Truth Magazine

By Steve Willis

Deaths Caused by Alcohol

Scientific American reported: “Excessive alcohol consumption leads to more than 100,000 deaths annually in the U.S. Accidents, mostly from drunken driving made up a quarter of this number in 1992; alcohol-related homicide and suicide accounted for 11 and 8 percent, respectively. Cancers that are partly attributable to alcohol, such as those of the esophagus and larynx, contribute to an additional 17 percent. About 9 percent resulted from alcohol-related stroke. Another major contributor is a group of 12 ailments … of which alcoholic cirrhosis of the liver and alcohol dependence syndrome are the most important. These 12 ailments represented 18 percent of all alcohol-related deaths in 1992 (“By the Numbers: Deaths Caused by Alcohol,” December 1996, 30-31).

Marilyn Manson

Take names from Marilyn Monroe and Charles Manson, add Satanism and music and what do you get? Marilyn Manson, the Rolling Stone magazine Best New Artist for 1996.

Marilyn Manson is a he  a stage name used by Brian Warner. He is a “shock rocker” who must be extra shocking in these days of shocking things on TV, radio, movies, and the Internet. “Manson, 28, a skinny, chinless 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. In his `Irresponsible Hate Anthem,’ he shrieks: `Let’s just kill everyone and let your god sort them out.’ Manson claims he spends his free time beating up bootlickers and consuming pot, cocaine and amphetamines. His favored nocturnal activities include desecrating graves and smoking human bone chips.”

Manson’s crusade is to stamp out Christianity, which he calls, the “root of all weakness.” He does so in concerts and on albums, one of which is named Antichrist Superstar  a reference to the musical and movie Jesus Christ Super-star. Not all songs have this aim, but the ones that don’t, such as the remake of “Sweet Dreams” are bait for the Satanist trap. Manson’s words said of the song on his al-bum that it is “a clever piece of cheese on a rat trap. A lot of innocuous mall shoppers bought [the song] and were then introduced to this whole new world of Marilyn Manson they didn’t expect. .Now that I’ve got the attention of a main-stream audience, things can really be accomplished.”

Beware! Check out what you or your children are listening to. It may be the bait on a trap such as Marilyn Manson’s (quotes from Alberta Report, “Antichrist in a black G-string,” January 27, 1997, 42).

Kids and Marijuana

Articles in the December 9, 1996 Time magazine report that marijuana (pot) use is up among many children. “Kids and Pot” gave these statistics: “By the time teens reach 17: 68% can buy marijuana within a day; 62% have friends who use marijuana; 58% have been solicited to buy marijuana.” The U.S. Department of Health and Human services surveyed 18,000 Americans and concluded that “marijuana use among youths (ages 12 to 17) has roughly doubled in the past few years. Use of pot by young people rose 105% from 1992 to 1994, and gained 37% between 1994 and 1995. At the Phoenix House Foundation ten years ago, 13% of adolescents sought treatment for marijuana; today that figure has jumped to 40%.” In “What I Would Say… ,” an article with advice from public figures, we find the former U.S. Surgeon General, Jocelyn Elders, saying, “…don’t be judgmental” of your kids if they are using drugs, and “Re-member, your goal is not to change your child’s behavior because that is impossible.”

Compare her advice to that of Joseph Califono, Jr., President of the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University: “With all three of my children, I made two points. First, each was a creature of God, blessed with brains and talent. With such generous divine gifts goes a moral obligation to develop those talents and use them to help others less fortunate. That’s why it is morally wrong to use drugs.” It is a good thing that Elders is not in a position to make policy. Donna Shala, U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services, said it right: “Our children need to hear a clear and consistent no-use message about marijuana  that it is illegal, dangerous, and wrong. Research tells us it limits learning, memory, perception, judgment and motor skills, and it damages the brain, heart, lungs, and immune system. Marijuana is not a `soft’ drug.” Califano added, “Our research shows that the earlier someone smokes marijuana, the likelier that youngster is to move on to other drugs. Children who smoke pot before age 12 are 42 times likelier to use drugs like cocaine and heroin than those who first smoked after age 16.”

