Featured Archives - South Seminole Church Of Christ

BOREDOM

“I’m bored,” is what parents often hear from their children—usually about three days after summer vacation begins. Of course, many of us today who are parents or grandparents probably never uttered such words and may have a difficult time relating to it. We don’t remember any time when we had actually entered into a state of ennui. “Didn’t you ever take long trips by car?” “Yes, and it afforded a great opportunity for reading such books as Ben-Hur, Jule’s Verne’s The Mysterious Island, and Never So Few, where the word formidable first made itself known to me.” Sometimes the book was so exciting a child might remain in the car to finish a chapter even after arriving at one’s destination!

Well, we must have been bored on some occasion, but if so, such moments did not last long because there was always something to do. Do we live in a more pas-sive society—one in which we expect to be entertained constantly? One in which there is always noise in the air (television, radio, or an ipod with some app)? If we find ourselves alone with our own thoughts, is that the moment we become bored? Hmm. How can boredom exist for Christians when there are Scriptures to memorize, the Bible to study, prayers that need to be offered, and good works to be done?

Believe it or not, a study was completed on the subject of boredom, which was reported in the Orlando Sentinel on November 24, 2013. The results of the study conducted in Germany were published in the journal Motivation and Emotion (A16).

Methodology

For the experiment, 63 college students and 80 high school students were given PDA devices which beeped six times a day. At that time each subject was to “complete a questionnaire about what they were doing and how they felt about it.” The researchers were expecting to find four kinds of boredom, but they discovered five.

Indifferent Boredom

This one seems to be the mildest form of boredom, described as “relaxing and slightly positive.” It “reflected a general indifference to, and withdrawal from, the external world.” No examples were provided of the various types of boredom, but this one sounds like a student in class who is daydreaming. He’s not altogether into Physics and has withdrawn from the external world to some degree—until the teacher notices and brings him back to earth by asking a question over the material just covered.

Calibrating Boredom

Okay, it sounds clever, but what does it mean? It refers to a “slightly unpleasant state of having wandering thoughts” and “a general openness to behaviors aimed at changing the situation.” Is this referring to the class clown who is about to shoot a rubber band at a fellow student or put a thumbtack on the teacher’s chair? If so, the situation should soon be changed.

Searching Boredom

Now we move into the realm of the uncomfortable. This kind of boredom makes one feel restless and “actively seeking out ways of minimizing feelings of boredom.” “If you’re bored and you know it, clap your hands….” In other words, a person is bored to tears but he is taking measures to repress those feelings. How does one do that? “It’s only fifteen minutes until lunch—if I can just hang on.”

Reactant Boredom

With this scenario, the boredom has become so bad that a sufferer of it must leave the situation and “avoid those responsible” for it. “Mrs. Clark, can I go to the restroom? Please?”

Apathetic Boredom

This description sounds like a synonym of the first category, but it is not. It is the fifth type that was discovered in the research, and remarkably it accounted for 10% of all boredom for college students (36% for high school students). In it, students experienced “strong feelings of aversion.” It “shared some features with learned helplessness and depression.” Are the feelings so strong that the student says, “I’m not going to school today”? Would this be akin to Ferris Bueller’s Day Off?

What Is Boredom?

Okay, there has been some mild mockery here, but it is difficult to take such a study seriously. One objection to it might be that the students were not thinking about how bored they were until the study asked them; then they began to actually experience it—and to a greater degree than before. In other words, asking them to concentrate on their degree and type of boredom might actually have increased their levels.

Usually the dictionary is a safe place to go to find out information, but the definition for boredom is “the state of being bored,” and the origin of the word is unknown. Finally, under the 35^th definition of bore (all right, it was really only the sixth, but 35^th more accurately reflects the tediousness of the task), is found in Webster’s Second International Dictionary this definition: “to weary by tedious iteration or by dullness.”

Biblical Boredom

Trying to find a Biblical definition will prove even more fruitless since the word boredom does not appear anywhere in the Bible; neither does the word boring. Interesting! With all the sins discussed in the Old and New Testaments, is it possible that nothing is said on this subject? If so, it appears under some other word or concept.

“Wait a minute,” someone might interject. “Wasn’t Eutychus bored with Paul’s sermon? He fell asleep during it.” Paul was not necessarily boring. Other conditions can lead to drowsiness, such as a full stomach, medications, lack of sleep, lighting (or a lack of it) or a touch of illness. Paul did preach until midnight on that occasion (Acts 20:7-11). Someone might respond by saying, “I think Paul must have been a dull speaker. If Eutychus had been listening to Brother Dynamo from the Ever-Expanding Megachurch, he would have remained awake and been on the edge of his seat.” When Brother Dynamo can speak for three or four hours and be exciting for the entire time, there might be a point. Anyway, Paul never claimed to be an outstanding orator; Apollos was the eloquent one.

Does the Bible refer to the concept of boredom? It very well may—and not in a flattering way. If the instances about to be suggested are appropriate, boredom is associated with sin.

Beds of Ivory

“Woe to you who are at ease in Zion…” (Amos 6:1). Wealthy people often become bored with life. They lie on beds of ivory and stretch out on their couches, feast, and give themselves over to entertainment (Amos 6:5-6). Why? They have all they need and have lost a sense of purpose. They also tend to forget God…. In the Robert Redford version of The Great Gatsby, Daisy Buchanan says on no particular afternoon to her husband and guests, “What are we going to do today? What are we going to do tomorrow? What are we going to do for the next thirty years?” Most of us cannot relate to being able to buy anything we want, go anywhere we want to go, or do anything we want to do. But if life consists only of such things, it could well be boring.

So often, the main goal that people have is to get by—to have a place to live and enough food to eat. When that primary goal is surpassed, many have nothing else to aim for. A prosperous Jerusalem got bored—and self-absorbed. Everything became about them (with God taking a back seat)—satisfying them—as though material things could ever accomplish something meaningful. Solomon discovered that searching for self-worth among the physical aspects of life was vanity. He found that wealth, entertainment—even work—was just like striving after the wind.

The world today has rejected God and attempted to find meaning in the things of this world. We seek the comforts that money can buy, entertainment, and foolishness. Many have a television, a radio, or something else running most of the time. Fewer people spend time reading than what once was the case. It seems that our senses must be constantly bombarded, leaving our time for thinking and meditating diminished.

The problem with material things is that they take the focus of attention off God to something of inferior value. One of the kinds of soil that Jesus described was that which allowed “the cares of this world and the deceitfulness of riches” to “choke the word,” thus becoming unfruitful (Matt. 13:22). Although we may delight in the fanciful baubles we possess, they cannot save us from our sins or give us an eternal inheritance. Eventually, they bore us, and we move on to the next distraction. What God condemned in Israel was the emphasis on such worthless things at the expense of their relationship with God.

They were ignoring the sad conditions of the world in which they lived. They spent their time enjoying themselves instead of mourning the sins in their society or thinking about the doom that would eventually befall them. Are Christians today mourning for the sins of our society, or have we given up trying to set things right? Our flirtation with materialism serves to ignore the important matters but may well leave us feeling bored. Only in Jesus can we recapture what is meaningful in life. As Solomon put it: “Fear God and keep His commandments” (Ecc. 12:13).

A Rooftop Experience

It may be that David’s sin with Bathsheba was due to boredom. It was the time of year when “kings go forth to battle” (2 Sam. 11:1, KJV), but David remained in Jerusalem. He had been fighting for several years and had acquired a great deal of territory for Israel. The kingdom had grown in all directions—even as far as the Euphrates River (2 Sam. 8:3). God had blessed David with great success. Had he grown tired of fighting year in and year out? Had his life become too dull and too predictable? On this particular year David remained behind.

But why is he outside in the evening walking on the palace roof? Could he not go to sleep? As king, he could have called for entertainment if he wanted company. He could have spent the evening with any one of a number of wives. He might have had a meeting with some advisors. Or he could have spent time in prayer, meditation, or even singing some psalms he had written. Was it boredom from the same old same old that brought him to the roof that night?

Satan had prepared a visual feast for him, and he allowed the devil, through this means, to get to him. If it was a new and interesting experience that David wanted to alleviate boredom, he certainly received it. Hereafter, he would be rebuked by Nathan the prophet for this sin and the attempted cover-up, which failed, prompting David to condemn to death a loyal, brave, and noble warrior. He lost the infant son that was conceived as a result of adultery.

When his oldest son forced himself upon a pure daughter, David was furious—but did nothing. Such a grievous sin had not been part of his daily routine before, but he was forced to endure it now. When Absalom killed Amnon out of vengeance, such was difficult to bear. After a reconciliation, Absalom tried to wrest the kingdom away from David. When he was fleeing Jerusalem and Shimei was hurling curses (not to mention rocks) at him, it may have occurred to David that some things are worse than boredom. He refused to let his men kill or prevent Shimei from assaulting him.

David could not even die in peace. Adonijah decided to declare himself king, and the prophet Nathan had Bathsheba ask David to reassert that Solomon was to succeed him. The new king was forced to put Adonijah to death for his efforts to try to gain the kingdom for himself. If there is one thing that David learned, it was that being in a rut is not always a bad thing.

