Many had looked forward to this debate for a long time with the expectation that certain issues relating to the Holy Spirit might be resolved. Although some things might have been clarified, it is doubtful that those attending the discussion now have a complete grasp of every issue raised. No one triumphed gloriously over his opponent; those who hear, watch, or read the debate will need to sort out the various points made.
On the one side was the Deaver family. Brother Roy’s contributions to the kingdom are well-known. It would be difficult to feel anything but admiration for this soldier and the battles he has fought. Mac is an excellent preacher and debater. His two sons, Weylan and Todd, are both talented and capable individuals.
The other disputant, Jerry Moffitt, has also made considerable contributions to the kingdom in previous debates and as an author and lectureship director. He has a delightful (and at times bizarre) sense of humor, which some of the audience occasionally did not know how to receive. Assisting him was Terry Hightower (who has also directed some outstanding lectureships) and Marion Fox, who had debated Mac on a related but different proposition in 1994.
What This Debate Was Not
This debate was not about the means by which the Holy Spirit dwells in the Christian. That issue was the focus of attention in the Deaver-Fox Debate. Brethren have disagreed concerning this point for at least a century and probably longer.
About every second or third year in the Open Forum at the Freed-Hardeman annual lectureship Guy N. Woods and Gus Nichols would dispute whether the Holy Spirit dwells in the Christian only through the Word of God or whether the indwelling is personal (Woods believed the former and Nichols the latter). Even though these views are in obvious disagreement, both sides maintained fellowship with each other; neither thought the opposing view was heretical. Harmony in the body of Christ prevailed. So, although the topic of this debate involved the personal indwelling, it remains a separate issue.
This debate was not about whether or not there are modern-day miracles or speaking in tongues. Some think the Deavers’ position might lead to or encourage such practices, but they staunchly deny that they hold such a view, and there is no reason to doubt them.
The Debate Subject
The propositions dealt with the role that the Holy Spirit plays in sanctifying the Christian. Brother Moffitt affirmed that the Spirit always operates indirectly on the human heart, using only the medium of His indwelling, abiding, and active Word. Brother Deaver advanced the position that, in addition to what the Word accomplishes, the Holy Spirit operates directly to sanctify the heart of the faithful Christian. Does the Holy Spirit operate directly upon the human spirit in the process of sanctification? This position is not one that sound brethren have usually taught; in his first speech Mac stated that those who agree with him “have been very quiet for the last thirty years on this important subject….”
No wonder we often say, “Silence is golden”! We would yet have peace but for the insistence that this doctrine be publicly promulgated.
Highlights of the Debate
There is no way to summarize adequately in a short space ten hours of information. Some of the material presented did not appear to be relevant; some points made by each side were not dealt with by the other disputant. The thirty-minute Question-and-Answer period at the end of each session was a positive feature–especially the last two days when each man was limited to two minutes. Both men conducted themselves well; there were no angry exchanges or personal attacks, although each man pressed his position vigorously. Both believe the other to be wrong but expressed genuine spiritual concern on each other’s behalf.
Monday–In his first affirmative speech Jerry presented six reasons why this topic is a fellowship issue. Then he defined the terms of his proposition and presented two arguments. The first one was based on 2 Timothy 3:16-17, and he asked the question, “Can you be completer than complete?” His second argument was that we have the ability to obey God’s commands without special help. He challenged Mac to explain “what is the circumstance, or what is the sin, or what command God gives us from His love that you just can’t do?”
Mac cited some quotes Jerry had made on previous occasions; Jerry never responded to these. Mac stated that he thought many of those opposed to the Deavers were overreacting “to neo-Pentecostalism and Calvinism.” He tried to remove the element of subjectivism from his position by saying that he relies on Scripture to make his case, rather than saying, “Well, I just got this answer straight from God. You ought to accept it.” The Question and Answer session was helpful in demonstrating the difference of the two positions.
Tuesday–The second day Jerry began with five questions, to which Mac which responded in his time slot, but he did not answer directly much else that was presented. In his second negative Mac charged that Jerry “never gave a syllogism.” A question concerning the use of logic came up in the Question and Answer session. Jerry offered a protest against formal logic. Mac covered his eyes with his hand as if embarrassed for Jerry, since Brother Warren and Mac’s father relied so effectively on the use of logic to make issues clear in their debates. Watching both men during this time period was worth the “price of admission.” Later Mac charged that Jerry had turned against reason because reason had turned against him. But Jerry reaffirmed his belief in logic. He agrees, however, with the Toulmin model rather than the formal logic system used by others. The third section of his chapter in the lectureship book explains his preference more fully (593-614).
Wednesday–Mac was now in the affirmative. He presented about twenty charts, many of which were True-False questions, and offered one logical argument (the one he used in the Lockwood Debate). Jerry did not attempt to answer all of these but instead tried to elicit from him the verse or combination of verses that would prove his case. Most of the rest of the afternoon was spent answering each other’s points.
Thursday–Mac spent much of his first speech trying to elicit support for his position from brethren Warren, Milligan, and N. B. Hardeman. His second speech was largely a defense against others who disagreed with him. Jerry set forth a series of charts on what Alexander Campbell (who had been a subject of repeated emphasis throughout the debate) taught on the Holy Spirit from November of 1859.
Sidelights
Two topics that emerged daily that could use some elaboration. The explanation presented below may not be readily apparent to those who have the tapes or read the book. Therefore the following clarification in chronological order is presented concerning leprechauns and Pearl Street.
Leprechauns–Some did not appreciate or understand the way Jerry illustrated Mac’s position, but all need to know that Jerry was not denigrating things that are invisible just because they are invisible, including the Holy Spirit. Below are some texts that will show how this controversy came about.
At the outset of his second speech on the first day of the debate Jerry said:
Later in this speech he embellished on the “imaginary” concept by responding to Mac’s claim that Jerry:
must prove that the Holy Spirit does not affect the saint’s heart through general or special providence. Mac, I want you to come up here, and we’ll settle this real quickly. Please come up here and prove there’s not an invisible bomb under your table, and it’s gonna go off–not to speak of a little green leprechaun sittin’ there right in front of Roy. Prove it.
How can I prove something doesn’t exist when it doesn’t exist?
Prove that [bomb, leprechaun, gws], and then I’ll prove there’s no such thing as a direct operation, or a touch of angels, or werewolves, or, I don’t know, I believe in the great pumpkin.
Mac responded in his next speech by commenting that Jerry “acts like, if something’s invisible, it doesn’t exist.” Apparently, he misunderstood Jerry’s point.
Mac also missed Jerry’s reference to “the touch of angels” and berated him for not believing in angels. He continued:
…and then to suggest that if something’s invisible, it’s not even real. Leprechauns. Invisible bombs. Does he really think that helps?
My, my. I tell you, it’s going to take more than making fun of concepts to get anything done in this debate. That’s just deplorable. I say it kindly, I say it nicely, but it’s awful when you start making fun of Divine concepts, and I’d say that gets pretty close to blasphemy.
The second day Jerry replied two times to what Mac said above:
He asked me to prove a negative of all things, an egregious logical blunder. I said, in return, “Prove there’s not a leprechaun sitting on there. Prove there is not one sitting there.” The problem is not that it is invisible. One. He does not exist, like the direct operation of the Holy Spirit. Two. He who asserts must prove. He needs to prove that there is a direct operation of the Holy Spirit.
I was so alarmed yesterday. My children had to calm me down…. He actually, well, he came as close as a man can come (I’ve never had this happen before…) to accusing me of blasphemy–against a leprechaun. I did not blaspheme against that leprechaun. I did not blaspheme against a werewolf. I did not blaspheme against the tooth fairy, or a direct operation of the Holy Spirit, or any of those things that don’t exist; they’re mythical. But I’ll tell you what. I do not have one bit of respect for a direct operation of the Holy Spirit on the human spirit, and I will be very rough with a false doctrine.
Mac affirms:
And I don’t really like it much when he likens the Holy Spirit and the work of the Spirit to leprechauns and things of that sort and the help I am saying the Bible teaches. And he likens it, he cheapens it, and he denigrates it, and I’d say that is blasphemous. I’m willing to say that now.
If Mac’s view were correct (i.e., the Bible teaches Spirit-on-spirit help), Jerry’s humorous expression would be blasphemous, but if Jerry’s proposition is true, then the so-called “direct operation” is imaginary. Regardless of how offensive such statements are to those who believe Mac’s position, one must realize that Jerry was not denying invisible spiritual realities.
Pearl Street–Our goal was to host the debate, not become part of it. From the beginning of his very first speech Mac began trumpeting Goebel Music’s recently published book on the Holy Spirit.
Brother Goebel Music has produced a resource and reference volume of the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit. For the last four years he has done research work on this book. You can buy it for $9.75 at his table in the display room, and you need to get it. We’ve been debating the issue for several years, but he was researching this on his own and seeing what we had said, seeing what the linguistic element and proof is, with regard to it, and seeing what our people had been saying over a course of years.
This congregation had absolutely no quarrel to pick with brother Music, although none of us had seen a copy. However, when Jerry questioned brother Music’s handling of Alexander Campbell, Mac again endorsed it:
It’s a wonderful resource and reference book; great research has been done. Goebel had no axe to grind. You get the book; you read it, and see if he properly represents N. B. Hardeman and brother Campbell and others.
That statement posed no problem, either, but the next day Mac somehow felt it necessary to involve this congregation in his debate with Jerry. He said that in the past few years men on our lectureship
…stood up here and criticized brother Warren’s position, daddy’s position, my position, Andrew Connally’s position. While they were doing that (brother Cates and brother Hightower), that research was going on by Goebel Music, under the authority of the elders of this congregation.
Perhaps it was not his intent to do so, but he presented an ironic statement. While men on our lectures condemned Mac’s position, Goebel (under the authority of our elders) was compiling this book. The implication is that brother Music’s book supports Mac’s position. We felt a clarification needed to be made, and we asked Jerry to read a statement composed by brother McClish and approved by Harry Ledbetter and me.
PEARL STREET STATEMENT
Since the relationship between the Pearl Street congregation and brother Goebel Music has been injected into the debate (in connection with his recently-published book on the Holy Spirit), Pearl Street brethren believe it is appropriate to state the following:
If one will read brother Music’s Foreword, one will discover all that there is to discover about information anyone at Pearl Street had about the contents of his book before it was published. If one will read the Newsletter inserted in the front of the book, brother Music plainly declares: “No one but the writer himself had read the manuscript as it appears in this volume.”
Therefore, our working relationship with brother Music should in no way be construed as a blanket endorsement or repudiation of the contents of his book. The impression that we somehow sponsored and encouraged the book in its final form is an inaccurate one.
This statement clearly shows that we did not know if the contents of the book either supported or rejected Mac’s thesis. We could have made this announcement ourselves, but then those reading, watching, or listening to the debate later would not have had access to the information.
Mac first objected that the statement was not signed but then said it did not matter, since he had only spoken the truth–that the book was compiled while brother Music worked under the authority of the elders here. These words are technically correct, but they miss the clarification set forth in the statement.
Even though Jerry made no more mention of brother Music’s book, Mac felt compelled to comment on it again on the final day of the debate:
And just because that statement was read yesterday by Jerry Moffitt, saying the Pearl Street church didn’t know what was in that book, and I really doubt if that statement came out of the men’s meeting of the Pearl Street church. I really doubt that.
Mac had 24 hours to ask, or to have one of his assistants ask. We would have been happy to tell him that the men of the congregation authorized three of us to make any decisions that were necessary during the course of the lectures. Why would someone speculate on a matter when the facts were readily available?
Besides, our statement was factual. We did not slander Mac or brother Music’s book. Why was he so upset about it? Brother Moffitt asked, “Mac, are you saying that Goebel Music himself wrote that book because he has your position? Yes or No.” Mac answered, “No.” Such is the only point we were trying to get across.
Previously examined was former President Jimmy Carter’s letter to fellow Baptists, as well as his confusing position regarding homosexuals and whether they should be “ordained” as preachers or allowed to marry each other. Reactions have come in the wake of these pronouncements. A few have been rightly critical, but others have been complimentary. Some have seized this opportunity, however, to further bash those who believe in the Scriptures. We will review one “letter to the editor” and two syndicated columns; the reader should find instructive the techniques being used and take note of them.
