Ever wonder how preachers prepare their messages? The preaching brother (P.B., for short) whose letter was cited last week (see the two articles from August 21, 2016) commented on some additional topics. One of those involved a conversation with a Baptist preacher who lives in the same town. P.B. asked him how he studied in preparing to preach. Here is the answer he gave: “I read a text, pray about it, think about it, and take a little nap. God tells me what it means while I’m asleep. When I wake up, I know what to preach.”
How interesting! Who wouldn’t want to hear some of those sermons that God allegedly gave him? Now, surprisingly, there’s a little bit of sense in doing what he suggested; however, God is not providing messages. Most people call this the incubation period. Many preachers think ahead about what topic or what text they want to use on Sunday. They might have a thesis or some points in mind that need to be made. Most probably do some thinking, praying, and reading as they prepare their sermons, usually beginning in the early part of the week. While participating in other things, the mind is always at work—even while asleep. Usually, when it is time to sit down and write the message, clarity of thought has been achieved, and one begins to set forth his ideas in a logical fashion.
This is a natural process, however—not God dumping the entire message in someone’s laptop. And it does not always work. Sometimes, all that percolating results in nothing intelligible, and the well-rested preacher finds himself staring at a blank page and wondering, “Okay, what’s Plan B?” But even if he is ready to begin, it is frequently necessary to look things up along the way. We all have lexicons to find the definitions of certain Greek words; God does not give those out miraculously. Likewise, concordances prove helpful, as well as other resources, to explain various references that are being used. Those “relying on God” for material are only going to end up repeating what they have said before—which the listeners have probably already heard.
This Baptist preacher’s claim is reminiscent of what one Pentecostal preacher once said. Present were some of his members who were intermingled with a denominational preacher and a few of his “flock.” The conversation turned to the way each man prepared his weekly message. The denominational fellow described how many hours he spent each week in sermon preparation, whereupon the Pentecostal boasted, “The Holy Spirit gives my sermon every week. He gives it to me while I’m speaking. I never spend any time in sermon
The same writer of the letter mentioned in the previous article also spoke of a Baptist preacher who taught youngsters in a local public school to stay away from the church of Christ because we are “a cult.” As is often the case, those who have an argument make it, and those who don’t call names. We have debated many Baptists over what the Scriptures teach; we are still willing to do so, but rather than examine the Scriptures and reason with and from them, some just prefer to make charges in venues where we cannot defend ourselves. So, we will do so here. On the Internet, one can find the article, “Social Aspects of Cult-Like Behavior” (no author).
The first characteristic is that of submission. “Leaders are often seen as prophets, apostles, or special individuals with unusual connections to God.” Does it occur to anyone that this describes Jesus? Some in the first-century could have referred to Him as a cult leader. But He actually did have a special connection with God, and He proved it with miracles. However, no one else today can make those claims. No apostles or prophets exist; the New Testament teaches that those offices came to an end (Eph. 4:11-16; cf. 1 Cor. 13:1-13). They have not existed since the first century; so we are not a cult. We follow what Jesus taught.
A second characteristic of a cult is that of exclusivity. “Their group is the only true religious system, or one of the few true remnants of God’s people.” Once again, that is what Jesus taught. No one comes to the Father except through Him (John 14:6). That is still true; so no other religion in the world is acceptable; only Jesus died for the sins of the world (John 12:32). If these facts make Christianity a cult, then so be it. All of those who follow the truth cannot accept a false way (John 8:31-32). If that makes Christians cultish, okay. The alternative, however, is that truth either does not exist or we cannot know it, but Jesus said we could.
Third is that cults have a persecution complex. One wonders what Christians in the first century might have thought of that? They actually were persecuted; furthermore, Jesus (their cult leader) told them they could expect persecution in Matthew 5:10-12. However, actual cults always claim that everyone is against them, and sometimes they may be—depending on how far out their teachings are. We are not a cult in that sense because we get our teachings from the Word.
The fourth aspect involves the control “of member’s actions and thinking through repeated indoctrination and/or threats of loss of salvation….” Once again, does this not sound like the New Testament? Preachers and teachers are to edify the body of Christ. It is good to remind brethren of what they have learned (2 Peter 1:13). Also, if one chose to live immorally, the church was to withdraw fellowship from him (1 Cor. 5); false teachers were to be marked (Rom. 16:17-18).
While modern cultic groups take these things to extremes, these principles are taught in the New Testament. We are not a cult, but we follow these precepts.
Isolation is the fifth characteristic listed for cults, which involves getting the initiates away from family members. Nothing in the New Testament suggests this practice. Jesus wants people saved from their sins—and that cannot occur through isolation. Jesus taught His followers to live in the world but not be of the world. We are to maintain relationships with others, which is what the churches of Christ practice since we are not a cult.
Love Bombing, sixth, means showing great love and attention to an initiate in order to “transfer emotional dependence to the group.” Naturally, those who obey the gospel receive love and attention, but it is genuine rather than forced and not for “control” purposes. We are not a cult, but we do believe we are to love one another (1 John 4:7-8).
The seventh aspect of a cult is that the “leader” has special knowledge that he receives from God and then passes on to others. The Scriptures were written for all; Paul says that, when they read his letters, they would understand his knowledge of the mystery (Eph. 3:1-7). The “leader” of a cult is claiming what God has not given him—no basis for such a thing is found in the New Testament. Even Paul’s teachings were examined by the Bereans, and they were commended for it (Acts 17:11). No one today has such a special knowledge or insight that all should listen to him instead of God. The Lord has not chosen an exalted spokesman for Him today. The Word contains His instructions. We believe that—and are not a cult.
Indoctrination, eighth, is part of any religious group. All need to have instruction in what they believe and are part of, but with cults it may refer to some of the “special knowledge” that has been imparted to them by the “leader” or some “rules” that are not found in the Bible. Since we follow the teaching of the Scriptures, we are not a cult even though we teach our members.
Salvation depends on the group and “special knowledge,” also. Genuine followers of Jesus study His Words pertaining to salvation. For example, He taught that faith in Him was essential (John 8:24). He also said that no one was going to be saved without repentance (Luke 13:3). He linked baptism with faith in Mark 16:16: “He who believes and is baptized shall be saved.” Peter, one of His inspired apostles, told a crowd of believing Jews that they must “repent and be baptized…for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). This is not “special knowledge”; it is easily located. Churches of Christ did not invent any of these parts of salvation; they are there for all to see. We are not a cult—but rather uphold what the Scriptures teach.
