God Instructed Haggai the prophet to ask a question of the priests about something in the Law of Moses: “If one carries holy meat in the fold of his garment, and with the edge he touches bread or stew, wine or oil, or any food, will it become holy?” The priests correctly answered, “No” (Hag. 2:12). A second question followed: “If one who is unclean because of a dead body touched any of these, will it be unclean?” Again, the priests rightly answered that it would be unclean (Hag. 2:13). The application of this point was that, since the people were unclean, all of their offerings were, therefore, unclean.
Apparently the holy meat could not sanctify anything the garment came in contact with, but it retained its holiness. On the other hand, one defiled by a corpse contaminated everything with which he came in contact. Some brethren do not like the phrase, guilt by association; how about deterioration by association? Let’s consider some other examples. When “the sons of God saw the daughters of men were beautiful,” they intermarried with them (Gen. 6:2). What resulted was a better mankind where everyone called upon God, right? No, the fact is that “the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Gen. 6:5).
“Wait a minute!” someone might protest. “The righteous must intermingle with the wicked; otherwise, how will Christians be the light of the world and the salt of the earth?” (Matt. 5:13-16). But there are some situations and times when a person cannot do any good. Take for example where Lot and his family lived in Sodom. His righteous soul was constantly oppressed by the filthy conduct of the wicked (2 Peter 2:7-8). His righteousness was unappreciated and ignored. Not even ten righteous people could be found at the time of its destruction.
So, with what influences should the Christian surround himself—those that smack of worldliness, which will implant coarse language in his head, along with acts of wickedness (1 Cor. 15:33; Pr. 13:20)? Likewise, what are our spiritual associations—those in denominations that will neither teach nor practice the truth regarding salvation and worship? And what brethren do we desire to be most associated with—those who teach annihilation, that the Lord returned once and for all in A.D. 70, that the Holy Spirit operates directly on the heart of the Christian, that instrumental music is not a salvation issue, or that fellowship with those in error is entirely permissible? Do we want to subject ourselves to deterioration by association?
The article on the front page was satire, of course; there is no such thing as the As Practiced Version—yet. But the problem highlighted in that piece is, unfortunately, real. Brethren that once were conscientious about applying New Testament teaching regarding fellowship now could not care a withered fig tree about it. Or so it seems. It appears that many who were once quite scrupulous in that regard are eager to go anywhere and speak on any program—regardless of who is on it that they will be fellowshipping.
It would be a simple thing to name names, and some have already done so, but the purpose of this article is to show that brethren have always stood where some of us still stand with respect to truth and fellowship—and not that long ago. Within the past two decades, numerous brethren stood together in their understanding and application of the Bible’s doctrine in these important subjects. It’s “the way we were.” Many churches once posted on their signs out front: “If you’re not as close to God as you once were, guess who moved.” Similarly, if all of us brethren are not standing where we once did, guess who moved?
The point here is to demonstrate that we once all believed the same teaching; this is not particularly difficult to show. Citations from a few books should establish it. The first quote is from Roy Deaver, which appeared in the Annual Denton lectureship book, Studies in 1, 2, 3 John (325).
We are to “…have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather even reprove them” (Eph. 5:11). God’s people are in a very definite sense “custodians” of the faith, and as such are obligated (and privileged) to “…contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). May God help us to be faithful to the solemn charge. The Lord Himself was the Master Controversialist. Mr. Campbell said about the Lord: “Hence, the Prince of Peace never sheathed the sword of the Spirit while he lived. He drew it on the banks of the Jordan and threw the scabbard away.”
These words were published in 1987; they were and are true. Does everyone still agree with brother Deaver? But, speaking of fellowship, how about a definition for the term? The Florida School of Preaching included one in their 2003 book, Do You Understand Fellowship? Micky Bell wrote that fellowship can also be translated as “partner,” “communion,” and “partaker” (18). He also wrote:
The phrase “Christian fellowship” brings to mind the sweet spirit of love that is to exist among brethren, those of like precious faith. It is among the most precious gifts that God allows us to enjoy while here on this earth… (24).
We are called into the fellowship of God’s Son when we obey the gospel. We have no right to extend that fellowship to those who have not complied with the God-given conditions of entering into that realm of fellowship. Christian fellowship is not something we can extend, or withhold, based solely on our own judgment. It is based on truth, on God’s word.
For us to have fellowship with one another, we must first be in fellowship with God and Christ. As discussed earlier, this involves belief of the truth, obedience to the truth, and a manner of life and service rendered in harmony with the truth (Eph. 5:15-17) (25).
He then cites the warning John gave in 2 John 10. Just 13 years ago, brethren believed in this passage. Studies in Jeremiah and Lamentations (Volume 1), edited by Devin Dean for Schertz, Texas, also contained some thoughts along these lines. Rob Whitacre expressed the situation clearly:
How sad when good and wise men in elderships across our land, on boards of education in our schools, and in pulpits of churches see the warning signs but refuse to sound the alarm and become activists for Christ. How many of you have heard brethren say, “I did not agree,” while standing in their shadows. Fellowship with sin is no different than committing the sin (2 John 9-11). We all need to be announcers and activists of the truth (105).
Then he cited James 1:22 (being doers and not just hearers). Who agrees with the following sentence?
Fellowship with sin is no different than committing the sin (2 John 9-11).
