Thanking God 20 Years from Now

At our current rate of development (departure from God), we will soon decide to kill all manner of people. Is it too farfetched to imagine the following letter written to an editor before two more decades roll past?

Dear editor,

As society has progressed and war has been eliminated as being too costly and ineffective, we have been faced with an increased population problem. Of course, we thought the AIDS epidemic might destroy a great segment of society, but then its remedy was discovered. Since cures for cancer, leukemia, and various other diseases have also been found, we now have the opportunity to live to the age of 140 with relatively few health problems.

Our government’s propensity for safety has added to the general population increase, also. With cigarettes, alcohol, and junk food being outlawed, everyone lives healthier lives. Enforcing the national 40 m.p.h. speed limit, in conjunction with the requirement of the protective body suit and helmets worn inside the car, has made traffic accidents no more dangerous than bumper cars. (Since half of them were caused by drunk drivers anyway, the elimination of alcohol made a huge difference.) Death due to gunshot wounds has also dropped dramatically since the repeal of the second amendment (an idea that was way overdue).

So what could be done about our increasing population? Fortunately, there was the expanded use of abortion in connection with genetics. With our advancing technology, we were able to predict what children might be born with defects; of course, most parents were delighted to abort such children with a view toward getting a “normal” child the next time. Since most parents made the attempt a second time, however, the number of people was not significantly decreased.

What few gains there were in those areas were offset by the increased criminal population after the abolition of the death penalty. But our courts deemed it cruel to take anyone’s life just because he murdered, tortured, and raped his fellow citizens. After all, we must be able to forgive, or there is no difference between us and animals.

Compulsory euthanasia has slowed population growth somewhat, but many have rebelled against the 140-year age limit. Originally, this was a good idea, but there are now too many exemptions, an idea that originated with the lawmakers who passed the original bill. Many argued that if legislators were exempt, so should be the executive branch. As you know, the Supreme Court (average age 93) upheld exemptions.

With the world’s population nearing 8 billion, something had to be done. Isn’t Heaven wonderful to have given us Serenity. As you know, the Quality of Life Protection Agency, appointed by our previous president, came up with this ingenious plan. Serenity is an odorless, tasteless powder that can be dissolved in anyone’s drink; it is instantly fatal. There are no warning signs or uncomfortable feelings. The brain is shut down instantaneously and permanently, to everyone’s satisfaction.

Serenity is the wonder drug of our era. Anyone may obtain enough of it to use on someone provided that he complies with the Quality of Life Protection Agency’s guidelines. The applicant must provide a list of five individuals who have come to an agreement on the need to eliminate the person in question. They must present reasons why society would be better off without that individual. A number of reasons are acceptable.

1. The candidate abuses his children (by spanking them).

2. The candidate is simply too old (list age).

3. The candidate has spoken against fornication, adultery, homosexuality, or bisexuality.

4. The candidate speaks unfavorably toward the current government.

5. The candidate questions the judgment of the QLPA.

6. The candidate has indulged in illegal substances (twinkies or buttered popcorn).

7. The candidate seems overly religious (talks to people about Jesus or can quote Scriptures).

8. The candidate has procured a firearm.

9. The candidate obtained Serenity for one person but used it on another.

10. The candidate complained about the government school system.

The QLPA will not let the administration of Serenity get out of hand. Each person is allowed only one application per year, and there is a quota that, once reached, means that all other applications will be rejected until the next calendar year. Living is all about choices. We should all choose to use Serenity wisely. It will only help society by sending ahead those who have outlived their usefulness here. We ought to be grateful to the divine wisdom the QLPA has shown. Serenity will keep in balance the population of the entire world and improve the quality of life for all of us.

Supreme Nonsense

Jesus prayed on many occasions–before choosing His apostles, when giving thanks for the bread that represents His broken body and the fruit of the vine which represents His blood, in the garden of Gethsemane before facing the crucifixion, and even on the cross. All of these prayers were in connection with spiritual concepts. But Jesus also taught that it is appropriate to give thanks for physical blessings (as well as seek them). He taught His disciples to ask for their daily food (Matt. 6:11), and He blessed the loaves that fed the five thousand (Matt. 14:19).

So what about praying at a football game? At first thought, prayer seems out of place. After all, this is a sporting event, not a religious one. But, then, eating physical food is not exactly a spiritual activity, either–except for those who eat religiously. If, therefore, someone leads a public prayer to the effect that there might not be severe injuries or that all will conduct themselves in a sportsmanlike fashion, what can the objection be? A public prayer acknowledges that this society was founded on the belief in God. If God deems the prayer frivolous, He will just disregard it.

Oh, but the Supreme Court disagrees. According to Justice Stevens, as reported in Denton Record-Chronicle:

School sponsorship of a religious message is impermissible because it sends the ancillary message to members of the audience who are nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community (June 19th, 1A).

Compared to this tripe, Lewis Carroll’s poem, Jabberwocky, makes sense. This statement is nonsense of the highest order. It is lamentably sad that Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, Justice Antonin Scalia, and Justice Clarence Thomas must work on a daily basis with those who are influenced more by “political correctness” than by common sense or what the Constitution actually says. America owes a great debt to these three men who are constantly opposed by those who respect law and the Constitution only when it suits them.

Of course, the reaction to the ruling was predictable. The ACLU (Anti-Christian Liberal Union) lauded it. They may usually be found opposing decency and promoting atheism. The June 20th editorial in The Dallas Morning News agreed that “the school’s policy could promote sectarian favoritism” (10A). Columnist Steve Blow felt compelled to agree with the court and warned against listening to anyone who would say otherwise (June 21st, 19A). A local talk-show host also shared the view with the court; only George W. Bush and average Americans seem outraged, although cartoonist Bill DeOre scored a point as he depicted a football player rising up from the huddle to ask the coach on the sidelines: “Coach…is a ‘Hail Mary Pass’ considered a school prayer?”

What about Stevens’ “logic”? He surely cannot be taken seriously. Who walks away from a football game in tears, saying, “I don’t feel like a full member of the political community.” Anyone who did so should be told, “Grow up.” One would think that we are talking here about severe religious, moral, or political persecution. Stevens’ statement can only be regarded as a pretext.

Whenever people have a particular goal in mind, they have a certain agenda to follow. Sometimes they invent ancillary explanations to justify their decisions or behavior. Surely, so weak a justification for the court’s verdict bespeaks a more primary purpose, which is to further remove God from the public view.

Case after case during the past 40 years has left the general public with fewer and fewer “approved” expressions of the affirmation of God in public. Chief Justice William Rehnquist appropriately observed:

Even more disturbing than its holding is the tone of the court’s opinion: It bristles with hostility to all things religious in public life.

He is (as he usually is) correct. As more and more religious freedom is lost in this country, the closer we get to having none. Another blow to religious freedom was struck in a little-publicized decision by a federal appeals court, as reported in the Denton Record-Chronicle on May 13th (2A).

It was the Friday before Election Day in 1992 when the Church at Pierce Creek and its pastor, Daniel J. Little, bought a full-page advertisement in two newspapers urging voters to reject Democratic presidential nominee Bill Clinton because of his positions on abortion, homosexuality and the distribution of condoms in public schools.

The “Christians Beware” ad appeared in USA Today and The Washington Times. …the IRS revoked the church’s tax-exempt status in 1995….

Do Americans realize what is at stake here? It is precisely this kind of free speech that our Constitution is supposed to guarantee. How ironic that tax dollars are used to fund artists that blaspheme God and things sacred to a great portion of society, and the Constitution protects that. But when someone opposes a political candidate, based on his immoral views, suddenly the right of free speech is revoked or penalized.

If the church that paid for these ads loses its tax-exempt status because they said something that the current government frowns upon, what will be the eventual result? Apparently, the government will be able to tell preachers and churches what they can write or distribute. The government can then control religion–just as they once did in the former Soviet Union! Meanwhile, why do Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson (who recently called Gov. Bush “Pontius Pilate”) get to speak in churches and support candidates? Are they allowed to do so because they support the “right” candidates? Lawyers for the Church at Pierce Creek argued that the IRS had engaged in selective prosecution, but the three-judge panel said that such an argument was “without merit.” Not only is justice blind; so is injustice.

One would think that Muslims might be among those that were pleased by the “no-prayer” ruling of the Supreme Court, but they too are concerned about where this decision may lead. According to The Dallas Morning News, Muslims feared that “the ruling would cause schools to do away with religious activities altogether” (6A). They see the door open to further prohibitions and infringements upon religious life in America.

Hindus liked the ruling. A spokesman for American Hindus Against Defamation said, “It’s a broader issue than just who you are praying to. We don’t think you should force prayer on anybody.” Oh, please! How is prayer forced on someone? Most of us have attended gatherings where the person leading the prayer was not a Christian as per the Biblical definition. Nobody forced us to pray. We simply listened politely and then continued with what we were doing. Are there actual reports of people becoming psychologically disturbed for life because they heard the words of a bland, nondescript prayer? Of course, people can listen to the vulgar language on South Park or play video games in which people are shot, blown up, and brutalized. None of those things will affect young people, but a prayer might ruin them. Who can believe it?

The argument is made that government must remain neutral and cannot get involved in and sponsor religious activities (they can regulate religious activities, however, by taking away their tax exempt status). In the first place, this government never prohibited God’s name from being used in public. The Declaration of Independence refers to the “Supreme Judge of the world” and “Divine Providence.”

Second, the first amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….” Unfortunately, the amendment does NOT say that the Supreme Court or the IRS could not prohibit the free exercise of religion. Obviously, there is no intent in the Constitution to ban a public prayer to God at a school function.

Third, did not one of our Presidents say that government is “of the people, by the people, and for the people”? Who owns and regulates the schools–the government or parents? Apparently, according to this “supreme nonsense” ruling, neither the parents, nor the school board has any say-so in public schools. Only the Supreme Court has the right to legislate what may or may not be done. If the school board thinks it is acceptable that a student can lead a public prayer, they are wrong. If the administration thinks it is all right, they have greatly erred. If parents and teachers approve the practice, what do they know? If the vast majority of the people have no objection, why, they simply lack the knowledge of six “justices.”

According to a public opinion poll, the vast majority of Texans thought that student-led prayer was acceptable. When was the last time 82% of people agreed on any issue?

Ironically, the lawsuit was brought by a Mormon and a Catholic family. If either one of these groups were in the majority, they would have kept silent. Has anyone noticed what public life is like in a country dominated by Catholics? Has there ever been religious influence exercised in Utah? This suit filed on their behalf was utter hypocrisy. They ought to be ashamed to climb into bed with secular humanists who would not hesitate to infringe upon their rights, given the opportunity. This lawsuit might have been expected from atheists, but for religious people to have cooperated with a group (ACLU) known for its attempts to destroy ALL public religious influence is unthinkable. While these two families may have won a legal victory, they certainly cannot have endeared themselves to the local community, and thus far there is no law that forces citizens to associate with malcontents.

The following article addresses this issue of so-called encroachment upon the rights of others. It was written for the Denton Record-Chronicle and published on June 9th, partly in response to a letter advocating a moment of silence to be fair to everyone. The title the newspaper gave the column appears below.

There are frequently letters to editors and calls to talk shows in which people complain about public religious displays or having to listen to prayers that invoke the name of God or Jesus.

Many harp about separation of church and state as if that phrase were in our Constitution, but it is not. The intent of the founding fathers was to allow religious freedom–not curtail it.

Some seem almost fanatical in their opposition to the mention of God’s name, or else they pretend that they have been greatly offended by someone praying in the name of Jesus. Whatever happened to graciousness and tolerance?