Groupthink
This word, groupthink (the tenth description of a cult) appeared in George Orwell’s interesting novel, 1984. The state demanded that everyone think in the precise same way, or they imposed a penalty. Cults follow that pattern. Everything that those in authority say are to be followed. The “leader’s” authority is not to be questioned. Actually, Jesus has all authority (Matt. 28:18), and if we trust Him, we should not question what He says. However, a cult figure today is not Jesus, and he does not have His authority, either. The real problem here is that no one is encouraged to ask questions. This dark atmosphere does not describe the churches of Christ. We are the one group that encourages people to think and ask questions. Several leaders from other religious groups (not regarded by many as a cult) have told their people essentially, “This is what we are, and this is what we believe. Just accept it.” We either give a Bible answer or ask for time to search for one because we are not a cult. Nevertheless, Paul did stress that we needed to be united in what we believe and practice (1 Cor. 1:10).
The eleventh criticism of cults is that they avoid critical thinking. This has already been dealt with. The twelfth deals with shunning and expulsion from the group, which has also already been addressed. The thirteenth one is at first a bit surprising—since it is “Gender Roles.” Okay, to what does this category refer?
The first answer is not that helpful. It states: “Control of gender roles and definitions.” It might have been helpful if an explanation or examples had been furnished. The reason for desiring more information is that the Bible sets forth gender roles. First of all, God made mankind male and female—two specific genders. New York may list 31 genders to choose from, but most folks know instinctively that such is fermented nonsense. God created the man to be the leader in the home and in the church (Eph. 5:22-25; 1 Tim. 2:11-14). These facts do not imply that women are not very bright or that men are. God created roles for each gender. Some are not happy with that, but God knows what He is doing.
The second statement is: “Severe control of gender roles sometimes leads to sexual exploitation.” Perhaps the author is thinking of David Koresh and the Branch Davidian compound, but he does not say so. It was rumored that Koresh had “slept” with several of the girls. Anyone who gets involved with a group that has its own compound, secrets, and an authoritative “leader” should be immediately suspicious. If those things are not enough, one should leave straightway any group that allows for sexual immorality under any pretext. Cults thrive on such ideas, but the church of the Lord does not so operate. We believe things should be open and honest in the sight of all men (because we are not a cult) and that nothing immoral should be advocated. No justification exists for violating these clear moral precepts. God means what He says (Heb. 13:4).
One television program years ago dealt with a “fictitious” cult, which justified committing sin (lying, adultery, etc.). The line that the cult repeated frequently, was: “A sin to end a greater sin is not a sin at all.” Almost anything the Bible calls a sin could be rationalized so long it was in hopes of getting rid of an even bigger sin. This philosophy is not remotely Biblical.
Appearance Standards
The last criticism of cults involved their dress. Many of them demand that their adherents maintain a certain “look.”
For instance, women might wear prairie dresses, and/or their hair in buns, and/or no makeup, and/ or the men might all wear white short-sleeved shirts, and/or without beards, or all wear beards.
This seems like the least objectionable feature of the 14 mentioned, but such a practice can be unnerving to others. God is able to take our individualities and make us all one; He does not need uniforms to accomplish that. We may express our personal preferences in the styles we choose—so long as they fit the definition of modesty. We are not a cult; so we do not impose hair-styles and garment standards on our members.
Having run through the list of things, we have seen that churches of Christ fail to measure down to the status of a cult in almost every area. The only one we could possibly qualify in is the second one, but even then we are not heavy-handed. We do not insist that we are right and that everyone else is wrong, but we are willing to discuss any subject. Of course, we believe we are right, but we are always willing to put those beliefs to the test. Of all religious groups in the world, we are the one who is willing to discuss what the Scriptures teach on any crucial subject. We are willing to engage in formal debate, if need be—in order to arrive at the truth. No cult is willing to do that.
Besides, what is the alternative? Do others know that they are wrong but refuse to come to a knowledge of the truth? Or do they not know a position is false but are unwilling to discuss the matter? How honest is either of these positions? Do they think that seeking truth is a waste of time? God does not. He said of His people Israel in the Old Testament that they were destroyed for a lack of knowledge. Truth is not a subject one should be blasé about.
The Website under consideration also says that any deviation from seven doctrines makes one a cult. Included are: 1) the Deity of Christ, 2) the virgin birth, 3) the physical resurrection of Christ; 4) monotheism, 5) the Trinity, 6) the gospel as the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, and 7) salvation by grace through faith alone. The first six are true. The seventh one is contradicted by James 2:24. No passage teaches “faith alone.” Yet they would insist that anyone who does not conform to that is a cult. We are willing to discuss this point; are they?
A few days ago I received a letter from a fellow preacher in another state who lamented that there were no preachers’ meetings in the area where he lives that are worth attending. His comments are readily understandable since the same condition exists in Central Florida. Why is that? Times have changed. Evangelists used to gather to discuss the Bible. Such arrangements have fallen by the wayside.
My experience is only anecdotal; so perhaps others would like to comment on the subject. Back in the ’70s I occasionally enjoyed meeting with other preachers in the Pittsburgh area. As a young preacher, I received many good suggestions, as well as hearing good lessons presented. When I moved to Iowa, a group was meeting, but it disbanded shortly thereafter. I began one in our church building, and it continued for several years after I left. We discussed a number of issues and topics.
I moved to Indiana in 1991 and attended a meeting about an hour away, but it ceased after one year. I started one at our church building, and it is still meeting there 25 years later. I still enjoy attending them when we visit. No rules or bylaws existed then or since. Preachers just meet to discuss passages of Scripture, things occurring in religion, or even problems that might exist. Any of the men can bring up any topic, and even though occasional disagreements occur, everyone knows that all are trying to advance the kingdom here on earth.
But the atmosphere was different when we moved to Denton. First of all, I was not invited to the meeting even though they met in town. After a few years, one man asked me to attend on the occasion of his speaking. The meeting was conducted by liberals; two of the “leaders” were elders at the congregation that had Leroy Garrett teaching Bible classes. (For those unaware, he and Carl Ketcherside were the forerunners of Rubel Shelly and Max Lucado.) One of the “preachers” had close ties to Pepperdine. They quickly let it be known that they were a conservative group (gag!) and that they wanted no controversy. That was the last meeting I attended. The Fort Worth meetings eventually invited a false teacher to attend and participate. Many no longer felt comfortable there.
In Central Florida, I attended a preachers’ luncheon the very first year I moved here. It was made clear that no Scriptures were ever discussed. Instead the men talked about what works were being done in the area. At that time the main topic was the upcoming Spiritual Growth Workshop, hosted by and for liberals. I have not been back since. What would be the point?