Are we tempted to think we are missing something? That we have overlooked an experience that would revitalize our life? If so, we are looking at the wrong individual—Self. We ought rather to be devoted to God, Who can providentially supply what we actually need. We are encouraged to live for Him Who died for us (2 Cor. 5:15). If we are serving God diligently, we are not missing anything that is good for us. David discovered this truth for all of us.

The Prodigal Son

Why did the prodigal son leave home where he had experienced safety and security? Did nothing change day after day? Did he know what he was going to do every day when he arose? Did he consider his existence humdrum? Why not do something exciting? What did the world have to offer? He found out by wasting his inheritance on riotous living. Had he spent all his wealth on wine, women, and song? The fortune that had been wasted was one that had been accumulated by hard work. God may have even blessed those boring days when physical labor was to be expended just as it had been the day before.

However, being penniless and without friends can get old in a hurry, also. Where were those who were his friends while he possessed money? Did not one of the women care for him when his cash flow ceased? Satan sells sin as an amazing adventure, which it may actually seem like at first. The price for excitement, however, is more than we can afford. When the prodigal son put himself above serving God, he realized he was bored and missing out on great adventures. Eventually, he came to himself and realized that having the right priorities (God and family) is not boring—but a blessing.

The Israelites

Did the children of Israel experience boredom by always serving Jehovah? Is that the reason they began to inquire about and then imitate the people of the land? They offered a new and fresh experience. Of course, they did not worship the true and living God; they were in error, and their practices were sinful—even to the point of offering their children as burnt sacrifices. Why did they not realize that boredom is largely a state of mind and that we must act rather than being acted upon? Serving God does accomplish everything important that needs to be done on this earth! Some died, and others were carried into captivity out of their land for their failure to be satisfied by the true and living God.

The Results

We have already seen the results of spiritual boredom are disastrous. They are not good for students, either. According to the afore-mentioned research:

Boredom isn’t just boring. It can be dangerous, either for the person who is bored or for the people around him. For instance, people who are bored are more likely to smoke, drink or use drugs. Kids who are bored are more likely to drop out of school and become juvenile delinquents. Studies have also linked boredom with stress and other health problems.

Christians should be enthusiastic about being servants of God. The opportunities we face now are always interesting; even more fascinating will be eternal life in the presence of One Who has demonstrated spectacular imagination. No one will be bored in heaven.

VIEWS ON FORGIVENESS

On Sunday, April 20, the Orlando Sentinel published on the front page of the newspaper, “Two Views of Forgiveness.” Yes, it is unusual to see a spiritual topic given such a prominent position in the newspaper, but in the publisher’s mind, it was evidently all right since it was “Easter.” The article begins:

As Jesus was dying, the Bible says he forgave those who betrayed him, those who condemned him, those who killed him. For Christians, Easter Sunday is not only about the resurrection of Jesus Christ but also the central lesson of forgiveness (A1).

Most newspapers do not present much favorable to the Bible. When they refer to anything, it is usually to announce something bizarre like the church groups that offered pina coladas (non-alcoholic) or some effort at being relevant. On spiritual topics the paper is usually pro-evolution, pro-abortion, and pro³ on homosexuality (exponentially in favor of it). In other words, they usually do not care much what the Bible actually says. So why do they have an article on forgiveness?

The reader probably noticed that the opening line already has one mistake in it. Not a word is said about Jesus forgiving Judas, the one who betrayed Him. In fact, Jesus said these words at the Last Supper with Judas present:

“The Son of Man goes as it is written of Him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born” (Matt. 26:24).

Do these words sound as if Jesus was about to forgive Judas the next day? He warned him not to proceed with his plan, but Judas ignored His advice. He did later experience remorse and return the money, but instead of repenting, he hanged himself (Matt. 27:3-5).

Did Jesus forgive those who condemned Him? The Jewish leaders acted irrationally and contrary to the Law in seeking Jesus’ condemnation. Pilate knew Jesus was innocent of any crime that merited the death penalty, yet he handed Jesus over because it was the politically expedient thing to do. Was Jesus praying for him? Did He forgive those who killed Him—whether the Roman soldiers or the Jews clamoring for His death? And were they forgiven unequivocally at the very moment He uttered those words on the cross?

The When of Forgiveness

One might think that the worst crime ever committed (betraying and murdering the only truly innocent Man Who ever lived—and in the most excruciatingly painful way ever devised) might stand as an unforgivable sin. Jesus, however, opened the door to forgiveness with His utterly gracious, first pronouncement on the cross. “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do” (Luke 23:34).

In one sense that was probably true of everyone—except Judas. He could not possibly have not known who Jesus was since he was present for all the miracles and had observed abundant evidence of the Deity of Jesus. He himself had even worked miracles in his preaching of the gospel (Matt. 10:1-8; Luke 10:17). Nevertheless, he betrayed Him—at the cost of his soul. Of all of those who played a role in Jesus’ crucifixion, Judas is the only one who clearly does not come under the description of not knowing what he was doing. Besides, Matthew indicates that he was already dead when Jesus was nailed to the cross.

But did Jesus pray for unconditional forgiveness for all of those who acted in ignorance (even if they imagined they knew what they were doing)? Has forgive-ness ever been without conditions? Consider the Day of Pentecost.

Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ. Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:36-38).

Since Peter had to convince them through the Scriptures of what they had done, these men qualify as those who did not know what they were doing. But they had to repent (and be baptized) in order to receive forgiveness. In other words, the forgiveness Jesus prayed for made them eligible for it, but only when they repented and were baptized did they actually receive it. Consider what happened on the next preaching occasion.

“The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified His Servant Jesus, whom you delivered up and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let Him go. But you denied the Holy One and the Just, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, and killed the Prince of life, whom God raised from the dead, of which we are witnesses” (Acts 3:13-15).

“Yet now, brethren, I know that you did it in ignorance, as did also your rulers…. Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord” (Acts 3:17, 19).

What could be plainer? Peter said that they acted out of ignorance. Why did he not tell both groups that, even though they were murderers, Jesus had already prayed for their forgiveness on the cross, and it would not be held against them? The obvious reason is that they were not already forgiven, although Jesus had made it possible for them to receive it. They still had to repent of their wicked actions and be baptized in order to have their sins washed away.

A Personal Story

The Orlando Sentinel article then presented a contrast of views from victims of two different crimes. One involved a woman whose two daughters (ages 7 and 4) were murdered, with their bodies being “tossed like trash on the side of a road” (A1). The mother, Dorothy, was also taken, sexually abused, and shot in the head. During the event, when all three were being transported in the back of a car, she kept calling, “Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus.” One of the thugs in the front seat answered her, “You can stop calling Jesus, ‘cause Jesus isn’t doing this. Satan is doing this” (A9). Despite her abuse, Dorothy survived the ordeal and recovered in the hospital. Now what is remarkable is that the article reports she forgave the attackers the day she woke up in the hospital and found out her daughters were dead (A1, A9). Furthermore she adds:

“When I think about that night and all that transpired, I can still see the hand of God at work,” she said. “I am able, by the grace of God, to move on past that night and not dwell on the negative things that happened” (A9).

While it is certainly not enjoyable to be critical of someone who endured such suffering, this woman’s actions do not describe Biblical forgiveness. It is neither normal nor spiritual for a mother to hear of her daughters being killed and immediately forgive the murderers. It would be far more realistic to say, “Their innocent blood cries out to God from the ground!”

Would it be right for Dorothy to have taken a gun and tried to kill the two lowlifes herself? No. But it would certainly be appropriate to demand that justice was done. (It may be that the male perpetrators were caught, tried, convicted, and sentenced; the article neglected to say one way or the other.) Would it be right for Dorothy to have been so effected that the event ruined her life and made her a bitter person? No. But the murderers do not deserve to be forgiven by the woman, the family, the civil government, society, or God—unless they repent of their sins. Nothing indicated that they had any sorrow or remorse whatsoever.

Another Personal Story

By way of contrast, a second crime did not involve murder but theft. A man invested his savings with Lou Pearlman, who founded the Backstreet Boys and ‘N Sync. Unfortunately, the 68-year-old investor ended up saying, “Bye, Bye, Bye” to his life savings (A1, A9). In 2007 Pearlman was charged with defrauding those who had trusted him with their money. He was operating a Ponzi scheme. The victim has not taken well losing all of his money. He thinks that forgiveness is just something that people talk about in church. “I’m the only one who is telling the truth. I won’t forgive” (A9). Such an attitude may not only lack compassion, it is harmful.

Whether or not the man forgives Pearlman (who may have never asked for it), it is obvious that he is quite bitter. His wife, the article mentions, is a member of “the Church of Christ”; she said: “I was brought up that I was supposed to forgive, but I really and truly can’t” (A9). How ironic! A woman whose children are killed forgives instantly, and a couple who lost only money cannot forgive at all. Of course, it may be easier to be unsympathetic with the latter situation, but then it was their money not ours. But all that is material will someday perish anyway. Still, the contrast is striking. Technically, forgiveness is not required unless the swindler repents and attempts to pay back what he stole. But what about such an abrasive attitude? It does not appear to make allowances for repentance to occur. In this, it is unlike Christ in that the door for forgiveness is not even opened up.

