Relative Morality

Possibly some watched the interview with Sean Penn (movie star/journalist) on 60 Minutes Sunday evening, January 17, 2016. If not, Penn has certainly been in the news recently since he had an interview with El Chapo, head of a Mexican drug cartel, who escaped from prison last year. According to Wikipedia, his full name is Joaquin Archivaldo Guzman Loera, but he usually goes by “shorty” (El Chapo) Guzman. He has been called “the most powerful drug trafficker in the world.” El Chapo was fond of a Mexican actress, and through her the interview was set up with Sean Penn. This arrangement that ensued may have subsequently led to the drug lord’s recapture.

All of those details furnish the background for the statement that Sean Penn made which was quoted on The O’Reilly Factor on Monday, January 11th. He said:

We are the consumer, and as such, we are complicit in every murder, and in every corruption of an institution’s ability to protect the quality of life for citizens of Mexico and the United States that comes as a result for our insatiable appetite for illicit narcotics. It’s a question of relative morality.

A normal reaction to these words would be, “What?” It seems that Penn is saying that the consumers who desire illegal narcotics are themselves guilty of the murders that El Chapo and others commit. If no demand existed for the drugs, all of those who have murdered others in an effort to enrich themselves would not have happened. Americans, then, who crave these drugs are responsible for the cartels’ wars against each other—as well as the war against the Mexican government and our own government.

Would it not be more appropriate to lay the blame at the doorstep of Greed (1 Tim. 6:10)? Making huge profits motivates cartels to produce and sell drugs. Yes, the buyers are also to blame, but many are enticed into beginning those habits by those seeking financial gain. The concept of relative morality is a farce. It is immoral to produce the drugs (knowing what they do to people); it is illegal to sell them; it is illegal to buy them. “Relative morality” means no morality and is a lame attempt to justify sin.

Was the Bible Composed by Men?

More and more people today are asserting that the Bible was either composed or altered by mere men; they refuse to believe that it is Divinely inspired. Anyone has the right to believe anything; however, the day shall arrive when all shall believe, know, and confess the truth. Yes, “every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father” (Phil. 2:11). No one will have an excuse not to know that God exists—because the natural world declares it (Ps. 19:1-6; Rom. 1:18-20). The evidence for Jesus being His Son is abundant (John 20:30-31).

So what do critics complain of? To boil it down, the main criticism involves uncertainty. If God actually did in-spire the words first recorded on parchment, nevertheless, we do not have those originals; we have only copies of copies of copies of the ancient manuscripts. We have variations (thousands of them) in those manuscripts; so we know that sometimes a scribe added something to it or deleted something from it (whether intentional or accidental). At best, we have an altered original text. And then there is the problem of translation; some verses just may not be the equivalent of what the author intended. Furthermore, if the original texts have been altered by men, how do we know they were inspired in the first place?

These are challenging questions, but they do have honest and satisfactory answers. Do translations from the original languages vary? Sure, a few problems will always exist when going from one language to another. We have idioms in the English language that do not translate well into other languages. Imagine reading a translation of the English into some other language when one performer tells another who is about to go out on stage, “Break a leg.” What? How cruel! No one would have a reason to know that this is a phrase meaning, “Good luck.”

Jesus may have spoken in Hebrew at times or the more popular Aramaic to the Jews. But His words were writ-ten down in Greek and eventually translated into several other languages. So there probably will be variations. How-ever, these do not prove that the Bible is false. The very fact that we have differences simply throws more light on a given verse. A different shade of meaning may enrich our understanding; it does not change that which is true into something false.

One would think that one translation said that man was created on the sixth day while another translation had it a month later. No one disagrees on crucial in-formation that readers need which is vital to salvation. The fact is, however, that some translations are just not done very well, but when we study them, we find out the truth about them and quit using them.

For example, nearly every modern translation renders Exodus 20:7 this way: “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain…” (KJV, NKJ, ASV, NAS, RSV, ESV). But the NIV has, “You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God….” Although that is a similar thought, it probably leaves a question in the mind of the reader: “What does it mean to misuse the Lord’s name?” But even with such a poor choice of words, no contradiction arises.

However, there are plenty of situations when violence is done to the text, and for that reason a person needs to be careful about which translation to use. With most reliable translations, sometimes an inferior rendering surfaces, but the more paraphrase-y one becomes, the worse it gets. In John 2:10, the master of the feast mentions that the guests had “well drunk” (KJV, NKJ), meaning that they had had their fill of the wine when they desired to. The ASV, NAS, RSV, and ESV say correctly they had drunk freely. The NIV erroneously chose to say: “after the guests have had too much to drink.” How shameful! This description makes it sound as though the guests had grown tipsy on alcoholic wine—something for which there is no basis in the text.

When unfortunate word choices do find their way into translations, they usually stand out, and those familiar with the Scriptures recognize them and protest against them. The RSV chose to replace virgin (as used by the KJV and the ASV) in Isaiah 7:14 with young woman. They were immediately called out on this aberration, and no legitimate translation (NAS, NKJ—even the NIV) since then has used anything but the proper word—virgin.

So even though some really bad translations occasionally make it into a major version, we have enough of them to discern what is right, and we also have word studies and a multitude of commentaries, all of which examine everything very closely. Thus, the claim that we are merely using translations and not the Greek text lacks sufficiency as a criticism.

Did God not know that Greek would not always be a universal language? God is the One who confused the languages at the Tower of Babel. Did He not know that eventually His Word would need to be in every language? Was not the Holy Spirit the One Who had the apostles speak in all the languages of those pre-sent on Pentecost? God knows all about languages and translations; even flawed versions contain enough truth to save people from their sins.

The problem with variations in manuscripts is a larger—but not an insurmountable—one. It is a fact that we do not have any of the original gospel accounts of Jesus’ life or any of the letters written by the apostles. Copy machines did not exist in the first century or for hundreds of years afterward. The printing press did not make mass reproduction available for nearly 1500 years. So, when an original was about worn out, one or more copies were made in order to preserve God’s Word.

This process does not sound like it would cause a huge problem, but now let’s look at the situation from the other end of the spectrum—from 2016. Some-where along the way, some individuals did not copy a manuscript correctly because we have variant readings. For example, in Revelation 1:5, there are two verbs that are very similar which show up in different manuscripts. One verb is lousanti, and the other is lusanti. Both verbs have the accent over the u; only the o is missing from the second word. It is not difficult to see how someone copying the text omitted an o.

The first word (lousanti) means “to wash.” Did Jesus wash us from our sins in His own blood? Yes; the concept is found in Acts 22:16, where Saul was told to arise and be baptized, and wash away his sins. The word translated “wash” there is the same verb but with the preposition apo in front of it. The second verb, lusanti, means “to loose.” Did Jesus loose us from the sins that had bound us? Yes. The word is not commonly used in that way, but it would be entirely appropriate to do so. So this variation is actually of no con-sequence. And the same is true of many others.

Bart D. Ehrman, in his book, Misquoting Jesus, argues that manuscript variations prove the Bible is from man and not God. He writes:

The more I studied the manuscript tradition of the New Testament, the more I realized just how radically the text had been altered over the years at the hands of the scribes, who were not only conserving scripture but also changing (207).

“Wow!” one wonders. “How many super blunders there must be in the Bible to have caused such a conclusion!” In the next sentence, however, he basically says that there wasn’t much:

To be sure, of all the hundreds of thousands of textual changes found among our manuscripts, most of them are completely insignificant, immaterial, of no real importance for anything other than showing that scribes could not spell or keep focused any better than the rest of us (emph. GWS, 207).

Then why all the fuss?