In “High limes at New Trier High” Time reported that the potency of marijuana has gone up. In the 1980s and early 1990s the chief intoxicant, THC was 3-4%. In 1995 it was approaching 6%. This gives a greater “high” and certainly adds to the addictive nature of the drug.

The attitudes of our kids toward drugs and drug users may be changing too. From a study of 6000 teens by the Partnership of a Drug-Free America, we read: I agree strongly with the statements:

Taking drugs scares me -1993: 47%, 1995: 36%

I don’t want to hang around drug users  1993: 55%, 1995: 39%

The same article gave a serious reflection on parental responsibility: a Chicago policeman said, “Parents tell me they never go into their kids’ rooms  then they wonder why they have a problem….” They call this “enabling behavior”  no parental responsibility enables the kids to use drugs. “The school and the police can’t do much with-out the support and concern of parents, many of who can’t seem to decide whether to be the good cop or the bad cop with their kids.” It’s important that we decide!

More Dan Quayle Was Right

Remember VP Dan Quayle’s Murphy Brown problems? Of course later many came to realize that Dan Quayle was right in asserting that single mothering was not the best for children. A Statistic Canada study shows again, Dan Quayle was right. From the Alberta Report: “The good news: 84% of children live in a traditional two-parent family, and 79% with both their natural parents. .. In only one-third of the two-parent families surveyed by Statscan does the mother have a full-time job. So fully 56% of Canadian children have either mothers with only part-time jobs or full-time, stay-at-home mothers.”

“The bad news: 14% in single-mother families suffer at least as much harm as earlier studies have suggested.. . .On average, children raised by single mothers were 167% to 235% more likely to be destructive, depressed, or socially impaired. These effects likely do not result solely from the career-mom’s absence from home, for fully 54% of single mothers do not have jobs.” In a chart on “The sociopath of single parenthood” the National Longitudinal Survey of Children studied and reported on these areas: Hyperactivity, Conduct disorder, Emotional disorder, One or more behavior problems, Repeated a grade. Whether the single-mothers had high or low income, their children had more problems than those of two-parent families.

Slouching Towards Gomorrah

OK, so I borrowed a title from Robert Bork’s book, though I’ve not read it. The sins of “going after strange flesh”  homosexuality  are coming closer and closer to being legalized. In Canada, federal Secretary of State for Multiculturalism Hedy Fry “wants to put `queer culture’ under the banner of multiculturalism funding.” This is just a short step away from employers being given a homosexual employee quota. She told the gay-newspaperXtra West that starting in April her department will fund any group that meets three criteria: civic participation, identity, and social justice. Further she added that, “the hate that the gay community tends to be faced with would qualify them” for federal money (Alberta Report, “Federal favors for ‘queer culture’,” December 23, 1996).

Of course this is not only happening in Canada. In “Hawaiian Courtship,” Time magazine (December 16, 1996) reports: “Gay marriage may become legal in the islands without necessarily coming to a chapel near you.” It began six years ago, when three couples, longtime residents of Hawaii, challenged the proscription of same-sex marriages in Hawaii. The health department refused to issues licenses “on the ground that only a man can marry a woman, and only a woman can marry a man.” The couples challenged this on the basis of sex discrimination. In 1993, the Hawaiian Supreme Court ruled the law violated a person’s equal protection under the law, and that same sex marriages could not be proscribed unless there could be found some compelling, legitimate reason to ban them. By 1998 gay couples may be free to many in Hawaii.

The problem presented is whether other states or countries will recognize those couples as married. Robert Knight, of the Family Research Council in Washington, emphasizes the concern of conservatives who would reject recognizing gay marriages: “It will lead to calls for other relationships to be recognized, because if feelings are the key to recognizing a marriage, there’s no logical reason why three or four people who say, ‘We sincerely love each other’ should be denied this status.”