Scriptures on Forgiveness

A related article, appearing on A9 discussed several Biblical principles that deal with this topic. It was declared (correctly) that in order to be forgiven, one must be willing to forgive. Jesus actually taught this precept:

And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors…. For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses (Matt. 6: 12, 14-15).

Many assume that forgiveness should be granted whether or not it is asked for, and in some instances, that would be a wise philosophy (since sometimes we only imagine a transgression against us). However, if we know that someone intended us harm, the situation needs to be resolved. For that reason, in Matthew 18:15-17, our Lord said, if no solution to a problem is obtained by a personal meeting, then one or two others should accompany the offended brother the next time that every word might be established. If no reconciliation occurs at that point, the church is told. If a brother then repents, we must all stand ready to forgive him. Refusal to do so puts our souls in jeopardy.

When Jesus spoke on the subject of forgiveness, He was usually coming at it from the direction of some refusing to forgive—even when repentance was in evidence. Two teachings on that subject are relevant. The first follows the admonition that a brother who believes he has been sinned against confronting the one who mistreated him (Matt. 18:15-17). Afterward, Peter came and asked Jesus how many times he should forgive an offending brother. He was magnanimous enough to suggest as many as seven times. Jesus told him he should be prepared to forgive 70 times that.

Then He gives the illustration of forgiveness in Matthew 18:23-35. In the illustration, however, two men begged for patience to repay their debt. When the one who received forgiveness of a huge debt was beseeched by a man to forgive his much smaller debt, he refused to grant it. Jesus’ thesis was that each of us owes a debt to God that we can never repay—a debt for all the sins we have ever committed. Since God is willing to forgive us, we must in turn forgive those who owe a much smaller debt against us personally. The unforgiving soul will not be forgiven by God.

The brethren in Corinth were in danger of committing this very sin. At first, they were so loose, they did not even rebuke the man living with his father’s wife. They let him persist in his sin, which would have proven fatal to him and have reflected poorly on the congregation as well. They followed Paul’s instructions and withdrew fellowship from him, which caused him to repent. Now they went too far in the other direction. The punishment had accomplished its purpose—they needed to forgive the man and reaffirm their love for him (2 Cor. 2:6-8).

The Disciples’ Reaction

When Peter preached on the Day of Pentecost, he spoke to some of the very ones who had clamored for Jesus’ death. How did he and the other apostles feel about accepting the repentance of such men and baptizing them for the forgiveness of what they had done to Jesus (along with all their other sins)? And then another opportunity arose shortly, and Peter told the multitude that they sought Jesus’ death when Pilate had determined to let Him go. Instead, however, they asked for a murderer (Barabbas) to be set free and insisted on Jesus’ death, Who was the very Prince of life. Just to relive those events while preaching to those men might have aroused hostility toward them, but Peter is very conciliatory: “Yet now, brethren, I know that you did it in ignorance, as did also your rulers” (Acts 3:17).

How could Peter be so gracious, considering the way they had treated Jesus? First, he acted as an enemy of Jesus Himself. He not only deserted Him at the most crucial hour, he even denied Him three times, cursing and swearing in the process. When Peter had looked at Jesus after the denials, he went out and wept bitterly. Could anyone who had done what he did possibly try to imagine that he had a higher position of morality than the others? They may have done so in ignorance, but Peter denied Jesus after confessing Him to be the Son of God. Shall we debate which is worse?

Peter first had to come to terms with his own sinfulness. Once he could forgive himself, he would not find it difficult to forgive others. All of the apostles had forsaken Jesus and fled. They all had to deal with their own cowardice. The second consideration to keep in mind is that they heard Jesus teach directly on the subject of forgiveness, and they knew that they could not be forgiven of their own sins unless they were willing to forgive others. If the soldiers who drove the nails into Jesus’ hands had repented, they would have rejoiced, which brings to mind one of the great values of repentance.

When people repent of their sins, they are acknowledging that they desire to leave the kingdom of darkness and want to belong to the kingdom of light. What an occasion for tears of joy and happiness! No one stands taller than when he humbles himself and admits his error. For that reason there is rejoicing in heaven when one sinner repents. 3,000 is wonderful, but heaven and earth are excited with just one.

The prodigal son made a fool out of himself. He left the safety of his father’s house and unwisely spent his fortune on corruptions of the flesh. It is no wonder that his brother despised him! He had brought shame on the family. But what the older brother missed was that his prodigal brother was now confessing that he had been totally wrong. He went so far as to admit that he was not even worthy to be called his father’s son. How much more can a man repent than he did? No one questions that he had done wrong. But at least he finally realized and admitted his own foolishness. How can any human be unprepared to grant such a person forgiveness?

“CO-EXIST?”

Most of us have probably seen the bumper stickers, but what is the significance of them and of each of the symbols that are used to spell out the word? Below is one representation of the concept, although one finds that variations exist. The originator of the idea is Piotr Mlodozeniec, a graphic arts designer from Poland, who first strung the symbols together.

The idea is that all human beings should be able to get along with each other since we allinhabit the same earth. Coexistence is something we all have a vested interest in but have never learned to do in thousands of years (millions, for evolutionists) of man’s history. Can a bumper sticker accomplish what diplomats have failed to achieve? Such would be highly optimistic. Al-though 98% of people may be peace-loving and tolerant, it only takes that other 2% with a desire to rule the world to keep things in a state of unrest and uncertainty. (Did someone whisper the name Putin?)

So what does each of the symbols chosen for the idea of co-existence mean? The first is a symbol of Islam, consisting of the crescent and star. This inclusion is laughable since no religious group has ever been more violent and determined to conquer than this one. From A.D. 630 to A. D. 730, Islam spread by means of force. Unlike Christianity, this religion did not spread by preaching sermons and winning the hearts and minds of people—but through violence. To this day, a significant portion of its adherents are terrorists who are willing to be killed if it means killing many others in the process. Surviving terrorists express no remorse but would do the same thing again if given a chance (as some have demonstrated). They have apparently never heard of or else rejected the second greatest commandment: “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Matt. 22:37-40). What makes Mlodozeniec think that Muslims have any desire to co-exist?

The second letter is an o with the peace symbol inside. Peace is a wonderful idea and prominent in New Testament writing, but in the world it is elusive. The e has male and female gender symbols attached to it; sometimes a scientific equation is substituted. Does this symbol imply that the battle of the sexes is over? One might think the e stands for evolution (or equality of the sexes). The star of David, representing Judaism, fills in for the x. The i is a wiccan symbol; sometimes a pentagram appears inside the i’s dot. Certainly, we could not leave out paganism. So the wiccan symbol includes all forms of it. No one wants to hurt anyone’s feelings. After all, cannibals live on this planet, too.

For the s, the Chinese symbol of yin yang was selected. According to Wikipedia, the symbol is used “to describe how opposite or contrary forces are interconnected and interdependent in the natural world.” They represent in part “natural dualities,” such as good and evil, light and darkness, sweet and bitter (Isa. 5:20). Is that what the Beatles were trying to express in “Hello Good-bye” (1967-68)?

The t is a cross, which represents Christianity although what “version” of it is anyone’s guess. Does it represent Catholicism’s theology, Calvinism, or the truth taught in the New Testament? With more than 200 denominations (some estimate in the thousands), it ought to be obvious that Christian groups cannot even co-exist with each other. Everyone, it seems, has problems. Even the “co-exist” crowd cannot get along with each other. There is a lawsuit over the copyright of the co-exist symbol.

Creating the Perfect World

People were asked to comment recently on what they thought it would take to make a better world. One person suggested that it would help if everyone could see the truth; thus a truth-detecting device might be helpful. Members of the Lord’s church would love that invention, but we should not assume that it would change a great deal because it is an assumption that, if people knew the truth, it would make any difference. Who has not observed situations where people knew the truth but (because of emotion) rejected it anyway? One must have a “love of the truth” (2 Thess. 2:10) for a truth detector to do any good.

Another person suggested that everyone’s IQ be raised by 20 points over a period of a few years, but all that might produce is more intelligent stubborn people. Intelligence does not necessarily improve character. Perhaps the best suggestion was to find a way to keep people from having closed minds. Everyone would be able to understand other people’s viewpoints, but just understanding it would not compel agreement with it. Besides, it might be better not to understand the way certain individuals think.

But the suggestion pertinent to the topic of coexistence was to eliminate “the negative complications of religions.” The writer did not totally disdain religion; he knew that some elements of most of them could inspire people to be kind, caring individuals. But, he asserted, they inflict too much negative “stuff” on humanity. Hold on for a moment. First, it is inappropriate to lump all religions together. Judaism contains a set of laws that God gave for a certain people for a certain time in their history. God did not intend for them to be applied after the cross. Christianity is therefore far different in its nature and its applications. Islam practiced violence from its inception; how can these three be spoken of in general terms as if they were alike?

Second, the individual making this assessment (in this case, Ed), may not be aware of it, but he has just made himself a judge of all religions, which might be all right if they were all equally invalid and worthless. But if one of them (say, Christianity) is true, then he shall be judged by its teachings—not the other way around. We have the liberty to judge error, but when it comes to true religion, God is the One Who judges us; the Word which He has given us shall judge us in the last day (John 12:48).