If a person visits Iran, should he be surprised that the name of Allah is revered and used in public? Would he complain about the Muslim influence in society, and if so, how seriously would his objections be taken that there were Christians who were offended at the constant invoking of Allah’s name?

If a Protestant visits Italy, would he be shocked to discover an enormous amount of Catholic influence there? Would he begin to petition the government to eradicate all public religious symbols because some non-Catholics live there?

Would someone go to Israel and expect the nation to change their religious habits and customs because non-Jews had taken up residence there?

Is it so difficult to respect someone else’s religious beliefs, even if we disagree with them? Before becoming a Christian, this columnist was of the opinion that religion was a rather useless commodity, but it never occurred to him to show disrespect for believers or to complain about public prayers. Even if they were worthless, they were not harming anyone.

We are allegedly living in a tolerant society. Anyone can say (practically) anything. We are free to believe or not believe what we wish about God and Jesus. Yet we seem to be approaching a point where it is actually safer to use the name of God in vain than it is to show reverence and honor to it in public.

Yes, many champion tolerance–except for God, Jesus, and the Bible. Why must the freedom to mention these in public unashamedly be eradicated because there are some Muslims, Buddhists, and atheists among us?

Do we have rule by minority? Can anyone seriously argue that an occasional public reference to God constitutes indoctrination? What segment of society is being forced to believe something against their will? Are houses of worship being filled by those obeying government dictates?

Americans have the freedom to believe and worship (as they choose) or to disbelieve. Those who would deny public expressions of humble acknowledgments of God should put their intolerance aside and adopt some graciousness.

Will society henceforth function on the basis of eliminating what people object to and are offended by? Well, then, secular humanism has been defined as a religion, and evolution is one of its tenets. Christians are offended that the religious doctrine of evolution is a taught in our government schools. The Supreme Court must outlaw this teaching. Our children feel like outsiders and not part of the politically correct community.

Amorality is also a tenet of secular humanism; we and our children are offended by the religious doctrines of homosexuality, abortion, and the endorsement of promiscuous sex among teens. No one should be allowed to push this religion on minorities such as Christians and Muslims. Our children that object to these government-endorsed religious doctrines are mocked and ridiculed when they protest these religious doctrines. They are made to feel like second-class citizens and outsiders. We wish the Supreme Court would stop all this religious influence–especially since they are the ones who defined secular humanism as a religion.

Religion-the Way the World Wants It

Satan diligently worked to get Israel cursed and destroyed by God so that Jesus would never enter the world. He achieved a partial destruction on several occasions (even a Babylonian captivity), but ultimately he failed. When the Word became flesh and entered into the world, the devil devised a plan to destroy Him physically, but he failed. Then he labored diligently to contaminate the Lamb of God spiritually, but he failed yet again. When the Savior overcame death, the evil one knew he had lost, but he never relents or repents.

The sins of mankind are forgiven through the atoning blood of Jesus–to all who appropriate His blood according to God’s plan. But Satan has done his best to obscure the Gospel so that many well-intentioned people are listening to a false “gospel.” In the book of Galatians Jewish Christians advocated that something MORE than Christian doctrine be obeyed–namely the law of Moses and circumcision (Acts 15). Today, “Christendom” has the opposite problem.

Apparently, in an effort to condense and simplify the entire New Testament, some have determined that grace is all that is necessary for mankind to be saved. If so, then all people are saved, regardless of anything they do or fail to do. This is an extreme position, which results in universal salvation for everyone. Calvinism gets around this point by teaching that God has from eternity ordained some for salvation and appointed others for damnation. This allows for “grace only,” all right, but it makes Jesus look foolish and deceitful when He invites people to come to Him, knowing full well they do not have the power to do so (Matt. 11:28-30).

The gospel of “faith only” also removes elements from God’s plan of salvation–namely repentance and baptism, the two things Peter commanded on the day of Pentecost in answer to those who asked what they should do (Acts 2:37-38). So, while Satan knows that he has lost the war, he keeps fighting to win as many battles as he can along the way.

Altering the Gospel is just one assault that he makes upon things that are sacred. He also has managed to convince many that man-made denominations are equal to the church for which Jesus died. He has won over multitudes to his point of view about worship–doing whatever feels good. He must howl with laughter to see people worshipping God according to their own impulses and whims instead of adhering to the instructions He gave concerning correct worship. Many think they are on God’s side, but they offer up vain worship week after week (Matt. 15:9).

In another category are those who are not religious and probably have never studied the Bible seriously, but they judge that they know what religion ought to be. They know, for example, that the church should not attempt to teach morality publicly nor speak out against abortion, divorce, pornography, gambling, or any other sin that society now accepts. Churches should stay away from public displays of praying, teaching, or evangelism. Church folk should confine themselves to their buildings. If they have any public visibility, it should be for feeding the hungry and clothing the poor, or giving away money (of which everybody knows that they have unlimited resources).

Christians should, above all else, be tolerant–especially of sin. “After all, we’re all sinners, you know. Jesus told you not to judge. You wouldn’t want to cast the first stone, would you?” So goes the refrain, yada, yada, yada, ad infinitum (this is a Jewish-Latin expression). Many of those with this kind of mentality write religion columns for newspapers, which explains the reason for a lack of Scriptures in their articles.

The following title appeared in The Dallas Morning News on June 12th: “A Fourfold Answer to God’s Call.” The first two paragraphs confirm what this article just affirmed above:

Lillie Brock followed in her father’s footsteps Sunday and became a minister, completing a journey detoured by prejudice 22 years ago.

“When I was in college, I really felt the call to the ministry,” said the Rev. Brock, 43, moments after she and three other women were installed as clergy at an ordination ceremony at Oak Lawn’s Cathedral of Hope, a predominantly gay church (15A).

Ostensibly, this is a news story, but the writer, Terri Langford, knows that prejudice kept this woman out of the ministry. The reason could not have been that the Scriptures forbid practicing homosexuals from becoming Christians, let alone preachers and preacherettes. No, she has concluded that it was prejudice.

Has anyone bothered to look up the word prejudice in a dictionary lately? According to the first definition listed in he American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, the word prejudice means: “1. a. An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts. b. A preconceived preference or idea; bias.” Perhaps Terri Lang-ford can tell us who is in possession of the facts: those who abide by the Scriptures or those who ignore them? [God does not call women to preach (1 Tim. 2:12).]

Since there is not one reference to a Scripture in the entire article, we have no idea what the columnist knows or does not know. One might think that she is extremely knowledgable since she KNOWS that it was prejudice that kept Lillie Brock from being ordained. When Brock’s application to become a minister was rejected by the Southern Baptists, she:

eventually followed the example set by her father. At about the same time his daughter encountered prejudice in a Tennessee church, the Rev. Jimmy Brock announced his homosexuality [what great family values, gws] and left his Alabama Southern Baptist church to start over in Florida (19A).

She cites prejudice again; she must be confident that the New Testament teaches in favor of homosexuality. So perhaps Biblical scholar Langford can explain a few passages to us PREJUDICED folk.

When women exchange “the natural use for what is against nature,” why does the inspired apostle Paul call such behavior the result of “vile passions” (Rom. 1:26)?

Why does Paul also say that men who burn “in their lust for one another” commit “what is shameful” (Rom. 1:27)?

Why does Paul say that those who participate in such things “dishonor their bodies among themselves” (Rom. 1:24)?

Why does Paul say that these people first “exchanged the truth of God for a lie,” which then led to this perverted behavior (Rom. 1:25)?

Why does Paul say that people resort to these vile passions when God has given them up (Rom. 1:26)?

Why does Paul say that these people conduct themselves so dishonorably because “they did not like to retain God in their knowledge” (Rom. 1:28)? Tell us, o impartial staff writer.

Why does Jude, the brother of Jesus, say that the people of Sodom and Gomorrah had “gone after strange flesh” and “are set forth an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire” (Jude 7)?

All of these verses (and others) are reasons that Christians oppose the sin of homosexuality. This in not prejudice; it is the Word of God. Those who think that Jesus is going to save people IN their sins instead of FROM their sins when they repent are only deluding themselves. Christians have not prejudged at all. We study the Word of God to see what it says. Nothing could be clearer than that God regards homosexuality a heinous sin. His attitude is set forth early in the Scriptures with the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19), which is cited in the New Testament. God has never changed His attitude toward this sin. He has not suddenly pronounced it acceptable, regardless of what newspaper columnists think.

Now why hammer this point home? The reason is that this homosexual church claims to be following Jesus, which is absurd. They are no more Christians than the perpetual adulterer, thief, or drunkard. Repentance is a key element of becoming a Christian.

John, who prepared the way for Jesus made this concept the heart of his preaching:

In those days John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of Judea, and saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!” (Matt. 3:1-2).

A few verses later he taught, “Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance” (Matt. 3:8). Everything he said had to do with people changing their sinful behavior.

When Jesus began to preach, His message was: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt. 4:17). Furthermore, “repentance and remission of sins” is the message that is to be preached to the whole world (Luke 24:47). Without repentance, a person can not be forgiven of sins, cannot become a Christian, and cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Some would erroneously conclude that we are saying that homosexuals cannot be forgiven of their sins. The Bible teaches that every sin can be forgiven–that men repent of.

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God (1 Cor. 6:9-11).

Homosexuals can be forgiven right along with thieves and drunkards. However, none of them will ever be forgiven unless they repent and give up the sins that are an offense to a holy God.

If the world were deciding on the salvation of any of these people, they would undoubtedly vote to admit into heaven all who participate in these various iniquities. Most people have never repented of their sins, yet they regard themselves as Christians and are sure that eternal life will not be denied them. The fallacy is in thinking that the standards and the requirements for heaven are determined by men rather than God.

“But what about the grace of God? Doesn’t God’s grace cause Him to overlook these things and accept us the way we are?” If God overlooks sin, then why did He send Jesus to die on the cross? If God overlooks sin, then why is there such an emphasis upon repentance? The fact is that many have misunderstood the grace of God. The grace of God teaches us to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts and to live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present age (Titus 2:11-12). Notice: we are to deny ungodliness, not defend it.

Those who advocate homosexuality are wrong, and it has nothing to do with prejudice; it has everything to do with the objective Word of God. A homosexual “minister” has already proclaimed to all, in effect: “I don’t believe the Scriptures on this point, and I will not repent of my sins. But let me teach you the will of God anyway.” People have no more obligation to listen to these “preachers” than they do to Jimmy Swaggart. They have disqualified themselves from leading God’s people or teaching God’s Word–until there is a willingness to give up the sin. All such are sacrilegious.

One of the homosexuals ordained by the Cathedral of Hope was quoted as saying:

I couldn’t find a straight church which wasn’t either dead in the water or preaching things I couldn’t stand. This church worships a God of love, joy, inclusiveness, and that’s a God I want to know (19A).

Two fallacies stand out. First, this person has made SELF the measure of all things. Notice, the complaint is not, “I couldn’t find any group teaching and following the Bible.” No, the criticism is that “I” couldn’t stand it. All of us have a responsibility to judge whether or not something is Biblical (Acts 17:11; 1 John 4:1), but we do not have the right to create Christianity in our own image. God is the one being worshipped; He has the right to determine what pleases Him. Whenever man usurps that role, he has departed from the authority of the Scriptures and exalted himself.

The second error is to portray God as inclusive in the sense that this article uses the term. God is inclusive in the sense that every race and nationality (both men and women) are all invited into the kingdom. But He is exclusive regarding those who refuse to repent.

