The Denton Record-Chronicle, on the last day of last year published an article by three ministers in Argyle in which they set forth what they believed to be a Biblical way in which to deal with the sin of homosexuality. Although the men were both cautious and kind, apparently no one can possess even a tolerant attitude toward sin these days-at least, not this one. Three responses to their article-none of them kind in return-vaulted into the editor’s office and were published.
What did the three men say to warrant the subsequent attacks leveled at them? These are their words: “The Bible teaches that when it comes to homosexuality, or any other sin, redemption–not acceptance, not violence, and not hatred–should be our response.” Now most people probably think such a statement is well-reasoned and balanced. First of all, it did not isolate homosexuality as the only sin–or even the worst sin. Their statement acknowledges that there are other sins in society today. Second, they clearly stated that the individuals who practice homosexuality should not be hated or treated violently. How much fairer treatment could someone want?
Apparently, the hostility was generated by the sentiment that homosexuality cannot be accepted, either. The men presented it as a sin of which people must repent and from which they need redemption. What a radical idea! How dare someone call a sin a sin and suggest that its practice should cease! Yet John preached precisely that message (Matt. 3:2). Jesus also proclaimed repentance (Matt. 4:17; Luke 13:3). Paul told Gentiles, in his oft-quoted sermon on Mars Hill:
“Truly these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead” (Acts 17:30-31).
People do not like to be told they sin. John was beheaded; Jesus was crucified. Paul was constantly opposed and eventually put to death. Frequently, those with the most sin are most likely to cast the first stone-and the second one.
A guest column, reeking with vitriol, was published in the paper on January 21st. The author of it, Philip Young, owns a retirement and estate planning firm here in Denton. He begins with a personal attack against the three ministers, saying that if they “preach sermons that are as cloudy in language and content as their guest column…they shouldn’t be surprised if thinking members of their congregations fall asleep while they are speaking!” (all references are on page 8A). He went on to complain that he could not determine what they meant, but it is obvious that he did indeed understand their position. Young, who studied Hebrew and Greek at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, continues:
The article had nothing of any practical value to say, but merely spewed forth prejudice, ignorance, and intolerance toward those outside that God-ordained norm of the traditional family with which the authors feel comfortable. It showed no recognition of variance in God’s creation, and totally ignored the issue at hand: how the Church (not God) should relate to homosexuals.
The disturbing thing here is not that people might disagree on a certain topic, but that they would demonize their opposition. Young’s assessment that these men “spewed forth prejudice, ignorance, and intolerance” is simply not the case. They were very cautious in the way they expressed themselves; they tried diligently not to be offensive. This man stands guilty of what he charges against others.
The fact that people are uncomfortable with the practice of homosexuality is irrelevant. Would that Christians would be uncomfortable with all sin! The three men did not argue against the practice on that basis, but rather a Biblical one. What does Young mean when he says that they failed to recognize “variance in God’s creation”? Is he implying that God created homosexuals? If so, it is easy to see why he left this point in the realm of implication-since he could offer no evidence of it whatsoever!
The author of the guest column proceeds to tell the three men how they should have written their column-if only they had his wisdom. Again he resorts to personal assaults upon their character:
Instead, we are given nothing but a bunch of well-worn, familiar platitudes about how God views homosexuality. (And I’m sure that all three of these preachers have discussed the issue personally with Him, and therefore couldn’t possibly be misinterpreting anything in the Bible).
Sooner or later, it just had to worm its way into the discussion, did it not? If the Scriptures do not agree with a certain position, and reason and logic do not help the cause, then everything becomes a matter of interpretation. That copout is so old we are surprised that Eve did not use it to reply to God after she ate the fruit. “Well, yes, you said not to eat of the fruit of that particular tree, but my interpretation is different.” At least Eve was wise enough not to use that old dodge.
The title of Young’s column is “Gay-Bashing Preachers Exposed.” He may or may not have chosen that title himself (since editors reserve the right to make up their own), but certainly the writer would not have opposed such words, since he eventually gets around to calling the ministers bigots. He closes his guest column with these thoughtful words:
Perhaps it would be more honest if each of these preachers hung a sign on the door of his church: “Let no homosexual pass this threshold on pain of hellfire!” And while they are in the process of maintaining the purity of their congregation, according to their personal interpretations of the Bible (there it is again, gws), they should also eliminate the adulterers, the liars, the gluttons, the implacable, the unmerciful, etc. from their midst. That way they can keep themselves undefiled, and pray with the Pharisee: “I thank Thee that I am not as this homosexual! I only exercise in a Christian Life Center; I send my children to a Christian School; I only dine with Christian couples; I buy all of my cars from Christian car salesman; and I would never dream of going to a gay hairdresser, or eating in a restaurant which employs a gay chef-let alone inviting practicing homosexuals into my church, as that apostate Jerry Falwell did!