Recent considerations say that the decision won’t have a broad impact in the other U.S. states. Time reports: “The state supreme court’s decision has no binding effect as a precedent in other states, though gays elsewhere could invoke the persuasiveness of its reasoning. Other states remain free to set gender-based restrictions on marriage because the U.S. Supreme Court has never decided whether the U.S. Constitution bans restrictions. (The high courts of several states have ruled that it does not)” And the recently passed “Defense of Marriage Act” forbids the U.S. government to recognize same-sex unions.

And, another item from the “Milestones” section in the February 24, 1997 Time (Canadian Edition): “BORN: Bailey Jean Cypher, a baby for girl singer Melissa Etheridge and her partner, Julie Cypher, ex-wife of Lou Diamond Phillips; in Los Angeles.” This lesbian couple and “their” baby made the cover of Newsweek magazine about the same time. As I noted at the beginning, it appears we’re slouching toward Gomorrah.

Great News for Women  NOT!

The Canadian Southam newspapers reported: “The women of Ontario are now legally free to bare their breasts in public.” Of course a similar case was won by a woman in the U.S. a few years ago. The Canadian case arose when Gwen Jacob decided to go for a stroll in downtown Guelph five years ago in protest to a law she said discriminates against women on hot days. The Ontario Court of Appeal’s ruling is technically only binding in Ontario, but it could carry weight with courts in other provinces. Justice Coulter Osborne made a few comments with the ruling: “There was nothing degrading or dehumanizing in what (Jacob) did. “The scope of her activity was limited and was entirely non-commercial. No one who was offended was forced to continue looking at her. Jacob’s lawyer called the ruling “great news for women, it’s a victory for women’s equality.”

A Change in Policy, Again

It was announced that Statistics Canada would no longer compile statistics on marriages and divorces. This caused quite an uproar as it appeared marriage was not as important to the agency. “Faced with mounting public opposition, Statistics Canada decided [in Nov. 1996] the agency would continue to compile annual statistics on marriage and divorce. The agency announced earlier [in 1996] it would drop the tally to save $150,000 annually; it argued these statistics were no longer useful given the number of common-law unions. Critics maintained Statscan was trying to undermine the importance of marriage. Statscan was inundated by so many complaints it had to hire a part-time secretary to keep up with the volume of mail” (Alberta Re-port, “Sooner count marriages than complaints,” December 2, 1996, 43).

Guardian of Truth XLI: 13 p. 24-26
July 3, 1997

By Ron Roberts

I was very grateful when God gave us a daughter about eleven years ago. I took great care in selecting a virtuous woman to marry two years earlier. When we received our baby girl, I felt her mother would teach her to be just like her. I could sit back and watch the prize which is far above rubies develop (Prov. 31:10). Although my wife appreciated the compliment, she reminded me that child rearing was not a spectator sport for either parent.

The Bible doesn’t speak a great deal about the specific relationship between fathers and daughters.

We know Jairus (Mark 5:21ff), Philip (Acts 21:9), and Jephthah (Judges 11) all had girls, but the father I would like to consider is daughters to be the 2 Peter 2:5-9 and Luke 17:26-29 couple Noah and Lot together. Both men lived in an environment of great wickedness. Both men remained pure in spite of their surroundings. Both men were rescued by God when their neighbors were destroyed.

There were also some serious direction to find their differences between the two men. Noah had sons while Lot had daughters. Noah had to live in a wicked world, while Lot chose to live in a wicked city (Gen. 13:7-13). The most significant difference for our study though is that Noah saved his family while Lot lost his.

“And Lot lifted up his eyes, and beheld all the plain of Jordan, that it was well watered every where … ” (Gen. 13:10). Lot made his selection based on profit. Many men make their choices based on money. They will accept a transfer, a promotion, or overtime without considering how it will impact their family. Fathers are to provide for their families (1 Tim. 5:8), but these provisions go much deeper than the wallet. I must give my girls spiritual instruction, a refuge from the wicked world, and an opportunity to meet Christian boys from whom to choose their husbands.