Previously Ehrman had said that most of the changes in manuscripts were “the result of mistakes, pure and simple—slips of the pen, accidental omissions, inadvertent additions, misspelled words…” (55). Yet one would think there were gigantic plots to alter the Scriptures the way he writes the remainder of the book. To be sure, those copying the New Testament had disadvantages that we have never experienced. Early manuscripts were written without any punctuation marks, without any distinction between capital or small letters, and without any spaces between the words (48). Probably they did not include pictures, either; so a copyist would be staring at a page full of letters.

An example of one word being mistaken for another is in 1 Corinthians 5:8, where Paul talks about the old leaven of wickedness (or evil). The Greek word is poneras, but a few manuscripts have porneias, which would be “sexual immorality” (90). The point is that we know that this second reading is inaccurate (not only because of the context) but because so many manuscripts have it correctly. Ehrman relates that the here-tic Marcion made changes in eleven books of the Bible, taking out references to the Creation. But the fact is, due to the 5,700 manuscripts that we have (88), we know what he did and do not trust his corrupted text.

The author of Misquoting Jesus quotes Origen, whose works date from the first half of the third century, as lamenting already the variations of the text in manuscripts. He accused some of making “additions or deletions as they please” (52). The point, however, is that men like him knew of the changes and thus could warn others and use their influence to preserve the best manuscripts.

According to Ehrman, there were all kinds of plots to change the New Testament text, but most of his claims are poorly substantiated and involve a great deal of supposition. One example will suffice—one he claims involved a “deliberate” attempt to make Jesus God. The text, 1 Timothy 3:16, reads as follows:

God was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the Spirit, Seen by Angels, Preached among the Gentiles, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory.

The big controversy revolves around if the first word above should be God or Who, with the implication that God replaced the original who to emphasize the Deity of Jesus. There is one such text (1 John 5:7-8), but we know that because of the abundance of manuscripts where those words were omitted. But here no evidence exists that any such attempt occurred. The two words look alike (when theos is abbreviated).

So which word belongs? Better manuscript evidence exists for who, but God fits the text better. But the choice of the word there essentially makes no difference since Jesus is God, and He was manifested in the flesh (John 1:1-3, 14).

Textual critics, however, should stick to the facts and quit trying to assign motives to those who copied manuscripts. Instead of assuming that an honest mistake was made, Ehrman feels obligated to charge, “Conspiracy,.” asserting that “the New Testament rarely, if ever, actually calls Jesus God” (114). Seriously? What does he think John 1:14 does, if not call Jesus God in the flesh? Has he never read Peter’s confession of Jesus’ Deity, the rock upon which the church is built (Matt. 16:16-19)? Did he somehow overlook Jesus identifying Himself as the “I AM” of Exodus 3:14 (John 8:58)? Is he unaware that Paul referenced Jesus’ equality with God (Phil. 2:5-8)? Has he somehow overlooked that Jesus was crucified for confessing His Deity (Mark 14:61-62)? These are just a few. References to the Deity of Jesus in the New Testament would fill up the rest of this column. No one needs 1 Timothy 3:16 to prove Jesus is God. Ehrman makes a baseless and frivolous accusation.

Another groundless assertion is that one or more scribes omitted Luke 23:34 (“Father, forgive them…”) because it was obvious (from the destruction of Jerusalem in A. D. 70) that God had not forgiven the Jews. So they removed the verse. First, if that were the case, why did they leave in Stephen’s petition, “Lord, do not charge them with this sin” (Acts 7:60)? Second, Jesus’ prayer was answered. Three thousand repented and were baptized on Pentecost. Naturally, those who never repented were not forgiven, since repentance is always a condition. Stephen’s prayer was answered, also, when Saul of Tarsus, who held the garments of those who stoned him, was forgiven of his sins. No conspiracy amongst copiers of texts can be proven; the verse could have been omitted by accident. But, again, we have so many manuscripts that we know it belongs.

Is Ehrman’s conclusion valid? He writes:

Given the circumstance that he [God, GWS] didn’t preserve the words, the conclusion seemed inescapable to me that he [God, GWS] hadn’t gone to the trouble of inspiring them (211).

Basically, this statement argues that God does not know what He is doing. Perhaps He should have waited until the invention of the printing press to begin the New Testament era. However, we know Jesus came in the fullness of time (Gal. 4:4). Did God not know uninspired copyists would make errors? Of course, but the abundance of preserved manuscripts allows us to see them and compile a reasonable facsimile to the originals. But even if a word or two is under dispute, no contradictions occur. If someone added a verse that agrees with the remainder of the New Testament, it was unauthorized but still true. If someone removed a verse (even intentionally), plenty of others teach the same truth. One does not find adultery both accepted and condemned. Nowhere is the Deity of Jesus denied. Christians can be assured that the Bible we have is the truth.

What Are You All About?

When some are invited to worship with members of the church of Christ, they do not know what to expect. They might think we are some sort of Pentecostal group or perhaps even a cult of some kind, since so many exist today. New religious groups that no one has ever heard of seem to be popping up every day. But we are neither Pentecostal nor new; in fact, we simply call ourselves Christians. That may sound like a novelty in today’s religious climate, but the name is a Divinely-designated one dating back to the first century. The disciples of Jesus were called Christians first in Antioch (Acts 11:26).

What we call ourselves relates to what we are all about. Various religious groups are known for certain characteristics. The Roman Catholic Church, for ex-ample, is known for having a pope, being against abortion, and being steeped in traditions that extend back over 1,000 years. The Mormons have presented themselves as being very family oriented. Jehovah’s Witnesses are known for going door-to-door. Church-es of Christ should be known (if they are not) for their emphasis on truth.

If someone compared us to those listed above, they would observe that we oppose abortion, also, but our reason for doing so is based on what the Bible teaches. We are happy to observe God-instituted traditions (2 Thessalonians 2:15)—but not those invented by men (Matthew 15:8-9). We also stress family relation-ships, although it is not what we are most noted for. And we sometimes go door-to-door to reach people with the gospel—even though others have a greater reputation for doing so.

The fact is that the religious world is greatly divided and therefore confusing to anyone trying to figure things out. Someone who has the desire to love God and to please Him may not know where to start, since so many different ideas exist. If one were in a forest with heavy undergrowth, he might keep slashing every-thing in his way with a blade, or he might climb a tall tree to get a better perspective of the way out. That tree which will furnish the proper perspective is the reality which is found in the Bible.

Before someone argues, “But everyone uses the Bible, yet confusion reigns,” consider that God gave us the Holy Scriptures for a reason. “Your Word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path” (Ps. 119:105). God gave His Word so that we would be able to find the right path. So why are people wandering all over the place. The answer is not difficult to discern—the devil has sown seeds of error (weeds) in the Garden of Truth. The remedy is to read the Scriptures carefully and learn which is which. We must apply correct principles of reasoning to the Word of God.

God did not create mankind and then say, “Worship me however you feel like doing and live whatever way you want.” One may as well believe in a random universe that arrived here by chance because then the chaos would be understandable. No standard of right and wrong could exist under those conditions, and one person’s views would be just as valid as another’s. God has, however, given us a standard, and we have no excuse for not understanding it and applying it properly.

Take, for example, the moral issue of abortion. Is it right or wrong? Roe v. Wade has been the law of the land since January 22, 1973—nearly 43 years ago. More than 60,000,000 infants have been put to death since that time with the permission of our government. However, a higher authority than our government exists, as the Nuremburg Court declared when trying Nazis for war crimes. They did not violate German law when they put Jews to death, but they did violate a higher law—God’s.