On October 30th, a reader wrote to the editor of The Dallas Morning News: “I now have one more reason to admire Jimmy Carter.” [One wonders what the other reasons could be, since during his presidency inflation rose to double digits, interest rates were near 20%, and there was high unemployment.] The remainder of the letter is one long paragraph, an edited version of which follows:
I grew up in a very traditional Texas Southern Baptist Church. …I…learned there the importance of loving your neighbor, respecting the rights and opinions of others (even if you disagree) and how to seek truth. My pastor and my parents didn’t stick a Bible or the Baptist Faith and Message under my nose and say “this is what you will believe.” It was put upon me not only to listen, ask questions and pray for guidance–but to read, study and learn for myself. Within the Southern Baptist Convention today, if you disagree with the fundamentalist leadership–you are someone with whom the Southern Baptists “cannot maintain a relationship with” (12A).
Although we would not defend Baptist doctrine or the Southern Baptist convention, we are interested in the Biblical doctrines on which they have been challenged: those things relating to homosexuals, the role of women in the church, and the relationship of wives to their husbands. These doctrines are not of man–but of God. The person who wrote the letter reflects the spirit of this age, the “I-can-believe-anything-I-want-and-you-have-no-right-to-tell-me-I’m-wrong” philosophy.
She couches this notion with an appeal to respect other people’s opinions and to think for oneself, but where are these ideals praised in the Bible? The Holy Scriptures do not teach people to respect other’s opinions; they teach us to respect the Truth. Paul commanded brethren to be “perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment” (1 Cor. 1:10). Although Paul did teach Christians not to bind their opinions upon one another, he expected conformity in matters of doctrine which had been clearly revealed.
It so happens that Paul wrote a definitive statement on all the things to which former President Carter objected. They are not matters of opinion but of New Testament doctrine. The one writing the letter to the editor, despite the high-sounding terminology, is attempting to change doctrine into opinion. And while each person needs to think for himself, the purpose of such an evaluation is to make certain that he has been taught and believes the Truth (Acts 17:11; John 8:31-32). The problem with Carter and the letter-writer is not that they do not know Truth; they do not want to accept the Truth.
Eugene Kennedy
This professor emeritus of psychology at Loyola University in Chicago wrote a column, titled “Carter’s Action Offers Lesson for All Churches,” which appeared in The Dallas Morning News on November 4th. Kennedy praises Carter for distancing himself from “increasingly rigid” Baptist teachings. This fawning over Carter translates to: “Since he has repudiated standing by what the Scriptures teach, he is a great guy.” When the Baptists conform to what the Bible teaches– 1) Women must submit themselves to their husbands (Eph. 5:22); 2) only men have the authority to preach (1 Tim. 2:12); and homosexuality is a sin, in which one cannot continue and be a Christian (1 Cor. 6:9-11)–then they are too “rigid.”
Kennedy’s advice is for the leaders of various churches to get in step with their members and not hold these harsh views; they should compromise instead–so that they can retain most of their flock:
What is new here is not that a sensitive and deeply religious person might differ with church officials but that it does not trouble him to reject their ideas and to remain in good conscience within the fold (3G).
In other words, when members of various groups do not agree with what their leadership says, they feel completely at liberty to believe whatever they wish. This attitude should make for some interesting conversations: “I’m a Baptist, but I don’t agree with certain things that Baptists believe and practice”; “I’m a Catholic, but I disregard what the pope says when I feel like it.” This attitude involves nothing more than setting oneself up as the judge of all things–or doing what is right in one’s own eyes (Judges 21:25). The problem with that approach is that we do not have the authority to judge such matters for ourselves. They shall be judged by Jesus (John 12:48).
Mr. Carter is prophetic because he bears the public pain of doing what untold thousands of Catholics have borne in private decisions to separate themselves from the opinions and influence of their bishops while continuing to practice their religion (3G).
In other words, many Catholics want to be part of the Catholic Church, but they reserve the right to disagree with their leaders whenever they feel like it. Yes, it is a fact that many Irish girls visit England to get an abortion and then return to Ireland to be good Catholics. Apparently, it does not occur to them that they cannot have it both ways–without being rank hypocrites. We in no way endorse the Catholic Church and have no desire to be part of it, but even non-Catholics understand that it is the duty of every Catholic to obey the pope because he is the head of their church. To them he speaks in the place of Christ; therefore, to disobey him (for them) is to disobey the Lord.
And Kennedy praises this rebellious spirit!
The American bishops are not, for the most part, trying to hear what their people are saying. They are straining to hear what they can do to please the pope, what flare of loyalty they can loft above their dioceses in hopes that someone in Rome will notice and write in the Vatican book of life and promotions (3G).
Apparently no authority resides in the Scriptures (1 Thess. 2:13); neither does any church hierarchy possess any (Heb. 13:17). Only people have that power. Perhaps Mr. Kennedy can explain where they got it. What Scripture says, “A person’s individual conscience is the highest authority there is. If you feel it’s right, it’s right. If you feel it’s wrong, it’s wrong”? Perhaps the learned professor could profit by studying the Scriptures more and the experts in psychology less. In Christianity the individual is not God; he is according to New Age theology, but not according to the Scriptures.
He is advocating the Willow Creek approach to religion: Find out what people want and give it to them. If they want to drink and gamble or abort their children, tell them they are conscientious Christians regardless of what the Bible says. If they want homosexual ministers and feel God accepts them in their sin (despite everything He has taught to the contrary), then they should have their way. If they want to give women roles that God denied them, then it does not matter what the Holy Spirit revealed to us: Vox Populi, Vox Dei (“The voice of the people is the voice of God”).
Mr. Carter has written one of the signs of the times. People can take their faith seriously while not taking its hierarchs seriously (3G).
Did not Moses have that same problem with the Israelites in the wilderness? In fact, while Moses was up on the mount receiving God’s holy law written by His own finger on tables of stone, they had already decided that the command concerning graven images was not practical. Later, as the book of Numbers verifies, they complained and murmured against Moses and God repeatedly. Each time they were punished. They were made to wander in the wilderness 40 years for not taking their hierarchs seriously (Moses, Aaron, Joshua, and Caleb). It is a contradiction to say that people take their faith seriously while disregarding their “hierarchs”–if those men are teaching the Word of God! God saves those who are obedient (Heb. 5:9).
Carter’s letter is a sign of the times–politically correct times, rebellious times, “follow your heart” times. Man’s wisdom has always resulted in failure, heartbreak, misery, and condemnation. People do not need the leadership of past presidents and psychologists; they need the Good Shepherd, who offers abundant life (John 10:10), which is found in submission to God.
Leonard Pitts
This syndicated columnist’s November 3rd article in The Dallas Morning News demonizes conservatives and seeks to undermine the authority of the Scriptures. He tells his readers:
But I don’t like bullies, which is what some religious fundamentalists–Christian and otherwise–too often amount to (27A).
Immediately, we infer two important facts from this statement: 1) Pitts has no understanding of conservatives; and 2) he does not believe in fairness. Think about what he is suggesting here. Is he not trying to lump together Christian “fundamentalists” with other religious groups such as Muslims? Many of those people think nothing of murdering someone who challenges their beliefs. What “Christian” group does that? When have any mainstream “Christian” fundamentalists preached anything near a 42nd cousin to the beliefs of such fanatics? It is one thing to disagree with someone and to press your position, but is quite another to assassinate the character of those with whom you disagree. Pitts should be ashamed. He has revealed more about himself than he has about his opponents. Notice how he continues this imagery:
Southern Baptists are, after all, the folks who waged jihad against Disney because the company provides health benefits for the same-sex partners of its employees and allows gay pride events at its amusement parks (27A).
Jihad? According to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, the word jihad means “1. A Moslem holy war against infidels. 2. A crusade” (704). Notice how this links to the previous statement: “fundamentalists–Christian and otherwise.” In these holy wars, people are killed. Christians do wage war, but it is one of words and ideas (Eph. 6:10-17). How dare Pitts compare a boycott (an economic weapon used by many groups on both ends of the political and religious spectrum) with acts committed by terrorists that dispatch enemies from this world!
Disney’s endorsement of homosexuality is the height of hypocrisy for an entertainment leader who for years was “family-oriented.” The displeasure against Disney was not exercised only by Southern Baptists, and it is doubtful that any employees even lost their jobs over the boycott, let alone their lives. But Pitts is not satisfied with castigating those who uphold Biblical morality and doctrine; now he must attack the Bible itself. He describes fundamentalists thus:
They wield God, the architect of all creation, as if he were a baseball bat they have been given to knock down any thing–or person– that offends them. And if you call them on it, their first line of defense is that all-purpose excuse, “The Bible says.”
This fanciful description is as idiotic as it is unfair. Pitts does not understand people who know and love God and who are willing to abide by His revelation to us. He cannot comprehend those who live by faith, have confidence in His promises, and respect Truth. To him God is a good-old-boy who agrees with his perspective on life, and the Bible is something to play games with rather than take seriously. He serves as an excellent example of Proverbs 14:9: “Fools make a mock at sin” (KJV). Christians ought not to use the Bible as a club, but if applying the Truth gores somebody’s ox, perhaps he should have restrained the beast.
The complaint against fundamentalists is not that they bully people; the complaint is that they exist. The world does not like to think that anyone can be genuinely holy and righteous. No, they must be hypocrites or bullies. How the world rejoices when a prominent religious figure is exposed and shown to be a phony (and some are)! As those in Noah’s day, the ungodly feel condemned and threatened by righteousness (Heb. 11:7); therefore fundamentalists must be demonized.
What is wrong (in defending ourselves against columnists who assault us) by answering, “The Bible says”? When Jesus was tempted by Satan, He answered, “It is written” (Matt. 4:4). We do not claim to have the character of Jesus, but Pitts is certainly taking Satan’s part.
Next he takes Scriptures from the Old Testament that were given to the Israelites (not Christians). These were God’s laws when the nation was a theocracy. Pitts should not blame fundamentalists because he does not understand that the law was nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14). We are subject to a better covenant (Heb. 8:6-7), one bought and paid for by the blood of Christ (Heb. 10:4).
He accuses Christians of picking and choosing the passages to which they will submit. This is an odd charge from someone who wants to disregard what the Scriptures teach about homosexuality. Or is it? Obviously, Pitts wants to think that everyone else is as guilty of doing what he knows he does (picking and choosing). But as regards the New Testament, God–not we– took the old covenant out of the way.
No column slandering fundamentalists would be complete without making a reference to “Judge not” and “Love your neighbor,” and Pitts does not disappoint. But these Scriptures do not help him, because the judging Jesus forbade does not entail calling a sin a sin–but rather going by appearances rather than facts (John 7:24). And love does not overlook sin; if that were the case, Jesus did not need to die on the cross. John 3:16 would read: “For God so loved the world that he overlooked their sins.” God (and therefore love) calls people to repentance. Jesus paid a dear and precious price for our sins, and if we want forgiveness, there is a price we too must pay: giving them up.
The column closes with this clever line: “God isn’t a Louisville Slugger.” Pitts may be surprised some day. The fact that God is not as tolerant as he is can be seen by what God did when Israel was a theocracy. God did wage a holy war. He used His people to conquer the Canaanites as judgment for their sins:
“And when the Lord your God delivers them over to you, you shall conquer them and utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them nor show mercy to them” (Deut. 7:2).
Christians, of course, have no such authority (as mentioned earlier). This verse and many others show that God’s love does not nullify His justice. God has appointed a day of judgment (Acts 17:30-31). All will be there and will give an account of what they have done in their bodies (2 Cor. 5:10). Christians know that the majority of people will be lost (Matt. 7:13-14), but our goal is to save as many as possible.
Why do we care, seeing that we only invite the wrath and scorn of the news media? Why do we not just remain silent, as they wish? One reason is that those living in sin cannot know the love of God or the blessedness of forgiveness. We do not hate sinners; we want them to repent of their sins and live the abundant life that Jesus offers (John 10:10).
We also speak the truth for the same reason Paul gave: “Knowing, therefore, the terror of the Lord, we persuade men…” (2 Cor. 5:11). Pitts impugns the motives of fundamentalists, which is exactly the kind of “judgment” that Jesus condemns; we pray that he might rethink his own harshness and bullying. Thanks goes to Jimmy Carter for making this discussion possible.