So, should a man who has written a book promoting the idea of Annihilationism, (as F. LaGard Smith did in After Life), be invited to a college lectureship to be fellowshipped by other speakers, the students, and attendees? Isn’t the invitation alone a matter of bidding him Godspeed? How does 2 John 9-11 not apply in this instance?
How does a man who directed Pepperdine’s lectures for 32 years (who invited Shelly and others to appear on their programs), also get invited to that same college lectureship (Faulkner) without 2 John 9-11 being violated? If brethren insist on tossing these Scriptures out of the Bible, why don’t they rewrite the Bible, if they do not intend to honor verses inspired by the Holy Spirit?
However, this is not the way we have been. In perusing the 2003 Florida School of Preaching book, for example, Jackie Stearsman wrote the following comments on page 525.
What should an individual do who finds the con-gregation he is a part of does not have the fellowship of God (2 Jn. 9-11)? What should a congregation (group of individuals) do when they recognize they are not in fellowship with God (2 Jn. 9-11)?
2 John 9-11 is then quoted in its entirety. One might ask a few more questions, such as: “How should brethren respond when false teachers are invited to speak at lectureships or at neighboring congregations?” “What should be our attitude toward those who appear on lectureships with false teachers?” However, the point is that we did not used to be afraid to cite and apply 2 John 9-11.
Brian Kenyon, who edited this book, also cited 2 John 9-11 on pages 544-45 and then made these comments a paragraph later:
To emphasize the importance of the doctrine of Christ, John says the faithful are not to receive those who do not bring this doctrine. Like today, there were those in the first century who brought false doctrine to the homes and meetings of the church (cf. Gal. 1:6-9; 1 Jn. 4:1). To endorse false doctrine in any way is to become a participant in it (545).
Keeping that last sentence in mind, it is worth asking again: “What should be our attitude toward those who appear on lectureships with false teachers?” In his chapter of this same book, Terry Hightower also cited 2 John 9-11, along with Ephesians 5:11 and Romans 6:17-18, in making this point: “God’s divine word requires that we uphold and apply such disciplinary verses…” (260). Consider these thoughtful words by Marlin Kilpatrick:
Respecting doctrinal issues by following the teaching of the Scriptures is the key to Scriptural fellowship. This fellowship is desirable, but not at any price. Too many brethren have simply agreed to disagree. Apparently, they think they can continue to walk with Christ in such an “arrangement.” Such “thinking” is a sad mistake.
One of the saddest spectacles in the Lord’s church in recent years is the continued division which has plagued us since the last century. Brethren who are not content with following the New Testament pattern for Scriptural fellowship are at the very root of the problem(s) the church faces today (381-82).
What else can one say but, “Amen!”? But that chorus of voices has diminished since 2003, when this book was published.
In his chapter on, “With Whom Do the Saved Have Fellowship?” Kent Bailey mentions the necessity of “withdrawing fellowship from brethren when they will not repent of sin.” He further explained this statement for the 2004 Memphis School of Preaching lectures on Sin and Salvation: Volume 1 by providing a list of categories of brethren we must withdraw fellowship from. The first one mentioned was those “who abide not in the doctrine of Christ (2 John 9-11).” He also added several sins from 1 Corinthians 5:11, those unwilling to work (2 Thess. 3:1-15), those guilty of the works of the flesh (Gal. 5:19-21), and those who preach “another gospel” (Gal. 1:6-9) (484).
Just a dozen years ago, we all agreed with material that expressed these sentiments. Do we still? This may be a surprise for some, but, while reading the following words, try to imagine who wrote them:
Liberal elements within the churches of Christ have been making great strides toward turning the church into a denomination. Although many brethren seem not to have realized it, we are being influenced to abandon our distinctiveness and extend fellowship to all who profess Christianity.
Truth cannot fellowship error.
Whoa! This preacher was right on, wasn’t he? He published these and other similar sentiments in the 1970s in a book he titled, “Liberalism’s Threat to the Faith (11, 19). The author of these words was none other than Rubel Shelly. Within ten years he became one of the liberals that he describes and decries in his book! Bobby Liddell called attention to this material for the 1997 Power lectures in Southaven, Mississippi, in the book, Dangerous ’Isms, edited by B. J. Clarke. Liddell goes on to say that liberals, which Shelly now was, “praise men who are leading folks to hell!!” (575). Liddell insists that, rather than extending fellowship to men like Shelly, we “must be in fellowship with, and encourage those who, courageously, are standing in the gap (Eze. 22:20; 1 John 1:6-10; Eph. 5:11; 2 John 9-11).”
What was advocated above is the truth, and it is where we all stood at one time. It’s the way we were. But a shift has occurred. Rubel Shelly is still invited to speak at Pepperdine and other locations. How can a brother be considered faithful when he speaks at Pepperdine or fellowships the false teachers who do speak there? How can someone fellowship the Deavers with their error on the Holy Spirit, and no one raise an eyebrow over it? Yes, it has been and is being done.
How can F. LaGard Smith be invited to speak and “faithful” brethren appear on the same program? How many doctrines does a man need to be in error about before he is labeled a false teacher? How many false teachers must a brother fellowship before he is considered in violation of 2 John 9-11? We used to know the answers to these questions. Why don’t we now? A few of us are still standing in the gap, upholding the truth. Some are no longer there; why have they moved?