He concludes with the Pharisee praying for Jesus to come quickly “and destroy all the homosexuals with fire and brimstone, as you did the Sodomites. Amen.” Although Mr. Young does echo Jesus’ warning against self-righteousness, one cannot help but wonder if his motivation in doing so is the same as the Lord’s or if he just chooses to put everyone into that category who disagrees with him.
He also makes a valid point about Christians avoiding the practice of being isolationists; we are to be in the world but not of the world. But by and large his accusations are excessive. Christians are called to holiness (1 Thess. 4:7); are they to be blamed for teaching people to become godly-to repent of lying, adultery, and homosexuality? Would he prefer that preachers tell their congregations, “Hey! We all sin. Sin is cool”? Perhaps a discourse with the following title would please Mr. Young: “We All Sin; So Let’s Not Condemn Anybody Else For Any Wrongdoing.” 1 Corinthians refutes that notion; a more selfish, off the mark, group of Christians could scarcely be found anywhere; yet Paul told them to withdraw from the brother that was practicing immorality (1 Cor. 5).
This column screamed for a reply, but I did not think I could answer it in the conventional way, as we have done so here, by showing the fallacies of the argumentation every step of the way. Newspapers generally do not like to publish a response to a response. They usually think that enough has been said on the topic for a while, and they want to move on to other subjects. Also, I was once forbidden to write anything further on the subject of homosexuality (actually, I could write volumes if I wished, but they will not publish any of it).
Instead, I tried a humorous approach, covering much of the criticism towards Christians expressed in the guest column. But what should the person be called who corresponded to Mr. Young? Young, or a variation of it, would be too obvious. Looking at the column again (particularly the last paragraph, it struck me how bitterness seem to permeate everything that was written. Also noticeable was how the author just seemed to rant and rave continuously. He was a bitter raver, but to use Bitteraver, as Dickens would have done for one of his characters, would still be too obvious; so he became Bittaravah. Such is the background of the following article, which the Denton Record-Chronicle published on the Religion page on January 28th, with the title, “Sinful Behavior Not Open to Interpretation” (10A).
Someone once said that no good deed ever goes unpunished. Consider Moses who was commissioned to stand before Pharaoh and on Jehovah’s behalf demand, “Let My people go” (Exodus 5:2). Not only did the Pharaoh hold him in contempt; his own people complained against him. Even after Moses, through the power of God, delivered them out of Egyptian bondage, they continued to murmur and complain for years in the wilderness.
Bible students are familiar with the rebellions of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram (Numbers 16), who challenged Moses’ leadership, but few are familiar with the apocryphal account of the Israelite known as Bittaravah, a rather wild, lustful, and (at times) incoherent fellow who frequently grumbled against Moses. All the way to Sinai Bittaravah bickered with Moses about the standard of morality that Moses was promoting; it seems he objected to teaching against adultery. “That’s just your opinion,” he would argue. “There’s nothing written in stone.”
Then came the day when God spoke the ten commandments from Mount Sinai (Exodus 20:1-17). After Bittaravah recovered from the awesome sights and sounds of that day, it occurred to him that God had said, “You shall not commit adultery” and “You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife” (Exodus 20:14, 17). He went to Moses to ask what those words meant. Moses replied that the meaning was obvious-that a man was not allowed to desire another man’s wife or sleep with her.
Bittaravah chided Moses for such a literal “interpretation” of those words and said that it was no wonder that half of the “thinking” Israelites fell asleep when he addressed them publicly. He reminded Moses that, above all else, God is love, and that he had not heard anything about love anywhere in the list of ten commandments. “I’m willing to stand behind you on ones like, ‘You shall not steal,’ because I’m planning to go into business, and that has some practical value. But why do you have to concern yourself with what a person does in his private life?”
Shortly thereafter Moses went up on the mount to receive the ten commandments. Bittaravah was one of the leaders (although his name is not mentioned) who helped coerce Aaron into making the golden calf (Exodus 32:1). He was among those who led the way in the lascivious behavior that followed (v. 6). He was indeed very happy until Moses came down from the mount.
Before Moses reached the camp, Bittaravah (who had been watching for his return) met him and asked to see the tablets of stone. When he saw that the seventh commandment was still on there, he pleaded with Moses not to give the people a bunch of well-worn familiar platitudes about how God views adultery. “Next thing you know,” he told Moses, “You’ll be putting to death these worshippers of the golden calf,” which is precisely what happened (v. 27).
Of course, we live in different times. Christianity is not a theocracy; we have no authority (nor do we want it) to put people to death for violating God’s commandments. In fact, when we call people to repentance, often we are the ones who are attacked. God calls all of us to repentance from what the Scriptures define as sin, but His attitude toward it remains the same: sin will be punished. Shall we take heart and repent, or punish those who have done a good deed in warning us?