Jesus did not make a plea for unity among the scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees, and others; all of those were welcomed into the kingdom–even tax collectors and harlots. The difference in who is accepted and who is rejected lies in one’s willingness to repent of sins. Jesus told the woman taken in adultery, “Go, and sin no more.” He did not set up an ordination ceremony for her and say, “This woman is a harlot. She can’t help it; she was born into a family that raised her that way, and it’s all she knows. If it weren’t for her harlotry, she could not have made a living all these years. My church is full of love, and we want to include everyone; so we’re ordaining her as a preacher. She’s still going to practice harlotry, and I want all of you to accept her. She is very courageous to want to preach now that you all know what she is. Give her all the support you can against all the people who are prejudiced against harlots.”

Of course, most people would see the incongruity of such a situation. Most people know that a practicing harlot could not effectively “minister” to people, but for some strange reason, people (even staff writers of newspapers) think that practicing homosexuals can. How far removed from the New Testament and the Spirit of Christ can one get! Heaven will not be populated by those who openly flaunt their sins and accuse others of being prejudiced. Many a once-sinful person will be there, but for love of God they repented of their sins. Former harlots and former homosexuals will be there, but there is one thing God will not forgive–the person who continues in his sin, defends it, and refuses to give it up.

Baptists and Women “Pastors”

Southern Baptists have done it again! Every year they manage to alienate someone in connection with their annual convention and foment a controversy in the religious community. The incredible thing is that they have brought all their current woes upon themselves just by affirming what the Bible teaches.

First, they came to the bodacious conclusion that homosexuality was wrong, a fact which surprised no student of the Scriptures but which shocked a society trying its best to follow the lead of the entertainment media. Then they had the audacity to say that wives were to be in subjection to their husbands (Eph. 5:22-24), which caused feminists to “roar.” Now they have drafted a statement in which they say that they will no longer ordain women as “pastors.” [It is a popular misconception in denominations that preachers are to be called pastors even though the two are never synonymous in the Scriptures (see “Why I Am Not a Pastor”).]

The point is, however, that they have finally come around to the Biblical truth that women are not granted roles of public leadership (see “The Role of Women in the Church”). Needless to say, all the feminists and their politically correct entourage have put on their war paint and have begun to attack already.

Who knows what the Baptists will affirm in future conventions? No doubt they could cause a controversy by affirming that Matthew 19:9 is true or that God punishes sin. And it would become a news item! Where else can a controversy erupt when people simply stand on what the Bible has always taught? As Yakoff Smirnoff would say, “What a country!”

According to a May 19th story in The Dallas Morning News, the new prohibition on women “pastors” is not yet in effect, but it will be presented at their annual convention on June 13-14th (where the resolutions passed this week). Dr. Paige Patterson explained; The Baptist Faith and Message statement is, above all else, a statement of that which is representative of most Southern Baptist thinking” (23A). Oddly enough, “the Faith and Message is not binding on individuals or churches,” although congregations can reject hiring a man if he does not believe these precepts (23A).

Actually, the Baptists have several recommendations for this year. Below in italics are the proposed changes with a few comments concerning each one (from page 26A of the same article already referenced). The Southern Baptists wish to declare that:

“the baptism of the Holy Spirit takes place at the moment a person accepts Christ–a rejection of some charismatic theology.” Are they equating “receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit” with “Holy Spirit baptism” (Acts 2:38)? Such cannot be, since baptism has nothing to do with salvation in their theology. Also, if they must tell their members when they were baptized in the Holy Spirit instead of their feeling or sensing it, would that not make salvation a better-told-than-felt experience? Hmm. This declaration may eventually cause more problems than the one currently receiving all the publicity. Charismatic Baptists will reject this notion on the basis of their (and their friends’) experiences. “salvation depends entirely on belief in Jesus.” If a person can be saved by “faith only,” then repenting of sins has nothing to do with salvation (Luke 13:3). Baptism also becomes irrelevant (1 Peter 3:21). And Peter’s answer to the multitudes on Pentecost, which combines repentance and baptism, becomes gibberish (Acts 2:38). None of these facts, however, ever disturbs Baptist theology.

“believers have a duty to ‘win the lost’ of all nations.” Why? Baptist theology is based on Calvinism, which asserts the false doctrine of “unconditional election.” If all individuals have been appointed to salvation from eternity (NO MATTER WHAT), then why should anyone be evangelistic and win the lost? God will save them REGARDLESS of what any person does, according to Calvinist theology. Baptists may as well stay home and rent a couple of videos and spend the money they would have given to “missions” on a bigger television screen.

“Christians oppose racism and ‘all forms of sexual immorality, including adultery, homosexuality and pornography.'” This one is certainly Biblical; surprisingly, it did not make the headlines.

“gender–the separateness of male and female–is ‘part of the goodness of God’s creation.'” This too is not news and is just a conclusion drawn from Genesis 1-2.

The Southern Baptists have a few dozen women “pastors” who would be allowed continue their works. While this is undoubtedly a gracious concession, it does bring to mind the question, “If it is wrong, according to the Scriptures, for women to ‘pastor’ churches, then shouldn’t those doing so ‘repent’ and cease doing that which is Biblically wrong?”

Society has made this issue one of culture. The controversy has not been decided theologically or as a matter of correct interpretation of the Scriptures. Certain leaders of our culture, anointed by the news media, have determined that women may exercise authority over men in religion. To them it does not matter what the Bible says; as in so many other things, all that matters is, “What saith our cultural icons?”

Since the Bible reveals clearly the doctrine of Christ on the role of women in the church, the only way to negate the teaching is to:

a. attack the one who upholds the truth.

b. attack Paul as either a woman-hater or uninspired.

c. attack the Scriptures in general (in which case male or female leadership becomes irrelevant). If the Bible is not inspired, none of its teachings can be regarded as authoritative, and no one need obey anything it says. Examples of each of these follow.

Wayne Coats wrote of the personal attacks even before this particular story made headlines. In the March 12th Newsletter from the Watauga Church of Christ, there appeared an article by brother Coats entitled “The Dilemma of the Denominational World.” He explains that the local congregation of which he is a member sends out 7,000 flyers each month into the community. One month the flyer concerned “women’s roles in religion, upholding the truth that God does not allow women preachers, etc.”

One reply was received from an individual who managed to incorporate two of the three usual dodges. The person acknowledged that the Bible was written by inspired men but then also claimed that “many of their own ideas were added–all the culture of the times.” Obviously, the person wants to have it both ways, but such a view hopelessly contradicts itself. If the Bible is inspired, its teachings do not reflect the culture of the day (though such customs may be incidental to various texts). If Bible doctrine consists of the culture insights of the time, then it cannot be inspired of God (unless the two coincide).

The Bible is either of God or of men. To suggest it is a mixture of both–with no means of determining which is which–is to invite criticism of any doctrine our popular culture currently rejects and to rob it of its effectiveness. Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians (Act 7:22), but the teachings he recorded came from God. So it is with all the writers of the Bible (2 Peter 1:20-21).

This same individual also informed brother Coats: “You are too ignorant and closed minded. Pray for enlightenment.” What does this suggestion amount to? Is brother Coats supposed to keep praying until he receives a special revelation from Heaven, saying: “I really didn’t mean what I said in 1 Timothy 2:12”?

Lain Teel from Waco got it right (except for the “pastors” part) in a letter to the editor of The Dallas Morning News (which they published on May 29th). 1 Timothy 2:12 was quoted and followed by these words:

I don’t claim to understand that, but I still don’t completely understand electricity, either. I just know if I violate its principles, it won’t work right, and it may even shock me….

The women pastors issue is just a diversion, a minor issue, intended as a further attack on the inerrancy of Scripture and its effectiveness in building a world view that will sustain us in all matters of our existence (28A).

Society does not agree with the Scriptures on the role of women, homosexuality, and a number of other issues. The question is, “Do Christians want to abide by the Bible–or by what men (and feminists) say?”

On May 22nd one of our families called to inform me that there was a discussion on this topic on a radio talk show. Unfortunately, I caught only about the last ten minutes, but it was enough to get the gist of what had occurred. Many of the opinions voiced were nothing more than what brother Coats would call “fermented ignorance.” I inferred that someone was sitting in for the usual host, and his name was Bob Ray or Ray Bob or Rob Bob–something along those lines.

The first caller said to stop him if he was wrong, but the host just kept agreeing with him. The following is a paraphrase of the conversation with brief comments in brackets: “The Bible was written in five different versions, right?” [Do you have any clue as to what you are talking about?] “And it was written down 60 years after Jesus died, right?” [No, Matthew, Mark, and Luke were written around 30 years after Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection. Only John’s was a little later, but since they were inspired of the Holy Spirit, it really doesn’t matter if it was 5 or 50 years.] “And then these teachings are from a guy who spoke in parables.” [Yes, Jesus often spoke in parables, but He also made some clear statements, such as: “Except you repent, you shall all likewise perish” (Luke 13:3). Also, the parables are explained so that we can understand them.]

The next caller affirmed, “You can’t judge who’s called to preach. How would you like to face God on the judgment and have Him tell you, ‘I called her to preach, but you told her she couldn’t’?” [Why would God call a woman to do that which He specifically forbids her to do?]

Julie in Frisco dared to speak up for the Scriptures. Although she used the “pastor” terminology, she quoted 1 Timothy 2:12. The host’s immediate response was, “But that’s what Paul said. He also said that it would be better for men not to get married.”

This is precisely the assault upon the Scriptures that many people make. Since Paul wrote the words that many despise, his credibility must be undermined. How can this charge be answered?

First, it should be noted that, when Paul gave his advice, he noted that it was not a commandment of the Lord (1 Cor. 7:25-36). He states clearly that it is a matter of judgment.

Second, when Paul gave his advice, he made clear that no one sinned by not following it (1 Cor. 7:36). Neither one of these cautions is found in 1 Timothy 2. In fact, in 1 Timothy 3:15 Paul says these things constitute correct behavior in the church. Men are designated for the position of leadership (1 Tim. 2:8).

Third, Paul said it as eloquently to the Corinthians as it could be expressed, and it needs to be repeated today: “If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord” (1 Cor. 14:37). The problem with Jim Bob or Ray Jay is that he fails to admit this fact. He wants to discount a clear Bible teaching because he does not agree with it. If Peter or John had taught it, he would likewise reject it. But to reject any Bible doctrine, which is plainly set forth, reveals a lack of submission and humility. He could not wait to get this woman off the phone.

The final caller divulged the following information. “I grew up Church of Christ. I left because they thought they were the only people going to heaven.” Then he made some point about accepting woman “pastors.”

It is unfortunate that when he was growing up that no one ever taught him that the Church of Christ is not a religious denomination. When people say, “I’m a Church of Christ,” they are speaking in denominational terms. It is appropriate to say, “I’m a member of the church of Christ” (or the Lord’s body or the church you read about in the New Testament). Neither are we Church of Christ Christians: we are Christians. The world and various denominations rejoice in subtle admissions that, despite our protests to the contrary, we really do believe we are a denomination (unauthorized, as they are). Let heretics use this terminology; faithful brethren need to use Biblical terminology.

I (and probably you) have never heard any preacher say, “We are the only ones going to heaven.” People draw that conclusion about us. Why? They conclude that because we teach what the New Testament teaches. We have invented no doctrine of our own; we simply stand by what God has revealed. It was Paul (not we) who said that there is one Gospel (Gal. 1:6-9). Now if there is but one legitimate Gospel, then those who obey it will be saved and those who reject it will be lost. Anyone ought to agree with that principle, regardless of what the one Gospel is (because it is a logical deduction).