“Assuredly, I say to you that tax collectors and harlots enter the kingdom of God before you” (Matt. 21:31b). In the next verse, as support for this statement, Jesus cites the recent example of these undesirable elements of society responding to the preaching of John while many of the pious Jews (especially the leaders) refused to believe or obey. Why did this irony exist? One would think that the especially religious would be lining up to hear John and Jesus while the publicans and sinners “passed by on the other side.” One problem with the ”religious” is they become complacent—precisely because they are spiritually-minded. They run the risk of becoming entrenched in their own man-made traditions (Matt. 15:1-9), becoming self-righteous (thinking they are better than others—Luke 18:9-11), and failing to evaluate themselves (2 Cor. 13:5). In fact, a common problem of people today, also, is to think, “I’m all right. I’m already religious.”
Thus, the very ones who should have delighted in hearing John and Jesus frequently turned away because in their preaching they ignored traditions and taught basic, fundamental doctrine. But some of the harlots and tax collectors listened. Why? One reason might have been that they had no pious pretensions to live up to. They knew they were sinners. They knew they had violated God’s law and were counted by others as unredeemable. Another reason was that they knew enough about the self-proclaimed “righteous” to recognize the hypocrisy that existed. The observations Jesus made about the Pharisees in Matthew 6 were undoubtedly already noticed by their social “inferiors.”
One reason the tax collectors and harlots may have listened to John and Jesus is that they recognized them as genuine rather than hypocritical. They lived what they preached. Second, these servants of God did not share that attitude of exclusiveness. Even though Jesus was actually higher and holier than, say, the woman at the well, that difference did not serve as a barrier to Him for speaking to her (John 4). Third, John and Jesus offered hope instead of condemnation.
Everyone, regardless, of his past, can respond to the invitation to have sins forgiven. How refreshing to realize that one can escape the weight and drudgery of one’s sins. Who wants to live under the oppressive idea: “There’s no way out; what you have been is what you will be”? The better message is: “You can change. You can have forgiveness. You can be spiritually whole. You can be granted eternal life.” Anyone who is weary of sin can answer the invitation that Jesus offers: “Come unto Me, call you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Matt. 11:28).
One of the questions put into the Question Box simply asked: “What is the ‘Lucifer’ effect?” The expression seems to have originated with (according to the Internet) Philip Zimbardo, a psychologist and professor emeritus at Stanford University. He has written, among others, three books: The Lucifer Effect (published in 2007, although the experiment was conducted many years earlier in 1971), The Time Paradox (2008), and The Time Cure co-authored by Richard and Rosemary Sword (2012).
The experiment was done with college students who volunteered for this study. The “prisoners” in the experiment did not know when it would begin. They were shocked to be arrested one morning and taken to a mock prison, where they were “stripped, searched, shaved and deloused, which caused a great deal of humiliation,” as one might imagine. The nine “guards” were not supposed to use corporal punishment, but they soon violated that rule. The prisoners at first did not take the authority of the guards seriously, but they began to when physically disciplined.
On only the second day, a rebellion broke out, which angered the “guards,” who responded with a show of force. They stripped the inmates naked, put the leaders in solitary confinement, and imposed other cruelties upon them. This construct only lasted 6 days instead of the two weeks planned. Frankly, the experiment was poorly defined and executed (in the estimation of this writer). To take students of equal rank and treat them in this fashion seems irresponsible and of little value. The greatest lesson to be learned is that no one should volunteer for an experiment unless he knows specifically what’s involved in it.
The Milgram Experiment
A much better study had been conducted in 1961 at Yale, in which one person administered an electric shock to another individual in a separate room for giving a wrong answer to a question. He himself received a sample from an electroshock generator of what he would be dishing out to a fellow human being. The punishment increased by 15 volts every time there was an incorrect answer; the dial went up to 450. Some participants refused to go beyond meting out 135 volts; however, most continued after being assured that they would not be held responsible.
The fact that the person being punished had a heart condition did not seem to have much effect on the questioner, who could hear the screams as the voltage increased. It was estimated that no more than 3% of those giving the shock treatments would go all the way to 450 volts. In reality, 65% of those administering the punishment (26 out of 40) gave the maximum penalty, although many sweated, bit their lips, groaned, stuttered, or dug their fingernails into their skin.
The saving feature in this study is that none of the victims was injured; they were actors. No one had received any shocks whatsoever. Those controlling the shocks were the real subject of the experiment. And it really did reveal something about human beings—perhaps even providing insight into explaining how the Nazis could do what they did in World War II. How far will people go to be obedient and to have approval of those in charge?
A Faulty Assumption
Although both of these experiments are dealing in some measure with obedience, Milgram certainly designed his better. But where did Zimbardo come up with the idea of the “Lucifer” effect? He claims that it comes from the idea of the metamorphosis of Lucifer into Satan—that Lucifer “was once God’s favorite angel until he challenged God’s authority and was cast into Hell with all the other fallen angels.” Of course, this entire notion is fallacious.
The name Lucifer occurs only one time in the Scriptures—in Isaiah 14:12: “How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, you who weakened nations!” But is this a description of Satan? To get the entire context, a student of the Word must go to where this passage begins, which is Isaiah 14:3-4, where the reader discovers that he is reading a proverb against the king of Babylon—of his impending death.
Among the things mentioned is that the Lord can break the staff of the wicked, the scepter of rulers (5). The underworld (sheol) is excited about receiving the king of Babylon (9). Other kings will say to him, “Have you also become as weak as we? Have you become like us?” (10). All of his greatness and pomp is being brought down to sheol (11). The reason that Lucifer is fallen is not that heaven was his original abode (since he is an earthly king), but because he said in his heart:
“I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will also sit on the mount of the congregation, on the farthest sides of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will be like the Most High.” Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol, to the lowest depths of the Pit. Those who see you will gaze at you, and consider you, saying, “Is this the man who made the earth tremble, who shook kingdoms, who made the world as a wilderness and destroyed its cities, who did not open the house of his prisoners?” (13-17).
Notice that nothing is said about the devil or Satan or angels—fallen or otherwise. The passage refers to the fall of the self-exalted king of Babylon. God will judge that nation and its king (22).
The word Lucifer means “light bearer.” No one can offer any proof that Lucifer is synonymous with Satan. Nothing indicates that Lucifer was ever an angel or in heaven or fell from there to join other fallen angels. The devil, in fact, is undoubtedly the one who seduced the other angels and, very likely, with the same approach he used on Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. He convinced them that the Paradise God had put them in was not good enough—that He was withholding from them knowledge that would make them even greater and happier than they already were. How do you convince angels or humans that there is something better than being in heaven itself? That is how proficient Satan is at his job.
Good and Evil
While Zimbardo is wrong about Lucifer, what about his thesis that certain stimuli will cause good people to do bad things? He concludes:
Good people can be induced, seduced, and initiated into behaving in evil ways. They can also be led to act in irrational, stupid, selfdestructive, antisocial, and mindless ways when they are immersed in “total situations” that impact nature….”
Although many, or even most, may respond in a wicked manner, some always resist these pressures. From Zimbardo’s and Milgram’s study have come seven steps that grease “the slippery slope of evil.”