Before concluding the review with a quick look at a variety of matters, the reader might wish to know more about the author of the above tract. The following information was provided by Dave Miller in his chapter, “Significant Debates,” from the 1993 Spiritual Sword lectureship book, The Restoration: The Winds of Change:
A second debate held by N. B. Hardeman which merits mention is the one held in Little Rock, Arkansas, April 19-22, 1938, with Ben M. Bogard, prominent Baptist debater. Hardeman was president of Freed-Hardeman College at the time and his moderator was E. R. Harper. Harper was preaching at the time in Little Rock and had engineered the debate. In addition to an audience of between 1,000 and 2,000 people in attendance at each session, this debate was broadcast over Little Rock radio stations. Some 200 gospel preachers and 40 Baptist ministers were present. Four propositions were discussed: the work of the Holy Spirit in conversion, the necessity of baptism, the establishment of the church, and the possibility of apostasy.
Will Slater was present and called the debate “the greatest victory for truth I have ever witnessed” (78-79).
It is unfortunate that the current publishers of Bogard’s old tract did not leave the original date on it, for then we might have known for certain whether or not he published it out of vindictiveness for having come in second in a two-man debate or whether he was just permanently angry toward those with differing views. A few examples of this attitude are found in his reasons #12 and #43.
The first of these states: “Campbellites everywhere have a contemptible grin that nobody else in the world has” (18). What kind of subjective bias is this? The liberals accuse us of being joyless legalists, but Bogard insists that members of the Lord’s church grin too much. As the philosopher Ricky Nelson once observed, “You can’t please everyone.”
Bogard accuses us of having a bad spirit: “They are contentious, nagging, strife-breeding” (34). Hey, we never said we were perfect, but at least we can deal with issues instead of resorting to name-calling and personal attacks. Christians in the first century were accused of turning “the world upside down” (Acts 17:6); they were a sect “spoken against everywhere” (Acts 28:22). We do try to refrain from ad hominem attacks on those who oppose us, however; we also do not intentionally misrepresent people, as Bogard does us.
He writes, for example, as his 29th point: “Campbellism denies that anybody was saved before the death of Christ” (28). Of course people were saved before the death of Christ–in view of the sacrifice to come–because Jesus was slain from the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8, a verse cited also by Bogard), but no one is saved apart from the blood of Christ. Perhaps the publishers of this tract would like to affirm that Abraham, Moses, and David were saved before and without the shedding of Christ’s blood. Bogard does not understand the distinction we make on this subject.
Bogard’s 35th “reason” is: “Campbellism teaches that leaving off baptism is the sin against the Holy Ghost.” He quotes no source; it is another instance of his telling us what we believe and then condemning us for it. He writes rather crudely: “But, says the Campbellite, God won’t forgive you for leaving off baptism, you must be dipped or be damned. Then it is the sin against the Holy Ghost” (31). In the first place, who has ever taught that failing to be baptized is the sin against the Holy Ghost? Failing to be baptized is to fail to take advantage of redemption. God made it the final act of obtaining salvation (initially), following one’s repentance (Acts 2:38). The Lord linked baptism with faith (as previously discussed). Although it is always a sin to disobey a command of the Lord’s (which baptism is), no one is specifically condemned for that one failure, but rather because of all his sins.
Suppose someone is bitten by a poisonous snake. A Careflight helicopter takes him to a hospital where the antidote can be administered that will save his life. But maybe he is a Pentecostal or a Christian Scientist and refuses to take the medicine, insisting that his faith in God will be sufficient to save him. He dies, but his refusal to avail himself of the remedy did not kill him; the snake’s venom killed him. Likewise, all mankind is afflicted with the poison of sin. If they refuse to avail themselves of the remedy, they die; sin condemns them–that and their foolishness in resisting the antidote for sin, which is the blood of Christ, which washes away sins in baptism. Bogard is like the man attacked by the poisonous viper; he thinks that “faith alone” will save him–apart from the application of the remedy.
In his 40th “reason” Bogard affirms that “there is no repentance at all in the Campbellite system” (33). He contradicts himself on this one. He takes us to task for using Acts 2:38 with respect to salvation (remember his calling attention to the change in person and voice in point 50?). Peter’s answer begins with the word, “Repent”; but then he says we do not teach repentance. Which is it, Mr. Bogard? He knows well that we teach repentance; this effort can be nothing but a deliberate attempt to malign us, just as he erroneously and persistently refers to us as “Campbellites.”
Even most Baptists would be astounded to read Bogard’s 60th criticism of us: “Campbellism and Mormonism are twins” (43). He says that the two groups hold “substantially the same doctrines.” Oh, please! We do not recognize that Smith’s “plates” are legitimate or that the Mormons have “another testament of Jesus Christ.” We recognize that the New Testament is a complete and sufficient revelation (2 Peter 1:3). Thus we reject all of the Mormon writings, just as Baptists do, and Bogard knew it. Making this charge was foolish, but the reasons he cites for it only make him look worse.