Last week I was reading through what I thought was my Bible. It looked the same as mine, but it actually was one given to me by a friend who wanted me to look through it and see what I thought of it. It was called the APV, which I had not heard of before. He had given me a letter explaining about the translation. Hmm. What had I done with that? As I was thumbing through it, much to my surprise, I discovered that 2 John 9-11 was missing. What? How odd! Verses 1-8 were there, as were verses 12 and 13—only they were now numbered 9 and 10. “Who would dare to remove three verses from the Bible!” I thought to myself. I stared at it in disbelief, but those three verses remained gone.
I couldn’t help wondering if any other verses were missing. It seemed to be otherwise normal. It took a while, but as I was skimming through it, I notice that 1 Corinthians only contained 15 chapters! When did that change occur? Surely the entire text was not missing in early manuscripts. But, yes, 1 Corinthians 5:1-13 was missing entirely. Ephesians 5:11 was gone, and Titus 3:10-11 was also absent. “This is crazy!” I thought. I decided the only way to make any sense out of all this was to find the accompanying explanation. Where was that piece of paper? After searching for a bit, I found it mixed in with some newspapers. It read:
The publishers of the APV hope that you enjoy the efforts of selected brethren to make the Bible relevant. The most appropriate title we could think of is descriptive of the work. It is the As Practiced Version. Everyone is aware that needless divisions have existed in the church over the past 20 years. Many different views have surfaced over some of these matters, and lines of fellowship have been drawn, which exclude large segments of brethren from loving and appreciating one another. We all agree that these barriers are harmful to the cause of Christ; so passages that might be misconstrued, along with those that have been misused, have been removed. Matthew 7:15-20 is now gone because who among us can identify someone else as a wolf in sheep’s clothing? With this version you will be able to fellowship Rubel Shelly, Max Lucado, Jerry Rushford (who directed the Pepperdine lectures for 32 years), and many others. So what if some brethren, such as F. LaGard Smith and Edward Fudge, deny that hell, as defined in the Bible, exists? Can we afford to withdraw from everyone with whom we have honest disagreements? Why, we would have to banish to the theological scrap heap Mac Deaver and his Holy Spirit teachings, the A.D. 70 folks, and probably those who do not object to instrumental music. Brethren, how far are we willing to go? Eventually no one will be left. The As Practiced Version will unite all of us by removing that which divides us. Harmony ought to result among God’s people.
Dateline 800 B. C. (Dan, Israel). Dan is one of the twelve tribes of Israel; it remains the northernmost city in the kingdom. We were able to interview recently one of the men that officiates at the altar in this territory, whose name just happens to be that of the tribe’s founder, Dan. (Int. is short for interviewer.)
Int: How are things going in your part of the country?
Dan: Great. I’ve just written a new book: Accepting Apostasy.
Int: That sounds bold. Tell me about it.
Dan: Well, when this golden calf was first set up, a lot of people took issue with it.
Int: Weren’t those some of the same people who bellyached about priests coming from tribes other than Levi?
Dan: Yes, it seems there are always detractors when people are trying to make progress. So I decided to fling the word apostasy back into their faces and show them that God is pleased with our progress over the past century-and-a-half.
Int: No one has a problem with the golden calf now, do they?
Dan: Oh, once in a while some radical still prophesies doom, but we just point to our marvelous prosperity as proof that God is not displeased with us. Each year more and more people come here to worship. They are absolutely awed by the sight of the golden calf.
Int: I can imagine. So why did you write the book?
Dan: I wanted people to know that they should not take for granted the fact that so many people now accept the calf. For many years my predecessors were persecuted and made to look evil because they dared to be different from Judah.
Int: I know, if the press had not manipulated public opinion, who knows if you would have ever gotten this far?
Dan: We knew that we were on the right side of history in this struggle and that public sentiment would eventually be in our favor. It’s been about 150 years now, however; it is clear that we have prevailed.
Int: Any words of advice for those who want to bring in future “apostasies”?
Dan: Yes, don’t give up. Step back for a bit, if you must, but then boldly drive forward again. The public does not have enough energy to resist change for long. Eventually, the sentiment will turn in your favor. After a few years, no one will challenge you anymore.
Fiction?
The preceding discussion was fiction (maybe) and could be used to justify almost any practice—from homosexual ministers marrying their own kind to women usurping spiritual roles God gave to men. Many think, for example, that because denominations and instrumental music have been used for 500 years, they must both be acceptable. However, time is not the operating factor; God’s approval is. The golden calves lasted more than two centuries in Israel, but when God arranged for Assyria to take the northern kingdom captive, He inspired these words found in 2 Kings 17:21:
For He tore Israel from the house of David, and they made Jeroboam the Son of Nebat king. Then Jeroboam drove Israel from following the Lord, and made them commit a great sin.
The golden calf, along with the other innovations, may have become accepted for more than 200 years, but it was wrong the day Jeroboam established false religion, and the next two centuries could not change wrong into right. Just because objections ceased did not mean that God changed His mind regarding the sin. Some religious denominations are nearly 500 years old—but that’s still 1,500 years too late to be the church Jesus established in the first century.
Women in Spiritual Leadership Roles
An article appeared recently in the Orlando Sentinel that praised a female rabbi and how she “fought for it.” Published on May 27, 2006; it assumes that women in roles of spiritual leadership are acceptable, nor does it seek in any way to prove the practice is Biblical.