The same is true with respect to abortion. While our Supreme Court may have legalized it (without any legal precedent whatsoever), the Bible considers that a “fetus” is a human being from conception. In the Old Testament, after Rebekah had conceived, it was told her that she had two nations in her womb (Genesis 25:22-26). If she had aborted the twins, Hitler would have had no Jews to persecute; they would never have come into existence.

In the New Testament, the fruit of Elizabeth’s womb leapt when Mary greeted her (Luke 1:41). If Elizabeth, who was “well advanced in years” (Luke 1:7), had elected to have an abortion because of the inconvenience, then John who prepared the way for Jesus by preaching truth and baptizing people, would never have been born. Worse yet, what if Mary had made that decision? No Lord and Savior of the world would have been born. Yet the same Greek word that refers to John in the womb is used to describe Jesus after birth (Luke 2:12, 16). So the Scriptures are clear on the subject of life within the womb, but some man-made churches support abortion. The only way to determine that they do not represent Christ is to know the Word.

Truth is the only foundation we have. We cannot simply speculate and offer opinions on a matter. We cannot use the writings of philosophers or theologians (who often err), nor can we depend upon the charismatic personality of a religious leader. The only way to arrive at the truth is through a sufficient knowledge of the Scriptures. Did not Jesus say so? “If you abide in My word,” He said, “you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:31-32).

Jesus also said that true worshipers would worship God in spirit and in truth (John 4:23-24). Therefore, it matters whether we are following the traditions of men or the New Testament. God designed worship to be spiritual rather than carnal. Worship is not something that God gives to mankind to please him; worship is what man gives to God in order to please Him. If a church has an orchestra and a mammoth choir, it may make for a great show for attendees, but it would not be worship offered to the Father. If a band comes in to rock the house, the beat may attract young people, but such performances are geared to the audience—not the Lord.

God, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit told us to sing and make melody in our hearts to the Lord (Ephesians 5:19)—not be wowed by semi-professional musicians and singing that brings forth goosebumps on our bodies. Simply singing praises that honor God from hearts devoted to Him is sufficient.

One way in which Jesus desired to be remembered was in what is called the Lord’s Supper. Originally, Jesus showed His disciples how to remember Him with the unleavened bread and the fruit of the vine in Mat-thew 26:26-29. Later, Paul reminds brethren to ob-serve the Lord’s death in all seriousness, discussing the subject in 1 Corinthians 11:23-29. Partaking of these two elements, which represent the Lord’s body and blood, is the way He said to remember Him. The church in the first century met together, in part, to do that very thing, as demonstrated in Acts 20:7. Why have so many churches de-emphasized the one thing that the Lord commanded? The truth regarding this practice is found in the Scriptures.

Because the Bible says, “Buy the truth, and do not sell it” (Proverbs 23:23), all of the messages presented involve many references to the Scriptures. Some people may find that odd. As a matter of fact, a woman and her boyfriend once visited a congregation in Den-ton, Texas—but after a few weeks, quit attending. A few months later, the two returned (at his insistence) and stayed. Eventually, we found out why they left. She had come from a very liberal church that seldom used more than one passage of Scripture for sermons, and she thought it was weird for people to be using the Bible so much. But the Bible is what God gave us. It is our only source of authority.

Three decades ago on a Donahue show, some members of the studio audience, as well as one person on stage, were members of the church of Christ. They were discussing a situation that had occurred and explaining that what was done was following the Scriptures. Near the close of the program, one woman in the audience spoke up: “These people are blinded by the Bible.” Apparently, she would have preferred the wisdom of men to the Word of God.

What apparently was intended as an insult actually proved to be a compliment, although most of us would not use the term blinded. What we would say is that we recognize that God’s Word is the final authority in all things regarding what we believe and how to live. Jesus told His apostles just before returning to Heaven: “All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth” (Matthew 28:18). What He and His apostles taught, then, is the final word.

When two teams play football, they both have an authority to which they submit. One team cannot play by the rules of 1935 while their opponent is playing by the current rules, for there would be variations. Nor can one team make up their own rules as they go along. The game would be chaotic. Instead, the players, the coaches, the referees, and the fans all subscribe to the same authority.

The New Testament is our final authority for this era. It is the truth by which all mankind must abide. God did not give us permission to change His Words into something we might prefer. Paul wrote: “And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him” (Colossians 3:17). To act in the name of Jesus means by His authority.

Jesus went to the Scriptures for answers to questions or when establishing a principle. In talking about wicked men (some of whom He was facing at that very moment), He said, “Did you never read in the Scriptures…” and then He quoted from Psalm 118:22-23. When they perceived that He was talking about them, they became angry with Him (Matthew 21:41-45). The point, however, is that the Lord appealed to Scriptures for a prece-dent.

Some Sadducees tried to trap Him by talking about a woman who had married seven brothers (one at a time, after each husband died successively). They wanted to know which man’s wife she would be in the resurrection. Notice that Jesus answered: “You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God” (Matthew 22:29). First, marriage is an earthly covenant for human beings—not one for angels or those who have been raised from the dead and changed into a spiritual body. Second, the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection, but God has the power to raise the dead. Further-more, they did not know the Scriptures sufficiently, or they would have known that Abraham was still alive for God is the God of the living (Exodus 3:6, 15).

The New Testament is our authority in Christianity. If we do not know it, we will err just as the Sadducees did. If we do know it and follow it, we can please God (Mat-thew 7:21-27). Paul commended those in Thessalonica because when they received the gospel that he preached, they “…welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God…” (1 Thess. 2:13).

May all of us share in their attitude.

Why Are You Here?

Why are you here today? Of course, members of this congregation plan to be here (unless ill or traveling). Christians realize their obligation not to forsake the assembling of ourselves together (Hebrews 10:25). We come to offer up our worship to God, as well as to be edified and built up in the faith. We do not come to be entertained but to engage actively in worship.

You who are visiting, however, are here this morning because you have been invited by members, and we are all delighted that you have decided to come and worship with us this morning as we begin this gospel meeting. We are convinced that the messages presented will be relevant to you in this or any century. The gospel does not change, and all of us have the same spiritual needs that human beings have had since sin first entered the world. Some visiting this morning have already heard and obeyed the gospel, but some have not.

This morning’s message is: “Now That You Know, What Do You Do?” and it will be taken from the second chapter of Acts. Many people have some understanding of the concept of sin and our need of redemption but have never been taught the particulars regarding salvation. In fact, some have probably heard the erroneous idea that all a person needs is faith. Faith is certainly the starting point, but it is not all that one needs. If it were, then what did Jesus mean when He said, “Unless you repent, you will all likewise perish” (Luke 13:3)? Obviously, more than faith is required. And when you find out what else is necessary, what will you do with that information?

The larger question is, “Why are you here?” period—on earth, that is. It’s a question we surely have all asked ourselves. Are we here only to go to school, get a job, marry, have children and then grandchildren, retire, and die? Or did God create us in His image (Genesis 1:26-28)? Do we need to seek Him? Having imparted to us the gift of life, does He have expectations for us? Is there a moral code we must follow? Does He expect us to serve Him and be grateful for what He has given us? The Bible answers these questions—and more. It has answers to the most important questions of life, including the origin of sin and why evil exists in the world. It will also tell you why you are here.

Christianity, the Religion of New Beginnings

Many religions are Fatalistic—that is, the overriding attitude of those who believe this way is, “Que Sera, Sera,” which was a song sung by Doris Day in Alfred Hitchcock’s movie, The Man Who Knew Too Much. [The song reached number two on American charts and number one in the United Kingdom the same year the movie was released—1956.] The phrase simply means, “Whatever Will Be Will Be.”