1. Both believe the church so far apostatized, or died out, that it needed to be restored. One believes that Campbell restored it and the other that Joseph Smith restored it (43).
Does Bogard not think that the church apostatized? Does he not believe Acts 20:30, 2 Thessalonians 2, and 2 Timothy 3:1-5, which foretold that it would? If he does not believe it apostatized, then why is he not a Catholic? Why does he not proclaim allegiance to the pope, for the papacy was established by the corrupt and apostate church, which Jesus established?
Bogard makes the mistake of believing his own propaganda. He has insisted so often that Alexander Campbell is our founder that he actually believes that we think so, too– that we claim that Campbell restored the church. Certainly, that was Campbell’s goal, but others long before him possessed the same aim. Besides, there is a vast difference in calling people back to the truths taught in the New Testament and “discovering plates” with supposedly crucial information no one has possessed for 1800 years.
His 2nd point is that both groups “claim all outside their church will be lost” (44). Our claim is a Scriptural one. All who are outside the church for whom Jesus died will be lost, since Jesus is the Savior of the body (Eph. 5:23). We are doing are best to be certain that we are that church; we also call everyone else to do that which the New Testament teaches. But since, he has brought up the subject, we turn the question back to Bogard and the publishers of his tract: Does one need to be a member of the Baptist Church in order to be saved? If the answer is yes, he stands condemned by his own logic; if it is no, the next question will be, “Then why be a Baptist?” If Jesus has died for the Baptist Church, it would be essential that we all be Baptists. Apparently, then, Jesus did not die for the Baptist Church; so no one needs to be a part of it.
His 3rd point is that both the Mormons and we “claim that nobody receives the Holy Spirit until after baptism” (44). Is there a valid point here? We and the Baptists believe that Jesus is the Son of God, that we must all have faith in God, that baptism must be by immersion, and that without submitting ourselves to Jesus, we will die in our sins (John 8:24). Does that make us twins? Then we must be triplets, since it is the case that, if A = C and B = C, then of necessity A = B. Bogard’s own “logic” has made Baptists equal to both us and the Mormons, but his argumentation is full of fallacies.
The reader has been shown the ridicule and the attempts to purposely misrepresent us. It was a shame for Bogard to have written these things; it is even more shameful that Bogard Press continues to publish the jaundiced views of Mr. Bogard. Not only do they publish them, but they put this tract right by the checkout counter in their Baptist bookstore with a sign saying (if not verbatim, at least to this effect): “Things That All Baptists Should Know.” The honorable thing to do would be to bury this tract–with all of its misinformation.
In the space remaining, we will look briefly at a few other points. “86. Campbellism teaches that the doctrine preached by Baptists, that it is impossible to fall from grace, encourages licentiousness” (54). “Campbellism” does not teach that idea; reality does. What else can be expected? Tell someone that the feeling he had was evidence of personal salvation and that he cannot henceforth be lost no matter what he does, and some people will figure out that they can be “as nasty as they wanna be” and still be saved. If there is any teaching that could be described as a damnable doctrine, “once saved, always saved” is it. Furthermore, there is no false doctrine more widely refuted in the New Testament than this one (Heb. 2:1-4; James 5:19-20; and a host of other passages).
24. The Campbellite Church demands that the Lord’s Supper be observed every first day of the week when there is not a verse in the Bible that teaches such a practice.
There is one passage (Acts 20) that says the disciples met one time on the first day of the week to break bread. That is the only place where it says they met to partake of the Supper on the first day of the week and there is no hint that they did it every Lord’s day. Our Saviour instituted the Supper in the middle of the week, three days before the first day of the week… There is as much Scripture for partaking of the Supper on Thursday as on Sunday (25-26).
Perhaps it struck the reader as humorous that Bogard says “there is not a verse in the Bible” to substantiate the practice and then admits that there “is one passage.” Following are some facts that the Bible student might notice about that one passage.
First, Paul was “hurrying to be at Jerusalem, if possible, on the day of Pentecost” (Acts 20:16). Second, he nevertheless stayed in Troas seven days (Acts 20:6). Why? It might be argued that his ship did not sail until then, which could be true, but the text indicates that (third) the church did not meet until the seventh day of his stay there. If they had met earlier in the week, there would have been no reason for Luke to have omitted that information. It is obvious that it was the church’s custom to meet on the first day of the week. Historically, the church has always met on this day, as Bogard well knows. On what day of the week did he and his fellow Baptists meet?
A. T. Robertson, a Baptist, writes in Word Pictures in the New Testament: “For the first time here we have services mentioned on the first day of the week though in 1 Cor. 16:2 it is implied by the collections stored on that day” (3:338-39). So, the first time they are mentioned, brethren are meeting, not on Thursday, but on the first day of the week. Jesus did on a Thursday show His disciples the proper way to remember Him, but on what day did the church follow His instructions? Surely, the apostles taught them correctly (Acts 2:42).