Perhaps in the furor of the recent presidential race, the latest action of former president, Jimmy Carter, went unnoticed. According to The Dallas Morning News of October 20th, he wrote a letter addressed “to my fellow Baptist,” which stated that “after 65 years, I can no longer be associated with the Southern Baptist Convention” (1A). His letter was to be mailed the same day this article was printed “to 75,000 Baptists nationwide” (1A). Some might consider it ironic that, in the midst of a close presidential contest, Mr. Carter was writing a letter about which faction among the Baptists he was supporting rather than campaigning for the Democratic nominee.
Those who think unity should be a top priority among religious people must wonder about this statement from the letter:
Like millions of other Baptists, I have been deeply distressed by the unpleasant and counterproductive divisions within our denomination (16A).
What? Divisions within the Baptists? Send them Max Lucado, Rubel Shelly, and all the Promise Keepers’ personnel; they should be able to fix anything. Pardon the sarcasm, but problems such as the Baptists are experiencing highlights the naivete of those who think all the denominational walls should come tumbling down. The reality is that walls are being built within denominations–and for good reasons. Battles are being fought within unauthorized religious organizations similar to the ones raging in the Lord’s church, and the cause of this division is liberalism. Some believe what the Bible teaches, and others have become more “sophisticated.”
President Carter is among the latter. Perhaps he did not originate it, but he is the first president that many of us remember saying, “I am personally against abortion, (or homosexuality), but I would never impose my morality on others.” This naive position allows the enemies of God to define “morality” and then impose their ungodly stances on the rest of us. Carter holds some sort of misguided notion that it is somehow noble to refrain from using the power and the influence of the presidency to establish laws that uphold and enforce morality (although no one seems to have any problem with laws against stealing and murder). Therefore, he could be personally against abortion but do nothing to oppose it. Some lauded this approach–the National Organization of Women, Planned Parenthood, etc. They knew such a cowardly view meant “business as usual.”
Laws aside, some “Christians” oppose what the Scriptures teach on homosexuality. God must have over-reacted in Genesis 19 and misstated His views under the Law of Moses (Lev. 20:13) and throughout the New Testament (Rom. 1:18-32; Jude 7). One wonders how the One who created our minds and formed our mouths could have miscommunicated with us so drastically. The Lord obviously meant to say that homosexuality is an equal, alternative life-style, since that idea is parroted by Hollywood actors, college professors, and popular advice columnists. Probably all those verses condemning the practice were either poorly translated or added later by homophobic editors. Of course such a position is absurd, but when someone rejects the Truth, any argument sounds good. The only qualification for a defense of error is handiness, not soundness.
On October 28th The Dallas Morning News published another article about the former president, entitled “Carter Affirms Gay Ordination.” People are still scratching their heads over this decision which he delineated the day after his “letter” was written.
Mr. Carter said he considers homosexuality a sin, but he does not oppose the ordination of gays (4G).
Hunh? What kind of twisted, tortured logic concludes that homosexuality is a sin but that a homosexual should be allowed to preach and be a representative of Christ? Carter supplies his rationale:
“If that person was demonstrating the essence of Christianity, I would not object to the individual being ordained,” Mr. Carter said. “Yes, homosexuality is a sin, but so is adultery. When somebody doesn’t give 10 percent of their earnings to the church, it is a sin. All of us are sinners every day. And adultery is a more serious sin than homosexuality” (4G).
It is truly amazing how much error can be taught in one paragraph. [Just as a political side point, according to Carter’s philosophy on this last statement, it would be an improvement to have a practicing homosexual in the White House, since we currently have an adulterer.] Objections to the former president’s reasoning are numerous.
First, anyone who has refused to repent of any sin cannot demonstrate the essence of Christianity. Such is a “sin unto death,” and John writes concerning one brother praying for another, “I do not say that he should pray about that” (1 John 5:16). When someone defies the Scriptures and determines to continue practicing a sin, it is useless even to pray for forgiveness for such an individual.
Second, how could a person who is practicing any sin preach to others? Has Carter never studied Paul’s admonition to Timothy, “Let no one despise your youth, but be an example to the believer in word, in conduct, in love, in spirit, in faith, in purity” (1 Tim. 4:12)? How can a practicing homosexual be an example in his conduct? Certainly, he does not walk in purity.
Third, how can he speak as the oracles of God (1 Peter 4:11)? What will he do when the congregation with which he works studies Genesis 19? How will he ever be able to preach on Romans 1 or the other New Testament passages that denounce homosexuality–either specifically or in principle–without feeling like a hypocrite? How can those who listen to him every week fail to feel violated and besmirched? Would a habitual liar make a good preacher? Is one who is in league with the devil (in any respect) fit to break the bread of life to others and to speak of the holiness and righteousness of God? It is sad that one who has taught the Bible for over 50 years could know so little about the contents of the Book or the One who authored it.
Fourth, apparently Carter thinks it would be equally acceptable to have an unrepentant adulterer for a preacher. [So do some brethren who have preaching for them one who is unscripturally divorced and remarried.] It must have escaped his notice that, when Paul wrote to the Corinthians, he mentioned that they had been practicing adulterers, fornicators, and homosexuals and that as such, they could not inherit the kingdom of God. Then he added: “Such were some of you” (1 Cor. 6:9-11). They gave up those things to become Christians; the Scriptures call it repentance. Without rejecting sin, people are lost (Luke 13:3).
Fifth, all of us sin every day, but not all of us are sinners every day. A sinner is one who practices sin and has no desire to give it up. A Christian is one who sins (usually unintentionally and without premeditation) and who regrets his behavior and repents of it.
Sixth, Why is adultery more serious than homosexuality? On what Scripture is that assertion based? What cities were destroyed by fire and brimstone because of adultery? When the Gentiles gave up God and God gave them up, they became so perverted they practiced homosexuality (Rom. 1:21-28). Adultery is a sin, but at least it involves a man and a woman (albeit the wrong man and woman), which is the way God created us. Homosexuality is a vile affection and perversion of sex. Both are wrong and in the same list of sins (1 Cor. 6:9), but the evidence indicates that homosexuality is far and away the more evil of the two–at least, as God views it.
It is lamentable that anyone would so flagrantly contradict the Scriptures for the purpose of inviting public acceptance of someone’s “right” to sin. No one has such approval from God. This is but another example of the power of “political correctness.”
When Carter says he believes in the separation of church and state, he means that government should not legislate on these moral issues, but then he turns around and says he “does not support legal approval of gay marriages” (4G). If government should not “impose morality,” then how can it not recognize homosexual marriages? The man is inconsistent.
To summarize the former president’s beliefs on this subject, he thinks homosexuality is a sin. But he argues that a practicing homosexual would make a good Baptist preacher. However, he would deny him the right to be legally married to another man. Can anyone follow this unmitigated confusion without its encroaching upon his sanity? The Bible is clear: Homosexuality is a sin that will keep a person out of the kingdom of God, but it can be forgiven WHEN repented of (1 Cor. 6:9-11). No one guilty of habitual sin has the right to preach to or teach others. Homosexual marriage is a ludicrous idea.
The other strenuous objection Mr. Carter has with the Southern Baptists is that he disagrees with this year’s restriction–that women not be preachers. His sister, Ruth Carter Stapleton, was an “evangelist.” The way he frames this issue (as well as the recent Baptist proclamation that women ought to be in subjection to their husbands) is to say that he believes in the equality of women–as if those who follow the Bible on this point somehow do not. The Holy Spirit is the one who wrote: “Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands, as to the Lord” (Eph. 5:22) and “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence” (1 Tim. 2:12). If these verses imply that men and women are not equal, then God is to be blamed rather than men, for He authored them. His quarrel is not with the Baptists, but with the Lord.
What Carter’s objections mean is that he is more swayed by the dictates of society than by the commandments of God. The Equal Rights Amendment was hotly debated during his administration. He tried everything within his power to get it passed, but it failed. [By the way, its wording would have allowed for homosexual marriages.] His sympathies still lie where they did twenty years ago. For him, allowing women to preach is a matter of equality. Like others, he has been impacted by “feminist” ideology, which would seek to impose its worldly will upon the spiritual realm.
What is interesting about Carter’s actions is that fallout that has occurred since his letter and statement. Society is supporting him in ways that should cause him to re-examine what he has said and done (although such is unlikely). Therefore, it will be worth our while to discuss the significance of this matter next week.
In the course of the current apostasy certain congregations that still refer to themselves as churches of Christ no longer “call Bible things by Bible names.” In some places a mongrel spiritual race has developed, and “half of their children” are now speaking “the language of Ashdod.” Some have developed vocabularies that now include words and phrases such as our spiritual heritage, personal witness, and even religious ordinances, a word frequently defined as “a rite.” It would not be surprising to see some referred to as Rev. Lucado and Pastor Shelly (just as there is already a “Pastor Mayeux”).
The latest denominational error embraced by churches who have lost their Biblical moorings and are aimlessly adrift is the Calvinistic notion that the Holy Spirit is personally and directly guiding and leading us. This false doctrine goes beyond the Scriptural notion that God guides and directs us by His Word and through His providence (Pr. 3:5-6); the leaders of this error would have us believe that the Holy Spirit speaks to us apart from the Word, though not in opposition to the Word.
Some churches (of Christ) are now using in some of their classes a book called Experiencing God: How To Live the Full Adventure of Knowing and Doing the Will of God. The primary author is Henry T. Blackaby, who on the back of the book jacket is described as “one of the foremost revival leaders of our time.” Claude King (not the one who sang “Wolverton Mountain”) writes the “Preface” and apparently assisted in expressing the teachings presented therein. He states: “Henry and I wanted the study to help people experience God, not just learn about Him” (xii).
That one statement should forewarn the reader that the contents of this book are designed to promote subjective and experiential religion. But some brethren are so far removed from a knowledge of the Word that they no longer see the red flags signaling danger ahead. This book makes no pretense of doing anything else than what the statement in the “Preface” suggests, and they steadfastly pursue this goal. Consider the following assertions made in the “Introduction”:
He [God, gws] wants you to experience an intimate love relationship with Him that is real and personal (1).
Knowing God does not come through a program, a study, or a method. Knowing God comes through a relationship with a Person (2).
…spiritual matters can only be understood by those who have the indwelling Spirit of Christ (2).
Ask God to speak to you as you read the following Scriptures (2).
To interact with God, take time as you read to pause and pray, asking God to speak to you, to guide you, or to reveal to you His desires for your response (5).
The Holy Spirit at work in you will confirm in your own heart the truth of Scripture (5).
The emphasis on one’s own experience (presumably supplied by the Holy Spirit) is unmistakable. Notice that God is expected to be “personal” with His child: He is said to “speak,” “interact,” and “confirm” truth in us.
Although the author claims: “The Scriptures will be your source of authority for faith and practice” (6), he nevertheless moves the reader as far away from the Word as He can by affirming that the Spirit will speak and interpret what the Scripture says to him in a personal and direct way. When a person starts listening for the voice of God to speak to him, what is he going to hear, besides his own thoughts? The fact that the author keeps being questioned by those he teaches about this “knowledge” should have indicated to him the difficulty of what he suggests.
His answer involves the following points, assuming that a person has a loving relationship with God (69, 138) and is seeking to do His will, which the author says he gleaned from observing what happened to God’s saints in the Scriptures:
1. When God spoke, they knew it was God. 2. They knew what God was saying. 3. They knew what they were to do in response (50).
Most of the book consists of chapters that will elaborate the following paragraph:
In our day, God speaks to us through the Holy Spirit. He uses the Bible, prayer, circumstance, and the church (other believers). No one of these methods of God’s speaking is by itself a clear indicator of God’s directions. But when God says the same thing through each of these ways, you can have confidence to proceed (56).
A thoughtful reader might ask, “Why does God need to reveal something in five different ways for it to be valid? Would not one method be sufficient? And what if two of these means of revelation indicate one thing and three point the opposite direction?”
But the author has much more to say on this subject. He affirms, as most Pentecostals and charismatics believe, that God must speak today–or else He has changed. “Has God changed? No!” (95). He also avers:
We live as if God quit speaking personally to His people. We fail to realize that an encounter with the Holy Spirit is an encounter with God. God clearly spoke to His people in Acts. He clearly speaks to us today. From Acts to the present, God has been speaking to His people by the Holy Spirit (136).