1. Mindlessly taking the first step. The solution to committing this action is to prevent it by evaluating and testing all things (1 Thess. 5:21-22). Don’t mindlessly do anything!
2. Dehumanization of others. Watching television and movies that offer up countless acts of violence against people we don’t know can be a contributing factor. Video games in which killing people is the major theme may contribute to dehumanization. Each human being is created in the image of God, can feel pain, or experience suffering. Every individual has value and worth to God. Jesus died for each one. Everyone should resist dehumanizing others for any reason.
3. Deindividualization of self (anonymity). As has often been stated, character is what a person does when no one is looking. If granted anonymity, is it all right to steal from another? If others do not find out, is it all right to commit fornication and adultery? How about inflicting pain on someone else—if he will never know who did so? God always knows (Pr. 15:3). No one ever “gets away with” anything.
4. Diffusion of personal responsibility. This simply means that when a person is in charge of inflicting pain on others, he is assured that he will not be held responsible. But we are accountable for the way we treat others (Matt. 22:37-40).
5. Blind obedience to authority. Those being tested were told they had to act cruelly. Their superiors would say, “I advise you to continue with the experiment,” if anyone wanted to quit. It could be stated more forcefully, “You must continue.” Most would respond favorably to this kind of authority, even though they were not fully convinced.
6. Uncritical conformity to group norms. Assurance that others complied with the rules was an incentive for everyone to comply even if they had reservations about doing so. The child of God must learn to resist peer pressure (Pr. 13:20; 1 Cor. 15:33).
7. Passive tolerance of evil through inaction or indifference. Once a person fails to respond the way he should, it becomes easier to say and do nothing. The Bible, however, teaches that we ought to promote good and oppose evil (Pr. 17:15; Eph. 5:8-11).
Attitudes in the Church
It must be admitted that false doctrines are of the devil since God teaches only the truth (John 8:31-32) and Satan is the father of lies (John 8:44). Since false teachings originate with the devil, they are responsible for much evil in the world and in the church. When brethren succumb to errors, they have become disciples of the evil one. Some of the previously-examined principles are in operation in those instances.
Some, for example, mindlessly take the first step toward apostasy. They should have evaluated matters more carefully. Second, when a division occurs, it is too easy to look upon a brother as an enemy to be opposed rather than a brother to be saved (dehumanization). One gains a certain amount of anonymity by taking solace that he is part of a group, which also partially alleviates him from personal responsibility.
Many become careless in following leaders of movements rather than abiding in the Word. Each new group formed soon establishes its own norms with which all are expected to conform. The damage that the error is causing becomes a matter of indifference as time progresses, as do the pleas of earnest brethren to depart from the error. The more one resists those efforts, the easier it becomes to ignore them.
Equally evil, however, is the attitude of brethren who refuse to get involved in opposing false teaching. An unhealthy and unwholesome attitude has arisen among some brethren who just want to avoid conflict. Peace is preferable to a disruption of fellowship. Unity (more perceived than actual) is prized more highly than standing for the truth. No one wants to be called a radical. So, many congregations watch and observe but say nothing. Some are willing to fellowship error right along with truth; they have “a passive tolerance of evil through inaction or indifference.” The only solution to this problem is to return to number one and stop doing things mindlessly. Whether as individuals or congregations, we must evaluate things properly and respond accordingly.
“Nationally, in 2014, 23% of all American adults identified themselves as atheists,” claims a news report from The Wall Street Journal (June 4-5, 2016). “Secular Voters Raise Their Voices” by Laura Meckler analyzes the religious faith of voters. While it is pointed out that the largest voting block among Democrats is neither Catholic, Evangelical, or Protestant—but rather non-Christian faiths, no affiliation, or atheist/agnostic (36%)—that is not the subject of these comments (A4). Instead, we want to notice the rise of the atheist affiliation, which has risen from 16% to 23% during the years 2007 and 2014.
How can such a leap be explained? Some influences are obvious, such as public education (especially in politically liberal areas of the country and in universities), the ACLU, political correctness, the entertainment media, and probably others. Of course, what masquerades as Christianity these days may also be a negative factor as so much of it neglects the Scriptures. But these influences aside, families no longer teach their children the Bible.
Fifty years ago, most children had some knowledge of the Word of God and were taught Biblical principles in the home, in school, and in the community. Such is no longer the case. National standards of morality are fuzzy at best—with public figures telling lies and a large segment of society not caring. In fact, when crimes are committed, it does not matter what they have done but who they are as to whether or not they will be held accountable. Community standards are generally higher, but again it depends on the area.
Public schools no longer teach the Bible nor uphold what the it teaches. Society has become more and more “tolerant” of what it will accept. In fact, immorality will likely be vaunted while taking a moral stand will often be frowned upon. After all, who are we to “judge” others? Those who take this approach never realize that in saying those things they have just pronounced a judgment upon us. However, the root of the problem is that the Bible is not respected, and its teachings are largely not known.
Children do not practice Biblical morality because more and more parents do not, either. In the absence of a genuine spiritual influence, many are growing up ignorant, which is a factual statement and not intended as an insult. God, through Hosea the prophet, wrote, “My people are destroyed for a lack of knowledge…” (4:6). In their case, they were willfully ignorant; the next line of the verse is: “Because you have rejected knowledge….” Some probably have intentionally avoided the Bible, but many have simply grown up apart from any New Testament teaching. It is not uncommon to find a family or a young couple who does not possess a copy of the Bible. And of those who possess them, how many have never read them?
Therefore, many may not be atheists by choice; they may not be committed to it; the situation might be that they have always been devoid of a spiritual emphasis in their lives. Those claiming to be atheists, then, may not have ever thought about the situation that much.
What’s the Attraction?
But for those who have thought about it, what can the attraction be? It would be difficult to know, without some sort of study or investigation, what all the reasons for wanting to be an atheist might be. One reason is apparent, however, and that is that the atheist can invent his own morality. God is the author of objective morality, and His requirements are set forth in the Scriptures. Being an atheist means not having to submit to any of those commandments. If God does not exist, then His moral principles are not valid.
Does that mean that atheists are seriously immoral? No, it only means that they can choose to be, if they so desire. Some atheists may never drink alcohol; some may oppose abortion. Many may choose to be faithful to their mates, but if they do, it will not be due to any precept such as “fornicators and adulterers God will judge” (Heb. 13:4). It may not result from their having studied Matthew 19:3-9. Their morality in this respect may be based on genuine love and practicality.