The article calls her by the venerable Jewish name of Sally. She wanted to be a rabbi when she was still in high school back in 1963 (probably listening to Leslie Gore’s, “You Don’t Own Me”). When she applied to be a student, she was told that the school had never ordained a woman and that they did not know of any opportunities available for her upon graduation (A10).
She eventually graduated, was ordained, and spent the majority of her career at a Reform Temple in New Jersey (not a surprise) until she retired ten years ago. Now she has (wait for it) written a book, along with other women of her ilk, about her exciting adventures in overcoming gender “prejudice.” [No “journalist” ever considers whether or not the Bible may be right rather than prejudiced.] Her first claim is that what she did is an important part of history. So is what Jeroboam did. It was part of the reason Israel was destroyed. Many events are historical—for good or evil. The stoning of Stephen was a historical event, but that did not make it right. Herod’s slaughtering of the children was historical—but not helpful. Neither is Sally’s cause.
She surmises that the greatest difficulty she faced was “that people judged the idea of women in the rabbinate by virtue of what I did and what their experience of me was.” In other words, if she delivered a good message, they liked and approved of her, and if not, then they didn’t like her. However, this is not the standard. People should have asked, “Is a female rabbi authorized in the Old Testament?” and the answer is, “No.” Unfortunately, many use the pragmatic approach instead of a Biblical standard. “Does it work? Okay, then, it’s all right.” No, robbing people at gunpoint to raise money for God may prove lucrative (if one doesn’t get caught), but it is not right!
Someone might argue that the Old Testament doesn’t authorize male rabbis, either. Two things ought to be considered on that score. First, the forerunner of such a practice may go back to Ezra and Nehemiah. In Nehemiah 8:1-8, the people had returned from captivity. They had rebuilt the temple and the walls of the city of Jerusalem. The people were united and told Ezra the scribe they wanted him to read the Book of the Law of Moses in their hearing. He read from it in the open square from morning until midday, and the people were attentive to the book of the Law.
Then Ezra built a platform of wood on which to stand while addressing the people. Other men stood alongside him. These, along with the Levites, helped the people to understand the Law; “they gave the sense, and helped them to understand the reading” (v. 8). The Old Testament comes to a close after these things (and those written in Malachi). This could well be the origin of men becoming rabbis, as well as the practice of teaching from a platform. God expressed no displeasure with what was done on this occasion, and it was a practical way of communicating the Word to people. In other words, it violated no other command or principle, and it facilitated getting the knowledge of God to the Jews.
The second reason why the existence of rabbis appears to be legitimate is that Jesus did not condemn them, which He certainly would have done if the practiced violated God’s will. The only thing He protested was the exaltation of such men (Matt. 23:1-12, esp. v. 8). But the careful reader ought to notice that these rabbis were male. Not one was a female. Though women accompanied Jesus and were among His disciples, not one of the apostles was a woman. Furthermore, under the Law of Moses, all of the priests were male, also. God has always given public spiritual responsibilities to males—both in Judaism and in Christianity. For a female to attempt to assume those positions is both presumptuous and unauthorized.
Rethinking the Issue
Sally comments concerning herself and the other women who have assumed the role of rabbi: “…we have learned to rethink previous models of leadership, I think.” The translation of these words is: “We are ignoring what God authorized and are now doing what we want.” God made no provision for feminine rabbis just as He made no provision for priests to be from any tribe but Levi. If more than three thousand years of Jewish history has not shown that God appointed the male gender to handle spiritual leadership, someone is just not paying attention.
Feminine Enrichment
“We’ve learned to accept new models of divinity,” Sally claims. Because female rabbis are now more common, she thinks Jews now have a greater understanding that “God embodies characteristics both masculine and feminine. We’ve become more gender-aware.” Do we not only need to read Genesis 1-2 to come to the conclusion that God made us male and female? Do we not comprehend that He is a God of compassion—a trait more closely associated with women than men? But none of these things relate to the roles God assigned to each gender.
The female “rabbi” thinks that it is wonderful that there are now female scholars. Have not women usually been free to read the Word, make comments in a discussion, or write chapters, articles, and even books if they so desire? No one has ever decried their intellect. However, that is different than having women on a faculty to teach or assuming the role of a rabbi.
A lack of humility is seen in Sally’s answer to the question if she had ever imagined (when she was the only female student) that one day female students would outnumber males in Reform Rabbinic institutions. She answered, “I not only envisioned it. I fought for it….” Isn’t that often the case? People fight to be accepted as a minority, but really they want to be the majority.
The Future Regarding Other Religions
The interviewer asked Sally what she thought about the pope granting the possibility of female deacons. She answered that she was not surprised. “You know, the Catholic Church is not that much different than Orthodox Judaism in regard to women being leaders. I feel that the day will come when they’ll be more than deacons.” Perhaps she is right. If the culture is going to influence religion rather than the other way around, she may be correct. Since society has accepted homosexuality, many churches have scrambled to get on board (as evidenced by the article on page one).
The problem is that people do not know the Bible, nor do they reverence God. Many do not like what God revealed in His Word, and they think they have the right to change it. They desire to make God into man’s image. If men choose to accept perversion, they think God should give His blessing. If they want to defy His giving males the leadership role in the home and in the church, they do so without ever looking back. Then they brag about their achievements! But all of their ways are futile because God does not alter His Word to accommodate a changing society. What He commanded is still right, and it is the standard by which we shall be judged.