Does God really speak to people in our day? Yes!…God has not changed (136-37).
Does the fact that God has spoken to some at various times in the history of the world prove that He always has and always will? For 13 years He did not speak to Jacob and tell him that Joseph was still alive. There was no prophet in Israel for 400 years. Apparently, the author does not realize that if God still speaks, then we have new Scriptures today. If not, why not?
What, then, happens when people become convinced that God is speaking to them continually? They become confused because they “hear” contradictory thoughts within their heads and do not know what to make of them (which the author acknowledges).
Frequently, I am asked, “How can I know whether the word I receive is from God, my own selfish desires, or Satan?” (150).
I suggest that you know the ways of God so thoroughly that if something doesn’t measure up to God’s ways, turn away from it (151).
As you walk in an intimate love relationship with God, you will come to recognize His voice. You will know when God is speaking to you (163).
Despite all these reassurances, most people will still have no clue as to which of their thoughts allegedly come from God; therefore, they will assume that if the thought is not a negative or immoral one, it must be God speaking to them. G. K. Wallace was accosted by a man as he was walking down the street of a city. “Are you a Christian?” the man asked. He affirmed that he was and that he was in that location to preach the gospel. The man seemed surprised, “Oh. The Holy Spirit told me to ask if you if you were a Christian.” Brother Wallace said, “The Holy Spirit knows that I belong to God; it must be some other spirit that spoke to you.” Such is the problem with those who “listen to God.” They imagine that their every righteous or neutral thought (one that does not deal with morality but is primarily a hunch) is God speaking to them.
Super-Spirituality
This kind of thinking often gives rise to the view that some people are much more spiritual than others. After all, God singles them out because they have this “intimate love relationship” with Him. Notice some of the rationale presented in the book:
I seek the will of the Spirit of God through, or in connection with, the Word of God. The Spirit and the Word must be combined. If I look to the Spirit alone without the Word, I lay myself open to great delusions also. If the Holy Ghost guides us at all, He will do it according to the Scriptures and never contrary to them (112).
This certainly sounds safe–on the surface. There seems to be respect for the Word of God, but the door has been opened to subjectivity; despite the affirmation of adhering to the Word, notice what this kind of thinking produces:
Have you ever been reading the Bible when suddenly you are gripped by a fresh new understanding of the passage? That was God speaking! (164).
I have found that as I pray about a particular matter, the Spirit of God takes the Word of God and applies it to my heart and my mind to reveal the truth. I immediately stop my praying and open the Word of God I believe the Spirit of God brought to my mind (175).
I started to read on, but I sensed that the Spirit of God said, “Henry, did you see that?” I went back and began to meditate on that Scripture. Under the guiding, teaching ministry of the Holy Spirit, I began to see a wonderful truth (178).
The kind of thinking expressed above could lead one to arrogance or madness (or the author of a bestselling book). As an example of the arrogance produced by this position, we note that in the accompanying Workbook, the author mentions how he prays for college students (which itself is not unusual). But he reports that he told one. “I want you to know that God has laid it on my heart that I need to pray for a husband for you.” She replied, “Are you serious?” (58). Of course he was. God not only tells him what Scriptures to study for himself; He also tells him who needs a husband. [Actually, this is no great mystery, since women usually need husbands, just as men need wives.]
Someone might be thinking, “Well, how do YOU know that God does not continually talk with this man?” If God were speaking regularly to this man, he would have had him take a look at Acts 2:38 and other passages that include baptism as part of His plan for saving man. As the reader might expect, this book contains a number of “testimonials”; three of these are striking.
As he illustrates faith and having confidence in God (which is well worth emphasizing), he cites a community in which he met with several parents at the conclusion of a Vacation Bible School and stated his intention of starting a Baptist Church there.
From the back of the hall came a lady. She was weeping. She said, “I have prayed for thirty years that there would be a Baptist church in this town, and you are the first people to respond” (121).
Why did this woman not pray for the church described in the New Testament to be established there? In another testimonial the author speaks of a man who “had been pleading with people to start a Baptist church” in a certain location for 24 years (126-27). They found another group of people in still another town who had been trying “to start a Southern Baptist church” for more than two years (261). How amazing that no one ever said, “We have been praying for a Lutheran Church.” Equally incredible is that the Holy Spirit never said, “Henry, Look more closely at Matthew 16: 18.” For all these years he has never noticed that baptism is part of salvation or that Jesus established only one church over which He is head. God probably has never spoken to him about acceptable worship, either.
CALVINISM
The Holy Spirit has also never revealed to the author that Calvinism is false doctrine. The book is filled with these erroneous ideas, and the author credits the Holy Spirit with virtually everything that happens. First, no one can become interested in God or the Bible; He has to draw that individual to Him. God calls all men; Jesus invites all men to come to Him (Matt. 11:28-30), but in Calvinism God issues a personal call.
You began to experience a love relationship with God where He took the initiative. He began to open your understanding. He drew you to Himself. What did you do? …you would never know that love…if God had not taken the initiative (88).
Furthermore, God has an assignment for each person who belongs to Him:
He calls you to an assignment that you cannot do without Him (58).
As he fills you with His presence, He will guide you to do things (36).
Not only does God take the initiative by pursuing a love relationship with you, but He also initiates the invitation for you to be involved with Him in His work (99).
God always takes the initiative. He does not wait to see what we want to do for Him (110).
We do not even pray on our own, according to the author: “God takes the initiative by causing you to want to pray” (175). Furthermore: “You cannot understand the Word of God unless the Spirit of God teaches you” (143). “Unaided by the Spirit of God, the ways and things of God will be foolishness to us (1 Cor. 2:14) (165). All we need to do to believe this heresy is to forget what Paul wrote to the Ephesians: “…when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ” (Eph. 3:4). Notice that Paul did not say, “The Holy Spirit will interpret my words for you.” Words have meanings that we all understand. The idea that we need some sort of special understanding is just one more indication of the super-spirituality mentality.
The author thinks people need that Divine help because we are totally depraved. “Sin has so affected us (Rom. 3:10-11) that you and I cannot understand the truth of God unless the Holy Spirit of God reveals it” (137). The Holy Spirit reveals the Word; then He must interpret it to us: why does He not also need to interpret the interpretation? Seriously, if someone writes down the correct interpretation of a passage of Scripture that the Holy Spirit has given him, why would not the Holy Spirit need to interpret the written word again, ad infinitum,/I>? What need is there of the Written Word, period, if God needs to interpret it to everyone?
Misinterpretations
The Holy Spirit (had He actually been instructing Mr. Blackaby) would have been remiss in allowing him to misuse Scriptures. Even a novice preaching student is taught the fundamentals of interpretation (such matters as “Who is speaking?” and “Who is being spoken to?”). Yet the author fails to discern that Jesus promised the Comforter to the eleven in John 14-16.
God speaks through the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit will teach you all things, will call to your memory the things Jesus said, will guide you into all truth, will speak what He hears from the Father, will tell you what is yet to come, and will glorify Christ as He reveals Christ to you (136).
Great! Memorization should be no problem. Whose fault is it if, when we quote Scripture, we get it wrong? Jesus made these promises of inspiration to the eleven, not to the church (John 14:25-26; 16:12-13). One can only wonder how many people have been influenced by this book and think God is speaking to them.
The author says: “Don’t accept what I have to say unless the Holy Spirit confirms it and it is in keeping with the teaching of Scripture” (73-74). Mr. Blackaby, we have examined your teaching in light of the Scriptures, and we find it wanting, not to mention appalling. It does not square with the teachings of the Bible, and if your doctrine were true, you would already know you are in error on every important element of Christianity. But your doctrine is false, and for that reason you preach a false gospel–and are accursed (Gal. 1:8-9). Everyone should abide by the objective Word–not voices that arise from their own thoughts and imaginations.
As most congregations know, the Olan Mills folks are happy to do a church’s pictorial directory. Usually, they carry a few samples of their work with them when they try to interest a group in allowing them do their next one for them. Recently, the directory of a “church of Christ” was used as one of those samples. We will omit the location where this church meets, but it is in Texas.
Particularly striking is the “Who Are We?” page. Although the brief description begins well, it soon wanders off into the land of “Say, what?” The first three paragraphs are designed to make the visitor feel comfortable and welcome. Love and the “family” aspect of the church are emphasized; especially laudable are the no-nonsense claims: “We believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God” and “We believe the Bible is the written word of God.” These doctrines are not only clearly taught in the Scriptures, but they are central and crucial to Christianity.
One’s admiration for the boldness of this church’s willingness to declare the key tenets of Truth diminishes suddenly, however, with the next paragraph:
We believe that men and women are justified by faith in Jesus Christ and that justification is by faith alone. We believe that baptism is a validation of one’s faith and commitment to him. Baptisms here are performed by immersion in which the one is buried in the likeness of the death of Jesus and raised in the likeness of his resurrection. We observe the Lord’s Supper each Sunday as a token of the fellowship which exists. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are the only ordinances we keep….
“Justification by faith” is a Biblical doctrine (Rom. 3:24-26), but what Scripture says “faith alone”? For generations those calling themselves members of the churches of Christ have rightly bound themselves to no man or human tradition, but rather to what the Scriptures teach. “Faith alone” signifies a radical departure from the noble motives and intent that brethren have always possessed, which is as old as the Bereans, who “searched the Scriptures daily” to see whether the things Paul taught were so.
The phrase, faith alone, does not appear anywhere in the New Testament or the entire Bible. This is the doctrine of John Calvin–not those who follow the Word of God. One wonders if this “church of Christ” also believes in “hereditary total depravity” and “once saved, always saved.” One also wonders what their explanation is for Peter failing to impart the “faith alone” doctrine on the day of Pentecost. Why did he not tell the multitude they could be justified by faith alone? Why was Saul told to arise and be baptized in order to wash away his sins? Why did not Ananias say to him, “Saul, I can see that you believe; your faith has saved you”?
None of these things were spoken in the Bible because they do not reflect God’s plan of salvation. That plan includes repentance and baptism for the remission of sins in addition to faith. How times have changed! Members of the church in times past may not have been very sophisticated in the ways of the world or very advanced in theology, but at least they knew what it takes to become a child of God. How sad that some are now teaching Baptist doctrine, which thing we once debated!
Our Lord is further insulted (to deny Jesus’ doctrine is to insult Jesus personally) by the horrible distortion that “baptism is a validation of one’s faith and commitment to him.” Did not the Lord say, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved” (Mark 16:16)? What Bible verse calls baptism a validation? It sounds as though whoever wrote this tripe plagiarized some Baptist Manual. Peter did not say, “Repent and validate yourselves.” The eunuch did not ask, “What doth hinder me from validating myself?” It is not recorded that Paul and Silas took the jailer and his family the same hour of the night and validated them.
Apparently this “church of Christ” has lost sight of the fact that the inspired apostle expressed a purpose for baptism–for the remission of sins. How can someone stray so far from the Book that they fail to realize that baptism is “the working of God” (Col. 2:12), in which the blood of Christ washes away our sins (Rev. 1:5)? Again, Peter said, “Baptism doth also now save us” (KJV), not “Baptism doth also now validate us.” Parking tickets are validated; the sins a person has committed are washed away in baptism.
It is wonderful that this “church” still recognizes that baptism is a burial in water, but if it is only a validation, they might as well sprinkle people–as do the denominations they are trying so diligently to ape. We bury people who desire to die to sin. They are buried as the Lord was buried. They arise a new creation–new because those who were buried have had their sins washed away. They arise washed, sanctified, and justified (somehow validated was omitted in Holy Writ). Even though this group is following the form provided by Scriptures, a good question to ask would be, “Do you fellowship those who were sprinkled rather than immersed?”
Do the Scriptures present the Lord’s Supper as a mere “visible token” of the fellowship we have with the Lord? Although the bread represents the broken body of the Savior and the fruit of the vine His blood, they are not just symbols. Viewing them in such a fashion invites a ritualistic observance. 1 Corinthians 11:22-29 teaches that partaking of the bread and fruit of the vine carries with it substantive meaning. Their purpose is to focus our minds on the sacrifice Jesus made for our sins. This sober reminder emphasizes our sinfulness, our continual need of forgiveness, and the love of God and of Christ to enable us to have fellowship with them. This weekly observance also serves as a declaration that He is coming again to receive His own (1 Cor. 11:26). Thinking of the Lord’s Supper as “a visible token” is hardly conducive to partaking of it in a worthy manner, nor does it hint at self-examination (1 Cor. 11:28). A failure to discern the Lord’s body brings judgment upon the thoughtless participant (1 Cor. 11:29). How dare anyone be so glib as to downgrade this honoring of the Lord’s death to a mere reminder of “the fellowship which exists”!
Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are referred to as ordinances, which in most religious usage refers to a sacred rite or ceremonial act. Apparently, the author of this statement also wants to please the Roman Catholic Church. In the New Testament there are no rites or ceremonies. There were some under the Law of Moses, as when priests were ordained, but we are now under the purest kind of religion–one in which all facets are carried out in spirit and in truth. Worship and service must be from the heart. Jesus did not die so that people could offer up stale, formal, heartless worship to the living God. We do not have a daily routine of service that becomes just that–routine. Christians must be thoughtful. Self-examination of our thoughts and motives is expected (2 Cor. 13:5). We are not taught to take our salvation for granted (1 Cor. 9:24-27). We continually “prove all things” (1 Thess. 5:21).
In case some of the implications of the preceding paragraph were lost, this next one should clarify it.
We are firmly resolved to resist every sectarian tendency and to be God’s people only. We make no claim to be the only people of God and we celebrate our ties with all others who reverence Christ as Lord. Our only enemy is Satan. We do not wrestle against “flesh and blood.” It is our intention to regard every child of God on earth as our brother and sister, to treat them as such, and to receive them just as God receives us….
While it is laudable to “resist every sectarian tendency,” it is not advisable to give up Truth in a vain effort to achieve it. Failure to contend earnestly for the faith once for all delivered (Jude 3) is just as sectarian as trying to bind one’s unsubstantiated opinions on others. The author of this statement (and a few elderships in various parts of the country) need to start taking massive doses of Citri-spinal-cal so they can develop some backbone. Apparently some think there is some virtue to be found in making wishy-washy, Max Lucado-like statements, which have all the fortitude and stamina of soggy bread.
The statement that we are “God’s people only” and “not the only people of God” undoubtedly sounds noble to those who make it, but a little reflection upon the idea reveals that it is essentially unintelligible. Do we teach people the truth regarding salvation, acceptable worship, and Christian doctrine? There are three possible answers to this question.
First is the answer, “Yes, we do teach what the Scriptures teach with respect to these all-important matters.” If, when we say, as Peter did, that souls seeking salvation should repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins, we are speaking the truth, then those who preach a different message (“faith alone”) are in error and stand accursed for teaching another gospel (Gal. 1:6-9). Those who listen to them remain lost.
Second, if we answer, “No, what we teach people about salvation is not true,” then we ought to repent immediately for teaching error. What could be worse than intentionally lying to people about the most valuable commodity of all–their souls (which Jesus said were worth more than the whole world). If we know that we are worshipping God falsely and teach others to offer up worship as vain as ours, we shall surely be punished most severely throughout all eternity.
The third possible answer is to say that we are unsure if we are teaching the Truth. Then we ought to quit immediately pretending that we have something to offer people. The inspired apostle wrote: “If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God…” (1 Peter 4:11). If we do not know that we are teaching the Word of God, then we ought to resign as teachers or preachers (James 4:1) and turn this sacred privilege over to someone who does know the Truth and is willing to communicate it to others.
The very idea that we are so inept at understanding the Scriptures that we cannot be sure if we are saved or lost is ludicrous. It presumes that God sent Jesus to die on the cross for the sins of mankind but lacked the communication skills necessary to tell man the proper way to respond to His grace in order to be saved. If words mean anything, then we can know the Truth (John 8:31-32). This mealymouthed approach to the Word of God may win the praises of men for being non-judgmental, but such is the only reward it shall obtain. Our Lord spoke the Truth to people whether they approved or disapproved, and His true disciples follow in His footsteps.
Jesus did not pontificate: “I regard every child of God on earth as my brother and sister.” Instead, He said, “Whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is my mother and sister and brother” (Matt. 12:50). It is not a matter of what a person says or claims; it is a matter of what a person does! The Jews in John 8:41 claimed God as their Father. Jesus emphatically denied it and insisted, “You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do” (John 8:44a). Jesus did not wallow in a sort of sloppy, sentimental, pseudo-love that accepts all people as Christians regardless of their hearts. Our Savior had standards. Genuine disciples of Christ cannot today accept as brethren those who have never obeyed the gospel; to do so would be a denial and a repudiation of Jesus and His teachings.
No one can rightly be called a Christian who does not first believe in God and the Lord Jesus Christ. But faith is only the beginning of the process of salvation. No one is a Christian who has not repented of his sins (Luke 13:3). No one can rightly be called a Christian who has not been baptized for the remission of his sins (Acts 2:38). These are God’s terms of salvation.
The same apostle who wrote that “we do not wrestle against flesh and blood” also said to mark “flesh and blood” false teachers (Rom. 16:17-18). He also listed some of their names (1 Tim. 1:20; 2 Tim. 2:17). Our war is against Satan, who inspires error and snares men in false doctrine. We do not have anything personally against such men, but they must be opposed because they are fighting against God, subverting whole households, and causing people to be lost. Paul wrote that their “mouths must be stopped” (Titus 1:11).
Yet some insist that the devil’s emissaries should not be opposed; apparently they think they are acting out of a higher motivation, which they mistake for love. Love does not allow the devil and his false doctrines to go unopposed. For that reason we are to “contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). Love does not allow people to believe a lie and to walk in darkness. Love is not so fearful of challenging people and making an enemy (Gal. 4:16) that it refuses to affirm that the way of error leads to damnation.
How can brethren depart so far from the Word of God that they end up thinking this way? They cannot study the Bible diligently and arrive at such positions expressed in this “Who Are We?” directory rationale. The only way a congregation could possibly arrive at such a position is either through massive ignorance or a willful rejection of what the Scriptures teach in a vain (and cowardly) effort to “get along” with others. How sad that those who were once the Lord’s people have neglected their great salvation and been reduced to such a low estate in adopting what may accurately be called “the devil’s peace.”
*Send comments or questions concerning this article to Gary Summers. Please refer to this article as: “WHO ARE WE? (11/05/00).”
Return To Article Index
This Third Annual Lubbock Lectureship book (subtitled Christian Evidences and Apologetics) is one that will greatly profit members of the body of Christ. In its 601 pages the reader will discover a wealth of information leading to his own personal growth and an arsenal of arguments and material to use against atheists, humanists, and evolutionists. Those who are interested only in “fluff” will want to bypass this book because of its thought–provoking nature.
This tome opens with “The Indestructibility of the Bible Proves It Is Inspired.” Several Scriptures are cited which claim its power to withstand all onslaughts, after which are discussed some of the attempts to destroy the Word of God. Some of the efforts to expunge the Bible from the world have involved physical attacks (destroying copies of it), and some have involved the verbal volleys of its critics. A considerable amount of historical data finds its way into the 28 pages of material, along with some inspirational poetry.
As is typical of the Lubbock books, there are some word studies included; this year chapters are devoted to: church, for, evidence, substance, fellowship, and hope. These words are important to study because so many false doctrines have been attached to them. Church, for example, is seldom thought of today the way the word was used in the New Testament. Space is devoted to the Greek word from which “church” is translated (ekklesia), as well as the derivation of church as it comes to us in the English language. This etymology is then followed by a comprehensive look at the church in prophecy and in fulfillment.
The word translated “for” (eis) has been misrepresented by some for over 100 years as meaning “because of.” Although Carroll Osburn, distinguished Carmichael Professor at Abilene Christian University, may not think this is a distinction worth making, the fact is that it is crucial in understanding what the Holy Spirit teaches about salvation. The etymological development of eis is presented, along with the correct interpretation of the word as it is used in Acts 2:38. Arguments from some trying to discredit this thesis (based on Matthew 12:41 and a few other verses) are examined and seen to be inconsistent with all other usages. Furthermore, there is a letter printed from Charles B. Williams (who once taught at Union University in Jackson, Tennessee), in which he upholds the correct definition of eis and objects to Mantey’s erroneous suggestion of “because of” (139). Baptism is “unto,” moving in the direction of, “forgiveness of sins.”
Evidence is an important word, especially in light of the theme of this book. The noun appears in Hebrews 11:1 (and in other verses); it is thoroughly defined and discussed in light of the philosophy of agnosticism. Substance, from Hebrews 11:1, is also examined. The chapter refutes five fallacies that have sprung from an incorrect view of faith and closes with a section on “practical faith.”
Fellowship is an important doctrine to Christians, and some are currently advocating fellowship that does not meet the Biblical definition of it. Hope is a Biblical word and concept; it serves as a marvelous contrast to atheism: critics of the Bible lack any semblance of it.
Chapter 3 carries the lengthy title, “The Skeptics’ Accusation that the Existence of Evil Proves There is No God is False.” This charge is generally considered to be the greatest argument that atheists have against the existence of God; the flaw is that apart from God there can be no objective definition of what constitutes evil.
Next is “The Accusation That the Genesis Account of Creation Is a Myth Is False.” One encounters this charge with ever–increasing frequency. Few can elaborate on the reason they assign the creation to myth status; likely they are repeating what some “professor” taught them. Those who make statements like these should be asked, “How many mythical accounts of creation have you read?” If the answer is none, the follow–up question should be, “Then how do you know that the Biblical account resembles myths?” This material provides much insight in dealing with such questions.
These two chapters are followed by one on empiricism, the idea that we can only know what our senses tell us. Strictly followed, this approach to knowledge would eliminate the use of reason and logical deduction. It would invalidate the use of reliable testimony, the cornerstone of our judicial system. Furthermore, one’s senses are not always reliable; they can be deceived. The reader will find a discussion of the ways in which we come to know things. For those who are empiricists (either in or out of the church) some songs are included that would more accurately express that viewpoint (104-105).
Always appropriate to a discussion of Christian evidences is “The Messiahship/Deity of Christ Can Be Proved.” The characteristics of the Messiah are listed from Old Testament passages, along with a look at their New Testament fulfillment.
“The Unity of Its Books and Their Contents Prove the Bible Is Inspired” seems like an impressive and bold title (perhaps wishful thinking) in light of the numerous alleged contradictions that skeptics often set forth, but students of the Word know the truth of this statement. A chart is included that lists 32 Old Testament events to which the New Testament refers; 14 are from Genesis 1-11 (157-58). The New Testament treats these as real people and real events (which they are). For contrast, some books that claim inspiration are viewed (The Book of Mormon), and their contradictions are highlighted.
Several years ago, a book (A Lawyer Examines the Bible) was published, which demonstrated what is shown in the chapter, “The Injustice of Christ’s Trials Can Be Proved.” The reader will benefit greatly from the analysis provided here; as with so much of this material, his knowledge will be greatly enhanced.
For over a century Modernists have been discussing the “Q” document, and many Christians may not have the faintest notion of what that is. The portion of the book that deals with the alleged “Q” demonstrates that there is no evidence that such a creature ever existed. As usual, Bible critics have spent more time in “fantasyland” than in the realm of reality.
Also in vogue these days is “The Accusation That the Bible (Noah’s) Flood Did Not Happen…” Scientific evidence can be called upon to substantiate the truth of the Biblical record. A related chapter is “The Doctrine of Uniformitarianism Cannot Be Proved.” Because of the problems associated with trying to maintain the theory that all natural processes have continued in a uniform way since the beginning of the creation, even scientists are now exploring other alternatives.
“The Superiority of the Bible’s Teachings Proves It Is Inspired” seems obvious, but one must first demonstrate that the Bible is superior; this goal is achieved by comparing it with other so–called “divine” books. The Bible is the only book that answers the important questions of life (origin, purpose, destiny) and provides man an answer to the problem of sin. Its moral precepts are higher than those of any other religion.
Next is “The Testimony of Christ Proves the Bible Is Inspired.” Of particular interest to the reader will be the comments about the passage in Josephus that describes Jesus. Is it authentic or spurious? The writer challenges in a convincing manner the popular view regarding this paragraph (266-67).
