Truth Magazine

By John Isaac Edwards

In the last few years, Internet use has exploded. An estimated 10.1 million people are surfing the Web today. At present, one in ten households is connected and many other people use the Internet at work or as students.

The benefits of the Information Superhighway are many. As an educational tool, users can learn about virtually any topic. The Internet is also an effective outreach medium. It can be used for much good in spreading the gospel of Christ “in all the world” (Mark 16:15).

But, as with the real world, there are dangers lurking in the virtual world. This writing points out some Internet dangers, so we can avoid getting caught in the World Wide Web.

Accessability and Anonymity

One thing that makes the Internet so dangerous is that everything is so accessible, so immediate, just inches from our eyes. Sin is just a “point-and-click” away!

The anonymity of Cyberspace poses another threat. The feeling of being alone and unknown may tempt some to do things they might not otherwise do. But, you may not be as anonymous as you might think! You leave information behind every time you visit a site. Try visiting Anonymizer.com to get a glimpse of the sorts of information you present, often without knowing it, every time you surf the Net. It is also possible to check the addresses people have been visiting through history facilities on some browsers. Of course, God is aware of what we do on our computers. The Holy Spirit revealed, “Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do” (Heb. 4:13).

Cyberstalkers and Child Predators

In a September 16, 1999 White House press release, Vice-President Al Gore said, “Cyberstalking is a very serious new problem confronting us in the information age.” Cyberstalking is unwanted, obsessive pursuit of an individual. At its worst, it becomes real-world stalking, with potentially dangerous and even deadly consequences. The most common forums for Cyberstalking are chat rooms and e-mail. In chat rooms, predators can pose as anyone, even as other children. Predators assume the personae of other kids who share the interests of those in the room. They may lurk for awhile, getting a sense of the various participants and picking up the rhythms of conversation. When they make their move, their words and phrases will be childlike. Whatever the approach, the goals are the same: to learn the child’s interests, win the child’s confidence and ensure the child keeps it a secret. Eventually the predator will suggest a meeting, and by then, it may be too late.

Safeguards such as being careful about to whom you give your e-mail address and never giving out your real name, home address, or phone number to strangers are important. Parents, be alert to any changes in your children’s behavior regarding the computer and time spent online. Have they become hesitant to use the computer when you are nearby? Do they become evasive when you ask about their computing activities? Do you know their passwords and screen names? As President Bill Clinton said in a radio address following the deadly Columbine school shooting, “Parents must know what their children are doing on their computers.” Monitoring your children’s computer time is simply a part of “bringing them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4).

The most important thing to remember is that when you’re online in any kind of public forum, anyone can read whatever you post. You should also remember that people you meet in Cyberspace may not be who they seem to be.

Cults and Hate Groups

In the wake of their mass suicide, the members of the Heaven’s Gate cult remain the focus of a great deal of speculation, commentary, and concern over the role of cults on the Web. A cult is a religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian or charismatic leader. There’s no question that cults have found homes on the Internet. We must make sure that our children can tell the difference between the Lord’s church and cults.

A host of conspiracy sites are cropping up on the Web, aimed at encouraging violence against a government portrayed as increasingly concerned with restricting our rights. New hate groups pop up every day, with new victims, new ways of demeaning and insulting familiar racial and      religious targets, and new appeals to other lonely, disenfranchised people to join in the abuse. The Web is being used as a vehicle for gathering followers. If we’re not careful, we may be lured in.

E-Porn

Pornography is a huge and growing Cyberspace draw! There are now at least 40,000 sex oriented sites on the Web, and probably thousands more. According to Nielsen Net Ratings, 17.5 million surfers visited porn sites from their homes in January, a 40 percent increase compared with four months earlier. Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material is big e-business! Overall, Web surfers spent $970 million on access to adult-content sites in 1998, according to the research firm Datamonitor, and that figure could rise to more than $3 billion by 2003. A recent study by researchers at Stanford and Duquesne Universities claims at least 200,000 Americans are hopelessly addicted to E-porn.

Pornography is lasciviousness, “excess, licentiousness, absence of restraint, indecency, wantonness; . . . the prominent idea is shameless conduct” (W.E. Vine), and Paul said, “they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God” (Gal. 5:19, 21). Pornography also violates the principle taught by Jesus in Matthew 5:28: “That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.”