We believe and teach the same Gospel that Jesus introduced (Mark 16:16) and that Peter preached on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38). It is not our fault if various religious groups (such as the Southern Baptists) have removed baptism from God’s means of salvation. But Truth is Truth. If they are right, we are condemned; if we are right, then they are yet outside the body of Christ–and lost.

Are we the only ones going to heaven? The Bible teaches that only those who trust AND obey are going to heaven (Heb. 5:8-9). It is not our task to pronounce judgment upon others; it is our responsibility to teach the Truth and encourage all to obey it. Each individual will be held accountable for his own conclusions.

Has Everyone Gone Wacko?

Has someone polluted the air with a toxin that induces insanity? Have terrorists poisoned our water supply with a chemical that causes people to advocate positions that contradict everything they have ever stood for? Within the past five years, some have adopted inane religious doctrines they once denied and deemed absurd. Whatever this new disease is, it has infected the Lord’s church.

But the examples presented as evidence for this thesis are from society at large. Anyone who watched the CBS miniseries, Jesus, would have been shocked to read Cal Thomas’ glowing review, “The Greatest Story Ever Broadcast,” which appeared on page 8A in the Denton Record-Chronicle on May 15th. Thomas praises the makers of this “epic” for making Jesus “a real man, laughing and cutting up with his disciples….” Apparently, he liked the scenes with Jesus splashing water on the disciples and snapping at them with a piece of cloth. He might have roared if Jesus had put a clothespin on his nose while washing the disciples’ feet. There is a difference between appropriate humor and silliness.

Next Thomas prejudices his case by categorizing those who would object to the doctrinal errors in the miniseries as “theological nitpickers,” who would “rather curse darkness than light candles.” This is a most peculiar statement coming from a man who has devoted himself to setting truth before the minds of the public. Can it be that he fails to recognize that truth is associated with light and error with darkness? A Jesus “who has doubts about Himself and his mission” is not the Jesus of the Scriptures.

Apparently, Thomas has no clue that John did not baptize people by pouring water on their heads, since the Scriptures teach us that John baptized “in Aenon near Salem, because there was much water there” (John 3:23). He is either unaware that baptism means immersion, or he does not care, which reveals (again) a poor attitude toward the Truth.

He liked the final temptation in the garden of Gethsemane, which does fall under artistic license and was a clever idea. But Thomas did not seem to notice that nothing about sin or redemption was included in the entire conversation. He also errs in writing that John recorded that “there were many other things Jesus said and did besides those recorded in the Book.” John wrote that there were many other things Jesus did. He did not say there were many other things Jesus taught. In other words, we have all of the teaching of the Lord (John 16:12-13; 2 Peter 1:3).

Thomas spends most of his article highlighting the film’s strengths, and it did possess some. The next attempt to portray Jesus on the screen could profit from some of the characterizations in this production. But, in an effort to show the human side of Jesus, He should not be made to look silly or in doubt concerning His mission. And, His mission ought to be the same one that God assigned Him–to save people from their sins. The closest this extravaganza got was in the scene when Jesus was tempted in the wilderness. Satan mocks Jesus by saying: “You and only you have the truth.” Now that would have been a theme worth developing. True, Jesus does die on the cross, but will viewers understand why?

In various locales PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) have put up billboards, which have on the left side of them someone’s pictorial portrayal of what Jesus looked like (replete with halo). Alongside it appear these words in the following format:

Show respect for God’s creatures–follow Him.

www.JesusVeg.com

Many people in various cities have protested these billboards because they are not true. One lady, who represents PETA, from Norfolk, Virginia, responded to some of these critics in The Dallas Morning News, published on May 8th.

In her first paragraph she encourages people to have compassion on “millions of God’s creatures” who “undergo horrors from birth until death.” She also advocates that people take the time to view PETA’s website (meatstinks.com).

In the first place, PETA’s name implies something that is not true. Ethics has to do with the “study of the general nature of morals and of the specific moral choices to be made by the individual in his relationship with others,” according to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (450). It is doubtful that anyone has ever tried to extend morals and ethics to include animals–until PETA came along. Certainly, animals have no morals or ethics toward one another. They exercise no morality toward human beings, either. Furthermore, they do not have a position equal to that of human beings. Animals do not have rights, privileges, ethics, or morals. Man was given dominion over them (Gen. 1:28).

Of course, animals may be abused and mistreated; the Scriptures do not condone this kind of behavior, either. “A righteous man regards the life of his animal, but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel” (Pr. 12:10). The emphasis here, however, is not on the animal’s “rights”; it is upon the cruelty of man. We have a responsibility to act appropriately toward all of God’s creation, which includes animals, vegetation, the environment, and natural resources. The reason, however, is not that any of those things listed have “rights”; the reason is that we must be wise stewards, because God has entrusted this earth to our care. Human beings are the ones we must treat ethically and morally. Such terms cannot be applied to animals. Otherwise, they could not be hunted, caught, killed, and used for food (which is apparently PETA’s goal in the first place).

The next paragraph in the article is devoted to a defense of the billboard’s allegation that Jesus was a vegetarian.

One of the greatest theologians of all time, Dr. Albert Schweitzer, author of Quest of the Historical Jesus, explained that Christianity descended from European philosophy, which balked at extending the principle of love to animals because it would mean such a great revolution for ethics.

“It would like to cling to a system of ethics which prescribes for man his behavior toward other men and toward society in clear, reasonable commandments without exaggerated demands,” wrote Dr. Schweitzer, an ethical vegetarian. So it’s easy to see how Jesus’ teachings regarding compassion for animals or vegetarianism would fade and be translated into oblivion (16A).

With all due respect to Dr. Schweitzer’s research and accomplishments, the fact is that the Bible does not teach vegetarianism, and European civilization has nothing to do with it. Perhaps he should have lived before the flood because afterward God authorized the eating of animal flesh.

“And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be on every beast of the earth, on every bird of the air, on all that move on the earth, and on all the fish of the sea. They are given into your hand. Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs” (Gen. 9:2-3).

Now this text is as old as any verse of Scripture in the Bible. It was translated from the Hebrew to the Greek about 275 B.C.–long before any European monarch ever thought of having a fox hunt. Someone is always making an allegation that certain individuals kept certain doctrines out of the Scriptures. Anyone who has studied the history of the Bible (or is familiar with the numerous manuscripts and other writings) knows that such allegations are absurd.

The concluding sentence of this letter to the editor states: “Although no one has proof positive that Jesus was or was not a vegetarian, we think that Jesus would agree today that it’s a fine idea.” First, this “Senior Writer” for PETA has admitted that she does not know whether or not Jesus was a vegetarian. So why have they put up these billboards which affirm that He was one? How can the organization advertise nationwide what its Senior Writer acknowledges is unknowable?

Second, the New Testament corroborates the fact that animals can be used for food. In Acts 10 Peter saw all manner of animals in a vision; he was commanded to kill and eat (Acts 10:11-13). The Jews had not been allowed to eat certain meats, but now God had cleansed them all; they are fit for man’s consumption of them.

Third, Jesus was Jewish. We know that He never sinned (1 Peter 2:22); thus, He must have always observed the Passover feast. In fact, He did so on the night He was betrayed. He told His disciples: “With fervent desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer” (Luke 22:15). Of what did the Passover meal consist? The main course was a lamb without blemish, which could be taken from sheep or goats (Ex. 12:5). It was to be killed at twilight and its flesh eaten on that night (Ex. 12:6, 8). Jesus could not be both an obedient Jew and a vegetarian.

Fourth, Jesus obviously approved of His disciples’ practice of eating fish–even after His resurrection. They brought some of the fish they had caught (at His suggestion) to Him. John 21:13 says: “Jesus then came and took the bread and gave it to them, and likewise the fish.”

The claims of PETA are false. Jesus ate meat Himself and encouraged others to do likewise. If Jesus really meant anything to this group, they would honor the Truth that He taught (John 8:31-32). They should also be aware of whose company they are keeping when they speak and advertise that which is a lie (John 8:44).

In this “age of toleration” we discover that some are not. Recently, according to the Denton Record-Chronicle (May 19th), a group called Campus Crusade for Christ mailed out 400,000 videotapes about the life of Jesus to residents of Palm Beach County (6B). “The Orlando-based group spent $1.2 million on the project.”

Of course, some are not going to want these materials. In America it is not unusual to receive unsolicited advertisements in the mail or unsolicited calls over the telephone. Homeowners are constantly contacted by telemarketers to see if they need vinyl siding, their yard sprayed with chemicals, or their long distance service changed. In the mail Americans probably receive two or three “opportunities” a week for a new credit card. Insurance companies want residents to check with their company before they renew their policies.

The point is that we receive all manner of “junk” mail, and we usually just throw it away. But in Palm Beach County, the Jews are upset about these Jesus videos. Of course, the easiest thing to do would be to pitch them in the garbage or find a way to tape over them and make good use out of it. But apparently they were offended mightily.

“We’ve never had as many people call or as many returns in the 22 years I’ve worked here,” Cecile Sasso of the U. S. Postal Service in West Palm Beach said.

They called the post office? Why? If someone pays for postage to have something delivered to a person’s house, is it now the post office’s job to decide what might offend someone? One wonders if the Jewish residents would have been as offended if they had all received a copy of Playboy?

Some residents–many of them Jewish–were so angry about the unsolicited mailing that they bundled bricks with the tapes to increase the return shipping charge, said Rabbi Stephen Pinsky of Wellington’s Temple Beth Rorah.

What a mature response! We presume that the Jews in the community expect people to act tolerantly toward them; is this the example they set? It sounds as though Palm Beach County could use a huge dose of graciousness. Most people receive unsolicited religious materials frequently. Various groups go through neighborhoods passing out literature; sometimes information comes through the mail. Most of us just discard it if we are not interested. How sad that some go wacko!

The highest court of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) ruled this week that the denomination’s constitution does not prevent ministers from blessing same-sex unions so long as it is clear that the ceremony is in no way comparable to a traditional marriage between a man and a woman (The Dallas Morning News, May 27th, p. 6G).

What kind of gobbledegook is this? Two homosexuals can enter into a “same sex union,” but it will not be referred to as marriage? This is the height of absurdity. What it amounts to is this: people will use whatever terminology on the “same-sex union” license that the Presbyterian Church desires, but everyone involved will still call it a wedding.

Decisions such as this one (although perhaps not so looney) can be expected from various religious denominations who make no pretense of following the Scriptures anyway. They allow women “pastors” and female elders; they have their own constitution and apparently their own court system–none of which is authorized or found in the New Testament. Of course, for that matter, neither is the Presbyterian Church.

Decisions such as this one serve to highlight the folly of man-made religious laws. When “Christians” depart from the New Testament to build their own structures, they should not then be surprised when rules are made that violate the Word of God. The very first premise of denominationalism–that we need something besides the New Testament–leads eventually to a point like this one. Men will rewrite the rules on divorce and remarriage, homosexuality, sexual promiscuity, drinking, gambling, and anything else they fancy. This decision proves it (if any evidence were needed).

Jesus: Miniseries-Maxi-Errors

Most of us gave up a long time ago expecting to find any semblance of ACCURACY about the life of Christ when it comes through America’s entertainment media. The recent CBS miniseries proved to be as errant as any ever produced. In fact, compared to it, the clay-mation version aired just a few weeks previously was flawless. (The producers of that version took a little artistic license, but over all it was quite well done.)

In this version Jesus and Mary, the sister of Lazarus, flirt with each other even though the claim is made that they are blood relatives. Joseph says to Jesus: “Mary loves you. Why do you treat her as though her feelings are nothing?” Then he asks Jesus if He loves her, to which he replies, “Yes.” How was this idea deduced, since the Scriptures do not teach it? But this conjecture is a mild departure compared to what follows.

