Recently, the Orlando Sentinel published some interesting articles about various religious groups, but none of them was favorable (what a shock!). The first of these (printed on January 30, 2011), was on the front page (although it was on the lower half); its title is “Even Churches Going Bankrupt These Days.”
The story focused on a local Church of God in Christ that owed, but could not pay, 1.6 million dollars for its “family life center” (A1). The writer, Jeff Kunerth (who writes glowing articles about the advancement of the homosexual agenda) laments:
What was once unheard of—a church declaring bankruptcy—has become increasingly common in this recession as declining plate revenues make it harder to pay the bills (A1).
He also lists a Baptist church that filed for Chapter 11 because their income declined in just a two-year period from more than $750,000 to just over $300,000 (A6). The writer estimates that in 2010 about 100 churches in various locations filed for bankruptcy, including “Robert Schuller’s 10,000-member Crystal Cathedral mega-church in California” (A-6).
According to the article, many “churches” began to expand in the 90s and in the 2000s. Even Northland (the closest megachurch to South Seminole’s location) has had to “cut its staff from 125 to 75” and eliminate certain programs. They do not feel they can ask their members to help pay off the church mortgage when so many are struggling to pay off their own. Another local religious group raffled off gift baskets, raising $7,000, but one can only conduct so many fundraisers before they lose their effectiveness. Bankers used to be willing to loan to churches, the article states, but now they have grown quite reluctant to do so. The implication is that any group with an increasing attendance and contribution will still not get a loan.
The reasons for some religious groups having a declining attendance were not explored, but many of these groups are built around the personality of the leader; thus, if there is a change of leadership, many may leave. Such was not the case in those mentioned, but often the success of a group depends upon one person and his ability to motivate others.
Another factor that was not considered is that religious groups often have splits and divisions amongst themselves. To hear liberals among us, one would think that splits only occurred in the Lord’s church, but such is not the case. This writer knows of a small town where two different Presbyterian churches sit on opposite corners of a main thoroughfare. At one time, one group had around 60 members and the other 100; still they could not find common ground upon which to merge. In another city two Baptist churches are next-door neighbors. Being ecumenically-minded works so much better in theory than it does in practicality.
Sometimes people fail to make realistic plans, also. Kunerth offers the following assessment: “The 24,000-square foot family life center is the dream God placed inside” the “pastor” (A6). Obviously, it was his own idea, rather than the Lord’s, unless God just wanted to humiliate him. Many times, religious leaders think that the ideas they originate must have come from God or the Holy Spirit. They did not.
The church of Christ does not do fundraising; she depends on the members’ faithful support for income. Furthermore, we restrict ourselves to works that are Scriptural. Operating a family life center for the community is not one of the outreaches authorized in the Scriptures. Our mission is to help people grow spiritually in order to spread the gospel. May brethren remain faithful to the purposes given to us by God in the New Testament! May He continue to bless us in all of our legitimate spiritual efforts.
Benny Hinn
The second article under consideration appeared on February 18, 2011. Believe it or not Benny Hinn is being sued by a Lake Mary (about ten miles north of Orlando) publisher for breaking a morality clause in their contract. Is it possible that a religious figure, watched and adored by millions of people, has been immoral? Well, he has actually only admitted to having a friendship with female “evangelist,” Paula White. A picture published by the National Enquirer showed them holding hands in public in Rome (all information is from page B3).
Hinn, at the time, was still married, although his wife had filed for divorce a few months earlier. The article does not say why she filed, but a time once existed when a divorce of a public figure such as Hinn would have been devastating. Do his followers even care? Those who teach the Bible should know that Jesus forbade divorce—except upon one condition: the unfaithfulness of the husband or the wife. Was Benny unfaithful to his wife? Was she unfaithful to him? If neither one was unfaithful, then why are they getting a divorce? They cannot do so with God’s approval.
But it gets worse. Hinn agreed that the publisher was due a $250,000 refund, but as of the date of the article, he had not paid it. He also neglected to make appearances to promote the book, as per the agreement. What’s going on? Is there no one who can heal this situation? Someone should call the Fairly Legal team to sort this out. Perhaps, Hinn could resurrect his book contract, since he owes the publisher two more manuscripts.
