The state of Indiana has passed legislation which will permit schools to display the then commandments as a historical document (it takes effect later this year). We ought to be grateful that truth and absolutes are being allowed in our public schools-even if they are from the Old Testament. Who knows? Maybe the “sermon on the mount” can get in some day as a work of literature.
Naturally, there are critics of anything religious being brought into public (apparently a synonym of godless for some) schools. One columnist, Donald Kaul (whatever position he takes is usually opposed to truth, virtue, and general welfare), recently wrote to take issue with God’s commandments; his article appears in the Denton Record-Chronicle on March 30th (all quotations are from page 10A).
He begins his actual analysis by asserting that “the first four have little to do with proper deportment.” Actually, they have everything to do with proper deportment; they are the basis of it. Take away these commandments and start with #5 (“Honor thy father and mother”) or #6 (“Thou shalt not kill”): the first question that anyone would ask is, “Why?” or “Why not?” In other words, what is the basis of these ethical pronouncements? The answer is, “God.” Without the existence of a Creator to Whom we are responsible and accountable, morality has no foundation. If the existence of God is denied or minimized, then each individual becomes a god to himself, which means he can develop his own system of morality and ethics (which he usually translates to mean immoral and unethical behavior). Gods presence implies a higher authority than Self.
Kaul then begins with the first commandment, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me,” lamenting in true , liberal, multi-cultured, non-judgmental, anti-absolute tones that it “is the religious version of the closed shop. It tells the reader, in no uncertain terms, that he must join God’s club and no other.” Give Kaul credit; he figured out the correct meaning (even if he disapproves). But what can one expect God to tell His people after He: 1)brought ten plagues upon Egypt, thus showing His power over the gods of the Egyptians; 2) delivered them from Pharaoh by making a path through the sea for them; and 3) fed them with manna in the wilderness? Would it be realistic to tell them, “You can worship Me or Ra, or Baal, or anyone you choose? God and Truth are exclusive. No man-made Deity had any real existence, let alone the power to match Jehovah. If God is, then we should have an insatiable desire to know what He wants and expects from us; if He does not exist, we need only answer to ourselves.
Kaul makes a keen observation about the graven images that are forbidden in the second commandment: he wonders “why lifelike statues of Christ on the cross don’t qualify as graven images….” Actually, they do, and they, along with the religious jewelry, should be dispensed with once and for all. When Demetrius the silversmith protested that the sales of their shrines of Artemis were lagging, Paul should have encouraged him to start making Christian jewelry. Such a solution would have suited Demetrius well, since he was not concerned about the welfare of the gods so much as the wealth of his pocketbook. Obviously, statues and jewelry were not part of first-century Christianity.
Concerning the third commandment, Kaul wrote:
“Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.” Which is fine, I suppose, but it doesn’t get to the heart of cleaning up language spoken by students in schools. Many youngsters can use language that will peel the wallpaper off the dining room wall without coming within miles of using the name of the Lord.”
He is correct as far as he goes, but many juvenile vocabularies also make frequent use of the words God, Jesus, and Christ. Besides, if young people would first learn respect for God, then they might then learn respect for themselves and others.
Concerning the keeping of the Sabbath day, Kaul comments that it would be “tough to do if you’re a kid working on weekends to save money for college.” He also wonders, without explaining it further, “Which Sabbath?” This question brings up a point that many have not thought through very well. The Ten Commandments were given to the nation of Israel at Mount Sinai. They are part of a covenant that was nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14). Christians are not bound by their authority because they are part of the old covenant; we are subject to the New Testament of Jesus Christ. All of them are repeated in one form or another-except this one concerning the Sabbath day.
In the entire New Testament there is no command concerning the honoring of the Sabbath day (which is the seventh day of the week). Jesus observed that day because He lived and died under the Mosaic system. Paul went into synagogues ob the Sabbath day because it afforded him and opportunity to preach to the Jews. But the church met on the first day of the week from the day of Pentecost onward. This day is special, but it does not conform to the Sabbath day. The church meets on the first day of the week for worship, but none of the restrictions God gave to Israel (travel, etc.) apply. Furthermore, the first day of the week is never referred to as either the Sabbath day or the Christian Sabbath, which terminology was a later invention of men.
With the fifth commandment Kaul finds no fault, particularly since he is a father, but he thinks the sixth, “Thou shalt not kill,” “may be a little confusing to kids in the three dozen states with capital punishment, where killing is a civil virtue….” He need not worry; most children understand justice a whole lot better than liberal columnists do. They may not understand the difference in Hebrew between kill and murder (the latter term is the word used in the sixth commandment), but they can understand that when a person murders someone, it is just that such an individual be put to death for his crime. What they will probably not understand is the reluctance of liberals to put to death the guilty (convicted criminals) and the complete willingness to murder the lives of innocent children in the womb!
Of the seventh commandment’s prohibition of adultery, Kaul comments that it is “an admirable sentiment, but aren’t we opening a can of worms here? Do we really want to have to explain what adultery is so that we can tell them not to do it 20 years down the road?” Some of them probably come from broken homes due to this very sin. Is it really that difficult a concept to grasp? Perhaps it would be good to throw in a world or two about fornication, also.
Most of the remainder of his comments are intended to be humorous. He opines that “shoplifters will be prosecuted” packs more of a wallop than “Thou shalt not steal.” Does it? Have people quit stealing from stores recently? Most thieves think they can outwit the security systems. The threat of punishment will be a deterrent to some, but the realization that shoplifting is wrong works better. A person can fool others; no one scams God. Besides, shoplifting is not the only form of theft. Some students steal money or property from the lockers of their fellow students at school.
Kaul thinks that abstaining from “bearing false witness” is also good, “Although it can’t compare with its corollary, taught by experience, that you get in less trouble if you don’t bear any witness at all.” Undoubtedly, some have wound up exasperated and frustrated when trying to help clear up a matter, but that condition reflects problems with our justice system-not the principle set forth in the ninth commandment by God.
The columnist’s obrservation about the wording of the tenth commandment causing giggles is probably accurate; it can best be remedied by using the New King James, which uses the word donkey.
Will posting these in schools cure all of society’s ills? No one is that naive. But it might help if teachers and administrators were allowed to mention God occasionally. A few decades ago the existence of God was not questioned in high school. If some teachers were unbelievers, they did not say so. When school rules were broken, students were punished; authorities were not sued by parents more childish than their kids. There was a sense of right and wrong, a sense of morality.
Did students violate the rules back then? Is rain wet? The difference is that everyone knew what was right and wrong behavior. There were no excuses (acceptable ones, anyway). Punishment was received because of the unwise choice the student had made. How different is it today when young people are told that all behavior (no matter how aberrant) is normal and that we have no right to judge what another does. If the posting of the Ten Commandments as a historical document helps students to acknowledge once again the existence of absolutes in this world, then it will have been worth the efforts that legislators have put forth to get them there. Even liberal columnists might enjoy the results.