Is there some impersonal force guiding the world somewhere somehow? Or does life consist of random influences, subject to change when the wind shifts directions? Fortunes rise, and fortunes fall, and mankind is pretty much at the whim of Destiny or Fate. If such were true, then it would not really matter what a person thought or did because our choices would not really matter. The poet, Robert Frost, in “The Road Not Taken,” disagreed. His famous concluding lines are:

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

One message of this poem is that, “Choice makes a difference.” O. Henry’s short story, on the other hand, portrays the opposite idea. In “Roads of Destiny,” the luckless poet, who is the main character, ends up dead no matter which of the three roads he travels. The poor fellow could not win for losing. Is doing evil the same as practicing righteousness? Do we really not have any choices of consequence in life?

The Bible proclaims that we do. Joshua gave Israel a choice that would affect their entire future (Joshua 24:14-15). They chose wisely initially, although future generations would choose to live foolishly. Previously, Moses had recorded a similar challenge:

“I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live” (Deut. 30:19).

Many years later, Ezekiel would write of God’s pleading with Judah to repent. Two waves of captivity had already occurred, and the third and final one was just a few years away. God said:

“Cast away from you all the transgressions which you have committed, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. For why should you die, O house of Israel?” (Ezek. 18:31).

They were making the wrong choice—one that would result in famine, being put to death with the sword, or captivity. But the point is that they had a choice to make. God gave us the freedom to choose life or death, which means Fate has not locked us in.

When arising in the morning, one notices, while walking through the neighborhood, how renewed all things have become. The air smells fresh; dew is on the ground, and yesterday’s troubles seem distant. It’s a new opportunity to make better choices than the ones we made yesterday. We often think of beginning a new year with resolutions that are calculated to im-prove ourselves, but really that opportunity arises each day when we lift our heads off the pillow.

What is the sin that we are determined to give up once and for all? How much better are we going to be with respect to self-control? By how much are we going to improve our disposition? To what greater extent will we be thinking evangelistically? Will this be the day that we begin to be more thoughtful of others? Will we discover once and for all that, despite what external pressures and adversity come our way, we have the final say and can make the proper choices?

It would be depressing indeed to be a Fatalist—to have the view that no matter how hard we try, every-thing depends on Chance. Good decisions and good actions matter not at all. How much more positive it is to know that God works all things together for good to those who love Him (Rom. 8:28). Every day we have the opportunity to repent of sin, get our lives in order, and glorify God as He deserves. In the New Testa-ment we see new beginnings with many people who came in contact with Jesus.

Even though physical ailments may limit some choices, we still have them. Very early in His ministry, Jesus met (in a rather unusual manner) a man who was paralyzed. Finding it impossible to enter the house where Jesus was teaching, they transported the man to the roof, cut a hole in it, and lowered him into the presence of Jesus, where He made him able to walk again (Mark 2:1-12). Having that physical ailment removed gave the man many more choices in life than he possessed previously. He might now be able to labor in various jobs that required standing, walking, running, or lifting. He experienced a new beginning and hopefully learned the gospel as well.

The man who was born blind likewise obtained many more options in life. He could not only now see, but he defended Jesus as well before the Lord’s ene-mies (John 9). Lazarus (and others whom Jesus had raised from the dead) obviously received a new lease on life. How many people have departed from this earth wishing they had turned to God? Someday, they were going to obey the gospel, but someday never came. Someday, they planned to repent, but death came first.

Jesus benefited many people’s lives when He healed them of their physical infirmities. But even better served were those who made new beginnings in a spiritual way. Consider, for example, the woman at the well from John 4. She had been married five times and was currently living with a man who was not her husband (18). She seems to have been fairly astute and not altogether uninterested in spiritual matters. She asked where was the proper place to worship—on the mountain where they were talking or in Jerusalem.

She probably did not expect Jesus to say that the place would soon be unimportant—and that true worshipers would worship the Father in spirit and in truth (21-24). The woman apparently associated such a change with the coming of the Messiah. Was she surprised when Jesus identified Himself as that very individual (25-26)? She left her water pot behind, went into the city, and began announcing, “Come, see a man who told me all the things I ever did. Could this be the Christ?” (28-29).

Notice that she did not just return home and say to her “partner”: “A strange thing happened today at the well.” Then, after recounting the incident, she did not merely conclude, “I wonder if tomorrow will be as interesting.” Instead, the conversation with Jesus was a life-changing one. Jesus revealed things about herself to her that He had no way of knowing. He had not engaged her on the age-old question of where to worship but said it would no longer matter. He had confessed to being the Messiah. She not only became convinced of that fact; she happily communicated what she believed to others. She aroused such a curiosity in them that they went out to meet Jesus themselves, which caused them to be even more convinced than they already were (39-42).

What happened to this woman? We do not see her again—that we know of. It would be devastating to our image of her if she went back to living immorally after having come face to face with the Messiah—although more than a few individuals have chosen fleshly companionship over the blessings of Heaven in their “gold-en” years when they were not far from eternity. Others have rejoiced greatly about having the opportunity for a new beginning—only to later reject it. Perhaps she eventually became one of the women who followed along with Jesus and His disciples. Or she may have remained in Samaria, living independently, and remaining one of the faithful there. No one wants to imagine that she squandered her opportunity for a fresh start.

The same situation exists for another nameless woman who was apparently overwhelmed by the per-son and character of Jesus. The account occurs in Luke 7:37. The text only says that she was a sinner in the city and that others knew of her reputation. Considering the times, this description might suggest that she was a harlot. She knew where Jesus was, and apparently she knew Who He was, also. Although the text does not explain it this way precisely, it implies that she went to the Pharisee’s house because she wanted to repent. She brought with her “an alabaster flask of fragrant oil” (37). She

stood at His feet behind Him weeping; and she began to wash His feet with her tears, and wiped them with the hair of her head; and she kissed His feet and anointed them with the fragrant oil (38).

The only explanation that comes to mind for her behavior is that she realized that she was in the presence of One Who was genuinely holy. Even the thought of the Lord’s purity—compared to her own sinfulness and corruption was enough to reduce her to tears. If anyone ever felt the need to repent, it was this woman. Simon the Pharisee failed to see the spiritual tenderness that was occurring before his eyes. He was critical in his thoughts; he could only see her as a sinner—not some-one who was at the beginning of a new life (39).

Jesus points out to him his deficiencies (40-46). Then of the woman Jesus made a pronouncement: “Therefore I say to you, her sins, which are many are forgiven…” (47). He further said to her, “Your sins are forgiven” (48). What joy must have filled her heart! It may be that this guarantee was more than she had hoped to receive. Whatever she was guilty of had been forgiven—and by a righteous man—even the Son of God. He spoke one last assurance to her: “Your faith has saved you. Go in peace” (50). No matter how badly one has sinned, Jesus stands ready to grant forgiveness and a new life to the spiritually downtrodden.

For little children Zacchaeus is famous for being “a wee little man,” a fact which is worth noting. Because he wanted to see Jesus, he climbed up into the sycamore tree that everyone has heard about. He got more than what he wanted: Not only did he see Jesus, but even more importantly Jesus saw him—and did an unusual thing; He invited Himself to stay at Zacchaeus’ house. The tax collector was elated rather than being offended, and he received Him joyfully (Luke 19:6).

The negative-thinking, critically-minded Jews, instead of seeing this as a great opportunity, were insulted. How despicable was it to go to the home of one who collected taxes and probably stole money from honest folks! Jesus does not defend Zacchaeus as he did the sinful woman. The man short in stature proved to be tall in faith, and he spoke for himself. He not only was going to give half his goods to the poor, he would restore four times as much of anything he had stolen. How could the opponents of Jesus say anything negative about that? Jesus said, in light of Zacchaeus’ intentions, “Today salvation has come to this house…” (9). The tax collector saw an opportunity for a fresh start and took it. How blessed would everyone be who embraced Jesus and His teachings, choosing a new beginning.