But if God does not exist, then all people are free from objective moral truth, which means they are free to be as selfish as they wish because they can ignore the golden rule (Matt. 7:12). They are free to make up their own morality, which may mean they might determine to get away with whatever they want. Can they use drugs without getting caught? Then they will. Can they steal from others in such a way as to not draw attention to themselves? Then it is all right, as far as they are concerned. Obviously, some try to get away with even murder, and who knows how many actually have? Until the development of forensic evidence, people actually did get away with murder—so far as man is concerned. Sure, many had suspicions in various cases, but nothing could ever be proven. Now, more murderers are being caught and convicted.
Some, then, are attracted to atheism because they believe it frees them from morality. However, it does not liberate them from the punishment of God, Who shall bring their actions into judgment (2 Cor. 5:10). That Day is not the time to find out that one has been wrong about God’s existence. No excuses will be accepted because He has left ample evidence for all (Rom. 1:18-20). Living a life of denial concerning God does not change the fact of His existence. His precepts were given for our good (Deut. 10:12-13)—both in the present and in eternity. Considering the stakes, all should do their best to have the correct theology.
Non-Religious Congregations
According to the article, “Non-religious congregations—sometimes called godless churches, which offer songs, readings and speakers, but no prayer—have popped across the country.” Probably, they are not doing the Lord’s Supper, either. How about giving? Can they trust each other? If an apostle of Jesus (Judas) was tempted to steal, how much more might be someone without moral restraints?
Why not pray? The Pharisee prayed with himself. He credited his own glorious personage with all his moral goodness and evaluated himself by how rotten others could be (Luke 18:9-14). He never called on God for forgiveness or His providential care or wisdom. He just told Him how good he was. What would prevent atheists from doing the same? Why couldn’t they address a prayer in this fashion: “Our Ego who art within us”? The conclusion would simply be, “For mine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory forever.” How is that for man’s overinflated sense of worth?
Now what kind of songs do they sing, pray tell—“How Great I Amst?” A great many songs are hymns of praise to the Father or to Jesus; surely they can’t sing those. Imagine an atheist group singing, “Yes, I Believe God is Real”! “Standing on the promises” would not work since they cannot believe there have ever been any. They could not be longing for that “Paradise Valley” or sing, “When We All Get to Heaven.” On the other hand they could just change a few words to make some fit, like, “This World’s My Only Home.” These words might also work: “There’s a mansion now empty where I’ll never live, At the end of life’s troublesome way. Many friends and dear loved ones I won’t see again, Because death is the end, we all say.”
Okay. Well, maybe they sing secular songs. John Lennon’s, “Imagine,” seems appropriate. Probably they would shy away from, “Fire,” performed by the Crazy World of Arthur Brown. They could sing songs of love, peace, and harmony—based on no lofty principles or ideals whatsoever. As for “readings,” two recommendations are given in the next column.
The “Reason Rally”
On June 4, 2016, some of these individuals hosted a “Reason Rally” at the National Mall. They say their “beliefs are centered on reason and science rather than the divine….” This claim is laughable. For 200 years evolutionists and modernists have tried to separate faith from reason—ignoring the fact that faith is based on reason. With a smirk on their faces, atheists like to claim, “We believe in science; you Christians just have faith.” This statement is not accurate. The faith of the Christian is based on evidence, some of which is scientific. The atheist ignores the evidence. Atheists cannot be allowed to get by with this phony illusion. They defy logic rather than abiding by it; the proof follows.
The Warren-Flew Debate occurred in 1976. It was Thomas B. Warren, Ph.D. (Christian), who presented one logical argument after another. It was Antony G. N. Flew (atheist) who did not, even resorting once to saying, “Can’t you just see that?” instead of presenting evidence. In the 40 years since this debate, not one atheist has yet to answer Warren’s arguments. In fact, Flew, several years after the debate, became a theist.
Christians are the ones who point out the logic of the New Testament. The gospel of John supplies the answer to an important question—“Why did people believe Jesus in the first century?” No one can make such claims as to be the light of the world, the judge of all mankind, to have come down from heaven, or to be equal with the Father without people thinking He was nuts. So why did they believe Him? Because, unlike modern skeptics, they were convinced by the evidence that Jesus provided for them in His miracles. When they exclude the Divine as a source of proof, they have cut themselves off from crucial data.
The fact that an entire genre of Apologetics exists demonstrates that Christians believe in reason and argumentation. One of the greatest evidences for the beauty and power of the Scriptures is the Bible itself. Atheists could see God more clearly if they would read it and know its contents. The fact is that many of them only get to know it for the purpose of finding flaws and inconsistencies, most of which are superficial and easily harmonized. To this day, they cannot answer even the most fundamental question: “If God does not exist, why ought anyone to be moral, loving, good, or kind?” In fact, the very concept of oughtness does not exist in the philosophy of atheism.
Hopelessness
The fruits of atheism are seen in the following two readings (provided from “Tom’s Pen” (June 1, 2016). Clarence Darrow, famed atheist of the last century, was reported to have said these words at the age of 78:
I am waiting to die, without fear or enthusiasm. I no longer doubt. I know now that there is nothing after death—nothing to look forward to in joy or in fear…I am not the agnostic any more, I am a materialist. It took me more than fifty years to find it out. All my life I have been seeking some definite proof of God—something I could put my finger on and say ‘This is fact.’ But my doubts are at rest now. I know that such fact does not exist. When I die—as I shall soon—my body will decay. My mind will decay and my intellect will be gone. My soul? There is no such thing.
The great agnostic of the last century, Colonel Robert Ingersoll, spoke at his brother’s grave. What an orator he was! What an intellect was his. What a great power for God this man could have been. President Garfield, who was one of the pall bearers, said that the Colonel broke down and cried like a child in the delivery of that speech. Among other things, Ingersoll said:
“Whether in mid-ocean, or amidst the breakers of the farther shore, a wreck must mark the end of each and all. Though every hour is rich with love, and every moment is jeweled with a joy, it will at its close be a tragedy as deep and dark as can be woven of the warp and woof of mystery and death. Life is a narrow vale between the cold and barren peaks of two eternities; we strive in vain to look beyond the heights; we cry aloud, and the only answer is our wailing cry. From the voiceless lips of the unreplying dead there comes no word.
Tom correctly responded to and concluded:
This, dear reader, is the epitome of despair. How much better to be able to say, “I have fought the good fight of faith,” or “I know whom I have believed, and I am persuaded that He is able to guard that which I have committed unto Him.” Ingersoll’s words are a fair representation of the hopelessness of disbelief. No wonder the man broke down and wept such tears of disbelief!
The word, integrity, is found sixteen times in the Old Testament. (In this era of television and corruption, integrity is scarcely to be found at all.) In eleven passages, the word translated “integrity” in the King James Version is tom [8537] (pronounced tome). According to Strong, this masculine noun refers to “integrity, completeness, fullness, simplicity, and innocence.” When Abimelech, for example, took Abram’s “sister” as a wife, he did so in the integrity of his heart, which is the reason that God did not kill him (Gen. 20:5-6). In other words, he had not done anything intentionally wrong.
