One of the problems in modern communication is that people’s perceptions of themselves stand in the way of their objectivity. Most of us want to be considered “a good guy” by the people we know. We want to be known as moderate in all things so that no one can attach the “extremist” label to us. We may rationalize our thoughts and actions to harmonize with the expectations of others. No suggestion is intended here that brethren are willing to compromise on a large scale basis, pretending to be a liberal when with liberals and a conservative when with conservatives—although some do take the chameleon approach. But is there not a tendency to blend a little bit in an effort to be more acceptable?
Even more to the point is the fact that we want to be right with God—in our own minds. Therefore, few false teachers will stand up in public and say, “I disagree with God. I oppose God. I am rebelling against God. Please join me.” But their doctrines oppose God’s teachings, which makes them His enemies. Still, they revert to self-justification and rationalization to feel comfortable about their teachings and to make others feel comfortable about them when they follow them. For example, when Diotrephes opposed the inspired apostle John, why did anyone listen to him? Surely, he had a rationale for complaining against John and winning brethren to his side, although we could only guess at the particulars.
We know what the false teachers of 2 Peter 2 were doing. Using great swelling words of vanity they were promising people freedom if they indulged in fleshly practices. Peter explains throughout the letter that Christians had been delivered from that kind of corrupt thinking. Although these men were plainly rebelling against God, they made their doctrines sound appealing and maintained a good self-image by convincing themselves that they were right and that their teaching did not conflict with the Scriptures.
Nearly everyone considers himself a conservative, although some may opt for the term progressive. On one occasion a “fairly” conservative brother invited me to a “preacher’s” luncheon to hear him speak. Present were most of the liberals in the area, including some “elders” of the congregation Leroy Garrett attended (who was allowed to teach there on occasion). Garrett had been at the forefront of liberalism and compromise for years and had no qualms about fellowshipping those in denominations. Nevertheless, as the meeting began, the chairman affirmed that all in attendance were conservatives. “Who are you kiddin’?” I almost blurted out. Instead I kept silent, listened to the program, repented of having gone in the first place, and never returned. The amazing thing, however, is that they had convinced themselves that they were not the liberals that everyone else knew they were.
On a previous occasion, I returned to Indiana with copies of the Annual Denton Lectureship book for those who might want to buy a copy of what was, by my assessment, the greatest series of commentaries ever produced by brethren. Not only did they cover one or more books of the Bible verse by verse, they included a “Difficult Passages” section, “Topical Studies,” and an “Answering False Doctrine” section (based on the Biblical material under consideration). One of the greatest features, however, was the “Discussion Forum” portion, which included pertinent and well-researched information about major false teachings of the day. These were closely scrutinized and refuted. With great enthusiasm I took copies to an event in which brethren from Illinois and Indiana attended. Having heard of the great reputation for soundness on the part of one of the preaching brethren there, I spoke to him and asked if he might bring the book to the attention of others. He opened it, sniffed a little (like someone smelling garbage) and set it down without comment. In his own mind, he undoubtedly viewed himself as a conservative but all the authors in the book as radicals.
Thus, the way people view themselves is interesting. Liberals view themselves as conservatives, as do many moderates. Some like to pretend they stand where the Scriptures stand, but they refuse to defend their position or endorse those who do. Alas! That responsibility is left to “radicals” and “trouble-makers.” What they fail to realize is that Jesus did not change the world by showing up at PTA meetings and smiling at everyone. (He didn’t present Himself with a snarl on His face, either.) He was a controversialist who hesitated not to tell Peter when his actions were wrong or to denounce the scribes and the Pharisees. Paul behaved in similar fashion. He was not beaten with 39 stripes five times just for saying, “Love one another.” He opposed error and upheld the truth.
Olan Hicks
Olan Hicks (whom I debated in 2005; see the review on our Website, 10-9-05 to 11-21-05) has been on the lunatic fringe for many years with his erroneous views on divorce and remarriage. (In fact, he just completed a month ago one of his “workshops” for the West Orange Church in Winter Garden—yes, the same congregation that is already compromising on the role of women, which was reviewed the previous three weeks.) He advertised this meeting in his April, 2010 publication of News and Notes.