The Pulpit Commentary, which is not generally regarded as a “Campbellite” work, says of the phrase, the first day of the week: “This is an important evidence of the keeping of the Lord’s day by the Church as a day for their Church assemblies (see Luke xxiv. 1, 30, 35; John xx. 19, 26; I Cor. xvi. 2).” On the phrase, to break bread, the commentators add: “This is also an important example of weekly communion as the practice of the first Christians” (18:2:143).
Although we would disagree with some of the terminology he uses, Adam Clarke (Methodist) writes that the church was “accustomed to receive the holy sacrament on each Lord’s day” (5:851). The church did not meet to observe the Lord’s Supper just on one occasion; it is obvious to most everyone else that it was a weekly act. How can anyone read about the abuses of the Lord’s Supper in Corinth and not conclude that this was a part of each Lord’s day assembly (1 Cor. 11:23-34)? Paul implies their purpose for meeting was “to eat the Lord’s Supper” (1 Cor. 11:20).
56. The Campbellite Church has an unscriptural eldership. In the New Testament nobody was an elder except preachers, and these elders were only servants. But with Campbellites the majority of elders are not preachers, and instead of being servants they control all the affairs of the church (42).
Bogard could not prove that only preachers can be elders if his life depended on it. In 1 Timothy 3 Paul gave the qualifications for elders: two of those are that he must be “the husband of one wife” and that his children must be “in submission with all reverence” (1 Tim. 3:2, 4-5). If preachers and elders are identical, then a preacher must have these same qualifications. Does Bogard really want to affirm that no one can preach the gospel unless he is married and has children? Such criteria would exclude Paul! And there is no evidence that Timothy was married and had a family, either. Anyone examining the qualifications for elders will not find among the qualifications that they must also be preachers. Bogard’s comments here make no sense.
Bogard absurdly argues that John was a “Baptist preacher” (54). Even if this pronouncement had any merit, the following facts would remain: 1) John was the forerunner of Christ, and he readily acknowledged: “He must increase, but I must decrease” (John 3:30); 2) Jesus also baptized His disciples (John 4:1-2), yet He was not called “a Baptist preacher”; neither the followers of John nor the followers of Jesus were called “Baptists”; 4) a new name was given to God’s people (Isa. 62:2), which the mouth of the Lord named, and it was not “Baptists,” but “Christians” (Acts 11:26); and 5) the name Baptist glorifies John while the name Christian glorifies Jesus. Now, who is sectarian?
An honest discussion of the Scriptures proves productive, but “propaganda” cannot honor our Lord.
It would be possible to continue for weeks reviewing this tract by Ben M. Bogard. It contains so many allegations without proof, insults, and misrepresentations that a thorough refutation in this format is impossible. However, we would like to treat the subject of salvation as presented in the tract because it is still crucial to all of us. First we will look at Bogard’s teaching regarding salvation and then consider the fault he finds with the doctrine taught in the Scriptures.
“25. Campbellism ridicules weeping and mourning on account of sin” (26). We begin once again by mentioning that ridicule is the tool of Bogard. For that reason he insists on calling members of the churches of Christ “Campbellites” though we do not follow Campbell and never have. Bogard tells us that Campbell founded a church and that we are members of that “denomination” though there is no such church and we oppose the very concept of denominationalism. The fact that we disagree with Campbell on a number of issues does not bother Bogard, who insists on things being the way he sees them, regardless of reality.
Bogard does not cite any incidents of the alleged “ridicule” we have given of “weeping and mourning on account of sin.” In fact, we wish there were more of it; in today’s world most people are not even mildly upset about their sins, let alone weep over them. All that we have ever said, however, is that mourning alone will not save anyone. No one mourned more than Saul of Tarsus, but he was told to arise and be baptized and wash away his sins. Mourning is an evidence of faith and repentance, but sins are washed away in baptism.
“38. Campbellism denies the right and need of a sinner praying” (32). Bogard thinks that “God’s Word teaches those in need of salvation to pray for it,” and he cites Romans 10:13: “Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” No one denies “the right” of a sinner to pray. But the Bible does not say that praying is the means of obtaining salvation. Romans 10:13 is obviously correct, as all Scriptures are, but it does not specify a means of being saved. How does one call on the name of the Lord? Saul of Tarsus was praying while he waited for someone to come to him, but no verse says that Saul was saved by praying.
If Bogard could find one passage that gives a “sinner’s prayer” or that says a person is saved by praying, he would have put it in his tract. Such a verse or passage does not exist! But one does exist that explains how to “call upon the name of the Lord” (as mentioned in the one verse Bogard did cite), which we now examine.