Optimism

The idea of a new year always brings with it an optimistic outlook. Why is that? Many of us make New Year’s resolutions that we intend to keep once for all. We will be a different person. No matter how many times we have failed to reach a goal in the past, we might just make it this time. Perhaps our stamina will be greater, and we will have more encouragement and support from others. At any rate, the future lies before us like freshly fallen snow—just waiting for someone to make marks upon it. The atmosphere is crisp, purity lies all around, and the idea of future prospects never looked brighter.

Maybe the world will be a better place as well. Will this be the year that love and peace will prevail—when hu-man beings will see the futility of fighting and waging constant warfare? Maybe the inhabitants of this planet will finally learn from history that in battles some of the best men from every nation die. Have we not learned that aggressors are always resisted, and that a free people will always fight to defend their liberty; so of what value is it to launch a campaign to try to subjugate people? How much better is it to be in the business of building up rather than that of useless destruction?

However, all of the optimism that we brought into 2015 did not change the world. With Al-Qaeda, ISIS, and Boko Haram around, moral atrocities occurred regularly. Unfortunately, the number of adherents is rather large that hold to a religion that does not tolerate any other religion or any other ideas than their own. While others may be willing to coexist, they are not, and if 2015 was any indication, the violence will not end any time soon. Optimism must exist within the confines of reality.

The world may not—probably will not—change for the better, but the kingdom of Heaven (the church) still provides a solid reason for hope. We have been blessed by the example of faithful brethren—some of whom have already departed this world for the next. We continue to look at those who have stood for the truth regardless of the cost be-cause it was the right thing to do. We continually enjoy watching men and women leave the world of sin and put on Jesus Christ. And we know that God is still working all things together for good to those who love Him—to those who are called according to His purpose. We may not be able to change the entire world, but the gospel will change some. For that reason we remain optimistic.

A Church Where….

Periodically, new churches in the area begin, and they mail professionally-printed advertisements out to residents in an effort to invite them to their new group. The one many received in this area is printed on glossy card stock. One side has a red background with a gray picture of people assembling together, and the lettering is in white. The other side is mostly dark gray with red, white, and light purple lettering. The red side asks four questions, set up in the following style:

What if…

Church was about…

The text that follows offers four contrasts:

LOVING NOT judging
COMMUNITY NOT control
RELATIONSHIP NOT religion
GIVING NOT taking

In their format the NOT is stair-stepped sideways between each pair of words. The other side touts:

A church where you find:
Acceptance.
Relevant messages.
Dynamic message.
Kids can’t wait to go.

At the bottom of that column are three brief imperatives.

LOVE GOD.
LOVE PEOPLE.
AFFECT THE WORLD.

Data concerning the time and place are given.

Probably this will appeal to some people, but what is the advertisement really claiming? Each of these contrasts deserves to be examined in light of the Scriptures.

This contrast is not a valid one. Loving and judging are not opposites; it is not a matter of either/or. All one needs to do to see through this false dichotomy is to consider God and Jesus. Does God love? Yes, God is love (1 John 4:7-8). Does God judge? Yes, He is going to judge the world through Jesus:

“Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead” (Acts 17:30-31).

Furthermore, God expects judgment from His people; Jesus taught: “Do not judge according to the appearance, but judge with righteous judgment” (John 7:24). Sometimes judgments are based on superficial criteria, perhaps even first impressions, but the facts are absent. Or maybe we might condemn another for something of which we ourselves are guilty.

However, forgoing judgment under those circumstances does not mean God never wants us to exercise any judgment at all. Without it, how would we ever recognize a false teacher who has the appearance of a ravening wolf (Matt. 7:15). In 1 Corinthians 5, Paul chastised the church for not withdrawing fellowship from a brother living with his father’s wife: “And you are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he who has done this deed might be taken away from among you” (v. 2). Paul said he had judged the man (v. 3).

What many people fail to realize is that, when one person loves another, he calls upon him to repent, and the reason is the danger that the loved one is in. For example, prior to the destruction of Jerusalem, Jeremiah called upon God’s people to repent of their idolatry and their immorality. Did he love them? They ignored all of his warnings, and then Jerusalem fell to the Babylonians. Jeremiah wept over the destruction. Yes, he loved the people. He did not personally judge them; he was preaching God’s message so that they could avoid God’s judgment for their sins.

Now what about the false prophets who spoke to the people what they wanted to hear? These men proclaimed, “Peace, peace,” when there was no peace (Jer. 6:14; 8:11). Did they love the people? Did they weep over the city when it was destroyed? No, they were selfish. They liked tickling people’s ears and presenting a message that was popular and well-received. Yes, they could return home in the evening after a hard day of appeasement and say to themselves, “That poor Jeremiah never learns. He’s so unpopular because he’s so judgmental. All the people hold me in high regard.” As Jesus might observe, the praise of men (and a few shekels) is the only reward such imposters will ever receive. They loved themselves—not others.

In having the church withdraw fellowship from the man living with his father’s wife, Paul was exhibiting love—because acceptance of him would have meant his eternal destruction, which could in no way be construed as love for another. The man needed to repent, and when he did, God forgave him of his sin. To actually love someone is to show them when they are sinning or are in error. Remaining silent is a gutless option. “Faithful are the wounds of a friend, but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful” (Pr. 27:6).

For this same reason, all Christians ought to be evangelizing those who are still in sin. We could say nothing and be well-thought-of…at least, by sinners. Or we can be accused of “judging” others and love them enough to invite them to hear the gospel and/or make positive changes in their lives. The point is, however, that the way we live is not a choice between loving and judgment.

Once again, the question should be asked, “Are these two concepts at odds with one another? Paul made it clear Christianity is a “community” concept.

For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ.

For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit (1 Cor. 12:12-13).

The body or church of Christ has many members. Paul goes on to mention eyes, ears, and smelling as functions of the body. We are all different, as members of the body of Christ, but we all are one. We all became part of the body of Christ in the same way—through baptism, and we all follow the teachings of the Holy Spirit, as revealed by God’s holy apostles and prophets. Every member is an important part of the body. We cannot think that we are unimportant—or that any other member is unimportant. We are all a necessary part of the body, which is our spiritual community. Paul clearly taught about closeness when he wrote “that the members should have the same care for one another” (1 Cor. 12:25). Christians in Jerusalem were often together at the beginning (Acts 2:44-47).

This closeness is the reason that the withdrawal of fellowship works. It is difficult to withdraw from someone that no one is close to or has no sense of community with. One of the reasons that the sexually immoral man in 1 Corinthians 5 repented is that the Christian community there with whom he was involved would no longer fellowship him. He missed the sense of community he had previously enjoyed. Also, he now understood that the reason for the church’s action was to get him to see the seriousness of his sins—that, if he did not repent, Christ could not allow him into heaven. Just as he was excluded from the church on earth, he would be denied access to an eternal home in heaven and the fellowship of the righteous forever.

Just as nothing unrighteous will be allowed into heaven (2 Peter 3:10-13), so sin should not be allowed in the body of Christ. “Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? Therefore purge out the old leaven…” (1 Cor. 5:6b-7a). Again, however, the purpose for withdrawing fellowship was not out of cruelty or vindictiveness; the reason for it was to cause the wayward brother to repent, “that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus” (1 Cor. 5:5).

Is this control? Yes, but it is not the kind that cults use to dominate every facet of a person’s life. It is not control used so that no one will step out of line concerning a list of man-made dogmas. It is only exercised when one is committing sins that are obvious to all. Paul writes: “But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person” (1 Cor. 5:11). He adds that it is the church’s responsibility to judge those who are inside—meaning members of the body of Christ (5:12).