Whoops! My mistake! The title of the news item that ran on page A4 of the Orlando Sentinel for May 22, 2016 read, “Church of Scotland will let gay ministers wed,” but when I saw it, I thought it said Church of Sodom. Okay, well, it could be either one. The brief blurb stated that the Church of Scotland voted to allow its ministers to “enter same-sex marriages.” First of all, the fact that they have homosexual ministers in the first place shows that they cannot read Hebrew, Greek, or English, for that matter, since the major translations correctly condemn homosexuality as a sin (Gen. 18:20; 19:4-5; Rom 1:21-27; Jude 7).
But that Biblical fact aside, they are also apparently ignorant of the fact that “in the beginning” God created marriage between a man and a woman (Gen. 2:18-25). One would think that this passage would not be hard to find since anyone could stumble across it who can read the first three pages of the Old Testament. Jesus also referred to it as a precedent for marriages in His day and for all time. God designed marriage for one man and one woman—for life.
Speaking of that, the Church of Scotland insists that it is maintaining “its traditional view of marriage between a man and a woman.” Wait a minute! First, what they say they are maintaining is not their view of marriage. It is God’s; they got it from Him. They have just been upholding His view—until now. Pardon me, but how can anyone say they are maintaining something when they are allowing it to change? Isn’t this like an outfielder saying, “I caught the fly ball,” even though it is lying on the ground? This is strangely reminiscent of Saul coming back from the war against Amalek and saying, “I have kept the commandment of the Lord.” Samuel wanted to know why he heard animal sounds (since they were supposed to have been destroyed). If the Church of Scotland is maintaining God’s definition of marriage, why are two males saying, “I do”? Why are two females exchanging vows?
However, despite allowing homosexual ministers to become married, they will not allow their “clergy” to perform homosexual weddings. What? By whom, pray tell, will their homosexual ministers be married? Heathens? Even more liberal ministers in other denominations? Rogue Church of Scotland ministers? Horrors! Essentially, then, homosexual ministers in the Church of Scotland are being told, “You can be married, but not by us.” Apparently they have never heard the British expression, “In for a penny, in for a pound.” Oh, the problems unauthorized denominations get into!
Would it not be simpler to be the New Testament church and abide in the teachings of Jesus and His apostles?
Transgenders make up less than 1% of the population, but Herculean efforts are being made to protect such individuals as though they were an endangered species under attack. How many people even know one? And what are the facts? Do we have any? Are those who have a sex-change operation actually happier? Or is the suicide rate among them significantly higher? How many women desire to be men, and how many men desire to be women? It is reported that the latter is the case 90% of the time. Can anyone run a news story reporting the facts, or is the issue one that elicits too much bias one way or the other for such a simple thing to occur?
For years, this writer’s hair might be dark or light, depending on how much sunlight he was in and maybe the way his hair was combed. His wife might make the comment, “I see you have your blond side up today.” but other days it appeared darker. Is this how it works with transgenders? “Today, I feel my feminine side is up.” Tomorrow he may be competing in a major sports event, but today is different. Isn’t that confusing?
According to the Orlando Sentinel of May 13, 2016, public schools “must permit transgender students to use bathrooms and showers consistent with their gender identity, according to an Obama administration directive” (A3). Just consider the gobbledegook that explains all this:
The guidance from leaders at the departments of Education and Justice says public schools are obligated to treat their transgender students in a way that matches their gender identity, even if their education documents indicate a different sex (A3).
The translation of the bureaucratic gibberish is simply this: If a boy feels like a girl at any given moment—despite the fact that biologically he is a male— he may use the girls’ restroom or locker room. This is what the President of the United States has demanded. (Does anybody think his daughters will have to tolerate males in their locker room?) Any person of sound mind must object to such a perverted practice.
Attorney General Loretta Lynch has shown herself to be as biased as her predecessor, Eric Holder, who wouldn’t recognize justice if it smacked him in the face. The evidence of this charge is his refusal to prosecute thugs with Billy clubs at a Philadelphia polling place (because they were the same race as him?), his refusal to investigate what happened with Fast and Furious, et al. In the same vein, Lynch mouthed these politically correct sentiments:
“There is no room in our schools for discrimination of any kind, including discrimination against transgender students.”
How does anyone present such codswallop to the public and keep a straight face? One would think that 30%-40% of students were being denied rights. We are assured by liberals and secularists that allowing transgenders to use the facilities of the opposite sex is no big deal. If it’s no big deal, why can’t they use those matching their biological gender? No one ever need know or suspect that anything is amiss.
The Orange County School Board here in Florida tripped all over themselves in hastening to comply with the “directive” (translate “coerced demand”). But Texas and ten or eleven other states are talking about standing on principle. (Boehner will probably not like them any more than Ted Cruz for their legal challenge to the president.) Of course, Houston, who has an openly lesbian mayor, and Dallas are all for it.
The President and the Attorney General are citing Title IX as authority for what they are doing. Attorney David Limbaugh objects:
Understand that with Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Congress never intended “sex” to include “gender identity.” The purpose was to ensure women and girls equal treatment under the law. No one in his wildest imagination conceived that lawless public officials would later contort the statute to prevent discrimination against transgender people.