When Ananias came to him, Saul was yet in his sins. His intense mourning and praying had not saved him. No one would ridicule Saul or tell him that these things were unnecessary; they demonstrate his sincerity. But these acts alone could not save him; Ananias told him how to complete the process: “And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). When one believes and repents of his sins, he is ready for the final step–baptism for the remission of sins–which is God’s plan of salvation and His means for calling on His name. Not one account of salvation in Acts has a person “praying through”; all are baptized.
So what does Bogard say about Acts 22:16? He avers that Paul’s “baptism washed away his sins, not in reality, but symbolically” (37). Why then did not Ananias say, Arise and be baptized, and symbolically wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord”? Would not the calling on the name of the Lord then be symbolic, too? Bogard obviously has a problem here that he did not see.
His proof that Saul was already saved is, first, that Saul was a “chosen vessel” before he was saved (Acts 9:15). If God is not omniscient, Bogard has a good argument. But God knew that Saul, even before Jesus appeared to him, would obey Him; He chose Saul for this work while he was still persecuting Christians. Was Saul saved at that time? Of course not. People are frequently chosen for tasks before they are fully qualified to do them. This argument lacks validity.
Equally powerless is the second reason offered, which is that Ananias called Saul “brother.” Since both men were Jews, this greeting is hardly surprising. Can Bogard prove Ananias meant it in the Christian, rather than the Jewish, sense? Years later Paul would desire that he could be accursed from Christ, if it were possible, for his brethren, whom he further defined as his “kinsmen according to the flesh” (Rom. 9:3). Bogard has found no ironclad proof here.
The third argument is that Saul was fit to be “filled with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 9:17). Bogard infers that Saul’s regaining of his sight and his being filled with the Holy Spirit occurred one right after the other; however, one should read verse 18: “Immediately, there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he received his sight at once; and he arose and was baptized.” Why is nothing more said about Saul being filled with the Spirit? Perhaps the reason is that Luke knew that his readers would remember Acts 2:38, that the Holy Spirit is received AFTER baptism. To say, then, that Saul was baptized was to imply that he then received the Holy Spirit.
None of Bogard’s arguments prove that Saul was already saved when Ananias came to him or that baptism is a “symbolic” washing. In fact, if Saul was already saved, we do not know precisely when or at what moment his salvation occurred because no verse so indicates. The text indicates that he was saved when he arose and was baptized, and his sins were washed away, as he called on the name of the Lord.
Needless to say, Bogard also tries to explain away Acts 2:38. His argument is that for means “because of”: “We have the remission of sins first and are baptized for it afterwards” (37). For means “because of” at times in English, but it does not in the Greek. Bogard does not comment on the fact that the identical phrase is used in Matthew 26:28–in the Greek and in the English: “For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” Will those who have republished Bogard’s tract affirm that, on the basis of his “logic,” Jesus died because the world already had remission of sins? Then Bogard writes:
“Repent” in Greek is second person plural, active voice. “Be baptized” is third person, singular passive voice. Now, there is a rule in all grammars that “verbs must agree with their subjects in number and person.” But “repent” and “baptize” are not of the same number and person, hence they cannot have the same subjects. So a correct rendering is: “Repent all of you, and each one be baptized for the remission of your sins” (38)?
What? Does anyone see a point here? Is the fact that Peter switched from direct address (you) to third person (each one) supposed to prove something? Is he not still talking to the same group of people? Repent is active because it involves making a decision. Be Baptized is passive because it is an act of submission. Could not a drill sergeant similarly address his new recruits, “Report (you, plural) to the base barber shop, and let each one of you receive a haircut.” Are not all of the men to report? Are not all of the men to receive a haircut? The fact is that, regardless of the shifts in person and voice, the same actions are bound upon all in the group. Bogard has no point at all here.
There is one further consideration that should be pointed out about Acts 2:38–its context. Peter has been preaching to those assembled in an effort to convince them that Jesus is the Son of God, that they had crucified Him, and that He had arisen from the dead. With some of them he succeeded, and they asked, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” (v. 37). If Peter is telling them to be baptized because they have already been saved, when did that salvation occur? They knew they were in need of salvation when they asked Peter the question; how is it that they were saved before Peter could give them an answer in the next verse? Bogard has Peter acting as though they were already saved even before the apostle gives his answer.
What men like Bogard need is for Peter to have said what they would tell people: “Just believe; you’ll be saved, and then you can be baptized as a symbol.” But Peter does not say, “Repent and you’ll be saved”; he does not say, “Repent and believe” (Bogard’s favorite formula); he does not even mention faith at all because they gave evidence that they believed him by asking the question. He says, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized….”
Bogard applies logic to us that he fails to use on himself. Consider that his 44th point is: “No Campbellite ever told an inquiring penitent sinner what the apostle Paul told the jailer” (34), referring to: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.” That could be turned around easily: “What Baptist preacher ever told a penitent believer what Peter said in Acts 2:38?”