In time God decided to destroy Sodom and its neighbors. Angels were sent to deliver Lot’s family, but before they retired for the evening the men of the city came to Lot’s door demanding the visitors for sex (Gen. 19:4-8). Lot offered these men his two virgin daughters to satisfy their lusts. (I hope at this point Lot realized what a poor choice he had made for his family.) The angels struck the Sodomites with blindness to rescue Lot and his daughters.

Before the city was destroyed Lot tried to persuade his sons-in-law to leave with him (Gen. 19:14). Some have suggested that Lot had two daughters. They believe that these virgins who were offered to the mob were also betrothed to the men who are called sons-in-law. Others believe Lot had at least four daughters. Two or more had already married men of the city. If this was the case then the husbands had authority over their wives. Lot could not rescue his daughters without convincing their husbands to depart. The men weren’t persuaded, and Lot had to leave his children to die.

Our culture allows children to pick their own mates, but we can do a great deal to influence their decision. From the time our girls were old enough to know what marriage was their mother and I have spoken to them about finding a husband who loves God like they do. We want them to marry a true Christian and not just a church member.

The story ends with Lot and his daughters living in the mountains. His wife was dead. The daughters feared their father would have no heirs, and so they got him drunk and committed incest with him. They were out of Sodom, but Sodom was not out of them. Lot escaped the city, but his family died or was contaminated by its evil.

As fathers we often think we should protect our daughters from boys, but we must also learn to protect boys from our daughters. The immoral woman found in Proverbs 5-7 was someone’s daughter. Some father’s little girl grew up to be a seductress.

The wickedness which led to the flood began when the sons of God (spiritually minded men) looked upon the daughters of men (immoral women). The women were valued for their fleshly beauty only. Their influence led to the contamination of all except for Noah’s family. We don’t want our daughters to be the daughters of men, but children of God. We brought them into this world. Let’s give them the love and direction to find their way into God’s family.

Guardian of Truth XLI: 14 p. 1
July 17, 1997

By Johnny Stringer

Why am I a member of the church of Christ? Because when I obeyed the Lord’s conditions for the forgiveness of sins, he graciously forgave me and began to count me as one of his people  that is, a member of his church.

In accordance with scriptural usage, I use the term church of Christ to refer to the people belonging to Christ  those who are saved. The term translated “church” (ekklesia) was used to refer to a group of people, and it was used with reference to different kinds of groups. When Jesus promised to build his church, he meant that he was going to have his group (Matt. 16:18). His group consists of those who are saved through his blood and on his conditions, which are set forth in his testament. When one obeys those conditions, therefore, he is saved and, consequently, added to that group of saved people (Acts 2:38, 41, 47).

This group may be described as the church of Christ because it belongs to Christ. I, therefore, sometimes refer to the saved as the church of Christ. At other times I refer to them as God’s people, the body of Christ, the church of God, the Lord’s body, and other such terms that accurately describe the people belonging to Christ. I am a member of that group because I obeyed the conditions for salvation.

If you ask me why am a member of the particular local church of Christ with which I am identified, my answer is different. I have chosen that local church for four reasons: (1) It consists of those who have met the Lord’s conditions for salvation and are therefore members of his church. (2) Like the churches we read about in the New Testament, it is independent, not affiliated with any denominational organization. (3) Those making up that group are devoted to letting the Scriptures guide them in all their activities; hence, I can participate with them in their worship and work with-out engaging in unscriptural activities. (4) I am located near enough to its place of assembly that I can regularly assemble with that local group.

The religious world is confused with respect to church membership. There are many denominational organizations among those professing to be Christians. Many people think any of these is fine; other more conscientious souls may believe that they should find the one that most closely follows the Scriptures. In fact, no denominational body is scriptural, for the Scriptures do not teach that local churches should organize themselves into denominational bodies.