These comments are from an article that is titled,
“Resisting Obama’s Transgender Directive: A Hill to Die On,” which was posted May 17, 2016. He also agreed with the point made in our article for May 22nd— that the departments of Education and Justice have been politicized. Limbaugh also makes clear what the directive actually does:
The administration proclaims, “Gender identity refers to an individual’s internal sense of gender.” So forget your biological makeup; if today you want to identify as a woman, men, you may, and if people refuse to go along with the ruse, they will be punished with the full force of federal law.
This is the reason that this expression of Obama’s absurd agenda must be resisted. How many formal charges of discrimination have been filed?
No one will convince me that this has anything to do with the rights of transgender people. Rather, Obama and his fellow leftist tyrants are seeing how far they can push the envelope—how much they can fundamentally transform America against the people’s will and against the protections guaranteed by the federal and state constitutions.
Limbaugh must be correct because such a thing does not make sense on the surface of it. There has been no public outcry of transgenders saying they have been abused. The directive must be part of a larger agenda. What’s next—accepting child molesters and decriminalizing rape? Where is all of this heading? What is the end game?
How many readers ever heard of boys who wanted to be girls (seriously) or vice versa? If such is the case, is it not that they are being conditioned or coaxed to think this way by someone? Remember when childhood used to be a time of innocence? And education? No wonder Johnny can’t read or write, but he knows he wants to be Johnella. If Obama and other elitists can convince Americans to allow transgenders to have opposite restroom privileges, then they can convince us all that the Emperor is not naked, either, and we will all be marveling at his new clothes.
Citizens must contact school boards, representatives, senators (state and federal), making it clear where we stand concerning this issue. Department stores that honor this inane policy should be boycotted. The public should notify all major stores they will not shop at such places. Consumers wield great power—if they will only use it. As Limbaugh said:
Folks, there has to be a tipping point—a point at which we’ll no longer tolerate this kind of tyranny, even if it means the states forgoing blood money from the federal leviathan.
Of course, there are voices on “our” side, saying that this directive does not amount to anything and that we should save up our ammunition for something really important. One favorite expression on the part of many compromisers is, “This is not the hill to die on.” David Limbaugh disagrees:
This is a hill to die on, and if the sane states don’t fight back on this one, we might as well just completely surrender the republic today. It’s either that or eventually seeing the people rise up in a way we haven’t witnessed for many years.
Radio talk show host, Rush Limbaugh voiced some excellent thoughts on this subject. Many do not like his politics, but he has never relented in speaking against abortion (even before it was cool) or exposing the grotesque practices of Planned Parenthood. He was one of few who refused to cave on homosexual marriage, and he is correct about this social issue as well. He commented thus on the article just quoted:
My brother David had a column published yesterday. “Resisting Obama’s Transgender Directive: A Hill to Die On.” You know, this whole transgender bathroom business is typical. It fits the pattern that has ended up being so damaging and destructive to conservatives and Republicans. The left attempts to undermine, corrupt, and overthrow elements of our culture and our
society. They do it by trying to normalize behavior that, for eons, has been considered to be anything but. They succeed by beating people down and having them portrayed as bigots or racists or some kind of phobe if they resist whatever is said to be just and filled with civil rights.
The moderate Republicans who keep saying, “This is not the battle we should fight,” have been giving up so often and so readily that their backbones have surely shrunken from nonuse to the point that if they ever should stand up and fight, they would probably collapse en masse. They have given the president everything he wanted in his budget so that we are now over twenty trillion dollars in debt. It would be difficult to imagine anyone acting more accommodative.
Thinking that this transgender issue is not worth fighting over is equivalent to Gedaliah refusing to believe that Ishmael had determined to assassinate him. He was warned by Johanan and others, but he refused to believe them. So, while he was in his “rejection of reality” mode, Ishmael and ten others fell upon him and killed him (Jer. 40:14-41:2). It pays to be cautious; it pays to stand up and fight. The alternative is defeat and death. This current issue is one to make a stand on and die, if necessary.
The TV is my shepherd, I shall not want.
It makes me lie down on the sofa.
It leads me away from the Scriptures.
It destroys my soul.
It leads in the paths of sex and violence for the sponsor’s sake.
Yea, though, I walk in the shadow of my Christian responsibilities,
There will be no interruption,
For the TV is with me.
Its cable and its remote control,
They comfort me in the presence of my worldliness.
It anoints my head with humanism.
My coveting runneth over.
Surely laziness and ignorance shall follow me all the days of my life;
And I shall dwell in the house of flat screen TV forever.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sow an act, and you reap a tendency;
Sow a tendency, and you reap a habit;
Sow a habit, and you reap a character;
Sow a character, and you reap a destiny.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Last week Spiritual Perspectives noted many of the names that Abe Lincoln was called when running for President. A “third-rate country lawyer” was one of the kindest epithets used against him. Of course, “grotesque baboon,” “ape,” and “buffoon” were personal attacks. So these tactics are nothing new in politics. Even George Washington’s critics were severe. He was called monarchial and aristocratic. He was condemned as the man who had “entailed upon his country deep and incurable public evils.” Most people would doubt the veracity of charges such as these, but the point is that they were made.