Time Consumption

According to National Web Demographics, 43.6% access the Web one to four times a day during a typical week and 36% spend seven or more hours on the Web during a typical week. A GVU WWW User Survey shows that 34% use their Web browsers 0-20 hours per week and 21-22% use them 21-40 hours. Some people’s online habits make it hard for them to be off-line. According to a study by Dr. Kimberly Young, assistant professor of psychology at the University of Pittsburgh at Bradford, the Internet can have the same addictive effects as gambling or drinking. We must be careful not to become Cyber-addicts.

We must remember to use our time wisely. Paul wrote, “Redeeming the time, because the days are evil” (Eph. 5:16). Spending too much time on their computers, many may neglect spiritual responsibilities such as Bible study, prayer, personal evangelism, hospitality, visiting, and the like. How much time do you spend on the Internet?

Cyberchurch

A 1998 survey from Barna Research revealed 16% of teens said that, within the next five years, they expect to use the Net as a substitute for church-based religious experiences. The report also mentioned “a Cyberchurch that will bring people together on line.”
I have some questions for those seeking to launch a Cyberchurch:

1. How would you go about observing the Lord’s supper? A reading of 1 Corinthians 11:20-34 will show the scriptural manner of observing the Lord’s supper requires the church coming together “into one place.”

2. What do you do with Hebrews 10:25? The apostle to the Hebrews penned, “Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.” To launch a Cyberchurch, you would have to throw Hebrews 10:25 out the window! There’s just no way we could assemble on a computer and worship God acceptably. The Internet must not become a substitute for assembling with the saints.

May each of us learn to be “street smart” on the Information Superhighway.

115 N Brandywine Ct., Salem, Indiana 47167

By Edward O. Bragwell, Sr.

While talking with sister Polly Phillips recently, she related an incident that happened during one of her beloved husband, H.E. Phillips’ hospitalizations shortly prior to his death. It was a Sunday morning and brother Phillips was alert enough to realize that it was the Lord’s Day, so he decided that he needed to get up and go to worship services. Of course, he was not able, but in his mind he was. As I recall, one of his daughters was attending to his needs that day. Anyway, after announcing his desire to attend worship, he ordered the one staying with him to bring to him his “Testament and tie.”

Those of us who knew brother Phillips well know how important those two items were to him at worship time. He needed his Testament because he respected its authority and relied on it check to see “whether those things were so” (see Acts 17:11). He needed his tie because he considered the worship service a solemn and dignified occasion that required him to be as dignified as he could possibly be, both in behavior and appearance. Many could profit from the example of brother Phillips’ love for his “Testament and tie.”

Brother Phillips believed that we should “make all things according to the pattern” (Heb. 8:5). He believed that the New Testament is the pattern for the Christian. To him it was quite simple. If it is authorized in the New Testament do it, if it is not don’t.

We should always consult the New Testament when ordering our own lives and when teaching others how to live. One should listen as others teach with an open mind, but always consult the New Testament to see if the things are so. It matters not what the subject is. It may be the structure, work, worship, or organization of the church. It may be marriage, divorce, and remarriage. It might be the kind of daily life a Christian should live. Whatever the topic, the New Testament is needed to get and keep one on the right track.

Brother Phillips also believed that the public worship of the Creator of the universe was an occasion that required dignity. His tie was a symbol of that dignity. After all, if one attended a public meeting in honor of a world leader he would want to appear in the most dignified manner possible. How much more should it be when one attends a meeting honoring the “King of kings and Lord of lords”?

As I observe many who attend gospel meetings at various places and regular services at home, I wish more would be more considerate of the occasion. It is not at all unusual for brothers and sisters (not just babes in Christ) to attend services dressed more fitting for a wiener roast, hay ride, or hog killing than for a service honoring the Savior of the world — even some of the men taking a “public part” in the service. Am I saying that a man must literally wear a tie to services to appear or to be dignified? No, not at all. But at the same time, it should seem obvious that when one dresses as sloppily and casually as some habitually do that they need to give more consideration to the solemnity and dignity of the occasion.

It is axiomatic in our society that events have varying degrees of solemnity and dignity and that people show their regard for the nature of the event by the way they dress and behave. Dress and behavior appropriate for a ball game is quite different from that of a funeral service honoring a friend. Maybe the problem would be solved if we would just stop and reflect upon the special place that a worship service should have in our hearts.

I realize that my thinking along these lines may be influenced by the way that I was brought up. As a youngster growing up in the country, with limited financial resources, we had “everyday” clothes and “church” clothes. Sometimes the difference in the two was the age of the garment. At “church time,” whether the “regular” Sunday services or the “big meeting,” we were expected to dress up in the best that we had. Sometimes it was the newest pair of Liberty overalls that we had, but by wearing our best we were showing our regard for the occasion. If the President of the United States had come to town and we would have had the privilege to meet with him and hear him speak, we would have worn those Liberty overalls, washed and neatly ironed — it was the best that we had. We felt that we could do no less when meeting with our Lord around his table and hearing his word proclaimed.