Twice David writes that he has walked in integrity (Ps. 25:21; 26:1). He also vows to do so in the future (Ps. 26:11). He is confident that God will uphold him in his integrity (Ps. 41:12). The same word is translated “upright” or ”uprightly” seven times in Proverbs in addition to “integrity,” as in: “Better is the poor who walks in his integrity, than one who is perverse in his lips, and is a fool” (Pr. 19:1).
The other word is related to the first [8538]; it is tummah (pronounced toom maw’) and is the feminine form of the word. This is the word used four times in Job when he is asked if he still retains his integrity (2:3, 9; 27:5; 31:6). Solomon also used it in Proverbs 11:3. The word does not appear in the New Testament at all in the King James, but several translations use it in Titus 2:7, where the King James has incorruption. Paul charged Titus to be a pattern of good works and that in doctrine he should show integrity or incorruption. All Christians should walk in integrity and especially allow no corruption to infiltrate New Testament teaching.
Tom Wacaster included the following story in a June 1, 2016, posting of Tom’s Pen: “Major William Dean died in 1985. He was a recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor and was considered one of American’s greatest heroes. He fought in the Korean War and was captured and tortured. Dean resisted all efforts by the communists to extract military information from him. In order to maintain his sanity he would resort to mind games, or reciting passages from the Bible. One day the general was informed by his captors that he was to be taken out and shot. A firing squad was standing in readiness. The condemned was granted a few moments in which to write a letter to his wife. He penned what he thought would be his last words. In addition to the words of love and devotion to his wife, he wrote a sentence for his son. ‘Tell Bill the word is integrity.’” What an outstanding legacy to leave a young person—not only to say it but to live it!
How many have ever heard of the National Monument to the Forefathers? If not, one might wonder how he made it through 12 grades of learning and some beyond that) without ever hearing about it. Everybody knows about the famous landmark that we call The Statue of Liberty, which was given to the United States for its one hundredth birthday by France—but not assembled and opened to the public until October 1886. She has become a symbol of freedom for the United States. How many thousands of immigrants have come to this country and seen Lady Liberty upon their arrival? Numerous movies have featured her prominently.
But few have heard of the other monument sometimes called the Pilgrim Statue, d
espite the fact that it is thought to be the world’s largest granite sculpture. It stands 81 feet high, was placed in Plymouth, Massachusetts, and opened on August 1, 1889. The 180-ton monument faces northeast, toward Plymouth Harbor, according to Wikipedia. It contains some important information about who we are, as a people.
The lady (36 feet tall) herself stands upon a pedestal, and one foot is resting upon a replica of Plymouth Rock. She is standing up straight. In her left hand she holds an open Bible. The index finger of her right hand is pointing toward Heaven. Her name is Faith, and the symbolism is that the Bible produces Faith (much as is found in John 20:30-31), which creates the opportunity for us to go to Heaven. In today’s world it is hard to imagine that anyone would erect such a statue, but there was a time in our nation’s history in which people were not ashamed of Faith.
But there is more. The base of the statue is octagonal. Four beings are seated facing four different directions, with a large panel between each of them. The one in front says: “National Monument to the Forefathers, Erected by a Grateful People in Remembrance of Their Labors, Sacrifices and Sufferings for the Cause of Civil and Religious Liberty.” The importance of this statement involves something not very often heard today, and that is that our founding fathers came here—not just for civil liberty—but for religious freedom, which was being denied them in England.
On two panels are listed the passengers of the Mayflower. The fourth side contains the following inspirational quote from Governor William Bradford from the dedication of his book, Of Plymouth Plantation:
Thus out of small beginnings greater things have been produced by His hand that made all things of nothing and gives being to all things that are, and as one small candle may light a thousand, so the light here kindled hath shone to many, yea, in some sort to our whole nation. Let the glorious name of Jehovah have all the praise.
The Four Figures
The panels, as stated before, are between the four figures jutting out from the base of the statue. Each of them is seated, and each of them is important. The one shown above is Morality. She holds the Ten Commandments in her left hand and the scroll of Revelation in her right hand. She and the other three figures are seated on chairs. These were also carved out of blocks of solid granite. Underneath Morality is a scene that includes an Old Testament prophet and New Testament evangelists, who are sowing the seed of the gospel. Morality is one of the four basic principles on which the Pilgrims founded their society. What has happened to these principles today? Respect for life has given way to abortion, and the marriage institution given to us by our Creator has been perverted and polluted. Telling the truth is now considered quaint and a relic of the past. How sad that being honest is not even regarded as a virtue any longer; many have no problem with being lied to repeatedly.
The pilgrims were probably not morally perfect, but they had much higher standards than citizens of this nation do today. Their standard of morality was the Word of God, and they did not apologize for it. To date, no one has found a suitable substitute for the Holy Scriptures, which explains why chaos reigns throughout the land.
The second figure’s principle is not unrelated to the first—Law. Those who violate the law and moral principles must be punished, or no one knows what to expect. In our early society, the few who violated the law were sentenced instead of receiving a slap on the wrist. How ironic that justice prevailed at a time when no lawyers were present. Underneath Law one sees Justice on the one hand and Mercy on the other. These always need to balance each other and take into account the motives of the evildoer. Some crimes are so heinous that mercy cannot be extended, but other offenders deserve compassionate consideration.
The third figure is Education. In those days, this was a reference to actual learning. Underneath are Wisdom and Youth, and the idea is to teach knowledge and applications which will make students wise. How different from the educational philosophy of many today, where sex education and gender “issues” begin, in some areas of the country, to be taught in grade school. Students no longer learn facts to be wise; they are more likely to be taught how to get along in a liberal society. The philosophy of the pilgrims was teaching reading, writing, arithmetic, and the Bible—concepts that might actually prove useful to young people.
The fourth principle (on the last figure) on which society was built was Liberty. Many on board the Mayflower had already experienced persecution at the hands of those who despised anything but the Church of England. They wanted to be free to follow their consciences. Underneath a soldier are Peace and Overthrow of Tyranny. Unfortunately, peace cannot always be attained except at the expense of war, which eventually occurred.
Morality, Law, Education, and Liberty. These are the principles upon which those fleeing oppression built their civilization. It would still work, but freedoms in this nation have been encroached upon by our own government. Education has been politicized and taken out from under the control of parents—sometimes leaving them little choice but to pay for private schooling or to home school. Law has become handy only when it serves certain interests. If certain people violate it, the law is ignored, but it may be applied harshly to others. The Supreme Court has made up law instead of upholding the laws we already have. Lawyers can sometimes get away with doing legal contortions that would break the back of any being that was not a snake. And morality has been reduced to: “Anything you want to do is fine with me (except murdering me).” Our founding fathers knew that these four items were indispen-sable in operating a stable society. No wonder so few of us have heard of this monument.