When Joseph dies, Jesus is naturally grieved, but none of us would have ever imagined the following conversation that he purportedly has with THE Father. In the miniseries, Jesus is portrayed as saying: “Now, when I’m in most need, you take him from me. I’ve never been without him. You can give him back to me. You can do it now. Give him back to me NOW…. Raise him.” Would Jesus have really made such a demand?

Next we find John out in a shallow stream that is apparently supposed to be the Jordan River. He is preaching, and a man comes to be baptized of him. John says: “Your baptism signifies that your commitment has already been made–to hate injustice and fight the battle of the righteous ones. I baptize you with water for repentance.” The person kneels down; John cups his hands, scoops up some water, and pours it on his head! Who wrote this script–John Calvin?

One does not need to be a brilliant historian to know that baptism is immersion in the New Testament. Most of those today who advocate sprinkling and pouring in place of immersion have always acknowledged this fact. Anyone who has ever read that Philip and the eunuch both went down into the water and came up out of it would know better (Acts 8:35-39). Such a Biblical blunder is INEXCUSABLE! To blatantly disregard historical facts, as well as New Testament doctrine, reveals impure motives on the part of all who had a part in this production. It is obvious that the gospel is not safe in their hands; they lose their credibility from the outset.

Furthermore, where in the New Testament did John, Jesus, and any apostle or evangelist ever say that baptism signified a commitment that had already been made? Baptism is never regarded as a sign of something that has already occurred (such as salvation). People came to be baptized “for the remission of sins.”

And what is this nonsense about hating injustice and fighting the battle of the righteous ones? What scriptwriter made up that one? Neither John nor Jesus came to encourage people to fight injustice. Otherwise they would have formed an army and fought the Romans. The Day of Judgment is the time for justice. Baptism involves salvation from sin and forgiveness–words that either were never included in this miniseries or else were left lying on the cutting room floor.

Jesus joins John around a campfire and asks John if he will baptize him. Not only is this conversation hypothetical; it turns ludicrous. John answers: “If you confess your sins and dedicate your life to God, of course.” Jesus does not reply, “John, I have no sins.” Nothing further is said. Is this silence intended to convey to the viewer that Jesus was a man like everyone else who had sins He needed to be forgiven of? While we may not be sure in this instance, there is a later situation that reflects poorly on His Deity.

It involves the Syro-Phoenician woman who pleaded with Jesus to heal her daughter. He refused at first and told it was not fitting to feed the dogs when the children were hungry. She answers that even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from the children’s table. Jesus says that her faith is great. Afterward, the disciples complain that he had helped a Gentile. Jesus replies: “This woman has taught me that my message is for Gentiles, too. If I can learn it, so can you.” Whoa! This was not a learning experience for the Lord (see Luke 4:16-30). He was not in doubt about who He was or what His mission was. Comments like these are tantamount to saying Jesus was not the Divine Son of God.

Furthermore, they contradict the way they portrayed Jesus in the temptation. At first the devil appears to Jesus in the form of a woman dressed in red. She tells him, “You must give up every privilege. You must be like them in every way–as fragile, alone, and little as they are. Are you willing to feel as men feel, Jesus, without the protection of the Father? Only in this way can we challenge one another.” Shortly thereafter she adds: “Welcome to life, Jesus. If you are flesh and blood, you can be tempted.” These allegations imply that Jesus had somehow been protected by the Father from being tempted all throughout his life. Now, however, in the wilderness, Jesus must give up that protection and face temptation like a normal human being.

This notion is preposterous! Jesus came as God in the flesh (John 1:14). The idea that He was somehow protected and only subject to temptation after His baptism is not even remotely Biblical. If He did have such protection prior to His baptism, then He certainly would have had no sins to confess (as suggested previously). The viewer should be thoroughly confused by now concerning the Lord’s identity.

At the wedding in Cana of Galilee, when the wine is depleted, Mary asks Jesus to do something about it. He says, “My hour is not yet come,” but she responds with a firm, “It is time.” Imagine that! Mary knew better than Jesus concerning the time for Him to begin working miracles. She knew He could do so, however, because as a child He healed a dead bird that His playmates had killed. How odd that Mary knows it is time for Jesus to begin His ministry when she does not even know what it requires His eventual death!

This production wanted desperately to show Jesus as a human being. Too desperately. First of all, they show Jesus dancing at the wedding. Then when He is introduced as the Messiah, He is skimming stones across the water, enjoying Himself as though he were five years old. On another festive occasion, Jesus and the disciples are thirsty and approach a rather large fountain-like well. After a taste of water, Jesus begins splashing the other disciples, and they splash him back. On another occasion he takes a long scarf-like object that encircles his neck and extends almost to the ground, and starts snapping one of his disciples, who tries snapping him back and then chases him around the other disciples. Showing the human side of Jesus is one thing; portraying him as a goofy prankster is another.

A few other inaccuracies include:

John saying: “One who comes after me will cleanse with fire.” The producers are obviously ignorant (as are most Pentecostals) of the context of the baptism of fire (Matt. 3:10-12). It involves judgment, not cleansing.

When soldiers come to execute John, he says: “I forgive you. I will live again in the kingdom of heaven.” Stephen was as gracious as the Lord in forgiving his murderers, but apparently John started this trend, and Bible students have not known it all these centuries.

Mary Magdalene identifies herself as a prostitute. Mary, the mother of Jesus, takes an immediate liking to her and tells her: “I don’t judge. I’ve been judged.”

Jesus does not bless the bread or the cup prior to giving it to His disciples.

Instead of the disciples asking, “Is it I?” when Jesus says that one of them will betray him, they all respond, “Not I, Lord.”

Judas betrays Jesus because he refuses to lead a rebellion against Rome.

Barabbas smites Jesus on both cheeks before he is taken prisoner for fighting against Rome.

Pilate really wants to get rid of Jesus. He cannot wait to put him to death. All of his protests of Jesus’ innocence are to make a good showing before the people.

Apparently, the following comment was intended to be humorous. Jesus is brought before Pilate and they meet for the first time. After a brief hesitation, Pilate regards him and says: “Jesus of Nazareth, you have an interesting face.” Of course, Jesus is portrayed with the now customary long hair when in all probability his hair was no longer than any other man’s. Also, Isaiah writes that he has no great beauty that men should be impressed by him (53:2).

The final confrontation between Christ and Satan is more realistic than the blasphemous The Last Temptation of Christ, but it is still not Biblical. After Jesus has prayed in the garden of Gethsemane and Judas is on his way with the soldiers, Satan confronts Jesus again. The Lord has already told his disciples, concerning the crucifixion: “I must face it as a man to fulfil my pledge,” whatever that means.

Satan comes to Jesus in the form of a man and tells him that His death will be in vain. This was a very interesting and imaginative part of the film; we do not deny that such a temptation could have occurred, but notice how the dialogue mentions nothing concerning salvation from sin–at the very time it should have.

Satan shows Jesus scenes from the Crusades a thousand years in the future. Soldiers are riding into battle, killing their enemies and saying that they are acting upon the name of Jesus of Nazareth. Satan’s point is that His death will not make any difference in the world. People will still fight–some in the name of the Lord.

Jesus: He gives them the choice of doing good or evil.

Satan: And this [the war in the background, gws] is what they choose. Hah, hah, hah.

Jesus: Yes.

Satan: You can stop it. Come down off that cross they have waiting for you. Why die in agony when you can take control? Make the earth a paradise. End poverty and hunger and war. You can do it. It’s within your power right now.

Jesus: No, I cannot.

Satan: Oh, yes, you can.

Jesus: It’s not God’s will.

Satan: It’s not God’s will to end a war? What kind of God is that?

Jesus: One who loves mankind so much that He gives them freedom of choice. He has not created them so He can be their dictator.

Satan: Jesus, you don’t even have to bow down to me. I’m not asking you that. Just call to the Father and have Him deliver you. Tell Him you don’t want this. He won’t make you go through this. You know He won’t. Just wave your hand, and you’ll be home safe. Do it. Now. You know that what I showed you is true. You are going to die in vain. You don’t know the plan. I do. I’ve seen it. Nothing changes. They don’t have the capacity to love that you want them to. This will never happen…. Don’t die in vain. Don’t die alone.

Jesus: I will die for the everlasting kindness of the human heart created by the Father so that man will make His image shine once again. And those who want to will find in me the strength to love unto the end.

The fictional strategy assigned to Satan here is excellent. It is not beyond the scope of possibility that he tried to convince Jesus that His death would be in vain and that nothing would change as a result of it. Telling Him that He could create paradise on earth is certainly something Jesus had within His power to create–even though it would have to be by force and not willingly.

But the emphasis on love misses the point of redemption. Of course, the cross demonstrates God’s love (John 3:16). The cross likewise demonstrates the love of Jesus (Rom. 5:8). It is also true that we love because He first loved us (1 John 4:19) and that we are commanded to love one another as Jesus loved us.

But man’s capacity to love has always been present. In every age men have either loved or hated God. Jesus did not die that men might love again (the Crusades do demonstrate that fact). Jesus did not die so that we would find the strength to love until the end. He died to redeem us from sin, to pay the price that was due for our transgressions. Yet, not a word about man’s redemption or the need for forgiveness was uttered.

A good script would have made a powerful point. Jesus might have responded to Satan’s charges this way: “You are right, Satan, that men will still sin. They will fight in wars; they will hate one another. They will kill one another. They will be motivated by greed, power, and fame. They will harden their hearts against God and against Me; they will care nothing for what I am about to do. Have I not already said that the majority of people will follow you to destruction?

But they will all be spiritually lost for eternity if I do not endure the cross. There are some that refuse to follow you despite all your enticements. There is no way that these can ever be set free without my atoning death, which will not be in vain. You are a liar and a murderer from the beginning. You care nothing about me, and you care nothing about mankind or you would not strive so earnestly to see them damned.

Even now you are trying to tempt me so that they will remain lost in their sins. But you have lost the battle; I have made up My mind. I will endure the cross and die for them that they might be saved. Whoever wills to leave your kingdom of darkness may repent of their sins, be baptized for the forgiveness of their sins, and enter into my kingdom of light. You shall be utterly defeated, and they shall be victorious through Me. Behold, I embrace the cross, and those who desire life will have it. They shall overcome you through My blood.” Now THAT scenario might have made an impact.

Rubel’s Reasoning: “What Makes Us Who We Are” (Part 3)

Part 5 of Rubel’s series of seven sermons is titled “A Cappella Music.” By now the reader can probably guess what he will say–something to the effect of how beautiful a cappella music is, that we should never change it, but of course we can not judge those who use accompaniment or call it a sin. That would be a good guess; in fact, Shelly approaches the subject in the following way.

“One of the things that makes us who we are,” he begins, “is our distinctive musical heritage and practice” (delivered July 11, 1999). This sentence simply builds upon his false view of the church (as expressed earlier). Shelly does not consider that today’s churches of Christ are the church of the New Testament. He speaks as if we are a denomination begun in the 1800s, sprouting from “the American Restoration Movement.” He thinks we ought to preserve this “heritage.” His views have nothing to do with Truth or error.

Shelly correctly defines the term a cappella as Latin for “in the style of the church.” He further admits that the “New Testament and early Christian history reveal a practice of unaccompanied vocal praise to God in the church’s worship.” So! Our “distinctive musical heritage” dates back to the New Testament? Then it did not originate with the “American Restoration Movement.” We do what we do because of what the New Testament teaches–not because of what somebody in the 1800s thought up. Shelly has hopelessly contradicted himself. But he quickly gets over his flirtation with Truth to immediately condemn church members for passing “harsh judgment on people with a different practice” (those who use unauthorized instruments).