In this same issue he also presents himself as a moderate—in between liberals and conservatives. He has justified his ungodly and unscriptural positions to himself (and, unfortunately, to many others). Those to the right of him theologically (which would include most brethren) he refers to as LEGALISTS, which is the popular designation that liberals enjoy using of their opponents. Notice what he lumps together. He wrote: “Lord, I was so law abiding that I even wrote in some laws you forgot to legislate.” The first one noted is forbidding the use of instruments in worship.
He really ought to be careful about this, since he could not even handle a 14-year-old new convert on the subject (see the debate reviews). Hicks is all right with instrumental music and conducts workshops on divorce and remarriage for Christian Churches. (Might we expect that as the next innovation at West Orange?) Perhaps he would like to debate the issue of instrumental music, since he has openly declared that those who oppose it are LEGALISTS.
Not unexpectedly, he also threw into this category those who forbid divorced people to remarry. Those who have a Scriptural divorce may remarry. He refers to those as “legalists” who forbid marriage to those who are not authorized to marry again. He includes in this category those who oppose kitchens in church buildings, having a minister, and having Bible classes, which shows just how confused his mind is. The first two of those are not inherently wrong choices. People have the liberty not to have a kitchen or not to hire someone full time to work with them. Their problem has generally been that they condemn those who do.
A refusal to have classes is not necessarily legalism so much as it is poor judgment and discernment of the Scriptures. The women in Corinth were meeting for special times together to exercise their spiritual gifts, and the early Christians in Jerusalem were continuing in the apostles’ doctrine—not all of which was learned in the assembly (Acts 2:32, 46). In Ephesus Paul taught the word of God daily in the School of Tyrannus for more than two years (Acts 19:8-10). He later reminded the elders of Ephesus that he taught them publicly and from house to house (Acts 20:20). How anyone can think classes are not authorized is a mystery.
Classes therefore have Biblical authority for their existence; a kitchen is just as authorized as an expedient as a church building is; preachers being in one location is authorized (Paul was in Corinth more than one year and in Ephesus more than two years). However, the Bible teaches that some are not authorized to marry. Unless a man puts away a spouse for fornication, he commits adultery when he marries another (Matt. 19:9). Hicks knows that the New Testament does not authorize using instruments of music in worship. Thus, he takes three actions that are authorized and two that are not, lumps them together, and says anyone who opposes any one of them is a legalist. His thinking is confusing and irrational. Oh, yes. He then deigns to speak for God, saying that the verdict from His throne is: “In vain they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.”
So, who would be classified to the left of Olan Hicks? Surprisingly, he presents liberals as those who teach that many plans of salvation will do. He takes issue with those who teach that those who pray, “Lord, Lord, come into my heart” will be saved the same as those who are baptized. He is right—that such an approach is wrong, but is this a consistent position with him? Many of the Christian Churches practice “open membership,” which means that they will accept as members those from other religious groups without requiring that they be baptized. It is more than strange that he will deny any false plan of salvation but speak at churches that undoubtedly have as members those who have been sprinkled instead of being immersed. Hicks counts these as lawless, which is true (but he does not see himself as lawless).
So, like Goldilocks who rejected the hot and the cold porridge, he now tells us what is just right. Why, the very doctrines that he believes and practices are the ones that are pleasing to God. What a surprise! Of course, it is not unexpected that each one of us wants to be pleasing to God, but we need more evidence of it than what Hicks has presented. Why does he think that God is pleased with him? His answer is that he was baptized for the remission of his sins (Shelly and others will not add this reason for baptism as being essential; will Hicks fellowship them?). He also claims not to have added or subtracted laws from God’s Word. The problem is that he did not respect God’s laws. He has made a career of twisting the Scriptures (2 Peter 3:16) on marriage and divorce.
He also, in order to accept instrumental music, has rejected the authority principle as taught in Colossians 3:17. Hicks is well aware that God never commands Christians to use instruments in worship. He knows that no record exists of Jesus or the apostles employing it. Not even one congregation of the Lord’s church is found to use such an addition. No implication whatsoever hints that instruments of music can be used with God’s approval (John 4:23-24). Therefore, by what authority of Jesus Christ does Hicks conclude they are all right? He claims that those who do not use them are legalists—forbidding what God has not forbidden, but he looks at it from the wrong angle. Where does God show His approval of the practice? Liberals do what is not authorized, and he stands guilty right along with the rest of them.