Thus, loving and judging are not opposites but can walk side by side compatibly. Having a sense of community does not imply that no control can be exercised; in the first century the two were harmonious. The absence of judging and control leads to rampant and unchecked sin. Is that the kind of community people want—one in which sin and bad examples are allowed to flourish?

The value of relationship between the members of the body of Christ has already been stressed. What is meant by the word religion? According to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, the definition of religion is:

The expression of man’s belief in and reverence for a superhuman power recognized as the creator and governor of the universe.

Any particular integrated system of this expression: the Hindu religion.

Religion does involve belief in and worship of God. (Superhuman power is probably not the best description). Each one is systematic—that is, it has its own history, teachings, and acts of worship. The history of Christianity is traced through the Bible, covering the Old and New Testaments. Its doctrine is that which was taught by Jesus and His apostles (John 12:48; Acts 2:42). The way in which to worship God properly involves both attitude and truth (John 4:23-24). The acts of worship are specified in the New Testament; they involved praying, singing, teaching, the Lord’s Supper, and giving.

It would only be a matter of speculation to try to ascertain what is wrong with religion. Are the propagators of this new “church” trying to discount doctrine? Everyone has a certain amount of doctrine; if they did not, they would look foolish inviting people to join them. “What do you believe?” “Well, all you have to do to be a member here is to believe in God; after that, you can think anything you want.” Hmm! Such would be chaotic, to say the least. Still, it has become a popular trend for people to parrot the Satanic line, “Doctrine doesn’t matter.”

It matters to God. It matters whether people believe Jesus is His Son or not; Jesus was crucified over that fact (Mark 14:61-62; cf. John 8:24). It matters whether or not people believe that He died on the cross, was buried, and rose again, which is the heart of the gospel message (1 Cor. 15:1-4; Acts 17:30-31). It matters whether or not one repents of his sins and is baptized (Acts 2:36-41; cf. Mark 16:16). It matters to God on what day of the week we worship (Acts 20:7). It matters whether or not one is a member of the one body of Jesus Christ (Eph. 4:4; 5:23).

Doctrine is so important that false teachers are to be rejected for teaching error (Titus 3:10). Nor are they to be fellowshipped in any way (2 John 9-11). If doctrine is the problem for some, then they have no love of the truth and shall therefore be lost (2 Thess. 2:10). Truth matters when a pharmacy fills a prescription, when solving a mathematical equation, when filing income tax. Why should it not matter to the One Who revealed truth to us? Truth is the difference between life and death, right and wrong, salvation and damnation; a blasé attitude would be a fatal mistake.

How this is intended is anyone’s guess; suffice it to say that the New Testament teaches that giving is a blessing (Acts 20:35). Taking is what the majority of people are interested in—including some who visit a place of worship. They want to know what’s in it for them. What programs do you have? What activities are available for the youth? What trips have been scheduled for the elderly? When was the last time someone said, “I’d like to be a member of this congregation, and here’s what I have to give you”?

Really? What if a person is living in adultery, practicing homosexuality, known to be a drunkard, or living with his father’s wife? Is he accepted? Some people might not want to be part of a congregation where such individuals are accepted without any intention of or sign of repentance. God does not accept such individuals. Those who continue to live in various sins, refusing to change, cannot enter the kingdom of heaven (1 Cor. 6:9-11). Jesus taught that, “unless you repent, you will all likewise perish” (Luke 13:3).

Is someone preaching irrelevant messages? Maybe. But sermons are not irrelevant if they are from the Word of God. Everything in the New Testament is relevant to our spiritual well-being. The Holy Spirit did not seek “filler” space to meet length requirements. The Old Testament, though describing spiritual life under a previous covenant, still conveys a number of invaluable principles besides showing us the basis for the New Testament, in which prophecies are fulfilled. Our current covenant is relevant to daily living, weekly worship, and knowing how to please God.

In fact, nowhere on this advertisement does one word appear about the Bible. Not one Scripture is cited, nor does any quote appear from the Word of God. Does anyone notice this lack of emphasis? What kind of church is this? What kind of messages are relevant—ones that use some other source than the Bible? Is this a man-made church filled with man-made wisdom? No one can tell from the advertisement, but it is strange that nowhere do they claim to study the Scriptures.

Dynamic music is promised, but Jesus’ apostles simply commanded Christians to sing. (Col. 3:16-17). “Kids can’t wait to go.” They usually cannot. Kids generally love Bible classes and are excited about going. Usually, adults are the problem. As far as loving God and people, that part is certainly Biblical. Affect the world? Yes, Christians ought to have an impact on the world as salt and light (Matt. 5:13-16). Those who are not conformed to the world but to Christ should make a difference by their holy lives (Rom. 12:1-2; 1 Peter 1:14-16), as well as by being evangelistic (Matt. 28:18-20).

People are always coming up with new ideas, but the church for which Christ died is sufficient. God knew what He was doing when He designed it. Modern society does not need a church that has changed from the original design. Neither God nor man has changed in character. He is still holy, and people are still committing sin and in need of salvation. The church, the body of those who have been saved, does not need to change; sinners do. Everyone needs to repent and obey the gospel, thus becoming part of the church, over which Christ is head (Eph. 1:22-23). No human being nor council can improve on God’s original design.

What Are We Known For?

Various religious groups are known for certain features that seem to be prominent or noticeable. One, for example, is noted for its pomp, traditions, and rituals. Some are noted for going door to door or having a “new” covenant. Still others are marked by their enthusiasm or perhaps their piety. So what are churches of Christ known for? Unfortunately, all too often it is for not using a piano.

That would not be our choice as something by which to be characterized, but it is a fairly obvious observance by anyone who visits and worships with us. We can’t help that; it’s not exactly something you can keep secret. Oftentimes that is the first question people ask, and there is a Biblical answer, but there’s something more fundamental that we would prefer being known for, which will eventually result in that question being answered. But rather than begin with an application, we need to start with the Biblical principle that we would like to be known for.

First of all, it ought to be emphasized that Christians need to exhibit balance, by which is meant that whatever Jesus, the Lord and Savior of all who obey Him (Heb. 5:9), commands us to do we have an obligation to fulfill. In other words, does He command us to be evangelistic? Yes (Matt. 28:18-20). Therefore, we cannot say, “Oh, that requires a lot of work; let’s sit that one out and concentrate on something else.” So we are evangelistic. We help support 5 men in the United States (two in Tennessee, one in Virginia, one working primarily with the Haitian population in Miami, and one in Pierre, South Dakota). We help seven men around the world, including the Philippines, the Virgin Islands, Kiev, Ukraine, and four in the Pacific Islands. This is a large part of our budget each year, but most people will not learn that on their first visit here.

We also have an obligation to be evangelistic in our area as well. Therefore, we have sent publications into homes in this area, and we have knocked on doors to set up Bible studies. More than 20 members have completed the “Fishers of Men” course to enable us to better study with people and answer questions effectively. We have a desire to bring those who are lost to Jesus, Who can wash away their sins in His blood (Rev. 1:5).

Very clearly the Bible teaches throughout that God expects His people to be holy. Under the covenant that God made with Israel through Moses, He commanded them: “Speak to all the congregation of the children of Israel, and say to them: ‘You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy’” (Lev. 19:2). They were to avoid sin in their lives.

Under the New Testament of Jesus we have the same commandment (1 Peter 1:15-16) and many more like it, such as 2 Corinthians 7:1: “Therefore, having those promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.” The things which Christians must abstain from are mentioned in several passages of Scriptures (Rom. 1:26-32; 1 Cor. 6:9-11; Gal. 5:19-21; 2 Tim. 3:1-5; Rev. 21:8). We take all of these verses seriously and strive to live a holy life; we live in the world but are not of the world (John 17:14-17). Of course, most visitors would not be immediately aware of the efforts of members along these lines.