The chapters that follow this one are: “It Cannot Be Proved That the New Testament Writers Were Duped and/or Dishonest,” “The Accusation That Christianity Is Like the Religions the World Over Is False,” and “The Origin of Life Can Be Proved.” This last thesis is proved by considering what would need to happen for evolution to have occurred. It is not enough to say, “Here are some primordial ingredients and a few billion years; surely life would have formed during this length of time.” This chapter alone is worth the price of the book.
Following are: “That All Men Need the Gospel of Christ Can Be Proved” and “Archaeological Discoveries and Research Prove the Bible Is Inspired.” This is always a fascinating subject, and in this case the material presented at the lectures is totally different from that in the book. Both complement each other (the writer could not attend; another gave the oral presentation). The book version contains 94 footnotes; the reader could scarcely expect a more thorough treatment.
Another informative chapter is “It Cannot Be Proved That the Universe Has Existed for Billions of Years.” The public is continually bombarded with this allegation, but the assertion lacks substance.
Additional faith–building chapters include: “The Accusation That the Bible Contains Error Is False” (the poem about higher criticism is enjoyable, 420-21); “The Accusation That Men Cannot Understand the Bible Alike Is False” (we frequently must make this case in today’s divided religious world); “True Science Proves the Bible Is Inspired” (“theistic evolution” is also denied); “The Validity of the New Testament Canon Can Be Proved” (there are 73 footnotes and enough information to silence those who teach otherwise); “Prophecy and Its Fulfillment Proves the Bible Is Inspired” (contains 55 footnotes and some charts showing the New Testament fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies, 489-91); “The Death, Burial, and Resurrection of Christ Can Be Proved” (various false theories are debunked); “It Cannot Be Proved That the Bible Is an Insufficient Guide for Modern Man” (includes a list of contradictions to this idea presented by some of our own people, 536); “The Accusation That the Bible Contradicts Itself Is False” (contains rules which will help clarify most alleged contradictions); “The Theory of Evolution Cannot Be Proved” (deals with the philosophy of and hoaxes of evolution, 79 footnotes); and “It Can Be Proved That God Does Exist” (a look at the traditional arguments that establish the existence of God).
This book costs $16 and may be obtained from Valid Publications, Inc. (940) 323-9797 or from Hicks Publications, 5208 89th Street, Lubbock, Texas 79424.
A few weeks ago I was handed a document, consisting of seven pages, on the subject of unleavened bread. Its thesis was that unleavened bread cannot contain any oil or salt but must consist of flour and water only. This article will examine the claims and the “proof” offered in those pages. The one who compiled the information may have possessed sincere motives, but the data and the rationale do not establish the case. This article is not intended to be the “final word” on the subject; additional information could prove helpful.
Let us begin with the oft–repeated claim this document makes, which is that the Jews in the Old Testament used only flour and water in making the Passover bread, that these are the only elements specified, and that therefore to add anything else would be sinful. If this assertion could be proven, the argument would be valid, based upon the authority of the Scriptures (Col. 3:17). Certainly, we want to do only what we are authorized to do. However, there is not a single verse in the entire Bible that stipulates using flour and water, let alone water and flour only.
While it is true that God did specify certain ingredients of some offerings, even stating the exact amount of flour to be used, it is not the case that such specifications are always given. God gave the instructions for the Passover feast first to Moses and Aaron in Exodus 12. The bread is mentioned first in verses 15–20. Below is repeated the portion of the text pertinent to the preparation of the unleavened bread; the reader is encouraged to study the entire text of each passage that relates to the Passover.
‘Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread. On the first day you shall remove leaven from your houses. For whoever eats leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that person shall be cut off from Israel’ (15).
‘So you shall observe the Feast of Unleavened Bread….’ (17a).
‘In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at evening, you shall eat unleavened bread, until the twenty–first day of the month at evening. For seven days no leaven shall be found in your houses, since whoever eats what is leavened, that same person shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he is a stranger or a native in the land. You shall eat nothing leavened; in all your habitations you shall eat unleavened bread’ (18-20).
Notice that nothing is said about the ingredients of the bread when God instituted this feast. There is one and only one stipulation–no leaven. Exodus 12:8 actually introduces the phrase, unleavened bread, but no other limitations are presented. (Genesis 18:6 mentions that Sarah made “cakes,” but Genesis 19:3 is the first verse to mention either leavened or unleavened bread, which Lot made for his unexpected guests.)
Other passages list the same restriction that is recorded above–without adding any additional information (Ex. 13:6–7; Num. 9:10–11; Lev. 23:5–6; Deut. 16:3–4, 8). No amount of flour is specified to be used. Not even the kind of flour (wheat, barley, oats, or rye) is given. There is one overriding purpose in all of God’s instructions; He wanted no leaven to be used.
Unwarranted Assumptions
Now we want to notice several statements in the aforementioned treatise with an appropriate response.
[When making or using a recipe, everyone understands that it is both inclusive and exclusive. You never add ingredients not specified. If you do, you get something else, not the item about which the recipe speaks.]
This statement is absolutely true, but in this case it is irrelevant because the Scriptures do not anywhere specify the precise ingredients for unleavened bread.
Deut. 16:3. “Unleavened Bread” referred to as the “bread of affliction.” It was made from flour and water.
Neither flour nor water is mentioned (sometimes milk was used) in this verse; the writer has expressed an opinion–not a Biblical truth.
So Unleavened bread was flour and water [a conclusion drawn after studying Exodus 12:34, 39, GWS].
These verses are not discussing the Passover feast; they are explaining that because of the instructions about the Passover feast that Israel therefore had no leaven when they left Egypt. Dough and unleavened cakes are mentioned; water is not specified.
Unleavened bread being made with Flour and Water. Exod. 12:18.
Neither water nor flour are mentioned in this verse; Again, the writer sees what is not mentioned and then concludes that these are the only two ingredients.
Unless something more than flour and water is specified, then the unleavened bread could only be flour and water.
Again, this is predicated on the erroneous notion that water and flour are mentioned in the first place.
So, the Lord would have had only flour and water bread to use to represent his body. Can we add anything. If we can add anything, where do we stop adding. That’s the problem with the religious world. They began adding and cannot stop.
The religious world does have a problem with adding things that lack Biblical authority, but no one has demonstrated that anything has been added.
This would be a good time to ask the question, “How did the Israelites generally make regular bread?” The Scriptures, of course, do not provide this information; they furnish no daily bread recipes. Do we assume that their common bread was made without salt and oil. Perhaps it was, but at some point, these were added.
However they made regular bread, God knew His people’s practice (present and future). The ONLY stipulation the Lord gave was that no leaven could be used. If they did not use anything but flour and water in their regular bread, then it might be argued that He did not need to forbid any other elements. If they did use other ingredients, then it is remarkable that He did NOT say flour and water only. But clearly the emphasis of unleavened bread is not upon what is included but upon what is excluded.
If God had wanted to be certain that no other ingredients would ever be used in the Passover feast, He could have specified ONLY flour and water. Regarding certain other sacrifices, He was not bashful about the ingredients. Consider the following:
“This is the offering of Aaron and his sons, which they shall offer to the Lord, beginning on the day when he is anointed: one–tenth of an ephah of fine flour as a daily grain offering, half of it in the morning and half of it at night. It shall be made in a pan with oil. When it is well mixed, you shall bring it in. And the baked pieces of the grain offering you shall offer for a sweet aroma to the Lord” (Lev. 6:20–21).
Examples such as these could be multiplied, but the point is obvious–the Lord knows how to give detailed instructions. It is all the more significant, therefore, that the only thing He ever emphasized about the Passover feast is that the bread must be unleavened.
Jewish Encyclopedias
The document under consideration includes two pages each from The Jewish Encyclopedia and The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia. Part of a paragraph from the first of these is underlined:
Mazzah (plural Mazzot): Bread that is free from leaven or other foreign elements. It is kneaded with water and without yeast or any chemical effervescent substance, and is hastily prepared to prevent the dough from undergoing the process of spontaneous fermentation… (393).
This definition also emphasizes the absence of leaven or any substance similar to it. Unfortunately, the writers did not specify what they meant by “other foreign elements.” But even if they had said “no salt” and “no oil” could be used, they would not have gotten that information from the Scriptures–but rather from their own traditions. Jesus commented on many traditions that the Jews had which were not authorized by God (Matt. 15:1–9, for example). These traditions consisted primarily of someon’s opinion becoming law. The encyclopedias can tell us what the current Jewish practices are or what has been a long–standing tradition, but they cannot provide more information than the Bible does, as the second source (cited above) acknowledges:
The Bible gives no details as to how Matzoth are prepared, but the Talmud (Pes. 35a-38B) gives details as to the materials used, the proper thickness of the cakes, and similar directions (414) (emph. GWS).
Here is a clear admission that the information supplied is from tradition–not the Scriptures. Notice that even the proper thickness is delineated. Obviously, God did not issue these details, but some rabbi apparently legislated concerning the matter.
Invalid Assertion
It is stated that “salt is a leaven.” If it were, it would be wrong to use it in making unleavened bread. But who has determined that salt is leaven? Who is the authority for this statement? The Scriptures do not so declare, and in fact they prove otherwise.
The document under discussion neglected to mention Leviticus 2:13 (although 2:1-3, 4-8, and 11 were cited). This verse reads as follows:
Most current recipes for communion bread include a little oil and a little salt–but NO LEAVEN. No ingredients are ever used besides those found in regular bread. Such recipes do not add to the Word or corrupt the worship. Correct precedents are being kept.
About a month ago an e–mail came in from a member of the Church of Freethought. This group gained press coverage in The Dallas Morning News on November 11th, 1995 (IG). This past summer they received another round of publicity and have been pleased to announce how they have grown and have chapters in other locales. This year’s newspaper articles were very similar to the original ones; since there was nothing especially new about this group, there did not seem to be a sufficient reason to say anything more about them (in addition to the article published in these pages on December 17, 1995).
But then came the aforementioned e–mail, which took me to task for that article, and some correspondence ensued. No names or e–mail addresses will be supplied, but some of the exchange may be enlightening–especially to those who may be tempted to think these people are real intellectuals. Printing the entire exchange would be too cumbersome; what follows, therefore, is an edited version which retains the pertinent portions of the written conversation. We will designate the writer by the initials FT (for Freethought); I will be GS. The comments in brackets were not part of the e–mail exchange; they will explain why I answered as I did.
FT: I attend the Church of Freethought and I have to say that you clearly have no idea what it is about. It seems that you merely read an article in a newspaper, assumed that the article correctly depicted the church and its members, and then basically ridiculed the members based on second hand information and straw men.
The fact is that the Church is in its 6th year. There are now 4 Freethought Churches in America and membership in ours is at about 150.
Basically the members are happy well adjusted people….
GS: So, with what exact statement of mine did you take issue? What did I misrepresent? What quotation was taken out of context?
[The reason these questions are asked is that the original e–mail did not cite one specific instance of misrepresentation; only general condemnations were offered.]
FT: What my problem is… and I said this so I don’t know why you asked me… was that your impression was from a news article which would likely contain some inaccuracy because of the nature of our press.
GS: I understand your complaint with the press, but how difficult would it have been for you to have written a brief letter, thanking them for the publicity but offering a point of clarity? I (and others) read the editorial page. If your desire is for people to know the truth about you and not have misconceptions, I would think that would be a priority.
[He then responded that most people understood the purpose for the church and that follow–up comments seemed to be unnecessary. He never stated in what ways the newspaper misrepresented him or how I misunderstood the purpose of the church, but he did take issue with some of my comments in our bulletin; we now move to some of these.]
FT: “Why did they seek the publicity of this newspaper article?” [quoting from my December, 1995 article]. We didn’t. They came to us. In fact in every case the press has come to us.
GS: The press always comes to you. How fortunate! I have been working with churches for over 30 years, and the press has never come to us. And we are much more unique than you are; we believe in truth.
[Although he took issue with the claim to believe in truth, he made no further comments on the press.]
FT: Your further claim in the same paragraph demonstrates your lack of understanding of the Church of Freethought. You said, “Atheists could surely feel comfortable among some of these ‘religious groups’ without having to form one of their own.” No. You don’t get it. The methodist and other Christian churches harbor beliefs that we believe are superstitious and they harbor supernatural ideas.
GS: Many denominations have no supernatural element. Even when they celebrate “Christmas” and “Easter,” they don’t really believe that Jesus was born of a virgin or raised from the dead.