But the fact is that we would say precisely what Paul said if the circumstances were similar. When we talk to those whose knowledge of God and the Scriptures is very limited, we too start with the subject of faith. Apparently, Bogard thinks this is some kind of pat formula used to obtain salvation. The jailer had probably never even heard of Jesus before in his life, since Paul was just carrying the Gospel to this part of the world. Was there something magical in these words that caused him to drop to his knees and say, “I believe,” when as yet he had no idea about Jesus’ dying on the cross for our sins? Thus far he had only heard the Lord’s name.
Bogard hangs himself on his next remark: “If Paul had been a Campbellite preacher he would have never left baptism out of his instructions as to how to be saved” (34). Whoa! Paul did not leave baptism out. Behold, the danger of using Scriptures out of context; someone might read the next few verses:
Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized (Acts 16:32-33).
We know that the events just described took place some time after midnight; yet after Paul taught the jailer enough so that he could make an intelligent decision, he baptized him–even though it was in the silent and serene stillness of the night while the city slept. Now what Baptist preacher would do that? By Bogard’s own definition, Paul is a Campbellite preacher, a title which would insult Paul as much as it does us.
For most people Mark 16:16 is plain enough: “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.” Bogard focuses all of his attention on the latter part of the verse in his 52nd point, asserting that to fit our theology it should read, “He that is not a baptized believer shall be damned” (39). This is fatuous and designed to do one thing–obfuscate the point made by the Lord. Following is the means that Bogard uses to obscure things:
Now, if nobody is saved except those who are baptized and nobody lost except the unbeliever, what will become of the man who believes yet has not been baptized? He can’t go to heaven because he has not been baptized. He can’t go to hell because he is a believer. So that reduces it to an absurdity.
Bogard’s “logic” is the absurdity. He has tried to insert another class of people into the text that the Lord does not discuss. The way Jesus describes it, there are two groups of people: believers and unbelievers. The believers are baptized and saved; the unbelievers are lost. This dichotomy is completely consistent with Matthew 12:30: “He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters abroad.”
Although the Lord mentioned only two groups of people, Bogard seeks to make three categories: baptized believers, unbaptized believers, and unbelievers. He might have asked himself why Jesus only had two classifications, and he could have found a Scriptural answer: there are no unbaptized believers! The reason is that those who believed were baptized immediately (possibly because there was no one like Bogard around to tell them that they were already saved or that they did not need to be baptized).
Notice what happened after Peter told those on Pentecost to repent and be baptized: “Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them” (Acts 2:41). As we have already shown, Paul baptized the jailer and his household the same hour of the night (Acts 16:31-33). The eunuch was baptized as soon as they came to some water (Acts 8:35-39). Cornelius and his household were likewise baptized immediately (Acts 10:47-48). When Ananias told Saul to arise and be baptized, he too did not delay, protest that it was only symbolic, or whine that he was already a believer; he arose and was baptized. Neither Bogard, the current publishers of his tract, Max Lucado, nor anyone else can find a single instance in the Scriptures in which so much time as even ONE DAY elapsed before someone who was taught what to do did it. If one believes the Gospel message, he will obey it; Jesus’ two groups stand.
Bogard also errs in his attempt to nullify the force of Romans 6:3-5. Being baptized into Christ does not suit him; so he writes “The word ‘into’ is from the Greek word ‘eis’ and it frequently means ‘with reference to’ or ‘on account of.'” If this statement were true, then why do all the major translations (KJV, NKJ, ASV, NAS, RSV, NRSV, and even the NIV) use, without variation, into? If on account of is so interchangeable, one would think there would be at least one translation that would render it the way Bogard says it could be translated. Once again, however, the text foils him. How can we be raised from the dead with Jesus unless we are baptized into His death? This is the kind of folly that befalls someone who is trying to win an argument at all costs instead of honestly looking at the Scriptures.
As an example of the on account of idea he cites Matthew 12:41, in which Jesus said that the people repented at the preaching of Jonah. At first glance it does look as though on account of fits in this verse, but the same translations mentioned above all use at. Thayer has four pages of definitions on this preposition (183-87), but he begins with: “a Prep. governing the Accusative, and denoting entrance into, or direction and limit: into, to, towards, for, among.” Context usually decides the best translation of a preposition. It is true that the people repented because Jonah preached to them, but the Pulpit Commentary says of eis here that it marks the direction of their faith: into or unto.
Bogard, then, has no valid argument on Romans 6:3-5 or any of the other passages mentioned. The reader is urged to do a study on the word eis. Bogard says that it frequently means on account of. Yet he knew better. He could not produce even one text in which eis was so translated. Prejudice will lead a person to the point of desperation; those who simply seek the truth can retain their honesty and integrity.