We once had a reputation for being a people of the Book. Members often knew the Scriptures well and could either quote dozens of verses or at least know where to find them. Has this changed among churches of Christ? In some instances, yes. Some have chosen to follow the trend of many religious groups by substituting Scriptures with illustrations and humorous stories. While these are undoubtedly interesting, they cannot take the place of the Word of God. So, some of our brethren are much weaker today than they were in times past.

You will find the right emphasis here, because we make it a point that everyone study the entire Bible. We are currently on our second time through the 5½ year Chronological Bible Odyssey. Now this is something that a visitor would probably not know, just coming to worship. In our Bible classes we actually study the Bible instead of just a few portions of it or the wisdom of men. Sermons are Bible-based, also.

In fact, the emphasis on the Scriptures may actually unsettle some. Once, a young woman visited with us a few weeks and then left to attend another congregation. About three months later her boyfriend insisted on returning. Several months after that, she explained why she was at first reluctant to worship with us. In the church she had grown up with, they did not discuss the Scriptures that much, and (based on that experience) she thought there must be something wrong with us!

What irony! One would think that almost everyone would consider it valuable to know The Book, but some regard it as a liability. Imagine Israel at Mount Sinai with all the nation of Israel ready to hear Him speak. The Almighty says, “I have Ten Commandments to give you today, but I thought we’d begin with a few jokes.” Now, honestly, who could understand humor better than God and be able to deliver an effective punchline? While laughter has a great value (Pr. 17: 22), there is a time and a place for everything. Worship is designed to honor God and edify—not amuse— ourselves.

About 30 years ago, many members of the church appeared on the Donahue television program. One was representing us; several were in the audience. If many in the audience seemed hostile toward us, the reason was that someone came out before the program started and did an effective job of riling up those present before any members of the church had an opportunity to say anything. When the topic was introduced, several in the audience and, eventually, the representative on stage, explained our philosophy by appealing to the teachings of the Scriptures. Finally, a woman in the audience blurted out, “These people are blinded by the Bible!” Really?

Apparently, if we had quoted from a prominent psychologist or a recognized expert like Dr. Oz, we could have emerged unscathed, but to actually appeal to the Word of God was definitely not acceptable. No one is recorded as saying of Jesus, after listening to Him for three days, “He seems to be blinded by His own teachings.” On the other hand, Paul was accused of his great learning driving him mad (Acts 26:24). Paul was not crazy; he was simply explaining the fulfillment of the Scriptures. The woman in Donahue’s audience had it wrong. The Scriptures do not blind anyone; they clarify and reveal reality. Satan is the one who blinds people (2 Cor. 4:3-4)—especially those who do not know what the Bible teaches.

Related to the preceding topic is this one. Although it is not our only emphasis, it is one that we would like to be known for. The Bible teaches that we must all be seekers of truth. Even in the Old Testament era, the wise King Solomon wrote: “Buy the truth, and do not sell it, also wisdom and instruction and understanding” (Pr. 23:23). Jesus prayed for His disciples: “Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth” (John 17:17). The only way we can be made holy is through the truth as declared in the Word of God. We are not sanctified by our feelings or any other subjective means but by following the objective Word of God, which arises from God rather than human beings.

Jesus had emphasized this point earlier in His ministry when He taught these words: “If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:31-32).

Notice that the truth is known by abiding in the Word. The teachings of Christ must be studied, examined, believed, and followed. Most people in today’s society are like Pontius Pilate who scoffed at the concept of truth. When Jesus told the governor that he came into the world to bear witness to the truth, he answered, “What is truth?” (John 18:37-38). Many people today express the same attitude. It is considered arrogant, first of all, for anyone to assert that he knows anything, and, second, to claim to know the truth. Some college professors ridicule students who would dare to affirm such a position.

To say that one knows the truth on a matter or a subject is not arrogant, however. It does not require advanced education or theological degrees. In order to know truth, a person does not even need above average ability. It is not due to his own cleverness that anyone comes to a knowledge of the truth; the reason for it is that God made it available. If we know His Word, we can know truth. Paul told all the brethren in Ephesus that, when they read what he wrote, they might “understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ” (Eph. 3:4).

Apparently, some people have not gotten past the philosophy of the Middle Ages that was kept alive by certain individuals with a vested interest. That ideology was that the average person could not understand the Bible for himself; it had to be explained by a “professional.” What those folks, who had a limited access to the Bible, probably did not know is that the epistles (letters) of the New Testament were written to the common, average person with no special training in religion. The Holy Spirit wrote in words that we all can understand.

The same one who helped bring sin into this world has contradicted God at every turn. He told Eve, “You shall not surely die” (Gen.3:4). As Jesus said, the devil is a liar and the father of it; there is no truth in him (John 8:44). He has contradicted and challenged every major teaching in the New Testament. Just about every book contains one or more warnings against error (Matt. 7:15-20; Acts 20:28-32; Rom. 16:17-18; 2 Cor. 11:13-15; et al.). For that reason we must search the Scriptures diligently to be certain that we know the truth.

It is especially important to know the truth about salvation; if there is one area that Satan will challenge, it is this one. We encourage everyone to study the book of conversions (Acts) and see what was required (2:36-41; 8:26-40; 16:31-34; 22:16). Next, it is important to know what constitutes acceptable worship. Jesus talked about true worshippers worshipping the Father in spirit and in truth (John 4:23-24). Most people today are sincere and fervent in their worship, but it must be according to what God commands—not according to what pleases us. This sin was first committed by Cain, who did not give God what He asked for, but what he wanted to give (Gen. 4:3-5; Rom. 10:17; Heb. 11:4; 12:24).

Then we must continue in the right doctrine (Acts 2: 42). It is lamentable that for many truth is not a high priority. Many have bought into the devil’s lie when he says, “It really doesn’t matter what you believe, so long as you are sincere.” Notice that this sentiment contradicts not only the Scriptures already cited, but also 2 Thessalonians 2:10, where Paul mentions that some “did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved.” The only way to learn truth is through diligent Bible study and earnest discussion. Churches of Christ have never encouraged visitors or members to accept what we teach—just because we teach it. Instead we admonish people to evaluate what they hear us say, as the Bereans did (Acts 17:10-11). Truth is essential.

Why doesn’t Jesus tell any who is in heaven speaking with Him that denominationalism is sinful and that He only established one church (Matt. 16:18; Eph. 1:22-23)? Why don’t people return from the dead with an evangelistic fervor and an emphasis upon truth? Why is there no passion to spread the Gospel when Jesus taught the urgency of such before He ascended into Heaven (Matt. 28:18-20)? These are things worthy of thinking about when evaluating what sincere people are telling us. When studying with someone who has had such an experience, these are appropriate things to have them contemplate.

Homosexual Weddings

On Thursday, January 8, 2015 two articles were published on page A14 of the Orlando Sentinel that dealt with homosexual marriage. The first letter was a protest that the newspaper had been consumed with this topic and had given it much more attention than it deserved. He expressed the point rather humorously.

After four days of front-page coverage, plus additional commentary in section one and Scott Maxwell’s column on gay marriage, I’ve had enough. I don’t think the moon landing got this kind of coverage.

The worst thing is that his comments probably are not an exaggeration, as the ten people who still read the newspaper would probably attest (now this statement is hyperbole).