In the New Testament, one set of congregations were not organized into one denomination while another set of congregations were organized into another denomination. There were no denominational bodies. There was no such thing as an individual searching to find which denomination he should join. The term church was used sometimes to refer to all the saved (Matt. 16:18) and other times to refer to the saved in a locality who banded together to work and worship as a unit (1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 11:8; Rom. 16:16). It was never used to refer to a denominational body.

Rather than searching for which denomination he should join, one should search for what to do to be saved. That search should lead him to discover that when he meets the conditions for salvation, he will then be a part of the Lord’s church; he will not have to search for it. Then he must search for a local church consisting of Christians with whom he may participate in the congregational activities God has ordained in the Scriptures. The only searching for the right church that is required is the search for a scriptural local church.

In explaining why we are members of the church of Christ, Christians must be careful to avoid giving the impression that we have selected a denomination called the Church of Christ because, of all the denominations that exist, the Church of Christ is the one that is right.

Guardian of Truth XLI: 14 p. 5
July 17, 1997

By Steve Wallace

Richard Copeland came to Kaunas, Lithuania, in late February followed by Bill Bynum in mid- March. Steven Deaton and this writer arrived the last week of March, working with brother Bynum for much of the time we were there. Bill had already made good progress in getting studies going with non-Christians and this trend continued throughout our stay in Kaunas. Dennis Scroggins and Joe Price are presently there. They report that two have been baptized as of the time of the writing of this report. Also, studies continue with contacts made prior to their coming and new contacts continue to be found. Much of all workers’ lime in Kaunas has been spent in such studies. We put ads in the paper for “Free Bible Studies” in both English and Lithuanian. These brought good response.

The attendance at Sunday services of the church and at the weekly Bible lectures was encouraging, with a high of 17 in attendance at the former and 12 non-Christians at the latter. With three men there at one time, Bill, Steven, and I were able to branch out and work with the Christians in both Vilnius and Siauliai during our time there, while still covering our responsibilities in Kaunas. Jay Horsley and Ron Lloyd are presently in Vilnius, working with the church there and doing evangelism.

More time was spent on the tedious, time consuming work of proof-reading translated material and other work related to publishing some of the books we have been working on. Larry Ray Hafley’s booklet, The Church and Denominationalism, was published during my stay there. We have finished proof-reading Jimmy Jividen’s book, Glossolalia Roy Cogdill’s New Testament Church has been proof-read and is being retyped to smooth out the rough edges which exist in all such translations.

I brought in more computers for translators when I came in (coming by car). Dennis Scroggins brought in hardware to upgrade some of the existing computers. The progress with the computers, an effort that started last year, has been slow. It is our hope that our present work will result in greater ease in both translating literature and in getting proof-read material into final print form.

Our time with the brethren in all the cities mentioned herein was well spent. Besides meeting with them for regular assemblies, we were also able to have private studies with a good number of them. In addition to the above, we were also able to help some of them in various ways with problems or obstacles in their personal lives.

The only dark spot in our work this year was the street work. Spring is late in Europe this year. As of this writing, it still has not arrived in Germany. We continued with our work in setting up the table full of literature on the main pedestrian thoroughfare. However, the number of people taking literature was lower than usual. It was simply too cold and/or rainy most of the time that Bill, Steven, and I were there. We hope to hear of more activity at the table as the summer draws nearer.

The changes that have come to Eastern Europe are a subject often noted by those who have worked there. One change I noticed during a brief visit to Vilnius which I think all readers can appreciate is the following: There is now a McDonalds about 150 yards up the street from the spot where we used to set up our table. All who were there during 1991 and 1992, when the changes were all so new, will indeed find this hard to picture!

Conclusion

We are all greatly encouraged by the response and growth we are seeing in the work in Lithuania. Much work remains to be done and all are optimistic about the future.

Guardian of Truth XLI: 13 p. 16
July 3, 1997