[Many mainline denominations no more believe in God than members of the Church of Freethought do. They deny miracles and practically anything of a supernatural basis. Even if they do believe in God, their views follow their own imaginations of what they think He is like. They do not believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God or that they should subject themselves to its teachings or morality.]
FT: Further you say, “… Most religious groups gave up on theology years ago.” Really?! Read the pope’s latest statement? The Southern Baptists [sic] pronouncements regarding the place of women and the “sin” of homosexuality?
GS: Notice that the statement you are responding to on theology says MOST, not ALL, churches. Certainly, the pope issues doctrinal statements, but how many Catholics know or care? Many Protestant denominations follow Calvinism, too, but their members do not even know these doctrines, such as hereditary total depravity. When I have pointed out to many people that children are born in innocence, they invariably agree. They have never learned the doctrines that their own churches teach! We and they are among the few left that really care about truth.
[This last statement was intended to provoke a discussion on the subject of truth. Baptists have shown that they have cared about truth by upholding what the Bible teaches about homosexuality and the role of women; they still resist the truth about baptism.]
Evidence and Objectivity
Many other subjects were discussed which space forbids repeating, but we want to consider some important comments in the final exchange. After my response, there was no further reply, which is significant. Either the correspondent grew weary of the subject or (all things being equal) he did not know how to answer the points made.
FT: I’ve seen no evidence that Jesus was divine, was the son of God, or did things that were attributed to him. I have no evidence of the existence of god(s). I have never seen any evidence of supernatural powers. Although I have no intention of arguing “truth” with you, it would seem [you appears to be omitted here, GWS] have beliefs but to call them “truth” is a bit of a stretch.
GS: You say that you have seen no evidence that Jesus is Divine. What would you consider evidence?
So what is your problem with the Supernatural? Are you an empiricist, and if so, what kind? Do you rely only on your senses, or can you use logic or reason?
[Just when the discussion was getting interesting, it stopped. Some portion of many discussions consists of verbal sparring. But here was an opportunity to get beneath the superficial, the external. These two points comprise the heart of the disagreement. What constitutes evidence? Can we only achieve knowledge through our senses? Or can we use logic, reason, and reliable testimony? In comments not reported FT and I both admitted that we enjoyed reading the author Ayn Rand (The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged). But I never met Ayn Rand. How do I know she existed? Such knowledge does not come through my senses but through logic, reason, and reliable testimony.]
FT: Our church grew in small part out of response to people like her [Shirley MacLaine, gws] that disavow logic and reason in order to find “Truth.”
GS: Christians who follow the Bible do not disavow logic and reason (which it seemed you were implying). On the contrary, we insist upon it. If you were familiar with the Warren–Flew Debate, conducted on [the campus of the] University of North Texas in 1976, you would know that Thomas Warren was the one using logic night after night while the atheist Flew floundered around in the sea of subjectivity.
FT: Almost all of the membership believe that knowledge and morality comes from logic and reason and that final decisions of these things are individual choices.
GS: You say that morality comes from logic and reason? This is fascinating. Is adultery right or wrong? Is abortion right or wrong? Is homosexuality right or wrong? Is polygamy right or wrong? Is stealing right or wrong? On what basis? Apart from an objective source (one that arises outside and above man) there is no way to reach an authoritative conclusion. When morality depends on our subjective feelings, nothing can ever be decided.
[Brother Warren pressed this point in his debate with Antony Flew–that without God there is no basis for morality. When right and wrong cannot be established upon an objective source (the Scriptures), which arises outside of man, then morality cannot be anything other than subjective–what any particular individual thinks about it. This point is so obviously true that it scarcely needs elaboration, but to insure that it is fully grasped, the following illustrations are provided.
Many cultures practice polygamy; they do not consider that it is morally or ethically wrong; it is their long–standing custom to live in this fashion. Many nations have banned the practice as uncivilized. Now who is right? If logic and reason are applied to the practice, where do we stand? Those who defend polygamy will argue that it is a practical way of life and that reason demands that they continue in it. We might argue that polygamy demeans women and robs them of their full potential. The countries that tolerate polygamous marriages would reply, “Fine. We don’t mind if you don’t allow it over there, but leave us alone because it works here.” Apart from God, no standard exists that can resolve this situation.
Further, on the subject of lying, reason would tell us that for a president to look into the TV cameras and tell what he knew to be an outright lie would end a political career, but strangely his stature was enhanced. The climate of America once was such that a person lost credibility when he purposely stated things that were false (which is logical), but now lying is considered acceptable, perhaps even a desirable ability to possess. So, which is it? Is lying good or bad? Without an objective standard, lying is both good and bad.
Historically, people have thought that adultery is bad, but that philosophy has been replaced by, “Well, if it makes you happy….” Never mind that vows have been broken (what’s another lie?), that a mate is unnecessarily hurt to satisfy someone’s lust, that children may be adversely affected for years, or that yet another home has disintegrated–so long as the guilty person feels good and is happy.
Do not reason and logic tell us that these things are wrong? Apparently not, since such a large segment of society have turned adultery and lying into a national sport. WITHOUT AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD THERE IS NO MORALITY!! The Church of Freethought will never reach agreement on any of these issues. No wonder there was no response.]
FT: I think throughout your entire article [the December, 1995 article, GWS] you were assigning a target to statements…made which were inaccurate.
GS: You say that my article is inaccurate. Isn’t such a conclusion based on certain assumptions which are listed below?
1. Words have meanings.
2. Words can be used in an objective sense, with definitions common to all of us.
3. We can all understand word–and the ideas that they express–alike (watch out for postmodernism).
4. We have a moral obligation to understand words as they were intended to be understood (how does this sense of oughtness come about?).
5. We have an obligation to truth as it pertains to what someone has written.
6. If someone has written something that is inaccurate, he has an obligation to correct that statement and make it accurate (apparently the news media lacks this philosophy).
Understand that I am not agreeing with you that anything I said was inaccurate; but do not the above items need to be true before you can tell me that I have written something that is inaccurate?
[Numbers one through three above are designed to show that we all believe that we can understand words and ideas alike, thus ridding ourselves of the bogus notion that everything depends upon “interpretation,” which is now all the rage in universities. There is little to be gained in studying anything, if (in the final analysis) truth will be determined by subjective feelings. Of course, in religion, this dodge has been practiced for years: “I don’t care what the Bible (objective standard) says; I know what I feel (subjective emotions) in my heart.”
Points four through six are designed to provoke thinking (one would think that members of the Church of Freethought would be interested in thinking) about the source of moral obligation. If a person ought to do something, the first, and perhaps best, question is, “Why?” Who has the power to make such a demand of me–someone with power and authority? What will be the consequences if I don’t behave as I ought? Apart from God, why ought I accept anyone else’s subjective definitions of oughtness?
These are questions which are fully pertinent to the differences between those who believe in the Bible and those who reject it as the inspired Word of God. It is unfortunate that this exchange ceased at the most crucial juncture. Is this posture freethought or nothought?]
It has happened again: the world has demonstrated more sense than “the religious.”
Art galleries are generally not known for their conservative stances. Some of them in certain locales have shown themselves devoid of common sense and decency by displaying the works of Mapplethorpe and others who blasphemed God and religion (there used to be laws against that kind of thing). So, imagine how pleasantly surprised some of us were to read that an offensive art exhibit had been closed! Perhaps it was the fact that it was a gallery that concentrates on art relating to the Bible that made the difference. The Dallas Morning News reported this unusual event on July 9th:
The Biblical Arts Center said it has canceled an exhibit by internationally known artist Edward Knippers after a test audience reacted negatively to the abundant nudity and one painting’s anti–abortion theme (33A).
More than 40 of the center’s usual patrons were given a chance to preview the “Infinity and Grace” show; apparently they were negatively impressed because after the viewing the exhibit was deemed inappropriate. One wonders why no one could make that determination beforehand. Nevertheless, the thirty–painting exhibit was closed; the co–director acknowledged: “This is the first time we’ve had to do this.”
What was so offensive? Knippers paints the subjects in his Biblical scenes, including Christ, in the nude. His work had been displayed at the center previously three years ago, along with the following warning:
“The artist believes that illustrating the biblical account without the specifics of period dress shows our common humanity” (33A).
Say what? What kind of philosophy is this? Imagine movies made with such an assumption. Edith Head would have been jobless. Who would want to see Spartacus, Excalibur, or Braveheart with all the cast members undressed? The fashions of the day have always been important details in movies such as Chariots of Fire, The Great Gatsby, or Pride and Prejudice.
What kind of perverted imagination wants to show Christ and His disciples naked as Jesus washes their feet? Artists have always had to conjure up what Jesus looked like since there are no pictures or descriptions. Now Knippers has taken it upon himself to supply much more than the faces of Biblical characters. The painting most protested, however, was not for this presumptuous license.
One of the paintings that inspired strong feelings was Massacre of the Innocent, an interpretation of King Herod’s declaration that all newborns in Israel be killed. …members of the test audience interpreted the work as an anti–abortion statement (35A).
What would cause this kind of reaction? Could it be that some of the patrons had seen pictures of aborted babies, and the deaths of small children after birth looked remarkably similar? How ironic that this “highbrow” crowd could tolerate the absurd nudity in the paintings but rejected to what might be construed as a pro–life message. What a strange society we live in!
The Exhibit Is Shown
Two months after the Biblical Arts Center decided not to show Knippers’ paintings another location was selected. Now who would be so bold as to display all this nudity: some nightclub, a humanistic society, or the ACLU (now that would be a dilemma for them: should they championing nudity or protest the Bible)? No, the Trinity Presbyterian Church and the Center for the Visual Arts, both here in Denton, volunteered to host this exhibit. “Heroes and villains often are depicted without so much as a fig leaf,” according to The Dallas Morning News of September 16th (1G). Such facts apparently do not cause the Presbyterians to blush.
The Rationale
One art historian commented that “these are not irreligious paintings.” Oh, really? Perhaps some have only read as far Genesis 2:25: “And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.” Actually, all that changed after sin entered the world. Nakedness on the part of human beings now is regarded as a shame by God (Gen. 9:21-23; Rev. 3:18).
Knippers (an Episcopalian) protests that he is not trying to be sensational.
“I’m trying to make people face their own humanity in its fullness,” he said. “We don’t come before God dressed in our Sunday best. God sees us as we are. The best metaphor for that is the nude body.”
Is this explanation supposed to be on the level? Any time someone wants to face his own humanity, all he or she needs to do is check a mirror!! Most people no longer come before God in their Sunday best–even on Sunday. But it is scarcely news that God sees us as we are: “And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give an account” (Heb. 4:13). God’s ability to examine us goes far beyond our skin. He knows our hearts and our thoughts (Gen. 6:5). The artist may think nudity symbolizes that Divine look into our souls, but the fact that a metaphor may fit in certain respects does not prove the appropriateness of it.
The reader should not even think about protesting this kind of art because he will be accused of lacking “an understanding of art history” (5G). Well, call us ignorant, but frankly it would be irrelevant if every artist since the Flood had drawn Biblical scenes in the style that Knippers does. It would still be wrong. “My paintings are not obscene,” the artist insists (5G). Okay. The Supreme Court has had some trouble with that one (even though most people with common sense know); so let us settle on the Biblical word shame (Rev. 3:18). Something need not be obscene to be offensive and tasteless.
Knippers also suggests that covering Jesus’ private parts “could become more provocative than the nudes” (5G). Does this guy do drugs? No one (who does not have a SERIOUS problem) could view Jesus falling under the weight of the cross, having been battered by ungodly men, as provocative. This is madness!
But the defenses offered for this “art” are not yet finished:
Nudity in Christian art is used to affirm the body as a creation of God deserving of respect, said Dr. Yates, who’s also a professor of religion, society and the arts at United Theological Seminary in New Brighton, Minn. (5G).
We have always wondered; now we know: a professor has told us. God created the tongue, also, but it is not necessary to paint Biblical scenes with all of the characters sticking them out to stress the point, is it? God created spiders, scorpions, and cockroaches, too; should they be in every painting to remind us that they are a creation of God and deserving of respect?
Knippers also thinks that “nudity conveys the humanity of Jesus” (5G). Would not the blood streaming down His face from the crown of thorns convey His humanity? Or how about His eating bread and fish or drinking the fruit of the vine? There must be dozens of ways of portraying His humanity without using nudity.