Solutions
The only way to avoid the self-justification trap is to constantly keep reading the Word and evaluating our beliefs. Do my doctrinal positions harmonize with the tenor of the entire Bible? Or do I find myself inventing clever explanations (or using those of another) for one passage that does not jell with other passages? Is it my fervent desire to grasp what the Bible teaches instead of trying to make it fit with the beliefs I already hold? How do my views fit with the majority of sound brethren? On what basis have I drawn the conclusions I hold? Is it to please someone else, myself, or the Lord? Do I understand the views that those who disagree with me hold? Have I refused to answer questions that I have been asked about my beliefs because I don’t have an answer? Have I been willing to discuss the area of disagreement, or am I too emotionally tied to it to do so? Our commitment must be to the truth.
Timothy was told to take heed to his doctrine. Only by being careful to present the truth could he save himself and those who heard him (1 Tim. 4:16). What are the implications of this verse? First, one must present the truth in order to save himself. In other words, if any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God ((1 Peter 4:11). Second, if those who listen do not hear the truth, the Word of God, they will not be saved, either. In our Bible studies and in our worship, we must present the truth as speakers, and as listeners we must insist that the truth be presented, also.
The scribes and the Pharisees had constructed a way (they thought) to avoid keeping the fifth commandment of Moses. They had convinced themselves that the commandment could be circumvented, and they were teaching others how to do so. Jesus told them that because they had substituted man-made teachings for the doctrines of God, their worship was vain (Matt. 15:1-9). Likewise, circumventing Jesus’ plain teaching on marriage and divorce makes worship vain. Adding instruments to singing also makes worship worthless. The one thing that we should be able to see from what Hicks wrote is that it is not the way we view ourselves that matters. The important thing to see is that God’s Word provides the standard by which all of us can determine our faithfulness.
“OMG”
The above title was the number one song in America at the time this column was penned. This expression is commonly written with these three letters in e-mails and in texting. They stand for, “Oh, My God” or for the more euphemistic expression (as in the song), “Oh, my gosh.” Nearly any dictionary will explain that gosh is a softer form or variant of the name God.
The oral usage of God’s name is popular in television shows and movie scripts. The character Higgins on Magnum, PI used the expression so often that it became too painful to watch. The expression was also a staple of “Valley” lingo, which still persists in some vernaculars today. Disney comic books have included the expression, Omigosh, for more than half a century. Society starts children off at a young age learning to be irreverent toward God.
Usher’s number one hit possesses other faults. The basic theme is: “I love her because she’s sexy,” and he specifies portions of her anatomy. Objectifying women is nothing new, but even if something is commonly done, it is no less wrong, as the men of Sodom would attest. Also common is the OMG expression. Its over-abundant utterance does not lessen its offensiveness.
God’s Attitude Toward His Name
When God gave the Ten Commandments to the nation of Israel, He thought enough of His name to include as the third commandment: “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain” (Ex. 20:7). The Holy Spirit inspired a psalmist to record that His name is holy and reverend (Ps. 111:9). Jesus, in showing the disciples how to pray, included the words, hallowed be Your name (Matt. 6:9).
Using the OMG expression displays no respect for our Creator whatsoever; it is a frivolous and thoughtless mention of His name. It is nowhere near the equivalent of Thomas’ acknowledgement of Jesus as: “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28). To use the name of God to refer to Him in honor is acceptable. To make His name a common epithet not only lacks respect; it makes one guilty and worthy of punishment.
Younger ears pick up and repeat these disrespectful words—except for the six-year-old girl described at the 35th Bellview lectures this past week. When she hears God‘s name abused, she chastises the adults who casually and thoughtlessly speak His name. Lead on, little one.
The current popular song may not make things worse, but it will not help, either. If God’s people remain silent about this technique of Satan to diminish respect toward God, we have failed to correct an irreverent attitude. After making certain that our own speech patterns are appropriate, we should encourage others in theirs.