Shelly, as was predicted earlier, states: “There is no explicit instruction that either requires or excludes musical instruments in the church’s worship.” Oh. Would not the logical conclusion be, then, that we can either use it or not use it? Yes, but Shelly and the elders at Woodmont Hills refuse to do so. On what basis, then, is such a decision made? He will defend a cappella music (and the exclusion of instrumental music) on two grounds: 1) it is “part of our heritage”; 2) instrumental music “would be divisive and therefore wrong….”

The first reason is nonsense. Perhaps Shelly has a religious heritage to crystallize and preserve, but true Christians could never have a view that solidifies doctrine (whether right or wrong) into some sort of permanent catechism. We must always be open to different concepts and interpretations of Scripture. What we teach must always be subject to evaluation and scrutiny in light of the New Testament. If instrumental music in worship is acceptable to God, then we would be wrong to forbid its use. It does not matter if we have opposed it for 200 or 1800 years. If the New Testament advocates or authorizes its use in any way, then we must cease our opposition, for we are in error.

The second reason contains a valid point within a certain context–if something is a matter of indifference. We used this argument 100 years ago–to no avail. Christians told their brethren, “If instrumental music is a matter of indifference to you, then please don’t introduce it; it will divide us.” Such pleas were met with a collective yawn, and a division was forced upon those who could not conscientiously use it.

The operative word in that instance, however, was if. We never said that it was a matter of indifference; we only argued that if it were a matter of indifference to those who wanted instruments in worship, they should forego their “rights.” But Shelly declares that instrumental music is a matter of indifference. Despite the fact that neither Jesus nor the apostles ever used instruments of music and the fact that the church did not use them (he gives quotations to that effect), nevertheless HE, Rubel Shelly, has decided that using instruments is a matter of indifference. God did not authorize them, but Shelly knows that their use is all right.

Shelly amazes us by his recognition that Hebrews 7:14 is still in his New Testament. Of course, he will not apply the principle properly, but at least he knows it is there. He knows that God authorized the Levites to be priests. That specification excluded all coordinate options–namely, the other 11 brothers. This is an argument the Holy Spirit made, which Shelly cannot explicitly deny. So he tries to get around it by arguing that the silence of the Scriptures, besides being prohibitive, is also concessive. Shelly’s postmodernism surfaces here. Most people who are not as educated as Dr. Shelly would scratch their heads and say, “If Biblical silence both prohibits and allows, then that’s contradictory.” Contradictions, however, don’t matter to postmodernists–only to those interested in Truth.

His “example” of silence’s concessiveness is the rise of the synagogues. God did not specifically authorize them, yet Jesus and the apostles did not condemn them; they actually took advantage of the system. Unfortunately, Shelly does not see (or more likely, hopes that the reader will not see) that this situation is not at all parallel with the example given us by the Holy Spirit. In God’s example of the proper use of silence, one brother of twelve was specified for a particular work (priesthood), which meant that the other eleven had no permission to do so. When the synagogue concept arose, it did not violate anything else that God specified. In fact, it was in harmony with God’s goals; it furthered spirituality. God’s people always had the liberty to do right. Gospel meetings and lectureships are not specifically commanded, but they violate no other principle God has given and further His interests. They are ways of preaching and edifying. Shelly’s example of synagogues proves nothing against Hebrews 7:14. He knows that there are many types of music and that God specifies only singing (with words that edify), which excludes all coordinate forms of music. This is the correct application of the argument from silence.

Rubel resorts next to “the core gospel” heresy. Echoing Carroll Osburn, he writes: “Jesus didn’t die over our interpretations of eschatology, congregational government, or church music.”

Notice what Rubel is willing to say are matters of indifference: eschatology (therefore he can fellowship premillennialists although their doctrine is dead wrong at best and dangerous at worst), congregational government (the “pastor” system not taught in the New Testament is acceptable to Shelly), or church music. So affirms Rubel. Then he provides three essentials so that we will all know what is important to God: John 3:16; Acts 2:36; Romans 5:8-9. What arrogance! God put John 3:1-15 and John 3:17-21:25 in the New Testament, but Rubel knows that only John 3:16 is important! Only one verse out of the entire book of Acts is crucial, and that verse tells us Jesus has been made both Lord and Christ; it does not tell us how to respond properly to that fact. Although Acts 2:38 was vital to those on Pentecost who did what Peter said (Acts 2:41), Rubel does not think God is passionate about the means of becoming a Christian. Only two verses from the entire book of Romans are important, and apparently anything from there on in the New Testament is irrelevant. God is not passionate about what He inspired Paul to write in Ephesians or Philippians. How fortunate this era is to have Shelly to boil down and condense the entire New Testament for us. No doubt we should let him do our studying for us too and enlighten us as he sees fit..

Shelly says Jesus didn’t die over church music. While it is true that Jesus came to die for our sins on the cross, He also came “to bear witness to the truth” (John 18:36). Part of the Truth He revealed is that “true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth” (John 4:23). If true worship does not matter, then Shelly is right in saying church music is irrelevant.

Paul thought that eschatology was important. He taught the facts of the matter (1 Thess. 4:13-17); then he corrected misconceptions concerning the second coming (2 Thess. 2); finally he said that the eschatological error of Hymenaeus and Philetus was overthrowing the faith of some (2 Tim. 2:17-18).

The New Testament authorizes one and only one form of church government–elders and deacons in local congregations with no hierarchy beyond that (1 Timothy 3; Titus 1); how dare any man change that Divine pattern? And how dare Shelly defend those unauthorized changes? What is the point of God teaching us anything if men like Shelly can come along and say, “Well God says X, but Y sounds just as good to me”?

Shelly also defends the use of instrumental music OUTSIDE the assembly:

…”Cowboy Dan” and his guitar teach Bible lessons to our children. Adult and teen devos occasionally use instrumental tracks, guitars, or other instruments…. These practices are in no way inconsistent with our commitment to a cappella music in worship.

Inconsistency comes easily to postmodernists.

This sixth lesson was delivered on July 18, 1999. One wonders why Shelly devoted an entire lesson to church organization as it is defined in the New Testament, since it is a matter of indifference anyway. Jesus did not die on the cross for “congregational government,” according to Shelly. Does the man belie himself? Does he realize that the Christians on Pentecost “continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine” after all (Acts 2:42)? Or is this simply evidence of more contradictions within the man?

Most of our objections to this lesson lie with what Shelly did not say. He does not define what he means by churches or demonstrate how New Testament churches differ from denominations. The pre-postmodern Rubel would have done so; the modern Rubel observes the passover. He is careful to offend no one–except the Lord and His church.

Shelly concludes this series with a look at another subject area for which Jesus did not die: eschatology (July 25, 1999). He first advises all to be content with the fact that Christ is coming–no matter when it is. He is right, but he overlooks the fact that people get excited about setting dates. Those who advocate that the signs of the Bible are being fulfilled in our lifetime and that His return is immanent are the ones generating all the enthusiasm. Who has had a best-seller with the title of Jesus Is Coming–Sometime?

Second, Shelly sets forth three views of the second coming: the Scriptural one and two that are erroneous. But Shelly is quick to add that, although he believes the truth, he certainly will not defend it.

I’m not willing to fight any brother or sister over my reading of the end-time texts. I confess I’m not particularly passionate about the topic simply because I don’t think anybody’s salvation depends on a particular interpretation of the second coming….

What a contrast between Paul and Rubel! The apostle seemed eager to have people know the truth concerning the second coming (1 Thess. 4:13-17; 2 Thess 2). Undoubtedly, those on Pentecost learned the truth of the matter, also, as they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine. How then can matters of Divinely revealed doctrine turn into matters of indifference? Is the Bible presented with this attitude: “Here is what God says on this subject, but it doesn’t really matter”? Where in the Scriptures is it taught that some doctrines are essential but others are peripheral? What passage says, “Here is the truth, but the truth doesn’t really matter”? Did Jesus not teach that true freedom comes from continuing in His Word (Truth)?

In the early 1970s Rubel Shelly published the book whose title heads this section (there is no publication date listed). Notice then what he said about instrumental music:

To play mechanical instruments of music in Christian worship is to go beyond what Scripture authorizes and to commit sin. This is no mere matter of opinion or inconsequential difference of interpretation, for what is at stake is not so much the presence or absence of a piano in a church building but the far more fundamental matter of the authority of the Word of God. If Biblical authority can be set aside with regard to this issue, why must it be respected in any other?

Yes, instrumental music in worship is sinful and serves as a valid test of Christian fellowship (64).

Does anyone doubt that Shelly has changed his teaching? He is now well-reversed in the Scriptures. Whereas now he teaches unity despite truth, he once wrote: “Only if there is truth in the realm of religious considerations–truth which can be both learned and obeyed–can there ever be real unity” (21).

Shelly once correctly affirmed: “Liberal false teachers hold that men cannot learn the truth, that we can never be sure we are right about anything” (24). But these sentiments were made before he was taught political correctness at Vanderbilt University. Shelly also said: “Error is not the means to salvation” (28). Now he says, “Error doesn’t matter.”

There was a time when Shelly could not fellowship spiritually those in error. He wrote that Christian fellowship must be withheld from those “who believe that Jesus is the Son of God but who have not been Scripturally baptized” and from “those who are members of denominational religious bodies” (56). Now he fellowships both categories.

This review of Shelly’s series has contained a few zingers as well as the evidence needed to make its case. Some do not enjoy this tactic, but the writer figures that if Elijah could mock the prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18), a lesser man should be allowed to use some small doses of ridicule to show the folly of Shelly’s evolving heresies. He has not been misrepresented, however. He once knew, preached, and wrote the truth on these various matters; now he propagates error and false doctrine, leading many astray in the process.

We cannot apologize for opposing Shelly and doing so vigorously. And if he should find fault with such, he has only himself to blame, for we took him at his word, when he wrote: “But false teachers must be exposed for both their own sakes and for the sake of the church at large” (89).

Rubel’s Reasoning: “What Makes Us Who We Are” (Part 2)

The third of Rubel Shelly’s seven lessons in this series, “Adult Immersion,” was delivered on June 20, 1999. It begins with a lengthy testimonial about Rubel baptizing a woman who had come to realize the destructive role that sin had played in her life. He read Romans 6 to the woman and baptized her in a lake, emphasizing the burial aspects of the passage. He says he “immersed her in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of her sins.” “How marvelous!” some are undoubtedly thinking. “Rubel still teaches the truth regarding salvation.”

Does he? He continues: “One of the things that makes us who we are is our affirmation of the importance of water baptism to the salvation process.” He also affirms that, when people ask what they should do, he answers “the same way Peter and the other apostles answered it on the day of Pentecost,” citing Acts 2:38. [Will he give that same answer when the Woodmont Hills congregation works with the Billy Graham Crusade? When people come forward and ask what they should do, will Rubel be allowed to give that answer?] Rubel writes: “I don’t want to say less than he [Peter, gws] said or more than he said.” [Will Billy Graham allow him to reply in that manner to those who respond to Graham’s “preaching”?]

