September’s Reader’s Digest highlights the successes of Ted Turner. He owns CNN, the Atlanta Braves, is vice chairman of Time Warner Inc., and was voted 1991 Man of the Year by Time magazine. And that’s just a smattering of the things he owns and the awards he has won. There is much, much more. In terms of how this world evaluates things, he is undoubtedly one of the most successful and most influential men of any generation–for what it’s worth.
We read of a few rich men in the Bible also. One was a farmer who had so many goods he decided to build bigger barns. Unfortunately, he was asked a rather embarrassing but pertinent question: “This night your soul will be required of you; then whose will these things be which you have provided?” (Luke 12:20). How trite, but accurate, is the old saying, “You can’t take it with you.” The point Jesus made was that the accumulation of goods was the man’s whole life; an empty man entered into eternity.
Another rich man fared sumptuously every day; he too departed this life without the accompaniment of any of those old familiar possessions. Only in this case we read that he was in torments in Hades with no relief available to him (Luke 16:23). Did not Jesus stress the difficulty of the rich entering into heaven (Matt. 19:24)? Even so, most people, if given a choice of whether to be rich or poor, would choose rich. Therefore, we do not begrudge Ted Turner all of his wealth. He earned it and shall undoubtedly enjoy the fruits of his labors for a few more years before going the way of all flesh. But what then?
Then he will be denied the one possession that even the lowliest of people, such as Lazarus, shall be given–a heavenly reward. In “The New Song” appear the words: “I want to see the Master bring a precious life-crown that I may own and wear.” That crown of righteousness shall be granted to all those who love His appearing (2 Tim. 4:8). Ted Turner won’t be able to win or buy one of those. Why not?
“Christianity is a religion for losers,” he said a few years ago at the American Humanist Association convention (222). Although he apologized for the way those words came across to people, he still believes what he intended to say. “Which was what?” some will wonder.
What he really meant, he says, is that Christianity is “the religion of the down-and-out, because Christianity says give everything to the poor, follow Christ and wear sackcloth and ashes” (222).
Exactly what passage of Scripture teaches that Christians should give all of their money to the poor? Perhaps Turner is thinking about the one rich man who came to Jesus asking what he should do to inherit eternal life. Jesus told him to keep the commandments. The man persisted: “What lack I yet?” Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me” (Matt. 19:16-21). Notice that this response was intended to make him spiritually complete; it was not a requirement for salvation. This man was imperfect because he had a great love for his money; he went away sorrowful.
Zacchaeus, upon Jesus’ visit in his home, promised to give half of his goods to the poor, but it was voluntary, not a requirement (Luke 19:8). On another occasion, the Lord observed that “you have the poor with you always” (Matt. 26:11), meaning that we could give money to the poor at every opportunity and never rid ourselves of poverty. So, while there are precepts that encourage generosity and require Christians to give, no Scripture requires the followers of Jesus to “give everything to the poor.”
Likewise Christians are never told to sit around in sackcloth and ashes. The phrase only appears twice in the New Testament–and not in connection with Christian behavior.
“Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes” (Matt. 11:21 and Luke 10:13).
Ashes is mentioned by itself once in connection with animal sacrifices (Heb. 9:13) and once in describing what was left of Sodom and Gomorrah after the Lord rained down fire and brimstone upon them (2 Peter 2:6). Sackcloth is referred to, apart from ashes, as the color black (Rev. 6:12) and as the clothing of the two witnesses (Rev. 11:3). Christians, then, have no command to wear sackcloth and ashes. There is no example of Jesus, the apostles, or Christians in the first century ever doing so.
Is Christianity the religion of the “down-and-out”? Of course it is! Otherwise, it would be no different from an elite social club which excluded those without a sufficient income. But neither does it deny membership to those at the upper end of the social scale or to the wealthy. Both slaves and masters stand in need of the forgiveness of sins. There have been many rich men who were Christians; they loved God, however, more than their wealth.
We must also plead guilty to being followers of Jesus. By definition, what else would we be? And what’s wrong with that? Besides, everybody follows the philosophy of somebody, whether it be that of Karl Marx, Chairman Mao, Gandhi, or Hugh Hefner. Why not follow Jesus, who died for the sins of all mankind in order to make salvation available to all (1 John 2:2)? No one else has ever claimed to do so; no one else was ever qualified to do so.
But Turner has more criticisms:
“What’s this burning forever in hell? For running around a little bit, or having a couple of beers? If I do have to accept any kind of religion, I like the Native American Indian’s concept that you’re born good, nature is god and then we all go to the happy hunting grounds” (222).
Turner reflects the arrogance typical of many Americans: “I don’t like the doctrine of hell; so it must be wrong.” Unfortunately for most people, God does not live by public opinion polls; God is sovereign. He can do whatever He desires (but He cannot act in such a way as to deny His holy character). And although God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked, His holy character demands justice.
Some have no appreciation for the sacrifice that the Father and the Son both made to obtain salvation for us. Apparently, they can be blase about the suffering of Jesus on the cross with the Father powerless to stop it (and redeem us)! Some have no gratitude that God was willing to pay the price (at great cost to Himself) to keep us out of eternal torment.