“Some people would like to spiritualize Christ out of existence, like he’s just some vague feeling that doesn’t have a physical presence,” he said.
“For me, humanity is the height of God’s creation. That’s my all–consuming concern in dealing with art. How the body fits into the larger created order is an endless world to explore” (5G).
While it is true that some try to spiritualize too much, is there no way to counter such attempts artistically except through the shame of nakedness? Knippers seems more like someone who has become obsessed with the idea of nudity than one who has a meaningful message to communicate. Those who know what the Scriptures teach concerning propriety and decorum versus nudity are going to be offended and pass up his exhibit. His artistic message will be lost upon them, whereas if he had chosen another means of expression, he might have made more of an impact.
Whereas Adam and Eve were naked and unashamed, people today who display themselves naked in public should be ashamed. So should be the artist who has presumed to portray Biblical characters in such an unholy manner. Any group of people who would call themselves “Christians” should be ashamed to promote such “art.” It is not Jesus’ “physical presence” that people have lost sight of in today’s world. It is the possession of a sense of shame and the ability to blush (Jer. 6:15).
Those of us who rejoiced in the retirement of liberal columnist Donald Kaul (who expressed anti–Biblical sentiments, not to mention anti–common sense) on virtually every issue he discussed, had a brief period of exuberance. Almost immediately he was replaced by another writer of the same ilk, Robyn Blumner.
Her column of August 30th in the Denton Record–Chronicle discussed the subject of marriage from a strictly social viewpoint. Her perspective is set forth fairly clearly in this paragraph:
Social taboos are the goosestep of values. Collectively we are brainwashed to follow rules set out for us by our religion, ethnic traditions or social circle without questioning whether they truly will make us better, more decent people (12A).
What arrogance she demonstrates by assuming that no one else has ever evaluataed rules and traditions–except her! Are these reckless statements to be regarded as product of careful thinking? To make a blanket statement that ties conformity to Hitler’s Nazi party reflects shallow thinking and total irresponsibility. It seems to be extremely fashionable these days for liberals to shout the name Nazi at anyone who does not conform to their ideology. And the ironic thing is that Hitler mostly practiced what they “preach”: abortion, euthanasia, and the “survival of the fittest” (the doctrine of evolutionary atheism).
The charge of brainwashing is ridiculous. The current divorce rate, the number of single–parent homes, and the number of couples living together apart from marriage reveal that few, if any, are bound by religion or social customs. Many have decided to abide by the now nearly sacred philosophy of, “If it feels good, do it.”
In fact, Blumner writes this column as a kind of defense for living with her boyfriend seven years before marriage to avoid the marriage tax. She could not abide readers telling her that she was “living in sin.” She will abide it when God tells her so on the day of judgment, but she refuses to hear it before then.
Blumner blunders in defending herself:
Without knowing whether I was a good neighbor, a diligent employee, a dependable friend, a loving and loyal partner or a dutiful daughter, without knowing anything more about me beyond marital status, these readers had marked me immoral (12A).
As well they should! Her argument is entirely without merit. What did David know about Goliath except that he was uncircumcised and taunted the armies of the living God? Goliath may have been a loving son and a great brother. Perhaps he had saved his comrades’ lives, carried two wounded men to safety, and won a purple heart. But the fact is that he defied God, just as Robyn does. Some former military heroes have been tried and imprisoned for their crimes. Should they be given immunity from prosecution because of their past heroism? If a rapist or a pedophile is a good neighbor (he always travels across town to find victims), should people therefore not regard him as immoral? People who commit immoral acts are known for their immoralities. Is Blumner really surprised?
Or is her own situation just a pretext to rail against those things that are generally regarded as beneficial to society? She says she had broken “a social taboo” and did not have “the state’s blessing” (12A). Really? Is that what her readers said? They told her she was “living in sin” because she had violated a social taboo and did not have the state’s blessing? It sounds more as if they said she violated the laws of God.
She should come to grips with the issue. In the final analysis, social customs do not matter; the morality of God does. Before the law of Moses was ever given, Joseph recognized that it is wrong to have (sexually) someone to whom he was not married. Potiphar’s wife had a husband; she was entitled to him and no one else. Under the law of Moses both adultery and fornication were defined as sin. In the Christian system, moral values have not changed. Paul wrote: “Flee sexual immorality [fornication, KJV]. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body” (1 Cor. 6:18). In other words, fornication has been wrong since the world began, whether in 2000 B.C. or in A.D. 2000.
Blumner thinks that departing from the morality taught in the Holy Scriptures “marked a defining moment in human enlightenment” (12A). To anyone who knows the Bible, this statement is so ludicrous as to not even need an explanation. But someone besides Blumner may not know the Bible; so following are a few comments on “enlightenment.”
The people of Sodom and Gomorrah were certainly “enlightened.” They refused to goosestep to heterosexual values. They made lifestyle choices that resulted in their being buried under fire and brimstone (Gen. 19). The Israelites profited from Egyptian influence; while Moses was on the mount receiving the ten commandments, they were down below playing sexual games (Ex. 32:6). For this “enlightenment” 3,000 people were put to death. The Israelites never could learn for long the lesson that they were to be a holy people: “They were like well–fed lusty stallions; every one neighed after his neighbor’s wife” (Jer. 5:8). Their “enlightened” idolatry and immorality were rewarded by Babylonian captivity. Of course, the point is obvious: what Blumner regards as “enlightenment” is nothing more than the same old immorality, spruced up with a cheap coat of glittering paint. Anyone with a sense of history would know better than to swallow this swill.
As is characteristic of most liberals, she “spins” her viewpoint to turn black into white and bitter into sweet. Challenging society’s taboos, as she and her boyfriend did, is what caused us to “advance as moral beings.” Why, it is what led to “the moral superiority of liberating women from their consigned role as wife and mother” (12A). Who else would define day care centers for homeless children as “moral advancement” except this columnist and a few hundred feminists?
The myth of “quality time” has been burst; women are learning that careers and children are not that compatible; it is equally true that “no woman can serve two masters,” and many are tired of being torn between family responsibilities and job requirements. Some may style this unenviable position as liberating, but many are opting out in order to preserve their sanity.
At a time when men and women often wait until their 30s to marry and reproduction is easily controlled, a blanket demand for virgin brides no longer makes sense…. This acceptance has made us more civically virtuous (12A).
“Were they ashamed when they committed abomination? No! They were not at all ashamed; nor did they know how to blush” (Jer. 6:16a). What Blumner describes is no morality whatsoever. One wonders what standards are adopted in place of God’s? Is it all right to have casual sex with 100 members of the opposite sex prior to marriage? Would 101 be going too far? No, the liberal columnist does not denounce promiscuity. But if she did, where would the line be drawn between “meaningful affairs” and “playing around”?
And why should those who are married goosestep to society’s conventions? If her husband had had five flings since they had been married, would not such conduct be considered “enlightened”? And how many extramarital trysts has this columnist been involved in? If men are not interested in a virgin bride, why should they be concerned with purity after they have obtained “the state’s blessing”? Is it any wonder that syphilis, gonorrhea, genital herpes, and AIDS have become a part of the lives of so many people? “Enlightenment” can be painful.
The reader would expect to find the obligatory endorsement of homosexuality; Blumner does not fail:
Of course, social condemnation still keeps many gay and lesbian Americans from living openly as their natures intended…. The question hanging out there is whether intolerance toward gay and lesbian relationships is the morally superior position (12A).
Lasciviousness and perversion do not come by nature. They are choices made by those who have rejected God (Rom. 1:18-32). Bisexuality demonstrates that it is by choice–or are they born that way, too? No one is homosexual by nature any more than he would be a polygamist or a pedophile by nature. Liberals tend not to believe that people are responsible for their actions–unless they do something that even liberals cannot stomach. The columnist falsely equates tolerance with acceptance. To call something the sin that it is scarcely corresponds with torturing or murdering a fellow human being. God calls fornication, adultery, and homosexuality sins, along with stealing and murder. Christians will therefore continue to call them sins and stand on upon firm ground when we do so.
Blumner then offers this false dilemma in a vain effort to make her case:
If you had a choice between two neighbors with these guaranteed qualities, which would you choose? Someone who is considerate, quiet, friendly and gay? Or someone who is heterosexual with a prison record? We all want good decent people in our communities (12A).
This columnist may be a product of “values clarification,” but the rest of us are not buying in to such hogwash. First of all, this kind of thinking insults the person with a prison record. People who have made mistakes deserve a second chance (even columnists). But the choice itself is irrelevant; who has control over one’s neighbors? If they have the money to buy a house, they have the right to move in. We all hope the people on the block where we live will be friendly, but some are obnoxious and selfish.
In one community in which this writer lived, he heard the guy across the street verbally abuse his wife because she blocked the driveway when she parked her car and entered the house. After about 20 minutes of yelling at each other, she left and walked to the store, leaving her car where it was. He promptly got into one of his cars and bashed her car repeatedly until he had moved it up the street. [Try explaining the damage to the insurance company.] Then he left and did not return for several hours. Nobody wants such neighbors, but one either endures them or moves. Blumner’s hypothetical question is irrelevant and does not in any way establish her case.
Blumner blathers on:
Social taboos work best when the population is economically and culturally insular, hierarchical and uneducated. People have to be willing to blindly conform or taboos tend to whither [sic] under their own groundless absurdity. Happily, in most regions of our country, individualism, diversity and mobility make for a taboo graveyard (12A).
This is the kind of “fair and impartial” analysis that most of us have grown to expect from liberal columnists. Those who uphold Biblical morality are not only Nazis; they are uneducated. The men are stupid country bumpkins (who probably keep their wives pregnant and make them go barefoot) living in “flyover” country, and their wives are merely compliant milksops. This tactic is called “prejudicing the audience.” One characterizes those who oppose “politically correct” views as ignorant and then asks, “Now, does anyone disagree?” The reader should realize that the columnist is no longer dealing with ideas; she is insulting people. She has impugned both their intelligence and their motives, and she does it unapologetically and unashamedly–based on base, baseless assumptions.
In the course of writing her column, Blumner cites an assistant professor of psychology who has been studying “why we all care what other people do when it doesn’t affect us.” This is the foundation for the libertarian philosophy, as well as liberal thinking. “It’s nobody’s business what I do with my body.” “It’s nobody’s business what consenting adults do behind closed doors.”
If we all lived in a vacuum, perhaps a case could be made for these sentiments; people ought to see the obvious flaws. Consider homosexuality. Because of our society’s current openness, how many young people might be encouraged along those lines who would not have otherwise been tempted? And what happens when they become a majority? As in the case of Sodom, consent becomes irrelevant when they have the power to exercise force. It takes time for unopposed evil to infiltrate a society thoroughly, but if “the wickedness of man was great in the earth,” so that “every intent of the thoughts of this heart was only evil continually” (Gen. 6:5), then how much easier would it be to corrupt one community or one segment of it?
Adultery is another issue that people are willing to ignore–until it happens to them. We ought to know better than to fall for the “It’s his private life” line. No, he is violating his wedding vows, which makes him a liar and therefore untrustworthy, period. He has hurt his wife (assuming that she finds out eventually) and forever changed their relationship. Children are devastated if a divorce ensues, often blaming themselves for the marriage’s failure. Actions, like ideas, have consequences. It is the height of naivete to think that what we do will not have an effect on others.
Geraldo Rivera, appearing on Jay Leno’s program Monday evening (September 11), said, “I’m a good father. I’m a lousy husband.” Rivera just obtained his fourth divorce (showing the extent of his enlightenment). He is wrong. One is not a good father when he divorces his wife because he chooses not to be faithful to her, causing everyone grief. He may provide for the child’s physical needs and give of his time, but he is out of the home because of his actions. The child had two parents at birth, but now one is not there–not because of a tragedy (war, accident, murder)–but because of selfishness and immorality.
Other examples are abundant. If a man is caught stealing, he may have done it in his private life (with hopes of evading detection), but his whole family will be disgraced. Influence cannot be ignored. People will think well of us or ill of us, depending on our behavior. They may misjudge us in some cases, but they are right to tell us we are living in sin (if such is the case) because they are in agreement with an objective standard–the one that does not change with each succeeding generations, the one that is always correct regardless of circumstance, the one by which we shall be judged.