Benny (short for Benedictus), has allegedly healed people over the years of many types of diseases, such as cancer—even AIDS. He claims to have healed the blind and made the deaf to hear as well in the course of conducting his Miracle Crusades. Such feats would be phenomenal, if true. They would rival Jesus and the apostles. The only problem is a lack of substantiation. Hinn lived in Orlando for 14 years; this writer has now been in the area for eight years. Not once has he been introduced to someone who said, “I was blind, but Benny Hinn healed me.” When Jesus traveled to an area, He healed everyone there (Mark 6:54-56). One would think that, having lived 14 years here, one would be running into someone Hinn healed about every other minute, which has not occurred.
The other difficulty is that the miracles done in the New Testament were done for a purpose. The miracles served as proof that God was with the healer and his message. In that way people knew that they could believe whatever the man taught. God is not working with Benny Hinn. He is divorced and does not honor his contracts. His message concerning salvation is not even true. He never tells the multitudes what Peter preached on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2). He is simply another charlatan among many, and his inappropriate conduct is not surprising.
Who Killed Jesus?
The pope has issued a statement, according to a news item on March 3, 2011, in which he “had personally exonerated Jews of allegations they were responsible for Jesus’ death, repudiating the concept of collective guilt that has long haunted Christian-Jewish relations” (A13).
While not wishing to sound arrogant, the fact is that this is not his decision to make. But definitions are in order here. First, what is meant by collective guilt? If someone says that the Jews killed Jesus, that is true. Yes, the multitude was misled by their rulers, but they still shouted, “Crucify Him! Crucify Him!” Much more than just the Sanhedrin was involved in bringing about Jesus’ death. Pilate attempted to talk the crowd out of their evil intention, but he could not prevail. When he tried to release Jesus, as per the custom, the Jews demanded Barabbas be freed (John 18:40; Acts 3:13-14). A second effort to let Him go resulted in the chief priests calling for His crucifixion, but just a little later the text says: “From then on Pilate sought to release Him, but the Jews cried out, saying, “’If you let this Man go, you are not Caesar’s friend. Whoever makes himself a king speaks against Caesar” (John 19:12).
After the Day of Pentecost, Peter had another occasion to address the multitude. He would address the leaders of the Jews on another day, but in Acts 3 he is addressing Jews as they were going to the temple for the hour of prayer. Addressing them from the porch called Solomon’s, Peter addressed those present as “men of Israel.” He told them they had killed “the Prince of Life” (Acts 3:15). To put an end to any doubt whatsoever, Paul wrote in 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 that the Jews “killed both the Lord Jesus and their own prophets….” Clearly, the Jews killed Jesus.
However, these statements do not mean that all the Jews were in favor of putting Jesus to death. Certainly, neither the apostles nor the women standing by, observing His crucifixion, were in favor of the ungodly actions that occurred that day. Nicodemus, a member of the Sanhedrin, was not in favor of the action. It would be wrong to condemn all Jews then or since that time based on their nationality. Probably, some who clamored for His death later repented, were baptized, and became part of the church.
No one has any reason to hate Jews for what happened 2,000 years ago. In fact, we all put Jesus on the cross. He died for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:1-2). We are all guilty and in need of repentance. To single out any group of people as the cause is simply not Biblical. We have no animosity towards Jews today; however, they should be careful not to be guilty of the sinful attitudes of their fathers. They should listen with open minds to the evidence for Jesus being their long-awaited Messiah. Everyone should be for honest open discussion, but if we fail to reach agreement, the penalty is not hatred of them. Our desire is that all might have the freedom to come to the truth.
The Westboro Baptist Church
On March 2, 2011, the Supreme Court handed down a decision concerning free speech that involved the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas. Seven members of this group (who are not typical of any other Baptists, so far as we know) protested near the funeral of a soldier, who was killed in Iraq. They carried signs, saying, “Thank God for Dead Soldiers” and “You’re Going to Hell.” The Supreme Court decided 8-1 that the group has a right to protest in this manner. It is difficult for most people to follow the logic of the majority of the justices in this instance, but this is not the subject of these comments.