The Best Monument to Liberty
This National Monument to our Forefathers ought to be known by all and visited by many. But an even greater monument exists that is not made of granite. It consists of two perishable items—the bread and the fruit of the vine. These represent the body and blood of Jesus, which were offered to truly set us free from the enslavement of the devil.
Sin is worse than any dictator or council. Men who head such governments can be brutal, but they do not last forever. Every great world empire falls—even if they believe they are invincible. Nebuchadnezzar’s Babylon fell. So did Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. All of these ruled through force and military might, but they were all conquered. Regimes begun by men also fall to other men. The spiritual kingdom of Jesus, however, stands forever (Dan. 2:44).
Furthermore, Jesus brings liberty to men even when they are enslaved. How does He do that? Near the outset of His ministry, He went to Nazareth and read from a scroll of Isaiah. He read 61:1-2, part of which is quoted below:
“The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because the Lord has anointed Me to preach good tidings to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives….”
How did Jesus accomplish this goal? He allowed Himself to be crucified—to be the sacrifice for our sins. And when we are buried with Him in baptism (immersion), we are “crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin” (Rom. 6:6). Jesus has set the captives (us) free. Not only are our sins forgiven, but the very enslaving action of sin has been destroyed. We may remain in a nation that has physical control over us, but spiritually we are free.
We experience unfettered liberty because we know the words of Jesus, and if we abide in them, the truth shall make us free (John 8:31-32). That occurs when we obey the gospel by repenting of our sins and being baptized for their forgiveness (Acts 2:38). We are now dead indeed to sin, but alive to God through Jesus Christ our Lord (Rom. 6:3-11). What is the memorial that we have that reminds us of our liberation?
The Lord’s Supper reminds us of what it took to obtain the precious freedom that we enjoy. Jesus gave His body and His blood for us and commanded us to remember Him by partaking of the bread and the fruit of the vine—which serves as a monument to Him, salvation, and liberty. As often as we eat and drink it, we proclaim His death until He comes (1 Cor. 11:26). If it is profitable to remember the founding principles of this nation (and it is), how much more beneficial is it to remember the principle upon which our spiritual and eternal liberty is based—the unselfish sacrifice of Jesus on the cross for us?
As news commentator Paul Harvey used to say, “Here is a strange.” The following event took place in Utica, New York, and was reported in the July 6, 2016 Orlando Sentinel. The title of the article grabs the reader’s attention immediately—“Woman Found Guilty in Brother’s Beating Death at Church” (A4) What? Who gets beaten to death in a church building? Apparently, members of the Word of Life Christian Church participated in a 14-hour group beating of the woman’s two half-brothers. What were these people thinking? Had any of them ever read the Scriptures? Have they no understanding that Christianity teaches us to love one another?
The sister was acquitted of murder, since intent could not be proven, but she was convicted of manslaughter and assault. According to the news account, “She pummeled both brothers’ groins with an electrical cord.” What kind of a person does that? If it was not her idea, how does she let someone talk her into it? Apparently, no charges could be filed for stupidity and callous indifference to human suffering. How could anyone present possibly in good conscience have participated in such an atrocious occurrence? Did not even one person present have an ounce of pity that such an ordeal would last for fourteen minutes, let alone fourteen hours?
Oh, and the “pastor” of this morbid group referred to this as a counseling session. If he has not been charged, he should be, since he authorized the actions that occurred. Some counseling sessions may be a bit raucous, with participants shouting at one another or throwing nerf bricks, but what is therapeutic about being beaten mercilessly? Religious freedom does not include the right to inflict physical punishment on others. This “church” should be closed down immediately—not only for what the group members did, but because they have grossly mishandled the name of Christ.
This “counseling” session took place after the 19-year-old and 17-year-old brothers had discussed leaving the church. What kind of an organization is this? This “church” is obviously a cult, and they revere their leader above God. They do what their “pastor” tells them instead of following Jesus. They are a disgrace and an embarrassment to all who genuinely call on the name of the Lord. People ought to study the inspired Word of God and follow its teachings rather than put their trust in any man (Ps. 118:8). This religious group’s members undoubtedly need genuine counseling, as well as deprogramming.
The third provocative article in the July, 2016 issue of The Christian Chronicle is in the “Dialogue” section.
The question is posed thus in black above the title:
DOES THE NUMBER OF CUPS in the Lord’s Supper matter? A minister for one-cup congregations shares his perspective [all of which is one line across the top of the page 15]. Underneath it in much larger red letters is the answer:
No such thing as ‘individual communion’
What does the minister mean? With one loaf and one cup, communion is individual. Congregants can hardly do it at the same time. Be that as it may, the interview is with Brett Hickey, who began working with the Denton County Church of Christ, in Lewisville, Texas, last year. He is apparently popular, speaking on a television program and holding a number of gospel meetings each year. He is probably, therefore, a fair representative and speaks for most of this group.
When asked why this group insists on using only one cup, Brett answered that it was to preserve the remembrance of the Lord’s Supper “just as it was delivered,” as stated in 1 Corinthians 11:2. Well, yes, all members desire to deliver the traditions just as they were delivered; however, in 2,000 years there have been changes in customs and advancement in various areas that do not affect the nature of the commands.
Singing, for example, was not done in 4-part harmony in the first century, but when we sing in that manner, we are still just singing. It only changes if we add musical instruments to the singing—or humming or handclapping or footstomping. It changes if some of the congregation is excluded when we are to be speaking to one another (Eph. 5:19). The Lord’s Supper consists of the bread and the fruit of the vine. What container it comes in does not change the fact that it is the body and blood of Christ. To insist on one cup is to add a third element to the Lord’s Supper.
A second reason for one cup, Hickey asserted, is that there is just as much authority for it as there is for meeting on the first day of the week. Hickey avers that the commands concerning the Lord’s Supper are even more emphatic because Jesus said, “Do this.” He cites Mark 14:23, Luke 22:19, and 1 Corinthians 11:24-25. Matthew and Mark do not record the words, “Do this.” In Luke 22:19, when Jesus broke the bread, He said: “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me” (cf. 1 Cor. 11:23-25). What were they required to do? Remember His physical body, represented by the bread. Did Jesus admonish, “Be sure you only have one loaf”? How would that work in a congregation of 500 people? In the early church they had ten times that many, according to Acts 4:4. What oven would have baked that loaf?