Thus far Shelly has taught what the New Testament teaches concerning the role of baptism in salvation. However, he then makes statements that belie the essentiality of baptism in the process of salvation. First, he affirms that he has “no fear of damnation from a merciful God” with respect to the proverbial penitent who “dies on the way to the baptistery.” Shelly, apparently, is more confident than the rest of us regarding someone whom the blood of Christ has never cleansed. We are not arguing that it is within our jurisdiction to make this judgment, either (since all judgment is God’s), but we do wonder, “How can people be saved when the blood of Christ has not washed away their sins?” We would all mourn the loss of such a person in that situation, and we would all like to think that his intentions saved him; but we do not have the right to make that decision for God and depart from His Word because we are overcome by emotion. If Shelly really believes in the essentiality of baptism, how can he make the judgment that there is even one exception (and if one, then how many more?) to God’s process of salvation?

Shelly also refers to baptism “as the rite of initiation into the Christian community.” From what Scripture does this doctrine originate? What apostle or evangelist ever referred to baptism as a rite of initiation? Shelly may have obtained this “terminology” from denominational theologians, but he did not obtain it from the New Testament.

“So what would I say to people who were not immersed but who had water sprinkled or poured on their heads as infants?” Shelly asks of himself. After all, since he is advocating that people be immersed, it is natural to wonder about those who claim to be Christians who were not immersed. Rubel “recommends” that people make their own “personal, adult commitment to Jesus Christ in believer’s baptism….” Now who could argue against such “wisdom”? Who would not be quick to follow this suggestion?

Shelly has presented his material on baptism in such a way as to offend no one either in or out of the church. The word slick comes to mind. Following are some questions he could have answered but did not deal with.

1. Is the individual who has never been baptized saved anyway, if he calls God his Father and believes that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God?

2. Is the individual who was “sprinkled” as a child and refuses to be baptized by immersion lost?

3. Although Rubel likes to say what Peter did in Acts 2:38, what about the doctrine of salvation that Billy Graham and countless others teach? Are they wrong? Do they preach a false “gospel”?

4. Can we fellowship spiritually those who teach a false “gospel” (such as saying the so-called “sinner’s prayer”)?

5. Can we fellowship spiritually those who have been taught that they were saved from their sins even though they have never been baptized?

Shelly did not give a definitive answer on these points. His actions, however, speak for themselves. He meets with and worships with those who have never been baptized for the remission of their sins. In other words, his actions do not conform to his high-sounding speech.

One other thing should be noted. In times past he has excluded “for the remission of sins” as the purpose for baptism. In the 1984 Joplin Unity meeting, this writer was present to hear the report that Rubel Shelly’s group offered the entire assembly. They took it upon themselves to define who is a Christian. Although baptism was included in their final definition, “for the remission of sins” was not. In the Harding Graduate School of Religion Workshop on Grace in 1994, Shelly once more affirmed that baptism is essential to salvation. Once more he did not include “for the remission of sins.”

In this sermon presentation, he does include the phrase, but he does not mean it. No one who understands that baptism must be by immersion and for the remission of sins could fellowship Presbyterians, Episcopalians, or Billy Graham. Shelly only affirms baptism in his public speaking. In practice, he fellowships as “Christians” all who claim to be such–regardless of whether or not they have been immersed.

Rubel Shelly cannot, of course, be held responsible for the statement made by the Oak Hills Church of Christ in San Antonio, for whom Max Lucado speaks. There is a lot of agreement between them, however.

Concerning one who died before being baptized, for example, Oak Hills’ reply is similar to Shelly’s: “Would a God of love reject an honest heart? Would a God of mercy and kindness condemn any seeking soul? Absolutely not.” The elders at Oak Hills are confident, as is Shelly, that God can save honest, sincere people apart from the blood of Christ. Of course, if He can make this exception to what He teaches in the New Testament, then perhaps He can make other allowances (for people who just cannot see that baptism is necessary?).

Notice the two responses offered to those baptized as infants.

Shelly: “I would encourage you to be thankful that your parents cared enough about you to pledge you to Christ and dedicate your life to him as an infant.”

Oak Hills: “First, you should be grateful that you had parents who cared enough about you to set you apart for God.” [By the way, Oak Hills believes that it “is appropriate to dedicate a baby.” “On a regular basis we offer parents of newborns an opportunity to come forward with their children for prayer and consecration. But these are dedication ceremonies, not baptisms.”]

Oak Hills also refers to communion and baptism as “two God-ordained sacraments.” For all their emphasis on what the Bible teaches, where do Oak Hills and Rubel Shelly come up with terminology such as sacraments and rites? These words come courtesy of the Roman Catholic Church and religious denominations begun by men rather than the New Testament.

The Oak Hills’ elders go further than Shelly in their statement. In answer to the question, “Does it matter where I was baptized?” they say:

No. If you were baptized in a Baptist church or Pentecostal camp or in the lake at a family reunion, that doesn’t matter. What is important is that you knew that you were a sinner and Jesus was your Savior.

Obviously, according to their teaching, one does not need to comprehend that he is lost and that Jesus will save him through His blood in this act of obedience. He needs only to understand that he is a sinner and that Jesus is a Savior at the time of baptism; the two concepts need not be connected! Such a position might explain why Max fellowships Baptists and Pentecostals, but it provides no clue for the basis of fellowshipping those who have not been immersed.

Coincidentally, Shelly’s fourth topic (delivered on June 27th, 1999) concerns that second “sacrament”–“Weekly Communion.” Shelly knows (the reader knows not how) that using leavened bread for the Lord’s body is acceptable, as well as alcoholic wine. He writes:

There are so many things about the Lord’s Supper that are “accidental,” that don’t really matter. Use wine or grape juice. Let the bread be unleavened or pieces from an ordinary loaf. Serve the bread first, or the wine. Use a single container of wine, or distribute the fruit of the vine in individual cups. Have separate prayers for the two elements, or have one prayer and pass both simultaneously. Have the worshipers come to the bread and wine, or distribute the elements among the worshipers. I have participated in communion in all these ways–without ever feeling “cheated” of its content or meaning. Details such as these are not of the essence of the event.

There are several questions that come to mind. Could not Shelly have just as blithely said: “Use grape juice or apple” or “Use wine or soda pop”? What would be the difference with this line of reasoning? Imagine Moses saying, “Use unleavened or leavened bread; it really does not matter!” How does Shelly know that all the details he pooh-poohs are insignificant? He is certain because he never felt cheated. Ooh! That should convince us all. How do we know that having only one prayer is acceptable to God when every account mentions one prayer for the bread and another for the fruit of the vine? Shelly feels that such a practice is all right. Apparently, all Christendom should substitute Shelly’s feelings for Biblical authority!

But Shelly gives up just about everything he once believed on the Lord’s Supper. He now argues that no one has “the right to restrict its observance to Sunday and to say that its celebration on another day of the week is sinful.” “No one” apparently includes the Lord Himself and the Holy Spirit Who inspired the Word and provided us with principles of interpretation. We might paraphrase Hebrews 7:14 and say that concerning the other days of the week the New Testament speaks nothing (in regard to observing the Lord’s death). It is true that Jesus showed the disciples the way to observe His death on a Thursday evening, but the church has always practiced this memorial ONLY on the first day of the week, which constitutes a Biblical precedent, Shelly’s feelings notwithstanding.

Concerning weekly remembrance of the Lord’s death, Shelly asks:

Again, however, one is hard pressed to make a case that one sins by monthly or quarterly observance of this communion rather than weekly participation. Where is the biblical precedent for such a judgment?

The man has lost his rationality. Imagine an Israelite arguing with Moses: “Well, sure, God commanded us to keep the Sabbath day, and historically we have done so every week, but one is hard pressed to make a case that one sins by monthly or quarterly observance of the Sabbath day.” Shelly’s insipid question is the same as saying, “God does not really care how often we remember the death of Jesus. He really had nothing in particular in mind.” Why not do it once every decade, then? What Biblical precedent would allow us to condemn such a practice?

It is sad indeed to see a man give up the truths that he once knew. Shelly, however, also inspires anger with his compromise of the Truth and his adoption of denominational practices. He closes his lecture on “weekly communion” by saying that, since we do observe the Lord’s Supper each week (even though it would not be a sin to omit it), we try to keep the observance fresh. One of the ways he has of keeping the Lord’s Supper fresh is to have the congregation participate in a responsive reading. There is a leader who says some words, and then the church responds by saying such things as:

This practice continues for two pages of his manuscript. The church closes its portion of the reading by asking God to strengthen them to bear faithful witness to our Savior, by both word and deed. Bear faithful witness? Shelly does not explain how Christians can be witnesses to Jesus.

But then neither does he give the origin of responsive readings. Having grown up outside the church, this author knows (as do many others) that this custom is part and parcel of denominationalism! Never have we ever visited a church of Christ that engaged in such a practice. It smacks of ritualism, vain repetition, and formalism–although it is possible that Shelly feels it is the meaningful thing to do.

One more point should be mentioned. How many times in the New Testament does the Holy Spirit refer to the contents of the cup as wine? The answer is: “Not once.” Although the word wine is used many times in the New Testament by both Jesus and others, it never once is used to refer to the blood of Jesus. The phrase fruit of the vine was chosen by the Holy Spirit.

Yet in the first four pages of Shelly’s presentation on “Weekly Communion” he uses the word wine to refer the fruit of the vine nine times. The phrase bread and wine appears four times. And when the “leader” is reciting his words concerning this event, he says, “After supper he took the cup of wine.” What translation was used for that statement? Even the NIV did not dare mistranslate that one so flagrantly. In all of the New Testament there are ZERO references to the contents of the cup as WINE, but in four pages of Shelly’s “sermon” there are TEN. Why?

Rubel’s Reasoning: “What Makes Us Who We Are”

[Editor’s note: A few months ago a member from an area congregation recommended that I read and comment upon a series of seven sermons by Rubel Shelly. It has taken awhile, but following is our review of those messages.]

The first of the seven sermons in Rubel Shelly’s series, “What Makes Us Who We Are,” is titled “A View of Scripture” (presented June 6, 1999). The first page or so contains a delightful affirmation that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. The reader rejoices to see the integrity of the Scriptures upheld, but then Shelly throws away everything he has painstakingly established.

That the reader may unquestionably see what he does, we first want to mention the former approach that he took with respect to the Scriptures when he published in 1975 the book, What Shall We Do With the Bible? The bulk of this book is devoted to proving that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. Having accomplished his purpose, Shelly then drew some conclusions. Among other things he wrote that “the Bible is our only hope for religious unity” (128). He correctly pointed out that all men need the same standard of authority–namely the Word of God rather than traditions of the past, the teachings of learned men, or their own feelings about things (128). In similar words he affirmed, “The true guide in religion is the Word of God!” (128) and “The Bible is a reliable guide. In fact, it is the only reliable guide and standard of authority for our age and every age” (129). All of these statements presume that: 1) all people can comprehend the Scriptures, and 2) all of us can understand the Bible alike.

No man who has access to a copy of the Bible can plead ignorance of God’s will! The Scriptures leave one without excuse! God has revealed and communicated his divinely-ordained requirements for salvation through the written Word. Woe to the person who refuses to take the time and expend the necessary energy to learn and obey them. To turn one’s back on the Bible is to turn away from the God who authored it (130-31).

So said Shelly in 1975. He spent over 100 pages demonstrating that the Bible is the inspired Word of God and then concluded that we can all understand it and are responsible to it. The 1999 Shelly begins the same way. He establishes the inspiration of the Scriptures, but he draws an exactly opposite conclusion:

At that point, with a certified Scripture in hand, the process called inspiration ends. Contrary to the haughty and patronizing attitude some interpreters exhibit, their efforts at interpreting the Bible are not on a level with the original documents. They are not incontestable, as our historic failure to see the Bible alike demonstrates. We don’t and won’t see the Bible alike on many subjects because of our psychological wirings, diverse life experiences, and personal predispositions. The limitations of our ability as students–coupled with the personal blinders and cultural baggage we bring to the interpretive task–caution us to exhibit great humility with our conclusions.