The only way to approach religion in general is to establish which, if any, have evidence to back up the truth of its claims. Christianity does via its fulfilled prophecies and teachings, which were backed up by miracles (John 20:30-31; Heb. 2:1-4; et al.). What other religion possesses such a great number of prophecies—if it has any at all? Was someone else besides Jesus raised from the dead—in fulfillment of prophecy and with several eyewitnesses? Does any book besides the Bible provide genuine hope for those who love God? Christianity stands as unique.

Fear, Ignorance, Intolerance

Mr. Ed laments the fear, ignorance, and intolerance that “religions” breed. Every religion must plead guilty for propagating fear. It is generated by the very existence of God; a Being powerful enough to create the universe ought to inspire fear and awe in all of us. A self-sufficient atheist might be smug enough to be fearful of nothing, but such an attitude is scarcely realistic. It cannot deal adequately with the hardships and setbacks of life—let alone death. “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction” (Pr. 1:7).

Furthermore, those who despise and reject God will not enjoy the consequences of their actions. Even unfaithful Christians are warned: “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (Heb. 10:31). Yes, God did create us, and we are obligated to do His will. If we choose not to do so, we must be prepared to face the consequences. However, no one need fear Christians on earth. We are not enforcers; we are encouragers—for people to obey Him. God did not tell us to persecute and put to death those who disobey Him. Our task is to love all—including the enemies of God. He loves them and gives them multiple opportunities to repent. Christians would not take away that possibility even if we could. No one ever needs to fear a true follower of Jesus.

Biblical Christianity stands totally opposed to ignorance. We strongly desire that all be knowledgeable and have access to the truth. Ignorance destroys people politically, socially, and especially spiritually (Hosea 4:6). Some who call themselves Christian thrive on keeping their followers in ignorance. They discourage reading the Bible for themselves; they all but forbid them to read history; or they tell them to use their hearts and not their minds. God is the one, however, who told His people to reason with Him (Isa. 1:18). Christians promote reason, logic, critical thinking, and rational thought; ignorance is an enemy of truth.

God is holy, holy, holy (Isa. 6:3) and does not fellowship sin. Does that make Him intolerant? Perhaps. When those who love sin create their own universe, they can be intolerant toward righteousness. But for now, because God loves us, He tells us the difference between the two. Once again, however, Christians have no authority to punish sinners. We neither arrest nor imprison the ungodly. Christians have a responsibility to treat all men with love and kindness; we cannot, however, participate in wrongdoing.

Ed accuses “religions” of practicing hatred and violence against those who don’t share their beliefs. That may be true of Islam, but it is not the case for Christianity, which charges its adherents to love one another (Matt. 22:39). God is benevolent, having created a universe that was “very good” initially. Violence is inconsistent with His character; in fact it was the violence of those who rejected God that led to the worldwide flood as judgment (Gen. 6:5).

Differences

Does Christianity emphasize the differences in people instead of their similarities? Mr. Ed so accuses religions of doing so, but before we look at his example, we ought to consider the charge in general. The Bible in some ways puts every human being in the same category: “There is none righteous, no, not one” (Rom. 3:10); “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 2:23); “For the wages of sin is death…” (Rom. 6:23). “For God so loved the world…” (John 3: 16). Yes, we have all sinned. We are all in the same category. We all stand condemned as sinners before a holy God, and we are all in need of salvation. How’s that for unity and togetherness?

The good news is that all can have forgiveness of sins. The gospel invites everyone to be cleansed of sin and to become part of the everlasting kingdom that God has prepared for those who love Him. No one can be excluded from this offer. Since it includes the promise of eternal life, why would anyone reject it? We all chose to sin, and we can all choose to be saved. All who obey the gospel find themselves united—not divided. However, the fact is that all do not appreciate righteousness and do not accept the offer of salvation. Is that the fault of God or the Christian religion? No. If we are divided, then, the reason is that people often make awful choices.

The author of this would-be improver of all mankind concludes by providing examples of what he specifically meant in this last point. As proof he cites “the Shiites versus the Sunnis versus the Jews versus the Christians versus the Scientologists, etc.” Okay. How open-minded are the Shiites and the Sunnis? Are they taught to consider Christianity as a viable option? No, they are taught the Qur’an, and in many of their countries the Bible is banned—along with Christianity. One can be thrown in prison or expelled from some Muslim countries for even talking about the Bible or Jesus. They have been taught to hate Christians and Jews.

Jews are generally not hostile to other religious groups unless they are attacked. Do they persecute Christians? It may have occurred in isolated incidents, just as some alleged “Christians” in time past have looked down on the Jews, but today that attitude does not appear to be common. In fact, many Christians have an affinity for them because they were once God’s chosen people. Even though our beliefs conflict with each other, we share no mutual hostility.

We would have no problems with Muslims, either, if they were content to co-exist, but peace is not the nature of the religion. In short, Christians do not hate or persecute anyone, although in the Middle Ages those posing as Christians did so. They tortured and put men and women to death, but they could not justify their actions if they had a million years to do so. They acted totally contrary to what the Bible teaches and, in fact, were probably ignorant of what it does teach. Christians love all mankind—even their enemies.

Divisions

Although divisions need not exist, Mr. Ed is correct in observing that they do. They always will as long as human beings remain human. Divisions do not imply that human beings cannot get along. If everyone possessed the outlook that Christians (as defined in the Bible have), the entire world could be harmonious—within limits. Obviously, if some pagan group wanted to offer up their children as human sacrifices, we (and presumably) all others would oppose that action. We have such things as Jessica’s Law (except for five states) to protect children because the vast majority of people believe some acts are so heinous that they must not be allowed.

By the way, Muslims do not share that perspective about children. 40-year-old men are allowed to marry little girls. According to the Orlando Sentinel of September 11, 2013, “An 8-year-old Yemeni girl died of internal bleeding on her wedding night after marrying a man five times her age…” (A4). This is criminal. He is worthy of the death penalty, and the Muslim society that allows men to legally behave in this manner ought to be ashamed and change it laws immediately! This outrage should not be tolerated by any decent society, and Mr. Ed will just have to pardon the rest of us who are not willing to co-exist when it comes to matters such as sexual abuse involving children. Wedding night, indeed! Why haven’t the TV media picked up this story and lamented it? If only they had as much indignation for an innocent child as they do for Sandra Fluck possibly not having the government pay for her birth control pills! Some division between human beings (and the term is used loosely of that Yemeni monster) is necessary.

While Mr. Ed fantasizes about a perfect world, the fact is that many religions and false concepts do exist in the world. For that reason Christians do challenge other belief systems and the various divisions within so-called “Christendom.” How else will people come to an understanding of the truth? Faced with the current divisions we see around us, we have two alternatives. The first one is to keep quiet and say nothing—and that is what we all should do if we believe that all the options are equally valid or equally false. The second option is, having discovered what the truth is, to share it, which is what all Christians ought to do. We do not accomplish that goal, however, at the point of a gun (or a scimitar).

Ideally, Christians could live in a climate that allows tolerance for different views (when they do not threaten people’s lives). But all should have the freedom to show others the only place that has the answers for mankind.

ATHEISM DENIES LOGIC

We are the scientists

We are “logic” guys

Leaning together

Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!

Apologies are in order to T. S. Eliot, who wrote the outstanding poem, “The Hollow Men,” which begins similarly. Atheists and evolutionary scientists are not logical; furthermore they have no soul, they think. Their brains, while functioning well as it pertains to true science, are filled with nothing but straw when they depart from verifiable data. Many are truly hollow men because they lack heart and have numbed their souls.

Although they had a legal right to do what they did in Times Square, why would anyone put up a 40-foot by 40-foot digital billboard that asks, “Who needs Christ during Christmas?” The question is then answered when a hand appears and draws an X over Christ. The word, NOBODY, then completes the digital ad by appearing at the bottom. The three-part sequence continually repeats itself. Although many of us do not associate Jesus with Christmas, this highly-observable presentation constitutes Scrooge-like meanness. Perhaps those who sponsored it should reflect on the handwriting on the wall that God showed to Belshazzar. Certainly, they are also found wanting.

Atheism a State Religion?

In the December 20, 2013 Orlando Sentinel, a Longwood resident, Don Oehlrich, commented on some of the new tactics of atheists. They could not get a monument of the Ten Commandments removed from the Bradford County Courthouse; so they installed a monument of their own—one which contains quotations from our “founding fathers” and “punishments listed in the Bible for violating the Ten Commandments” (A21). We do not know if they bothered to explain that Israel was a theocracy or not.

According to the Associated Press, atheistic church-es are being established all over the world. One in Los Angeles already has 400 in attendance. They sing hymns such as “Lean on Me” and “Here Comes the Sun.” They might as well add “Live for Today” and “Imagine.” Oehlrich then asks if atheism doesn’t have all the marks of a religion. Quoting from a Merriam-Webster Dictionary, he provides one of the definitions: “an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group.” Frankly, this definition is vague and may reflect the culture more than a historical meaning. But the editorial’s next few lines are interesting:

Doesn’t the atheist religion dominate our public institutions? This clearly violates the true intention of the First Amendment, which was to prohibit the establishment of a state religion. Atheists have unfairly pushed out other religions in favor of their own.