Yes, it might do all of us good to follow brother Phillips’ example as we prepare to attend services and ask for our “Testament and tie.”

223 First St., Russellville, Alabama 35653 edbragwell@juno.com

By Mark Mayberry

Bobby Knight, long-time Indiana basketball coach, is known for speaking his mind. According to a recent report in the Houston Chronicle, if Knight were coaching in the pros, the first thing he would do would be to fire the cheerleaders. Referring to them as “bump-and-grind girls,” he said they are an unnecessary and inconsistent distraction: “It’s like we’re selling a picture of a naked gal on the cover of the Methodist hymnal.”

Jesus once said, “For the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light” (Luke 16:8). Bobby Knight, for all the reckless excess that he occasionally displays in other areas — throwing chairs on the basketball court and allegedly choking players in practice — is dead on the mark in his aforementioned comments. In this regard, Coach Knight is more discerning than some members of the Lord’s church who allow and/or encourage their daughters to become cheerleaders. In today’s world, sex is the name of the game. The only difference between professional cheerleaders and their younger counterparts is degree. In both cases, flesh is on display. Whether we are talking about junior high, high school, college, or professional cheerleading, the clothing is typically scanty, the dancing provocative, and the bodily movements undeniably sensual and suggestive. Professional cheerleaders are held forth as the ideal for which younger girls are to strive. 

The gospel of Christ, with its exalted demand for holiness and purity, stands in sharp contrast with such displays of lascivious lewdness. The apostle Paul said, “Therefore I want the men in every place to pray, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and dissension. Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness” (1 Tim. 2:8-10). In like manner, the apostle Peter encouraged Christian women to be chaste and respectful in their behavior and dress (1 Pet. 3:1-4). 

Therefore I want the men in every place to pray, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and dissension. Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness (1 Tim. 2:8-10, NASU). 
In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior. Your adornment must not be merely external — braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses; but let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God (1 Pet. 3:1-4, NASU). 
Oh, that contemporary Christians would have the wisdom to cultivate within the hearts of their daughters the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God! Instead, both parents and children bow before the goddess of popularity. Through immaturity and insecurity, they compromise their convictions, conform to a corrupt culture, and then delude themselves into thinking that God approves of their sinful decisions. Have we forgotten that friendship with the world makes us the enemy of God (Jas. 4:1-5)? 

What is the source of quarrels and conflicts among you? Is not the source your pleasures that wage war in your members? You lust and do not have; so you commit murder. You are envious and cannot obtain; so you fight and quarrel. You do not have because you do not ask. You ask and do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, so that you may spend it on your pleasures. You adulteresses, do you not know that friendship with the world is hostility toward God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. Or do you think that the Scripture speaks to no purpose: He jealously desires the Spirit which He has made to dwell in us? (Jas. 4:1-5. NASU). 

Many Christian parents are in this very situation, having foolishly allowed their children to become involved in cheerleading and other inappropriate activities. They permit immodest dress, lascivious dancing, mixed swimming, indecent and sexually explicit literature, movies, and music. Brethren, such carnality is not befitting to those who are saints (Eph. 5:3-6).

But immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints; and there must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. For this you know with certainty, that no immoral or impure person or covetous man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience (Eph. 5:3-6, NASU). 

What should be done if we find ourselves (or our families) in such a situation? Sadly, when error is exposed, many get mad at the messenger. Faithful gospel preachers have often suffered grief at the hands of such stubborn and rebellious brethren. However, such a defiant response to the truth is displeasing to God, and of no benefit to the offenders. Instead, if we have allowed sin to invade our homes, we should act like men, and assume our God-given responsibility as head of our household. Let us take charge of our families. Real men will say “No” to the foolish immaturity of their sons and daughters. Occasionally, they may even be forced to overrule the wishes of their wives. Sadly, some moms push their daughters to become cheerleaders, prom queens, etc., so as to live, vicariously, through the accomplishment of their children. Godliness will not allow such folly.

James sets forth the divine pattern of reconciliation for the erring child of God: Quit trying to please men, and start trying to please God. Resist the devil, and submit to God. The double-minded, inconsistent man, if he wishes to draw near unto God, must cleanse his hands and purify his heart. Sinful laughter must give way to godly sorrow. Only through genuine, humble repentance can such a wayward disciple be restored to divine favor (Jas. 4:6-10). 