Turner, as do so many others, seeks to create God is his own image. He’s run around on at least one of his wives; therefore, God should not find fault with such behavior. We might imagine that God does not object to Turner’s divorces–or any other kind of behavior he wishes to engage in.
His understanding of native American Indian theology may be a tad simplistic. If Indians believe that all men are born good, why did they fight and kill each other? Sure, there were two or three peaceful tribes, but others massacred each other. “The happy hunting ground” sounds good because it means there is no accountability, no judgment. However, if such were true, then neither Hitler, Stalin, nor anyone else who wants to rule the world will ever be judged. And if no one will ever be held accountable, then we are all free to do what we think we can get away with. The “happy hunting ground philosophy” leads to cruel and vicious living in this life.
People are not born good; neither are they born evil. They become what they choose to be. Some are greatly disadvantaged spiritually in their early training, but they can still become spiritual people. Others have had good training, but they have repudiated both the teaching and examples of godly men and women. Good parents do not always rear good children; bad parents do not always rear bad children; everyone has the power to choose (just as Joshua reminded Israel in 24:14-15).
Nature is not God; it was created by God. It became treacherous due to the sins of man (Gen. 6:5; 7:11). Who can believe in a god that causes volcanoes to erupt, spewing hot lava down mountain sides, melting villages along the way? What about floods, hurricanes, tornadoes–all of which are powerful forces of destruction? Is the nature-god angry? Shall we offer human sacrifices to appease it? When God created the world, it was very good, but the excessive sins of mankind brought on the flood. Catastrophic changes in the earth opened up the “natural” disasters we now experience. Nature is not god; it is the servant of God.
“I’m just sick of all the ism’s,” he once explained, “whether it’s Catholicism, Protestantism, communism, capitalism, because everybody always thinks my ismis better than everybody else’s ism. The only ism that I can really be happy about is humanism, where you respect everybody” (222).
If Turner is serious about capitalism not being superior to communism, perhaps he ought to give away all the money he earned through this system (preferably to me) and go live under communism in Red China.
All isms are not created equal. And humanism does not respect everybody. In general, they do not respect Christians, and specifically they do not respect infants in the womb. Faye Wattleton, for example, one time President of Planned Parenthood, was the 1986 Humanist of the Year (Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, was selected in 1957). She was succeeded by Margaret Atwood, the Canadian author, who suggests in her book, The Handmaid’s Tale, that if Christians were in power, it would be worse than a Nazi regime. No wonder Turner likes humanists; he was voted Humanist of the Year in 1990 (see Understanding the Times by David A. Noebel 126). Humanists may have respect for one another, but not for all.
Mr. Turner also believes the Ten Commandments are obsolete (should we guess which ones he finds fault with?). Well, he is right on this one: they were taken out of the law and nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14), but the principles are repeated in the New Testament. Consider adultery, for example.
“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matt. 5:27-28).
Whoops! Ted won’t like that one. So he made up his own list, which he carries around with him. His first one is “Love and respect the planet Earth and all living things thereon, especially my fellow species mankind” (222). We need a clarification of “all living things.” Does that include malaria-carrying mosquitoes and rats spreading the Bubonic plague? Should people who live in hot climates, such as Atlanta, spray for insects? And what about those who enjoy hunting or fishing? Is that out under this commandment? Must we all become vegetarians?
And if we are going to respect “all living things, especially” mankind, does that include unborn children? According to the book, Rites of Life by Landrum Shettles, M. D., and David Rorvik, babies do have a heartbeat which can be detected at nine weeks after conception (55). If Mr. Turner is not pro-life, he ought to amend his statement about respect for all mankind to “respect for all mankind, whose existence is not inconvenient for me and my fellow humanists.”
The Reader’s Digest does not list all ten of Ted’s Commandments; but number 3 is: “Promise to have no more than two children or no more than my nation suggests,” which he has since amended to one child (222-23). And Atwood thinks Christians ruling the world would make it dictatorial! This world will never be in deeper trouble than the day humanists gain absolute control. The “one child” policy has been adopted by one nation–Red China. And the state will put to death a second, unauthorized child. If Ted’s wife, Jane Fonda, is willing to submit to her country on this policy (if it had one), she has certainly had a change of heart since the 1960’s.
Ted’s 10th commandment is that people pledge their loyalty to “the United Nations and its efforts to collectively improve the conditions of the planet” (223). Personally, I had rather eat green beans (which makes me throw up). That’s all this world needs–a bunch of bureaucrats dictating how everybody ought to live. Hey! Maybe they could enforce political correctness.
None of Ted’s Ten seems to have anything to do with morality (no mystery there). He thinks, as does Time-Warner, that man has evolved: “Basically we are chimpanzees with about two percent more intelligence and a little less hair…” (223). Wow! Just imagine what we could be with an additional 1% and more hair!
It may be that Ted’s real problem with religion stems from the painful suffering (from lupus) and death of his younger sister at age 15. Ted’s father concluded from this tragedy, “If that’s the type of God he is, I want nothing to do with him” (66). So what does such an attitude gain? God did not create the world with such misery; it entered in because of sin. It is the Humanist’s evolutionary world that is the father of these things (if God does not exist). Ted should be angry with the god Nature. The truth is that all the suffering of this world is mankind’s fault, not God’s. We can endure these hardships, however, with God’s help. And for the faithful, there is a crown of life.