Good point! If that were where the situation ended, most would have been left with their musings on the matter and probably let it drop. But Larry D. Davis of Oviedo decided to respond, and it was published two days later on the 22^nd.

The Spirit of Times Square

Mr. Davis began with a personal attack and then grew even meaner, which is the reason that so many atheists endear themselves to the general public. Acting as though he was given vinegar instead of milk as a child, he accused Oehlrich of making assertions that were “uneducated and fear-mongering” (A19). He then stated unequivocally (without any authority to back it up) that a “gathering of a few people in the name of atheism in Los Angeles to celebrate intelligence and reason does not make a church, much less a religion.” Did he not read the whole column?

Davis ignores the fact that these are called churches and are being established all over the world; so who is the one who is uneducated? Does 400 constitute “a few people”? The average attendance for any church is a membership of 100. Davis is clearly trying to minimize facts that disagree with his viewpoint; his “spin” is rather obvious. Furthermore, he implies that only atheists believe in intelligence and reason. How demeaning! God is the one who invented logic; where does Davis think it came from—cosmic dust particles? God is the one who says to man, “Come now and let us reason together” (Isa. 1:18). He is the One Who says to prove (test, analyze) all things (1 Thess. 5:20-21).

In the spirit of the giant billboard in Times Square, Davis goes on to rail against those who believe in God.

Atheists contest the mysticism, emotional reactions, social denigrating, supernaturalism, superstition, and judgmentalism of any organized religion, especially those that seek thought control and irrational laws over others.

Killjoy. Christians have so much fun being judgmental, emotional, and controlling of others’ thoughts that we really hate to be called on it. Right! Seriously? Is this a fair characterization of Christians, or is Davis himself being judgmental? Whoops. And speaking of emotional, who of the two—Oehlrich or Davis—better fits the description? Hmm. Why are supernatural and superstition linked together? The two concepts are not at all similar. God creating us puts Him outside and above nature, which is a factual possibility. Thinking that one will have bad luck because he walked under a ladder is an illogical conclusion. Davis intended to “slam” Christians by this connection.

It is obvious from Davis’ own letter that thought control is not working. What can this acerbic letter-writer be referring to here? A few cults try to control their adherents in this way, but Christians oppose such religious groups more vigorously than atheists do because we do not want those tactics associated with us. The gospel explains about sin and encourages people to respond to God in a positive way, but that reaction depends entirely on the free will of each individual. The message may be gladly accepted or rejected. Christians do not coerce people.

Mr. Davis shot himself in the foot when he said that Christians seek to pass irrational laws over others. Who decides what constitutes a rational or an irrational law? He apparently does not see that eventually “rationality” is in the eye of the beholder. People on both sides will argue over the definitions. Prior to January 22, 1973, were the laws prohibiting abortion rational or not? The laws against homosexuality that were in effect 50 years ago—which were they? Was it saner to prohibit gambling in most states, or are people better off now? And are the people of Colorado irrational now for having legalized marijuana, or were they that way before when it was prohibited? Even atheists will not be in agreement on many of these issues.

So who determines what is rational? Do we take a majority vote? Does one country’s thinking take precedence over that of another’s? Since atheists do not believe in God, they have no absolute standards to which they can appeal. All of these moral issues have changed from era to era and from country to country. Some may bow to the thinking of the intelligentsia but never be truly enthusiastic about their positions. Perhaps wealth or political power should be the determining factor.

Whose Goals?

Our goals are rational decision-making, logic, common respect, trust in peer-acknowledged fact and science, and an understanding that fear and ignorance fuel primitive theologies. We also realize that most of today’s religions will someday become dusty theology.

Once again, the implication is that Christians don’t have as goals the use of logic or rational decision-making. What a poor view Davis has of anyone who is not him. They apparently cannot reason through a simple mathematical word problem or follow directions to somebody’s house. Working Sudoku puzzles or solving cryptoquotes must be out of the question for Christians. Such intricate matters should only be entrusted to atheists.

What are peer-acknowledged facts? If they are facts, should not all people agree upon them? If he is referring to evolution, not all scientists agree with the interpretation of the facts. While it is the case that some primitive theologies did employ fear and ignorance (and some still do), it is quite a leap to assume that this is always the case. Many of those who believed in mythology in the first century gave it up when they heard Jesus teach and saw His miracles. Simon the Sorcerer even recognized that his considerable skills paled in comparison to the real power of God (Acts 8). The words of Christ shall never fail (Matt. 24:35) no matter how atheists rail or mock.

The writer of this letter to the editor cites certain men as founders of atheism, such as Rousseau and Voltaire. How did Rousseau’s philosophy work out in his personal life? Perhaps Davis would like to tell us. Locke did champion rational thought, which is fine, so long as it does not exclude the existence of God. Jefferson made many statements favorable to Christianity. We do not see Davis doing so despite his alleged common respect for all.

Concerning America, Davis thinks that our founding fathers believed in freedom of thought, speech, religion, and the idea that all men are created equal. Al-though true, they also did not believe in the “natural goodness” of man. For that reason there is a balance of power and three branches of government because sooner or later one branch of government might try to assume enough authority to overpower the other two. They understood the corrupting influence of power.

Davis’ Summary

The question is not “could atheism become state religion?” The question is when will religions, with irrational prejudices, mumbo jumbo mythology and fear-based judgment rely on the reason, logic and intelligence of all equally created men and women?

Besides continuing his insulting, judgmental tone to the very end, Davis’ last line makes no sense. One would expect that he would conclude by asking, “When will people rely on the reason, logic, and intelligence that we got from _______?” After all, he has mentioned the source of religion with mumbo jumbo mythology—something invented by man. Therefore, logic should be something superior to that, and so the reader expects a higher source but finds none.

This writer would fill in the blank with God because He is the source of rational thought and truth. Davis must have realized that he does not have a source for logic. If so, he should name it. Do we get that ability from the waves of the ocean, from trees, or from mountainsides? No, it comes from the Rational Being Who created us. Logic does not come from chaos or randomness. Nothing fits that profile. So he selects a phrase that sounds good with which to end his letter—all equally created men and women. But what does that mean?

Is he saying that all men and women (except religionists) believe in logic. If so, then the vast majority of his peers do not agree with him; so is he in the wrong? If he means that all men and women possess logic, then he would have to conclude that few of them are using it. Maybe the problem is the man in the minority, then, instead of everyone else.

A Perfect Response

Chris Urban of Groveland responded in the Orlando Sentinel on December 24^th by showing a huge flaw.

Larry Davis in his Sunday letter to the editor writes that we should have a government that relies on “the reason, logic and intelligence of equally created men and women.”

My question for Davis, or any other apologist for atheism, is what went so terribly wrong in the Soviet Union and Communist China?

These atheistic states slaughtered millions of their own people for not going along with the system. Does this sound like a reasoned, logical, intelligent way of dealing with a population?
Urban is right. Why didn’t people in those countries who believed in equality, logic, and reason, who had renounced mumbo jumbo mythologies, see that mass murder was wrong? Or is it acceptable to Davis, so long as no religion is involved in it?

Truth

The problem with many atheists is that they either do not believe in truth or are skeptical about it (as Pilate apparently was). Think about what that means, however. What good are logic and reasoning skills if truth does not exist? Why should a jury listen very carefully to witnesses and consider the forensic evidence if they cannot arrive at the truth and render a verdict? To be sure, testimonies can be conflicting, and sometimes evidence is subject to interpretation, but that fact does not mean that no cases can be decided. Juries search for truth.

What would be the point of solving a mathematical equation if no true solution could be found. Yes, it is the case that some equations have no solution, but the overwhelming majority of them do. Scientists especially labor under the assumption that they will discover important truths. And they continually find them.

Truth exists concerning the origin of life and the creation of the world. One important truth is that matter does not create itself. Neither does chaos produce order. Randomness does not breed logic and reasoning. If no supernatural being exists, then we have no adequate explanation for the origin of all things. We are left with guesses that do not harmonize with scientific evidence we know to be true.

The Bible tells us that we have no excuse for drawing the wrong conclusion because God provided sufficient evidence in the heavens that declare His existence (Rom. 1:18-20). Mr. Davis should learn the difference between evidence and mumbo jumbo. Someone doing mindless incantations to a rain god in the midst of a drought does not compare with someone reasoning from the evidence we have been given in the universe itself.

The evolutionist and the creationist have exactly the same evidence from which to reason. The only difference is that the former rejects the possibility of God’s existence because he does not want it to be true, while the latter has considered the interpretation of evolution and found it wanting. A true scientist considers all the possibilities and then takes the most rational explanation. Christians believe that God creating the world (Gen. 1:1) is the most logical explanation. It is obvious that the Larry Davis-types have dismissed creation from serious consideration and are quite hostile to even the thought of it.

Jesus is the truth (John 14:6), and He offered evidence to those in the first century who not only believed Him but laid down their lives for Him. Christians did not fight because engaging in physical conflict was not what Jesus taught His disciples to do. They refused to renounce their Lord, however, and allowed themselves to be put to death—just as Jesus did. Taking human life when someone disagrees with them is the way of corrupt religions and the tactic of the atheist (as seen in Communism). Christians reason with their opponents and try to persuade them with their ideas.