But He gives a greater grace. Therefore it says, God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble. Submit therefore to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you. Draw near to God and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded. Be miserable and mourn and weep; let your laughter be turned into mourning and your joy to gloom. Humble yourselves in the presence of the Lord, and He will exalt you (Jas. 4:6-10, NASU). 

Source: Mickey Herskowitz, “Latest Knightmare Tests Behavorial Line,” Houston Chronicle (April 15, 2000), B1.

4805 Sulley Dr., Alvin, Texas 77511

By Jere E. Frost

We gave attention earlier this year to the sad reports we were hearing about Florida College’s lectures (April issue of Gospel Truths). President C.G. “Colly” Caldwell wrote a brief statement (May issue of Gospel Truths) assuring us of what he and those closely associated with him and the school believed, including a disavowal of “unity-in-diversity.” It was a good statement as far as it went, and I commended it.

Now an eruption over “the days of creation in Genesis one” has occurred. There has been an advocacy of a non-literal interpretation of Genesis one by Hill Roberts during an earlier lectureship, and a continual and still ongoing teaching thereof in classes by Shane Scott. Both Colly Caldwell and Ferrell Jenkins, the head of the Bible department, say they personally believe that the days of Genesis one are literal days.

But their beliefs notwithstanding, they do not oppose what they believe is error at the very foundations of faith.

It is becoming clear now that the confusion is not over anything the administrators ostensibly believe, teach, or promote. The confusion is over what they do not say, and to the stand they do not make. They believe the world is round, but support those who teach it is flat.

The Ecumenical Background

This smacks of the spirit of ecumenism. Ecumenism is a denominational concept of promoting cooperation and unity among differing denominations in spite of their conflicting and contradictory beliefs. 

[Ecumenism is] aimed at the unification of the Protestant churches of the world and ultimately of all Christians.
 The Ecumenical Movement [is the movement] for worldwide cooperation and unity among Christian churches… (Microsoft Encarta Online Encyclopedia).

It is the concept that Methodists (with their sprinkling) and Baptists (with their immersion), Catholics (with their pope) and Pentecostals (with their personal guidance by the Holy Spirit), and Mormons (with their extra holy books) and Unitarians (who have no authoritative book at all) should all recognize and embrace one another under one loving, all-inclusive canopy of cooperation and fellowship.

Ecumenism Invades Us

The very expression, “the ecumenical movement,” is too strong for the school or erstwhile conservative churches of Christ. “Unity-in-diversity” has a much nicer ring to it. Featured and promoted in the now defunct Christianity Magazine by its owner and co-editor, Ed Harrell, the doctrine is a modified version of the same ecumenical philosophy denominations have had for years. There is “nothing new under the sun,” except that it is comparatively new to us, not having received notoriety since the days of Carl Ketcherside. In fact, if brother Harrell had been tired or wanted to take a break during his “unity-in-diversity” series, he could have selected one of Ketcherside’s old Mission Messenger editorials on unity and have run it instead. The reader would not have detected a difference.
 
Just here one is reminded that it makes a difference whose ox is goring and whose ox is being gored, as to what the reaction will be. Brethren staunchly resisted E.C. Fuqua’s doctrine of sanctified adultery, but Homer Hailey’s doctrine of sanctified adultery has found considerable sympathy and acceptance. 

Part of the difference is doubtless in the fact that brother Hailey had gained an uncommonly high esteem and respect in brethren’s affections all across the country. Ed Harrell made a direct appeal in his paper (Christianity Magazine) for brethren to tolerate and indulge brother Hailey and his admittedly incorrect position. He vigorously argued that this “old soldier” not be “turned out” (his terms). His appeal was strengthened by the fact that not a one of his staff of respected co-editors and writers said a single word against it — not a single word. The effect was that the whole influence of Christianity Magazine was for this positive gospel and unity-in- diversity. It was a “done deal” with many brethren. Fuqua’s doctrine and person never received this kind of support.

Carl Ketcherside also had his own paper. He was an exceedingly capable man who possessed an abundance of dignity and grace. But when he came to the campus of Florida College (when I was a student there) he was courteously received, but his doctrine was unequivocally opposed by administrators, faculty, and students. This is not a commentary on Ketcherside as being in any way short of ability or personality; again, he was a powerful and persuasive personality who was second to no one in those categories, then or now. It is rather a commentary on the spiritual fervor and fortitude to be found on that little Temple Terrace campus in the fifties.