Former Speaker of the House, John Boehner, however, went beyond personal attacks when, at a speech given to college students in California, he called Texas Senator Ted Cruz, “Lucifer in the flesh.” Even most of Cruz’ detractors would not make such a ridiculous statement. Certain criticisms leveled at the former presidential candidate may have some merit, but Boehner is hardly an expert on Biblical topics. (If he were, he would have said Satan, since Lucifer refers to the king of Babylon in Isaiah 14). As Boehner intended the insult, not much could be said that is worse about someone. Jesus said to some of the Jews that they were of their father, the devil (John 8:44), but He offered evidence for His allegation.
What proof did the former Speaker of the House offer? He said that he could get along with both Republicans and Democrats—and almost anyone else—but not Mr. Cruz, and then he threw another insult at him—a worldly and unsavory description, thus showing even further his lack of respect for God’s Word and his so-called expertise concerning it. Maybe his problem is that most of the people he knows are those who compromise, as he does. Cruz, however, will not back down from his principles (not that he hasn’t made mistakes). Cruz refused to play the political game that many in D.C. (in both parties) go along with.
Surprisingly, Cruz said, “If I have said 50 words in my life to John Boehner, I would be surprised. And every one of them has consisted of pleasantries: ‘Good to see you, Mr. Speaker.’ I’ve never had a substantive conversation with John Boehner” (Orlando Sentinel, April 29, 2016, A6). In fact, when Cruz asked to meet with Boehner about the government shutdown, he refused. How shameful to refuse to talk to someone—and then badmouth him! Those who have an argument make it; those who don’t call names. Mr. Boehner has revealed more about himself than Senator Cruz.
The above title is from an article written by Erik Tryggestad in the February, 2009 Christian Chronicle. According to Mike Washburn, executive minister (I do not recall an executive apostle, MLW) of Richland Hills Church of Christ, the 2009 edition of Churches of Christ in the United States committed an egregious error in deleting this congregation from the directory.
The explanation the Chronicle gives is that “the Texas church was one of 21 congregations omitted from the latest edition of the directory for using instrumental music in at least one Sunday morning service.” Carl Royster, the volume’s compiler, said, “The one unifying constant that defines whether or not such a congregation is included in this document is the practice of a cappella worship services.” If I interpret correctly, as long as any congregation claims to be a church of Christ and sings a cappella, they can abandon all other Bible doctrines and remain in the directory. There are hundreds of so-called churches of Christ that need to be excluded from the directory because they “went out from us” (1 John 2:19) long ago!
The article further explains: “In the past, compilers have excluded congregations as they broke ties with Churches of Christ. In 2003 the Oak Hills Church of Christ in San Antonio, then with about 3,500 members, added instrumental worship services and dropped ‘of Christ’ from its name. The church was excluded from the next directory, published in 2006.” But according to the Chronicle, Mike Washburn opines that “Richland Hill’s elders have not broken ties with Churches of Christ, nor did they ask to be excluded from the 2009 directory.” The offended “executive minister” also states, “From a church standpoint, we’re saddened and disappointed. …we strongly feel like we are a part of Churches of Christ and continue a strong love for – and commitment to – excellent a cappella worship (emph. MLW).
May I point out that “executive Mike’s feelings” do not make the Richland Hill’s group a church of Christ! Mike would do well to heed Proverbs 14:12: “There is a way which seemeth right unto a man; But the end thereof are the ways of death.” His true convictions are revealed in this quote: “However, we are a part of a huge movement in our fellowship who do not believe a cappella worship is the sole way of defining who Churches of Christ are” (emph. MLW).
Faithful brethren have never argued that a cappella worship is the sole (only) way of defining the church of Christ. I realize that the compilers of the church directory used “a cappella worship” as the “one unifying constant” to determine a congregation’s place in the book when in reality there are other doctrinal matters that must also be considered. The bottom line for this article is that “executive Mike” believes members of the church can worship without a cappella worship!
“Executive Mike” does express a concern “that church members will see Richland Hill’s exclusion as a sign that the church has broken ties with its fellowship.” “That’s not the case,” he said, noting his congregation’s involvement with a cappella churches, ministries, and schools associated with Churches of Christ. He states: “We have great love for the people in our heritage. We want to be a part of this fellowship.”
“Executive Mike” may profess love for the people in “our heritage” (whatever that means), but he surely doesn’t love the Lord and His Word! He has no fellowship with God and thus has no fellowship with faithful brethren!
Let me offer positive proof of my assertion about Richland Hill’s members being out of fellowship with the Lord. The article states: “In 2007 Richland Hills added an instrumental worship service on Saturday nights. A few months ago the church added instruments to one of its two Sunday morning services” (emph. MLW). Men have never had God’s approval to add or subtract from His Word (Deut. 4:2; Rev. 22:18-19).
Christians are commanded to sing (Acts 16:25; Rom. 15:9; 1 Cor. 14:15; Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16; Heb. 2:12; James 5:13), but there is no command to play an instrument. Neither have faithful brethren forgotten about the addition of an instrumental worship service on Saturday night! We have Bible authority for Christians to worship on Sunday and an example of them doing so (Acts 20:7).
“Executive Mike” wants to worship at Dan and Bethel and whenever he pleases (cf. 1 Kings 12:28-33). Jeroboam learned that God labeled this type of progress as sinful. For the last six months Richland Hills has averaged between 4100 and 4200 for its combined Saturday and Sunday services.