“Character doesn’t matter”

Last week brief clips of interviews with various voters were broadcast in quick succession. The question was, “Will character be an issue in the upcoming Presidential campaign?” The overwhelming consensus of opinion was, “No.” One’s first response to such shallow thinking is, “No wonder we find so many crooked, immoral, and corrupt politicians in office–since a great number of voters seem totally apathetic to this issue.

How can the mentality of anyone who would vote for a person because he’s “my party” be comprehended? If “My Country–Right Or Wrong” is unBiblical, how much less valid is “My Party–Right or Wrong”? As to the former sentiment, imagine stiff-necked Jews making the same statement–just prior to the captivity!! What if Nineveh had rejected the preaching of Jonah by saying, “We’re not going to repent. Our country–right or wrong”?

The fact is that God sent the prophets to proclaim to the nations their sins. A brief perusal of the first two chapters of Amos demonstrates that God destroys nations because of their unrepentedof sins. He possessed this same disposition even towards His own beloved people (Amos 2:4-16).

Since God never makes exceptions with nations, what makes America think that He will continue to tolerate abominations such as abortion and homosexuality without bringing judgment on us?

Political parties are not inherently moral or immoral, but if they sponsor an immoral candidate (and they know it), then they have acted corruptly. Furthermore, Christians sin when they vote for a candidate who precipitates God’s judgment by advocating pro-abortion and pro-homosexual policies).

When Character MattersMany have argued that one’s immoral quirks have no bearing on his ability to govern. In an attempt to establish this point, examples are given, such as the following. Being a homosexual does not affect one’s ability to play the piano or professional tennis. Engaging in numerous “one-night-stands” does not diminish one’s ability to play professional basketball or rock music. These examples allegedly prove that a candidate’s character should be irrelevant when we vote for those who will govern us. Such an application is not even remotely parallel.

Rulers not only communicate to their constituents; they also deal with other nations (which means they must be credible). Furthermore, a nation’s leaders usually set the moral tone for the country. Consider Judah: when she had a good king, most of the immoral practices were done away with, but when an evil king reigned, the nation likewise followed suit. These were not exceptions; they form a pattern throughout the Old Testament.

If a man cheats repeatedly on his wife, he lacks integrity. Obviously, the vow he made when married holds no significance; so how can his word or commitment in any other field mean anything? He is just as likely to disregard any other promise he makes as he has his sacred vow of marriage.

And with what kind of people will he surround himself as he tends to the affairs of state? Generally, leaders select those of like character, which means that the amount of damage that can occur might increase a hundredfold–or more. [Why, the FBI and the IRS might even be used to discredit an innocent man!] What kind of ethics are these for our young people to grow up observing (and perhaps emulating)?

Another consequence of Presidential authority involves the Supreme Court. The views of those who sit on the highest court of the land are crucial. Consider all of the damage done by the Warren court, as well as succeeding ones. In the last forty years, the court has been: 1) unable to define pornography, 2) removed school prayer (as well as caused other spiritual damage to this nation), and 3) legislated abortion-on-demand through Roe v. Wade. [Yes, legislated is the appropriate word because they did not interpret law (the function of the court); they wrote it.]

Appointees should be given important consideration. February’s Reader’s Digest , for example, points out that former President Bush and his staff were confident that David Souter was a conservative. The article concluded that they did not know enough about his views; worse yet, he has reversed himself on the conservative views he once held. In fact, he has become one of the most (if not the most) liberal member of the court. Dwight Eisenhower was similarly disappointed by Earl Warren.

The above Presidential duties reveal just a few reasons which show that character does matter!

The Influence of LeadersConsider how the following men influenced God’s people and decide if character matters.

King Saul was either a weak leader or an accomplished liar (or both). He claimed that he usurped the function of a priest because “the people were scattered from me” (1 Sam. 13: 11). After disobeying God’s instructions concerning Amalek, Saul again credited the people for his actions (1 Sam. 15:15, 21). A weak leader will abide by the most recent public opinion poll and say what he thinks folks want to hear even if it contradicts what he said the day before. The alternative is that King Saul lied and blamed the people, thinking that somehow doing so would absolve his disobedience. It did not.

Ahab was an evil man who did worse than all who were before him. Then he married Jezebel (1 Kings 16:30-31). If he became temporarily impressed with Elijah’s victory over the prophets of Baal, she was there to get him back off track (1 Kings 19:2). And if he grew weak in the practice of evil, she was there to take up the slack (1 Kings 21:1-14). What a helper! Some rulers, although talented (in wickedness) in their own right, are nevertheless dominated by their wives. These were especially dark days for Israel. Did this couple’s character matter?

Jeroboam was selected to rule over Israel when the kingdom split due to Rehoboam’s stubbornness (1 Kings 12:20). Jeroboam may have seemed like a good choice at the time, but his character also proved to be deficient. He became intoxicated with power. He could not stand the thought of losing the kingdom; so he devised a strategy to keep the people under his control (1 Kings 12:25-33).

It worked. Of course, he changed aspects of worship as God designed it (just as some are doing today), but apparently nobody objected (or not many did, just like today). So until they were taken captive for their sins, the nation of Israel engaged in unauthorized worship. God destroyed them because they walked in the sins instituted by one king (2 Kings 17:21-23). A defective leader’s character caused a nation to sin by following after his “reforms.” Can anyone successfully argue that “character doesn’t matter”?

Good Intentions

God had delivered Israel out of Egypt! Then He drowned the Egyptians in the Red Sea! The people were so grateful they sang a song of praise to God (Ex. 15:1-21). However, in only a short time a nation’s gratitude turned into murmuring: “Oh, that we had died by the hand of the Lord in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the pots of meat and when we ate bread to the full! For you have brought us into the wilderness to kill this whole assembly with hunger” (Ex. 16:3). After God gave them manna in the morning and quails at night, along with water, they were pacified for a while.

In the third month after Israel had come out of Egypt, they camped in the wilderness of Sinai before the holy mountain (Ex. 19:1-2). Moses was instructed to say the following words to the people:

“You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles’ wings and brought you to Myself. Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine. And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation (Ex. 19:4-6a).

When Moses relayed these words to the people, they responded by saying, “Well, I don’t know.” Wait! That is not what they said. They answered, “All that the Lord has spoken we will do” (Ex. 19:8). Now that response is commendable. It is what they should have said, and it is what the reader wants them to say. Certainly, it is the way God wants them to respond. At that moment they had made a commitment to the God Who had shown great power over all things pertaining to this earth (animals, the seas, the sun, the elements). He had even shown power over life and death itself. Not only could He destroy the Egyptian army without Israel firing a shot, but He could sustain them even in the wilderness with food and drink.

Could there be any doubt that He was the true and living God? Since He is, how else could one respond to Him? Nor was this a one-time occurrence. God spoke the Ten Commandments to the people, but it was more than they could endure. When they ob-served the thunderings, the lightning flashes, the sound of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking, they trembled and told Moses, “You speak with us, and we will hear; but let not God speak with us, lest we die” (Ex. 20:18-19).

Moses, then, related to them many more of God’s laws in Exodus 21-23. When Israel heard them, they responded with one voice and said, “All the words which the Lord has said we will do” (Ex. 24:3). Once again, this positive affirmation is commendable. Then Moses wrote all the words of the Lord, and he took the Book of the Covenant and read it to the people. Once more, they promised, “All that the Lord has said we will do, and be obedient” (Ex. 24:4, 7).

What Israel declared here reflects the best of intentions. Three times they proclaimed that they would do all that the Lord had said. They would be obedient to Him. So, what happened? This is the generation that died in the wilderness, concerning whom the writer of Hebrews recorded these words:

For who, having heard, rebelled? Indeed, was it not all who came out of Egypt, led by Moses? For with whom was He angry forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose corpses fell in the wilderness? And to whom did He swear that they would not enter His rest, but to those who did not obey? So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief…. For indeed the gospel was preached to us as well as to them: but the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it (Heb. 3:16-19; 4:2).

Despite having excellent intentions, the Israelites who left Egypt died in the wilderness because they did not obey the Lord, which is due to their unbelief because the Word which they heard from God was not mixed with faith on their part. How then do we reconcile reality with their expressed desire to obey God? A Calvinist would say, “Why, they never believed in the first place.” That would make the whole nation the most contemptible of people. They would have been bold-faced liars with no good intentions whatsoever! Although such a claim might fit someone’s theology, it is not corroborated by the text.

Nothing in Exodus suggests that the people lied. Having seen all that God had done and considering what they observed at Mount Sinai, no one can doubt how impressed they were with God and His power. Furthermore, the writer of Hebrews would be left with-out a valid point to make if the people had not been saved in truth at the mount. His exhortation is that Christians not be as Israel was: “Therefore, since a promise remains of entering His rest, let us fear lest any of you seem to have come short of it” (Heb. 4:1). Christians must also be careful that they do not begin well only to fall short of entering the Promise Land.

What Happened?

