her letter. It is filled with words of harsh criticism and cold, cutting condemnation. Does she not know that she can catch more flies with honey than she can with vinegar? Her letter is a good example of what is causing many to “tune out” what we are saying. Folks will not listen to voices of moderation and to “positive” appeals for godly living because they have been “turned off” by the wild rantings and scare tactics of women like Diane T. Byars. Perhaps if she had used less caustic, abusive language, her plea would be better received.

Sixth, why did the lady “go public” with her complaints? She should have gone privately to whomever was in charge and sat down with them and expressed her reservations. Did she even bother to pick up the phone and call someone in authority? We know, by her own statement, that she went to the “telephone book.” Why did she feel the need to make a “private” city parade into a public scandal? If she loved the school district and those in authority, she would have gone to them in private and would never have slandered those good, civic minded people before the world.

Seventh, she writes as though she is glad she witnessed the parade just so she could have something and someone to “write up.” People like her are just trying to make a name for themselves as “great defenders” of public morality and as “saviors” of the civil state! Maybe she is trying to be appointed to the staff of Guardian Of Public Purity.

Eighth, it is apparent that lady Byars has too much time on her hands. If she would spend more time helping those “12 and 13 year olds” she so sharply condemned, perhaps she would not have time to watch a parade and pass judgment on others. It is amazing that she has time to see a parade, write condemnatory letters, and seek to regulate an independent school district’s policy. She needs to take care of her “two daughters” and let the rest of us raise our own.

Ninth, rather than honoring Martin Luther King, this lady mars his special day by a “trash and burn” policy. Some people seek to exalt themselves by tearing others down. The dear lady needs to learn that one cannot honor a great man by throwing hypercritical stones at his sincere, struggling disciples.

Tenth, it is evident that our lady critic is trying to “write a creed” for each local, independent school district to follow. Who appointed her “Pope”?! She is trying to run the civic- hood. While we agree with her in principle, we do not think she should write public policy and expect the rest of us to conform to it or else be burned at the stake. Of course, she is free to write letters and question the behavior of others, but her letter is creedal in nature. It says, “Conform to my parade style, or get out.” Her creed shows she is trying to “head up” and run her own parade.

Finally, perhaps we ought to call a five year moratorium against all parades. Maybe communities would be better off if we canceled all school board meetings, ceased to publish school district papers, and did away with all public teachers for a period of five years. (Note: It is strange that those who cry the loudest about local control and autonomy and who protest against those who would try to tell others what to do are themselves not the least bit hesitant or squeamish to tell everyone [every school, magazine, and church] what might be best for the next five years!)

(This last section does not express the author’s view. Any apparent reference to living men and current events is perhaps hypothetical and probably coincidental.)