A “Germ” of Truth Shifts the Emphasis

Ecumenists, including the “unity-of-diversity” brand among churches of Christ, emphasize that there should be unity despite differences. The “germ” of truth is that there should be unity, and indeed there are always some differences between what are considered to be sound brethren. It always has been and doubtless always will be that way. 

Aha, say they — differences! You admit differences! That’s diversity! And it has not destroyed unity — ergo, unity-in-diversity! So they ignore the differences and concentrate on the unity. Let us proceed slowly and carefully here.

Unity is indeed important. Jesus prayed, and then died, that we be one, and Paul pled for unity (Eph. 2:26; John 17:20, 21; 1 Cor. 1:10). But when this unity is described in Scripture, it is a unity of the Spirit, and unity of the faith (Eph. 4:3, 13). The truth that constitutes the faith is the only thing in the world that will sanctify, free, and save us (John 17:17; 8:32; 1 Pet. 1:22). Men can be united in error, and it will not save them. Truth obeyed necessarily saves one and produces a unity with God. 

Thus whereas it can be said that unity is precious, it must be said that truth is supreme. 

The Constant Struggle

Every man is in a constant struggle to know the truth, and to be faithful to it. The god of this world would confuse us. If unity is the goal in and of itself, then all of us should be ready to make whatever compromises the moment indicates are expedient. This kind of unity does not like debate or a spirited discussion of Scripture, for such will invariably produce some friction. It seeks to avoid the heat of the crucible where the gold is purified and separated from the dross.

But truth enthroned requires the constant study and discussion of Scripture, and a bringing to the fore those concepts that are held, or exegeses of Scripture that are made, to be subjected to the crucible of controversy as to whether or not they are correct. It is not by the vote of any tribunal or political massaging, that agreement is reached, but by a mutual appreciation of truth and those who esteem it. Certainly there is a need for much patience in this process, and in attitudes toward one another, but the emphasis is altogether on the truth, and not on the diversities — unity of the faith! That is the cry. 

We are obligated to speak only “as the oracles of God” (1 Pet. 4:11). Do not deliver your opinion and then smile, and say, “Diversity . . . everyone has the right to his own opinion and we’ll still be united anyway.” No! We seek no unity at the expense of truth, or that enthrones opinions. We seek truth. And in the process of peaceably and courteously addressing and discussing whatever issues and concepts have arisen and challenged our unity, we must trust the truth to produce the unity we need. 

In no instance are we justified in lowering the bar because we want to accommodate some prominent brother with a glaring and galling false doctrine. In no instance are we justified in moving the ancient landmarks to accommodate an ecumenical spirit. 

The Seduction of Unity in Diversity

Brethren Colly Caldwell and Ferrell Jenkins are to be commended for the personal belief they have expressed as to the days of creation in Genesis one being literal days. But I fear that they have unwittingly been seduced by the unity in diversity philosophy. 

I say “unwittingly” because (1) brother Colly says that neither he nor those closely associated with him at the school believe in unity-in-diversity. I do not for a moment question his integrity. This is, I am confident, the way he feels. And yet, (2) he has been and is fully aware of the error on the days of creation that was promoted at a lectureship and that is advocated in the school’s classrooms. (3) He believes it should be allowed, has made it possible, and has not said a word in repudiating it or taken a step to disallow it, notwithstanding its perverting of fundamental and basic truth, and its contrariness to his own belief. (4) This is the practice of unity-in-diversity  — it may be unwittingly done, but nonetheless, that’s what it is. (5)  Brother Jenkins’ speech actually called for “tolerance” for this view. His pacificism and rationale are exactly the same as Ed Harrell’s. 

“Unity-in-diversity” has done its work, and I repeat the fear that we are witnessing the seduction of good men and a good school by this philosophy. 

A Word of Encouragement

The political massaging of a situation and lining up of support will not meet the real needs of this or any other hour. This is not to say we should not use the best judgment of which we are capable. And we should indeed work to moderate feelings and to encourage kindness and brotherly affections and patience toward one another. 
But all of that being said, the need is to break the seductive power of ecumenism and to enthrone divine truth in its proper place. And then, having enthroned it, to not speak of divine truth as a “personal” view while giving error a pass, but rather to “contend earnestly for the faith.” 

Let us, with exceeding kindness toward one another personally, but with staunch convictions as to truth, address the issues at hand with the confidence that there is a truth, it can be understood and agreed upon, and that it is therein that unity can and must be found. Nothing — absolutely nothing — can take the place of truth. Unity is precious, but truth is supreme, and unity of the faith is its sublime fruit.     

2455 North Courtenay Pky., Merritt Island, Florida 32953 JereFrost@aol.com