As we read through Exodus, we see a major rebel-lion against God less than six weeks after they vowed to be obedient. While Moses was up on the mountain receiving the tablets containing God’s Ten Commandments, the people grew rebellious. To create a golden calf, however, is a greater offense than just saying, “You know, we just don’t like the way things are going.” It was a violation of the second commandment, which they heard God personally speak to them. How is it possible to fall from, “We will obey,” to “We will rebel,” in less than 40 days?

It may be that a few were never really satisfied though they pledged their allegiance to God. Because of the influence that all people have, it only takes a few to whip everyone else up into a frenzy. Later, ten spies would persuade an entire nation to reject taking the Promised Land (Num. 13-14). Not everyone want-ed Jesus put to death, either, but the leaders of the Jews persuaded the multitude to crucify Jesus. Why is this the case? Some are able to tap into our negativity and our frustrations and exploit those feelings to accomplish their own agenda.

In this instance, it was the delay—the inactivity that they were all experiencing. Their leader had left them; they did not know how long he would be gone, and they had no new instructions. Perhaps something happening was better than nothing at all. Some took ad-vantage of the dissatisfaction that had developed and led the people to rebel. Not only was there the direct violation regarding making a graven image, but the phrase, the people rose up to play, implies a kind of sensuality that often accompanied pagan rites, resulting in sexual promiscuity.

Both God and Moses reacted strongly against what had occurred. God called the people stiff-necked and volunteered to consume them (Ex. 32:9-10), but Moses pleaded for the people. When he heard and saw what was being done, however, his anger became hot, and he cast the tablets out of his hands at the foot of the mountain (v. 19). Then he had the calf ground into powder, scattered it on the water, and made Israel to drink of it (v. 20). Finally, about 3,000 who refused to repent were put to death by the sword that day (vv. 26-28). No other major rebellions occurred for several months.

Nadab and Abihu

The sons of Aaron would follow in his footsteps as high priest after Aaron died. Nadab and Abihu were privileged men. They had been invited into God’s presence. Moses, their father, themselves, and 70 elders of Israel were allowed to come up on the mountain which was ordinarily forbidden. They saw a mani-festation of God and ate in His presence (Ex. 24:9-11). Yet this honor did not mean they had license to disobey God. When they offered strange fire before the Lord rather than what He had authorized, fire came out from the Lord and devoured them (Lev. 10:1-2).

How is this event to be explained? They do not seem to have been rebellious so much as careless. At the moment they offered the profane fire, they may not have intentionally meant any disrespect, but that is precisely what it was. God had commanded them what fire to use, but for whatever reason, they used something else, and we all learn a great lesson as a result. We may only do what God authorizes. We do not have the right to substitute something that we think is better, nor can we change anything because we do not understand the reason for the commandment.

Sometimes, people today say, “I like musical instruments in singing to the Lord. David liked them. Why should we not be allowed to use them?” The answer is that they are not authorized in the New Testament as part of our worship. It does not matter whether or not we understand God’s reasoning—or if we agree. To use them without authority (Col. 3:17) is to be as offensive against God as Nadab and Abihu were. Whether one intends to disobey God is irrelevant; he does disobey when he practices what lacks authority.

The Results of Punishment

With the incident of the golden calf behind them and the example of Nadab and Abihu, the people changed their attitude and began to obey God as they had said they would. In fact, when Moses asked for a free-will offering for materials to construct the tabernacle, the people gave so enthusiastically that Moses had to command them to stop because they had too much for the task at hand (Ex. 36:5-7). Everything seems congenial until Numbers 11, when the people began to complain, and the fire of the Lord burned among them and consumed some of them (1-2).

Shortly thereafter, the people rejected the conquering of the land and nearly stoned Moses, Aaron, Joshua, and Caleb. Then it was just one rebellion after an-other until all of that generation died in the wilderness. And all these people had good intentions at one time. The same thing occurs today when people obey the gospel. Many people are thoroughly convinced and completely committed to the faith, but as time goes on, one finds them languishing in the wilderness.

Why People Do Not Leave the Church

People do not leave the Lord’s church for the same reasons that Israel did not forsake God. They do not desert because God is less powerful. The same pow-er He had in Egypt He possesses today. Once God has established His power, however, He had no need to reassert Himself. The generation that left Egypt was well aware of His ability to save them or punish them. Today, the same evidence that convicts people to become Christians remains. It does not change or become less valid.

It is not the case that God’s Word becomes any less true over a period of time. The covenant of blessing and cursing (Lev. 26; Deut. 28) continued to operate as long as Israel remained God’s chosen people. Peter’s portrayal of those who return to the corruptions of the world being like dogs that return to their vomit remains accurate (2 Pet. 2:20-22). So does what Jesus taught about those receiving the seed. Some allow the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches to choke the Word, and some want no part of persecution in any form (Matt. 13:20-22). Hebrews 10:26 still says that those who sin (on a continual basis) willfully have no more sacrifice for sins. The Lord’s teaching about heaven and hell remains the same. Truth, like God, never changes.

It is not as though the decision that causes one to say, “We will do what the Lord says and obey Him,” was the wrong decision. It was right—the best decision we ever made. Sometimes we regret a course of action that we have taken because our information was faulty and we were headed the wrong direction. But when people obey the gospel, they have the right in-formation and (presumably) the right hearts and the right intentions—to be faithful unto death.

Why People Do Leave the Church

Why did Israel become unfaithful, and why do members of the Lord’s church become unfaithful after a few months or even several years? And of those who do not actually leave, there are many who come to offer up worship to God only sporadically, being gone two or three weeks or two or three months at a time. As in the case of Israel, the answer probably lies in dissatisfaction. Perhaps someone does not like the preaching or the leadership of the local congregation. Maybe there is disdain for the song leaders or the way the Lord’s Supper is handled. Some have become upset when they are asked to wear a tie to serve.

Some may be at odds with other members of the church, while others do not think enough emphasis is placed on evangelism. Some are unhappy with just maintaining the status quo while others become upset with legitimate changes. People can find all manner of things to be dissatisfied with. Perhaps they never speak to anyone about it but just leave. (The opposite side of this problem is that some object to things that are unscriptural, but few, if anyone, in the congregation cares.)

Israel murmured, complained, and rebelled. Moses told them more than once that it was not him they were challenging but rather God. God told Samuel the same thing when the people insisted on a king centuries later: “…for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them” (1 Sam. 8:7). In effect, the people rebelled against Moses because they were dissatisfied with God’s leadership. It was just eas-ier (and safer) to criticize Moses.

Many congregations today are less than ideal, just as those in the book of Revelation were. Some have a reputation that they live but are in reality dead. Some are still doing good works—but not like they once did. Some are permitting immorality or false teaching to occur. The Christian’s obligation is to make the congregation of which he is a member the best that it can be. If the church is willing to settle for mediocrity, one should pray for new leaders and ask for Divine help (God’s providence) to make things better.

Some, however, just get bored; they think things ought to be more exciting, or they think they can get all they need from watching religious programming or reading books, which is really dangerous for someone not well-grounded. This approach allows Satan to captivate them with error. Besides, resorting to these techniques, even if they were legitimate, is not the way the Lord designed the church. Members are to fellowship one an-other, love one another, exhort one another, and en-courage one another. Such actions do not occur when one becomes a recluse. God knew what He was doing when He designed the church.

Almost everyone who is baptized for the remission of sins begins with good intentions—just as Israel had at Sinai. But the devil is relentless, and he goes to work immediately to try to dissolve them like an aspirin tablet. It is up to each Christian as to whether he succeeds or fails. Satan will have a more difficult time winning the Christian over if he stays strong by devoting himself to the Word and by spending time with mature Christians.

The Bible tells us that God does not accept excuses. Should Jesus say on the Day of Judgment, “Why did you leave My church?” what excuse sounds compelling? The Israel delivered from Egyptian bondage died in the wilderness despite their protestations of allegiance at Sinai. The Christian may be lost despite his deliverance of sin and the good intentions he had at the moment of baptism. No one should allow Satan to deceive him; one’s commitment must be mixed with faith—the kind of faith that keeps one obedient.

7 Types of Christians

Selected (With Additions by Gary W. Summers)

Did you know there are different types of Christians described in the Bible? There are the strong and the weak (Rom. 15:1); the spiritual and the carnal (1 Cor. 3:1); the hot and the cold (Rev. 3:15); and the stable and the unstable (Eph. 4:14-16). There are still others to add to the list. Following are a few more that you may have run into.

There is the fictional Christian. This individual is a Christian only in his own mind and by his own definition. He seldom attends, never contributes, and has forgotten how to work. His loftiest goal is to maintain his name on the church roll. Not too many of these are found in the New Testament since it deals with fact not fiction. Jesus said, “He that is not with Me is against Me; and He that gathereth not with Me scattereth abroad” (Matt. 12:30). One is either in or out. Some who are out may regard themselves as in, but that is self-delusional. Jesus once asked, “And why call ye Me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?” (Luke 6:46). One cannot disregard the Lord’s will regarding worship and service and be considered a Christian, unless it’s a fiction story.