The same is true of the cup. Jesus passed around one cup containing the fruit of the vine, and all the disciples drank of it (Matt. 26:27; Mark 14:23). But there were only 13 present—Jesus and the twelve. What would Jesus have done if there had been 70 present? He would have had to prepare a lot larger cup, or He would have had to refill it as it went around. Now imagine a cup large enough to handle 3,000 on Pentecost and 5,000 shortly thereafter. It is doubtful that anyone made a cup that large; so it would have had to be refilled numerous times—or, more likely, several cups would have been used. God did not see fit to tell us the way they distributed the Lord’s Supper among so many people. We do not know how many loaves or cups were used or how the bread and the fruit of the vine was distributed to each worshipper. All we know is that “they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread…” (Acts 2:42), a synecdoche, where a part (the bread) stands for the whole (the Lord’s Supper) (cf. Acts 20:7).
The main point is this. The use of the word cup, scholars agree, is another figure of speech—a metonymy, in which the container stands for the contents. We use this terminology all the time, as seen below. A. Lowell Altizer gave this illustration when he spoke on Luke 22 for Studies in Luke, the 14th Annual Lectureship of the East Tennessee School of Preaching and Missions. In a dispute over this very issue of whether one cup was all that was permissible to be used in the Lord’s Supper, his father
walked to the cupboard and therefrom took an empty tea-cup, handed it to the brother and asked him to drink thereof. The man responded, “There’s nothing therein to drink, this cup contains nothing!” He was then told that the “cup” of which we drink must be the contained and not the container (267).
This is only logical, but do not expect one-cuppers to see it. It is sad that people can be so insistent (even to the point of withdrawing fellowship) because of their failure to grasp an obvious figure of speech. When Jesus took the cup and said, “Take this and divide it among yourselves” (Luke 22:17), did they chop the cup in pieces and each take a portion, or did they divide the contents? To ask the question is to answer it.
Hickey cites sources saying that members drinking out of the same cup carries little risk and that they don’t get sick more than others do. The studies he cites may be valid (15), and they do answer a concern that many people have, but they do not have a Scriptural bearing on whether or not someone has the right to demand that everyone drink from one cup. A more pertinent question is: “Do one-cup congregations consider themselves to be in fellowship with other churches of Christ?” And the answer is, “NO!” Hickey reasons:
Fellowship
We see this departure from the New Testament in the same light as many multi-cup congregations view those who have introduced instrumental music into their worship services and so do not consider themselves to be in fellowship with us (15-16).
This argument was already answered earlier in this article. The container(s) do not change the nature of the bread or the fruit of the vine. Instrumental music alters singing. To add mechanical instruments to the singing God commanded would be like adding peanut butter to the bread or vodka to the fruit of the vine. Unaltered, the unleavened bread still represents the body of Christ, and the juice of the grape His blood. The one-cup group would need to show that something about multiple cups changes the nature of the fruit of the vine in order to have a case.
Since they cannot demonstrate that a change in the worship has occurred, they are wrong to require that others conform to their preference. This attitude is exactly that possessed by the Judaizing teachers in the first century when they attempted to bind the Law of Moses upon Christians—even Gentile Christians who were never under the Law. Jesus, the Head of the church, has given no one the right to legislate in His stead. He does instruct His followers to withdraw fellowship if they have changed the nature of worship, behaved immorally, or have introduced a doctrine contrary to what has been taught in the New Testament. No one has authority to withdraw over an opinion.
While it is true that unity must be based on truth, unity cannot exist based on the personal preference of a few. Likewise, if one group of brethren prefers not to have a kitchen in their church building, that is their prerogative, but they do not have a right to condemn others who choose to include one when it is a matter of opinion and judgment. Some have opposed drinking fountains, restrooms, air conditioning, and pew cushions, yet none of these changes the nature of worship. Neither do containers or kitchens.
Hickey cites J.W. McGarvey a true scholar of the highest order, but when he argued on this matter, he used human wisdom rather than the Scriptures, saying that the Lord wanted the twelve to drink from the same cup; otherwise He could have done it another way. But how does he know that Jesus did not simply use the most expedient method under the circumstances? Again, what would He have done if the 70 had been present? McGarvey concluded that “we shall be far more likely to please him [sic] by doing what he [sic] did than by doing what he [sic] avoided.” Yet no evidence proves that Jesus avoided anything. McGarvey has not shown that the container was of any real importance. The Lord surely knew what would happen on Pentecost, and yet He gave no instructions that they should continue to use one cup when conditions were vastly different from those in an upper room.
Change in a Teaching
Hickey quotes from G. C. Brewer as one who said he thought he was the one who introduced individual communion cups to the churches of Christ. Whether he did or not is irrelevant. It is Hickey’s comment that is significant: “Any change in a teaching that was practiced for almost 20 centuries after the time of Jesus is at least questionable and at the most unacceptable” (16).
This statement is false. Any change in teaching is wrong whether it occurs in the first century or the twentieth century. No one is authorized to change the doctrine of Jesus or His apostles. However, Hickey does not refer to a teaching—but to a practice or custom. For nearly three centuries, brethren did not meet in church buildings. Was it wrong when they began to build them? Did they violate a teaching of Jesus? Could members of the church have argued, as McGarvey did, that we were far more likely to please Him by avoiding erecting such structures, as Jesus did?
When were Bibles mass produced, and when were songbooks added? When was air conditioning added to buildings? Wasn’t it nearly twenty centuries later? And when did radio and television programs come into being? How about the Internet? The point is that none of these change the nature of the work we do, nor do they alter the worship that we offer God. We can remember Jesus no matter how large or small the loaf is and regardless of the container holding the fruit of the vine.
Other Differences
When asked if any other differences existed between the one-cuppers and multiple-cup churches, Hickey replied that they found no Biblical authority for “segregated Bible classes.” In other words, they think that two-year-olds will learn as effectively in an adult Bible class as they would in one on their own level—or that no classes should exist in the first place, which is ludicrous. Not all teaching in the New Testament was public. Nicodemus came to Jesus by night; Jesus discussed salvation with the woman at the well. Two disciples spent an evening with the Lord (John 1:39). Jesus taught two on the road to Emmaeus (Luke 24:18-27). Paul taught daily for two years in the school of Tyrannus (Acts 19:9-10).
Certainly, children can and should be taught at home, but why deny them the opportunity to learn in a Bible class with other children? Bible classes do not take the place of home instruction; they supplement it. Should Acts 2:42 read, “And the disciples continued steadfastly in the apostles doctrine—but only on the first day of the week—and certainly not in a class situation”? This idea that Bible classes are somehow unauthorized or evil is particularly obnoxious; it robs children and adults of valuable learning opportunities. God expects Christians to grow; classes are one means of aiding in that growth. So are publications and the Internet. When women teach children, they are not teaching in the assembly. These quibbles result from sloppy logic. And why is the Christian Chronicle providing a voice for these errors?
You must be logged in to post a comment.