Richland Hills and all other apostate congregations will one day learn that just being “a part of a huge movement” will not get one to Heaven! Such congregations are no longer the Lord’s church! And faithful brethren should not pretend that they are!
[Editor’s note: This article was written for brethren at Paris, Texas, by Marvin Weir and published on February 22, 2009. An article available on spiritualperpectives.org (November 2, 2003) dealt with the adoption of instrumental music at Richland Hills in the Saturday service. It was dealt with after the fact in articles printed on the Spiritual Perspectives website on January 14, 21, 28, February 4, and 11th in 2007. Unfortunately, topics such as these need to be repeated periodically since brethren continue to move in this direction.]
Only one life, ‘twill soon be past.
Only what’s done for Christ will last.
Last week Spiritual Perspectives presented three articles written by various preachers over a period of time on the subject of modesty. However, for some brethren, such topics are a waste of time because they made up their minds a long time ago not to pay any attention to anyone who says anything that disagrees with what they have decided to do.. This attitude can be found in a number of people on a variety of issues. We have often noted, for example, that those who insist on using instrumental music have one final argument they use after all others have failed: “We like it, and we’re going to use it.”
The same thing is true of those who want to imbibe alcohol, play the lottery, or go to the beach. In over 40 years of preaching, this writer has yet to see any written justification for any of those practices. Certainly no one has set forth a logical argument, the conclusion of which is, “It is pleasing to God for me to engage in this practice.” Frequently, even half-hearted efforts are not attempted. It usually boils down to, “We like it, and we’re going to do it.”
No one has an answer to that attitude because it arises from a stubborn will that will not let go of a practice that cannot be justified—kind of like Israel’s refusal to give up idolatry despite everything that God commanded or taught on the subject through Moses and the prophets. About the only response one can make is to affirm that anyone has the freedom to do whatever he wants, but God will call us all to account for what we have done in our bodies (2 Cor. 5:10).
However, a second response involves an oddity. Even those in the world recognize worldliness for what it is. A Christian who frequently practiced social drinking tried on one occasion to get a fellow-partier to study the Bible with him; the man responded by saying, “Are you serious? You’re as much of a boozer as I am.” It would be nice if that reaction had sobered him up—permanently, but it is unlikely. Many are more committed to their favorite sins than they are to the Lord. The “friend” who spoke so harshly to the “Christian” had no objections to drinking alcohol (especially for himself), but he recognized that this is not proper behavior for one claiming to be a child of God.
Suppose a preacher or his wife had played the lottery and won it. (Actually, one does not need to suppose it; it’s already happened.) How would members of the congregation feel about that individual preaching on Luke 12:15-21, which deals with the warning to be wary of covetousness? Would such a message carry any weight from such a man? Could he quote the verse about the love of money being the root of all kinds of evil (1 Tim. 6:10) without people wondering about him? How about him quoting verse 9 about those who want to be rich falling into temptation? Would not most Christians view him as a hypocrite?
Hi and Lois
So what do those in the world think about modern swimsuits, bikinis, and so on? Most people wear them, but that does not mean they are not aware of the implications of what they are doing. They would not try to excuse themselves by saying, “Oh, some people just have dirty minds,” or with some other red herring. Worldly folks know that the undress at a beach causes lust, but they don’t necessarily object to that. They might think it is wrong for a Christian to participate in it, however. Or maybe they just think it is incongruous.
Sometime last year (June or July) Brian and Greg Walker published an interesting perspective in their daily comic strip, Hi and Lois. Now Hi and Lois and the kids are sometimes at the beach; so the authors probably have no religious or moral objections to being there or to the clothing worn at such locations, but in this comic strip they record what perhaps they think is ironic. It only contains two frames.
In the first one, their cartoon son Chip is walking alongside a girl who identifies herself as Jenny. They are both wearing winter clothing, and snowflakes are falling. She is wearing a snug hat, and he has a baseball cap on, which is turned backward. In the second frame there is snow along the sidewalk; trees and rooftops are also covered. She is wearing a thick coat and boots. He is dressed in street clothes with a scarf around his neck; his footwear appears to be regular shoes. In the first frame, after she introduces herself, Jenny says, “We met at the beach last summer.” Chip says, “Sorry.” Then, in a matter-of-fact manner, he adds in the second frame, “I didn’t recognize you without your bathing suit.”
In the first frame, Jenny’s face is quite friendly, and she is smiling. After Chip’s comment in the second frame, her mouth is down-turned, and her eyes are wide open. Apparently, it has dawned on her that it was not her personality that he had noticed the preceding summer. She may be stupefied, but most people are not. Men (and lads) are attracted to a girl’s figure. Pleasant conversation is just a necessary social requirement. Some have yet to comprehend why so many lie exposed on the sand rather than swimming in the ocean. After all, one could lay out at home.
One church critic said a number of years ago that only members of the churches of Christ referred to beach attire as “bathing suits.” No, even in 2015 non-members still refer to them as such. However, immodesty by any name remains precisely that. So, maybe those who refuse to listen to preachers might take a lesson from the writers of a comic strip who have pointed out a fundamental truth that even those in the world recognize. Going to the beach is about lust—not athletic prowess—or even innocent fun.
You must be logged in to post a comment.