What most people wonder is how “religious” people could behave so abominably. They exhibit no respect for the military and no respect for a family in mourning—something that anyone with an ounce of patriotism and good manners would possess. Whatever message they are trying to get across is lost on the vast majority of people because of their insufferable tactics. How does anyone’s thinking even become this warped and twisted?
Theoretically, they believe that God is punishing our nation for its tolerance of homosexuals by causing our soldiers to die, which is a ridiculous idea even on the surface of it. Did God punish the thoroughly perverted Sodom by taking potshots at a few of its soldiers? Be serious! When God chooses to punish America for its 50,000,000 abortions since 1973 and its tolerance of homosexuality, He will probably do something greater than kill a few brave fighting men. Entire armies were defeated, and cities were plundered and razed in the Old Testament. The loss of four thousand soldiers over a ten year period (although a sad loss to their families and to us all) does not constitute punishment on a nation. To advocate such a position is lunacy.
If Westboro Baptist really wants to complain about the acceptance of homosexuality in this nation, which itself is a legitimate Biblical concern, why don’t they carry their signs to “Gay Pride” parades? That would be an appropriate place for a protest. Perhaps they could picket the movie and television studios where pro-homosexual fare is produced. Why not picket the companies with aggressive pro-homosexual policies? Why blame soldiers who are dying for the freedoms of those in other nations?
Were we attacked ten years ago by homosexuals who flew planes into the twin towers? No; they were Islamic terrorists who attacked unarmed civilians. These terrorists are dangerous, and they aim to bring about the downfall of America. Our soldiers are protecting us while trying to bring freedom to others. They, of all people, should not be the object of protest. Ironically, Westboro’s right to express themselves is being defended by the very ones they have targeted. They should repent of their errors, apologize to the families of soldiers for their rude behavior, and find a legitimate way to protest evil.
Secular Humanism
The religion of secular humanism (the rejection of God and the exaltation of man) is alive and sick at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois. A Psychology professor, on February 21, 2011, scheduled a live sex act to be performed in his classroom as part of a discussion. Details will be omitted here, but they involved a woman who was naked. It was not part of the regular class session, and it was optional. The president of the university has called for an investigation, and the professor said he would not do so again. But one wonders, “Is this what taxpayer money buys? Is this what tuition goes for—for classes with this manner of content?” Is there a public outcry over this?
Evidently, some protests must have been forthcoming; the professor issued a weak apology, according to a story in the Orlando News-Sentinel on March 6, 2011. He did not pass up the opportunity to snipe a bit at his critics, however. He would issue an “F” to the arguments made by his critics (A9). If he thinks their arguments against what he did were so bad, then why issue an apology? Does that mean that he has better arguments against what he did than others? If so, he should have not done it in the first place. Or is this complaint just an example of to quoque: “Yeah, I did something wrong, but you guys aren’t any better in your logic for condemning me.”
The professor says that all people could do was make pronouncements against him, such as what he did, “Crossed the line,” “Went too far,” “Was inappropriate,” or “Was troubling.” Anyone who does not under-stand these sentiments probably needs more help than anyone will be able to give him. Yes, the demonstration went beyond the bounds of decency. The woman who volunteered should be ashamed; the students should be embarrassed to have witnessed such a seedy and vile demonstration. “Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? No! They were not at all ashamed; Nor did they know how to blush…” (Jer. 6:15).
Of course, secular humanists do not believe that God gave us moral standards to live by; so naturally, the professor would have no concept of wrongdoing. But those who live in the real world know something about the lusts of the flesh, lasciviousness, and uncleanness, as well as voyeurism. Even being present for such a demonstration would defile anyone, and the woman who volunteered is shameless.
The professor’s lack of judgment in such a matter should be grounds for removing him from the faculty. He says he regrets the effect his actions had upon the university’s reputation. This is nothing but the sorrow of the world (2 Cor. 7:9-10). He has no remorse for staging such a corrupt classroom project in the first place. Did he honestly not think that anyone would care? Did he not mention it to his colleagues in advance? Most assuredly, there should be an investigation, and he should be asked to leave. If he had any decency, he would resign, but then if he had any decency ….