Surely the reader can see the dramatic shift in viewpoints that Shelly has undergone. Whereas he once knew that we can understand the Bible, now he is defending a multitude of different interpretations!

Not everyone may realize what he is espousing in the paragraph cited, but this writer obtained his Master’s degree under professors who taught decon-structionism. This literary theory is reflected by Shelly. Below the two ideas are contrasted.

In years past students of literature would be taught from this perspective: “What did the author intend to say?” Whether students were studying drama, short stories, novels, or poetry, the text was considered an objective thing. The writer gave clues, and the reader’s task was to figure out what he intended to say. Of course, a writer could be intentionally ambiguous, but (barring that approach) there was a specific point being communicated and a specific point to be grasped.

But that approach to literature is now passe. It does not matter what thought the writer intended to convey; all that matters is what the reader gets out of it. We all have our own psychological wirings, our own diverse life experiences, our own preconceptions, our own cultural baggage that we bring with us to the text. We cannot be expected to understand an author alike; we can all interpret the text differently and be correct–it’s a beautiful thing.

Shelly has now applied deconstructionism to the Biblical text. We cannot be expected to see the Bible alike because of all these factors; therefore, we cannot bind our “interpretations” upon others. In other words, the Biblical text has no objective meaning; its meaning depends on what any individual thinks he sees in it. Apparently, Shelly learned his “new hermeneutics” at Vanderbilt University.

In effect, Shelly is arguing that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, but nobody can know with any degree of certainty what these inspired Words mean. How different from what the apostle Paul wrote:

How that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I wrote before in a few words, by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) (Eph. 3:3-4).

Paul did not ramble on and on about how some of them might not understand what he wrote because of their psychological wirings, diverse life experiences, personal predispositions, personal blinders, and cultural baggage. If Jews and Gentiles could both be in one body (which is the mystery to which Paul refers) and both could understand this message, it is possible for all to do likewise, since there could be no more culturally diverse groups with different cultural baggage.

Shelly is simply defending the existence of denominationalism. The very fact, however, that many have come out of denominations shows that the Truth is still more powerful than preconceived notions we may have been taught previously. Perhaps unwittingly, he is Exhibit A against his own teaching, because he has departed from the truths he was taught (and which he also once taught). People can and do change; no one is locked in to a set of beliefs–except by choice.

Shelly further states: “And we want to encourage mutual respect among people who exercise their right to personal study and draw conclusions different from mine or yours.” Why not instead encourage people to come to a knowledge of the truth (John 8:31-32)? Although on some difficult texts in the Scriptures such a view may be advisable, Shelly applies the statement to what the Bible teaches on salvation and on what constitutes correct worship. Although he teaches immersion (lesson #3), he fellowships as Christians those who have never been immersed. He can do so because we all have our own “personal blinders.” So, those who have never been immersed have simply drawn different conclusions from ours.

In this “sermon” (presented Jun 13, 1999) Shelly tries to convince us that we owe our existence to the American Restoration Movement. He writes:

Churches of Christ…arose from a nineteenth-century phenomenon called the American Restoration Movement. Against a naivete that says our identity derives directly from the New Testament without influence from post-biblical events, the truth of the matter is that we are necessarily conditioned by them.

Mr. Shelly notwithstanding, the churches of Christ arose in the New Testament (Rom. 16:16). Can he prove that there was ever a time that churches of Christ did not exist? Certainly, historical records are skimpy, but Shelly is well aware that many churches of Christ were in existence before the 19th century. Perhaps he can tell us who invented the phrase, American Restoration Movement? The idea of returning to the New Testament as our authority was popularized by Luther several centuries earlier. Some may have never departed from the concept. We are not ignorant of the historical accounts of religious developments (as he accuses), but we also recognize that we do not have complete historical accounts of everything that occurred.

If we are all influenced and “necessarily conditioned” by “post-Biblical events,” then how is it that Shelly rose above his conditioning? And how is it that some of us who were “conditioned” by denominationalism have departed from it? Furthermore, neither we nor Shelly ever studied the Bible with someone and began by saying, “We’d like you to learn the creed of the American Restoration Movement. We want you to learn what Campbell thought and Stone taught.” Shelly knows that the churches of Christ have always asked people, “What does the Bible say?”

Shelly next discusses many mottoes that the “American Restoration Movement” has used. Two of the five this writer had never heard. The first of these is “union in truth.” Union would probably do in this case because the basis for it would be Truth, but “unity in truth” would still be preferable; this latter expression is Biblical, since it echoes 1 Corinthians 1:10. The second unfamiliar motto was “We are free to differ but not to divide.” This sounds like a noble sentiment, and it is somewhat alliterative, but places togetherness above Truth, which the Scriptures do not do.

Of the three mottoes that were familiar, two of them are Biblical. “Where the Scriptures speak, we speak; where the Scriptures are silent, we are silent.” This idea recognizes that the Scriptures teach that we must have authority for what we teach and do; if a certain practice is not authorized, then we should not engage in it (Col. 3:17). The second is: “In matters of faith, unity; in matters of opinion, liberty; in all things, love.” This motto reflects New Testament teaching (1 Cor. 1:10; Rom. 14; 1 Cor. 13:4-7).

The final motto is: “We are Christians only, but not the only Christians.” This saying may help reduce the number of attacks made against us and foster good relations with others, but it is not accurate. Only those who obey the Gospel as taught in the New Testament are Christians. Anyone can call himself one; the question is, “Has he done what the Lord Jesus taught?” To say that those who have never been baptized for the forgiveness of their sins (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38) are somehow Christians anyway is to say that there is more than one way to become a child of God, which denies the teaching of 1 Corinthians 12:13–and a host of other passages.

Shelly has concluded that it is arrogance for the “Church of Christ” to emphasize its “exclusive position” as the body of Christ. Perhaps he should define his terms better and explain what he means. Does he mean, for example, that the Presbyterian Church (one with whom he has fellowship) is a valid entity, when it was begun by men and not by God? Is he implying through his plea to recognize history that the “Church of Christ” is a denomination? If so, he is refusing to recognize the principle of restoration.

When Hezekiah and Josiah effected reforms and cast idols out of the land, were they starting a new nation–or restoring what God had given in the first place? They returned to the teachings of Moses which had been the only appropriate pattern to follow before apostasy had prevailed. When we return to the Bible and are governed by the principles and teachings of the New Testament, why are we therefore a new denomination instead of the restored church which Jesus built? Shelly’s view of the church has become so perverted he cannot tell the true church from man-made ones.

“Finally, it is not the commitment of my life to be a Restorationist but simply a Christian.” Shelly did not need to tell us that he is not committed to restoration; we had already figured that one out. The problem is that he fails to see that a Christian is a restorationist.

Think about the meaning of that statement. One who is not committed to being a restorationist is not committed to Truth, the authority of Christ, or correct worship (has not Shelly correctly labeled himself, since he ignores all of these?). Can anyone honestly imagine Hezekiah or Josiah saying, “We are not committed to restoration; we’re just committed to being Israelites”? How silly such a position is!

When God gave the law to Israel through Moses, He said: “You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take anything from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you” (Deut. 4:2). If that admonition is not a charge to be a lifelong restorationist, what is? One must continually examine things to be sure they are, in fact, what God has revealed and requires of His people. Similarly, Joshua was told: “Only be strong and very courageous, that you may observe to do according to all the law which Moses My servant commanded you; do not turn from it to the right hand or to the left, that you may prosper wherever you go” (Joshua 1:7). Any time one realizes there has been a departure from God’s ways, the correct path must immediately be restored.

In the New Testament Paul tells Timothy: “Take heed to yourself and to the doctrine. Continue in them, for in doing this you will save both yourself and those who hear you” (1 Tim. 4:16). We all have a commitment to be restorationists–if we expect to be saved. It simply means that we are concerned about what God has revealed to us. We want to practice pure Christianity rather than some weak or watered-down version of it. Therefore, we have a commitment to Truth. It is not an approximation of Truth which sets us free (John 8:31-32); it is Truth itself.

Likewise, a restorationist has a commitment to doing what God has authorized (Col. 3:17), rather than doing what he or she feels like doing or what is popular. Without this precept we would be likely to add handclapping to singing or substitute choruses and solos for congregational singing or even add instrumental music–all of which Shelly fellowships. He speaks the truth when he says he is not committed to restoration.

The sad thing is that hundreds probably heard Shelly deliver these lessons and thought he made sense. In these first two “sermons” Shelly has demonstrated that he has no respect for Truth. He admits that the Bible sets it forth, but then inconsistently says we cannot all be expected to understand it alike–nor be committed to restoring it, if we depart from it. Of what use is it?

Letters to Editors

In the past few months we have sent some letters to editors on various subjects. The one reprinted below was published in The Dallas Morning News.

Editor,

Regarding Jim Borgman’s January 2nd editorial cartoon: he undoubtedly thought he was very clever in the cartoon captioned, “If We Taught Driver’s Ed the Way We Teach Sex Ed.” Students are being told, “Don’t drive. That’s all you need to know. Don’t even think about driving.” Well, of course they think about it, but young people must wait until they are 16, have the proper training, and can pass the appropriate tests.

When they are 14, we tell them they are not old enough to get behind the wheel and drive. Although they may have sufficient knowledge and ability at that age, it is not lawful to do so until they have a license. The state has objective standards that qualify young people for this privilege.

Likewise, today’s 14-year-olds may have the knowledge and equipment to express themselves sexually, but it is not lawful for them to do so until marriage. God has an objective standard that qualifies young people for this privilege. No, we are not suggesting laws regarding sexual behavior; we are just pointing out that it is appropriate to teach young people to wait until the right time.

[This next one was recently sent to a monthly magazine; they indicated that they would publish it in their May issue; however, there was no guarantee. It answers an attack made upon the Scriptures (a practice becoming quite commonplace these days).]

Elliott Lesser’s assertion (“Biblical Roots,” April) concerning the genealogies of Christ that there is no proof that “Luke’s version pertained to Mary and Matthew to Joseph’s” is false. First of all, it is presumptuous and perhaps arrogant to think that Christians throughout the first century were not as clever as Mr. Lesser and that no one therefore noticed the differences in the list of names. Did it never occur to him that the followers of Jesus had a satisfactory explanation for the differences?

But beyond insulting the intelligence of believers who lived far closer than the critic to the time of both the establishment of Christianity and the recording of this information by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (John 16:12-13), the fact is that both genealogies fit the purpose of their authors. Matthew wrote to a Jewish audience concerning their prophesied king and His kingdom; he would naturally refer to Joseph’s descent through the kings of Israel and Judah. Luke emphasized the humanity of Jesus in his gospel account of the Lord’s earthly life; so what could be more appropriate than to trace Jesus’ human parentage from His mother back to Adam, the first human being?

Concerning Luke 3:23 the text states that it was supposed that Jesus was the son of Joseph; then it continues by calling Jesus “the son of Heli.” In genealogies the word translated “son” can also mean “grandson.” There is no contradiction here. Furthermore, the Jewish Talmud mentions that “Mary the mother of Jesus was called the daughter of Heli.”

Although Mr. Lesser assures us that reconciliation of the two accounts is futile, it did not prove to be that difficult; a minimal amount of research was sufficient. Perhaps he would profit from Paul’s admonition not “to give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which cause disputes rather than godly edification which is in faith (1 Tim. 1:4, NKJ).”