There is the frictional Christian. Whether intentionally or not, this person rubs everyone the wrong way. Is it the abrasive personality that causes this reaction, or is it the fact that he or she does not think before speaking? A healthy dose of love, thoughtfulness, and kindness would go a long way in effecting a cure (Eph. 4:32).

There is the fractional Christian. These kind of people attend a fraction of the time although no one would be able to predict when. They expect everyone to stand up and cheer when they bless the congregation with their presence. The fractional Christian is a part-time disciple (which is a contradiction in terms). They probably can talk a good case of Christianity (1 John 3:16). Religion is something they leave at the building as soon as they depart. The Lord has a fraction of their hearts, their bodies, and their pocketbooks. The remainder of their hearts is “possessed” by the devil.

There is the factional Christian. This individual thrives on strife and just loves to stir things up! He is a sower, not of the word of God (Luke 8:11), but of discord among brethren (Pr. 6:19). Does he think that the Lord’s church is a human institution in which opinions may be exalted and politics may be engaged in? If something is done that is not his idea, he doesn’t like it. It will not be enough that he refuses to participate in whatever he finds objectionable; he will try to make sure that no one else can enjoy the activity, either. To add weight to his criticism, he will most likely trot out a Scripture for support (though it is misapplied). If left unchecked, he will discourage many church members. And if he does not get his way, others can still expect to hear murmuring and complaining from his lips. This type of person has been known to round up as many fictional and fractional brothers as he can to attend the business meeting and vote with him. Eventually there may be a split, but division is all right with him–he got his way.

There is the functional Christian. He has obeyed from the heart the gospel of Christ and has been truly converted (Rom. 6:17-18). Everything he has, is, or ever will be belongs to God. And he functions the way God designed him. He (or she) is a conscientious husband, wife, mother, father, son, or daughter. This person makes the finest citizen in the community. Best of all, the functional Christian glorifies his Lord by putting His cause first and overcoming all obstacles. He is personally devoted to his own spiritual improvement. Although perhaps not in some spectacular way, he is nevertheless evangelistic (Rom. 1:14, Matt. 28:18-20). In short, he functions as a Christian ought to function.

Should a Christian be interested in studying the word of God? Should a Christian desire to meet with other brethren to worship God? Should a Christian be concerned about those still lost in sin? Should a Christian stand for truth and oppose error? Should a Christian protest the evils of society and praise that which is good? Should a Christian give generously to the local congregation to support its work? Yes, and the functional Christians does all of these things, and more.

There is the dysfunctional Christian. Just as the news reports physical families that can be described this way, so would God’s spiritual family be this way–if everyone were like this person. He (or she) does not relate to others in the body very well, judging by their absence from the activities that the rest of the members engage in. Of course, not everyone can participate in everything (although couples in their seventies have gone bowling with the younger set). But these folk do not ever seem to be involved in anything. They are either too busy, or they don’t care much for their brothers and sisters (1 Cor. 12:12-27, Eph. 4:16). These inexplicable people may be consistent attenders, good givers, and helpful in many ways, but they do not appear to enjoy the family relationship Christ designed for there to be in the church, which is unfortunate, since brotherhood is an integral and vital part of Christianity.

There is the unctional Christian. No, that’s not a misprint, though it may be unfamiliar (but then we need more words in the English language). According to the dictionary, the second definition of unction is: “an ointment or oil, salve.” The one after that is: “something that serves to soothe or restore; a balm.” Oh, how we need unctional brethren–someone who can speak a soothing word to those distressed, hurting, or grieving. Barnabas was called the son of consolation (KJV), exhortation (ASV), encouragement (NKJ), and comfort (The New Testament in Basic English). How refreshing it is for someone to utter an uplifting thought instead of a complaint, a kind word instead of a snide comment. We all need this kind of support. Of the seven types of Christians described in this article, which category fits YOU?

Why I Left Denominationalism

From childhood until about the age of fifteen I attended a denomination. No, there was no choice in the matter, and I did not enjoy it–even though I had sung in the choir. Part of the reason I disliked the worship ordeal was that it was very formal, and I had to be quiet–and still, which is tough for youngsters. But even as I reasonably conquered the temptation of restlessness, the hour was no less enjoyable. As soon as I could get away with it, I quit attending.

Probably, it would have been difficult to explain what turned me off about it, being as yet unknowledgeable in the Scriptures. A general impression would have been all that could be cited rather than detailed specifics. The entire worship experience could be characterized as artificial, superficial, and formalistic–from the organ music which silenced everyone who entered into the “sanctuary” to the “responsive” readings (which required little thought), the entire hour was programmed.

Did I make any effort to learn about any other religious group? No, because I foolishly bought into the devil’s uninspired notion that “all churches are alike.” I became one of those creatures that believes in God but has no use for “church” connections or activities. None of that “goody-goody” stuff for me. Things remained that way for about three years when the cute little teenage girl who is now my wife invited me to attend worship with her.

My motive in agreeing to go with her was less than honorable. In fact, my mind was already made up that we would go through the perfunctory motions of worship, and then I would explain to her what was wrong with everything. She would probably be surprised at such hostility, but so be it. Ironically, I was the one who was surprised. Whoever said that all “churches were alike” had lied.

Instead of artificiality there was genuineness. Friendliness abounded rather than strict formalism. In place of a sophisticated speech was a sermon delivered with conviction. Instead of superficiality there was vitality. My presuppositions having been blown to smithereens, I grew interested in what was going on but remained cautiously skeptical (looking for opportunities to catch these people in some kind of hypocrisy–which never happened).

As time passed by, I came to understand what the differences were between the Lord’s church and denominations. For the first time I was taught the gospel and that I needed to obey it. Wonderful fellowship, meaningful religion, and encouragement to obey were excellent drawing cards, but the clincher was the emphasis upon truth.

The Truth Revealed in the Bible
Why it did, I don’t know, but truth mattered. Perhaps it was the fact that children were taught that telling the truth was right and lying was wrong that made truth seem important. In conjunction with that, I was fortunate enough to grow up in an age when respect for authority was still being taught (if not consistently practiced). Truth was authoritative, and all forms of authority must be respected.

If the Bible didn’t mention Christmas and Easter (and it doesn’t), then that settled the matter; they were not to be observed as religious holidays. If the Bible said, “Sing,” then that eliminated the use of instruments. If the Bible said, “Go ye,” then it was time to be evangelistic. If the Bible said there was but one gospel (Gal. 1:8-9), then all others were false. It was that simple.

It still is. Its importance has not changed. Proverbs 23:23 still says: “Buy the truth, and do not sell it; also wisdom, and instruction, and understanding.” The words of Jesus have not changed; it is still the case that all who continue in His word are His disciples indeed. They shall know the truth, and the truth will set them free (John 8:31-32).

Along with everything else we need to communicate to those outside of Christ is this fundamentally crucial attitude of seeking the truth. Ask people what they look for in a “church,” or ask them to select a word that would characterize the “church” they attend. They will think of several descriptions, but they will not describe themselves as “a people that exalts, searches for, and abides by truth.”

We ought to plant some seeds here. “Does your church emphasize truth?” “What is the authority in your church?” “What is more important than truth?” No matter what is given (spirituality, for example), it must be derived from the Scriptures. We must challenge people’s thinking with things that we used to say, “Will you study with me and show me from the Bible why you do what you do? I will be happy to do the same with you.” “Neither of us has anything to fear from truth. If our idea is right, fine. And if we learn that we were mistaken about something, so much the better. In either case, we have nothing to lose and everything to win”

One final word. There are those among us today who would remove the emphasis upon truth. Why? They say the emphasis on truth has led to division. So? People getting married has led to divorce. Shall we just commit fornication? Likewise, shall we just give up our distinctive stance for truth because some have had more zeal than accuracy? If God’s people shy away from the pursuit of truth, we will have nothing to offer those who are lost. We would be no different than any other religious group. If God’s people choose to walk in darkness, the world will not be made any brighter.

BOREDOM

RECOMMENDED READING: WHAT MUST A CHRISTIAN DO TO REMAIN FAITHFUL TO CHRIST?

VIEWS ON FORGIVENESS

The When of Forgiveness

A Personal Story

Another Personal Story

Scriptures on Forgiveness

The Disciples’ Reaction

“CO-EXIST?”

Creating the Perfect World

Fear, Ignorance, Intolerance

Differences

Divisions

ATHEISM DENIES LOGIC

Atheism a State Religion?

The Spirit of Times Square

Whose Goals?

Davis’ Summary

A Perfect Response

Truth

“Character doesn’t matter”

Good Intentions

What Happened?

Nadab and Abihu

The Results of Punishment

Why People Do Not Leave the Church

Why People Do Leave the Church

7 Types of Christians

Why I Left Denominationalism

Search

Archives

Pages

The When of Forgiveness

A Personal Story

Another Personal Story

Scriptures on Forgiveness

The Disciples’ Reaction

Creating the Perfect World

Fear, Ignorance, Intolerance

Differences

Divisions

Atheism a State Religion?

The Spirit of Times Square

Whose Goals?

Davis’ Summary

A Perfect Response

Truth

What Happened?

Nadab and Abihu

The Results of Punishment

Why People Do Not Leave the Church

Why People Do Leave the Church

Search

Archives

Tags

Pages