The article adjoining this one was a letter written by two lesbians, lamenting their past problems getting married. They have lived in Florida 19 years, own a house, work, vote, and pay taxes. They have also raised a son. They went to Vermont to be “married” in 2013, but now they are rejoicing that they could do the same in their home state.

The two women recount how defiant of the government they were in 2004, when “as an act of civil protest,” they went through a marriage ceremony though the Courthouse did not grant them a license. They write that they

ere married by our church (First Unitarian Church of Orlando) in a lovely ceremony attended by hundreds of our friends, family, press, and one lone protester.

All of this hype in favor of ungodliness merited a reply; so on January 11, 2015, I emailed the following response as a letter to the editor.

Now that homosexual marriage has been approved by the civil government and some women are reporting lovely weddings, perhaps it is time to consider a different perspective. Surely no one will mind if one voice of dissension is raised.

In all the euphoria of getting permission for homosexual marriage, what have adherents really won? They already had the Orlando Sentinel in their camp, running stories two or more times a week, chronicling the state of the issue. They already had the approval of the news and entertainment media, as well as the support of the mayor and the city council. They even had joyous permission from their man-made church that rejects the teachings of God.

What they don’t have—and never will—is Divine sanction. The Apostle Paul’s words have not changed since the first century. He wrote: “For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchange the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful…” (Romans 1:26-27).

These are words by which God shall judge mankind.

Knowing that newspapers are usually reluctant to print Scriptures, I added the following condition: “No permission is given to use part of this letter. Unless Romans 1:26-27 is cited, none of it should be published. We shall see what they do with it, if anything. But whether they publish it or not is irrelevant; the point is that Christians need to be speaking up publicly and privately since it is obvious that the general public (which claims to believe in God) has very little idea of what the teachings of Christianity actually are.

One further comment is needed on the “one lone protestor” observation. Would it have mattered if the protestors had been 200 in number instead of one? Would that have stopped the “wedding” or changed the minds of the homosexuals and their sympathizers? No, they staged the “marriage” ceremony to protest current laws; would it have mattered if the vast majority of society were against them? It would not because “gays” do not care what the law, the social customs, or God has to say on the subject. Of course, now that society and the law support homosexuality, they will not hesitate to appeal to them, but they cared about neither of them previously.

As for the “lonely” protestor, Jeremiah felt pretty lonely as he preached God’s Word to a hostile crowd. Noah and the seven family members with him might have felt pretty lonely as the remainder of the world perished outside of the ark. Moses, Aaron, Joshua, and Caleb probably felt lonely with the entire nation of Israel opposed to them and on the verge of stoning them. God interceded on their behalf. So what’s the point of all these examples? Numbers have nothing to do with being right. Jesus said the majority of people are on the broad way that leads to destruction (Matt. 7:13-14).

So, homosexuals can rejoice in their victories and mock those who stand for righteousness—in this world. But on the Day of Judgment, their glibness shall give way to mourning. They and all those who propped them up and constantly gave their own personal assurances to them shall be held accountable for choosing corruption over Christianity. The only true friend the homosexual has is the Christian who will proclaim the truth of God and let him know where he actually stands with God. Only then will he have the opportunity to repent.

Why doesn’t Jesus tell any who is in heaven speaking with Him that denominationalism is sinful and that He only established one church (Matt. 16:18; Eph. 1:22-23)? Why don’t people return from the dead with an evangelistic fervor and an emphasis upon truth? Why is there no passion to spread the Gospel when Jesus taught the urgency of such before He ascended into Heaven (Matt. 28:18-20)? These are things worthy of thinking about when evaluating what sincere people are telling us. When studying with someone who has had such an experience, these are appropriate things to have them contemplate.

“Demanding that Homosexuality Triumph over the Constitution and the Bible” by Bryan Fischer

Article by Bryan Fischer

[Editor’s Note: This article appeared and was published by Marvin Weir last week (1-11-18) in The Reno Record (Reno, Texas). He also began with an editor’s note, which immediately follows this one.]

Editor’s note: The following article by Bryan Fischer in the 1/9/15 edition of OneNewsNow clearly demonstrates the left’s unrelenting attack upon our Constitution and New Testament Christianity. I realize he uses the word “Christian” erroneously to include denominations, but he has captured well the battle Bible believers are engaged in with the abominable homosexual deviants and their proud supporters. I adapted it slightly because of its length.

Kelvin Cochran was fired this week as the chief of the Atlanta fire department. He was fired for one reason: he is a sincere Christian. It has now become a fireable offense in Atlanta to believe the Bible. Mao, Stalin, and Ho Chi Minh couldn’t have done it any better. Businesses in Atlanta may as well hang a sign in their windows: “Christians need not apply.”

Cochran wrote a self-published 160-page book for the men in his Bible study at the church he attends. For the crime of devoting a whole half-page to the topic of a Biblical view of sexuality, he’s out of a job. He correctly described homosexuality as a “sexual perversion,” which it is. It twists, distorts and, yes, perverts God’s design for human sexuality. “Perversion” may seem like a strong term. But it’s an accurate one and requires absolutely no apology from the chief.

I have often said that in America we will have to choose between homosexuality and liberty because we can’t have both. Kelvin Cochran is living proof. He is simply the latest victim of what lesbian Tammy Bruce calls the Gay Gestapo and what Bill Maher calls the gay mafia.

Cochran was busted down by an openly gay member of the Atlanta city council, who happened upon a copy of his book.

(This, in my view, raises questions about whether Christian citizens can trust “out,” loud and proud homosexuals with public office. By their lifestyle choice, they have made it clear that they reject the authority of Scripture, which the Founders understood to be the only firm basis for public policy.)

Said the incensed mayor, filled with righteous indignation: “I will not tolerate discrimination of any kind within my administration.” Unless, of course, it is egregious discrimination against people of Christian faith. Then we are going to pursue discrimination with a vengeance.

In this process, Cochran has been stripped of every right that is cherished and protected under the First Amendment. His freedom of religion, gone. His freedom of speech, gone. His freedom of the press, gone. His freedom of association, gone. When I say that homosexuality is the enemy of freedom, the First Amendment, and virtually the entire Constitution, this is what I’m talking about.

Now Cochran, by the way, is black. His unalienable civil rights have been run over here by a steamroller. He has been sent to the back of the bus. The mayor of Atlanta is standing in front of the fire department door with a water cannon in his hand. Where are the howls of outrage from the Al Sharptons, the Jesse Jacksons, and the Eric Holders? Their silence is deafening.

The mayor tried to justify this trampling of the Constitution by saying he had to cashier Cochran in order to make Atlanta a more “welcoming” place. Wrote Reed last November:

“I want to be clear that the material in Chief Cochran’s book is not representative of my personal beliefs, and is inconsistent with the Administration’s work to make Atlanta a more welcoming city for all of her citizens—regardless of their sexual orientation, gender, race and religious beliefs.”

The mayor has apparently appointed himself theologian-in-chief for the city of Atlanta and will happily inform you which of your religious beliefs are acceptable and which are not. The openly gay council member who engineered Cochran’s termination exulted. Said he, it “sends a strong message to employees about how much we value diversity and how we adhere to a non-discriminatory environment.”

In other words, we value diversity, unless that means we have to make room for Christians. In that case, we have no room for diversity or tolerance of any kind. In that case, we’re gonna be Attila the Hun. Note that no one is accusing Cochran of any actual malice or mistreatment. The worst that even LGBT activists could say is that his values “could” create a hostile work environment. But in his long and distinguished career in fire service, nary a single complaint of that nature has even been lodged against him.

Cochran is considering legal action, as well he should. Either the First Amendment means what it says, in which case Cochran has an unassailable legal argument, or the Constitution doesn’t mean anything at all. It’s about time we found out the answer to that question.