Reviewing all of Ben M. Bogard’s 101 reasons for not being a “Campbellite” would take much more space than we want to devote to it, but we do want to cover some of the meatier points that he made. We have already dealt with reasons 1-6, 17, and 19. We could also add to his list of reasons #102. One should not try to be a “Campbellite” because there is no such thing. The reader has only to look in the telephone book in any city in this nation for a “Campbellite Church,” and he will fail to find one. There is no sense in trying to be part of something that does not exist.
The fact is that Bogard uses this terminology to bias people against the churches of Christ. He thinks that, by referring to people with a term they never use (and which would violate the very principles to which they adhere), he is being clever, but the adjective abusive would be more appropriate. Members of the churches of Christ have never called themselves by the term Bogard seems so fond of. People frequently use terms of derision when their own argumentation is weak.
“7. Campbellites refuse to accept Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as a part of the Christian rule of faith and practice” (14). Bogard cites Luke 5, 7, 19, and 23, along with John 4, in which people are saved without baptism as proof that baptism is not required for salvation. When it is pointed out that all of these people lived under the old covenant, the charge is made that we “throw out the four Gospels and refuse to accept them as a rule of faith and practice.” (7). Why not accuse us of throwing out the entire Old Testament, because we do not accept it as a rule of faith, either?
Perhaps the publishers of Bogard’s tract can tell us what covenant they are under. The book of Hebrews contrasts the old with the new all the way through (2:1-4; 8:6-7; 9:16-17; 12:18-29). The law of the Old Testament system was nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14) and is no longer in force. If anyone wants to argue, despite the wealth of Scriptures already given, that the old law is still valid, he should read Leviticus 1-7, 16, and 23 to make sure he knows how to offer all the sacrifices that God commanded and all of the holy times to observe.
If he is willing to acknowledge that there was an old law (of Moses) and a new covenant (of Jesus Christ), then the next question to consider would be, “When did the first end and the second begin?” Paul says that the law was nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14), which would mean it remained in effect until the death of Jesus. In other words, Jesus lived and died under the Law of Moses; for that reason He obeyed its teaching.
But He was teaching the principles of the New Testament system: “Jesus came to Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God” (Mark 1:14). For that reason we find His teachings that are part of the new system recorded prior to the establishment of the new covenant. Jesus said, for example:
“You have heard it said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder,’ and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment. But I say to you that whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment…” (Matt. 5:21-22a).
He cites the sixth commandment but claims to have the authority to replace it with His own teaching. He takes this same approach with adultery:
“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matt. 5:27-28).
Jesus also taught on marriage (Matt. 5:3-9) and a variety of other subjects. The question was bound to arise in the minds of some, “Is the old covenant therefore invalid?” Jesus answered that question before it was asked: “For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or tittle will by no means pass from the law” (Matt. 5:18).
In other words, the law of Moses remained in effect until it was nailed to the cross. No one could rightly say, “Jesus told me that I didn’t need to obey Moses.” Jesus abided by the law of Moses Himself and taught others to do likewise. BUT He could still teach the principles of the gospel system. He could even teach people to be baptized for the remission of their sins during this period of transition ( Matt. 4:17; John 3:1-5). As with most times of transition, there is some overlapping. They could not violate the old, but at the same time they could begin embracing the new. For that reason we can cite numerous teachings of Jesus from Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as part of the Christian system–even though they were taught in advance of the kingdom’s establishment (Bogard’s 8th quibble).
However, the Jewish system remained in effect until Jesus’ death, and therefore Jews could be saved without baptism until that system ended, since baptism for the remission of sins was not part of the law of Moses. Therefore Jesus could forgive the sins of the lame man apart from baptism (Luke 5), as well as the “woman who was a sinner” (Luke 7), Zacchaeus (Luke 19), and the thief on the cross (Luke 23). Baptism was not required of them for salvation prior to the cross.
Why did Jesus not require it of them when He was so insistent with Nicodemus (John 3)? It may be that His purpose at the moment had something to do with His response. With the thief on the cross the reason for not requiring baptism is obvious. As a repentant Jew, he could be saved in that condition since the law had not ceased and the gospel system was not yet in place. In the other three instances Jesus makes a point of the fact that He has the ability to forgive sins (Luke 5:23-24; Luke 7:47-48) or that He can pronounce salvation upon someone (Luke 19:9-10). Of course, He could have told these three individuals to be baptized, but He wanted to get across the point of His Deity; forgiving sins and pronouncing salvation enabled Him to do so in a way that His normal manner of baptizing people did not. For Bogard to have a valid point, he needs to find those saved without baptism AFTER the cross.
We do not read in John 4 that the woman at the well or any of the Samaritans were baptized. Ironically, however, the chapter begins with these words:
Therefore, when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John (though Jesus Himself did not baptize, but His disciples)… (John 4:1-2).
So, if none of the Samaritans were, in fact, baptized, then the rationale for that omission (especially in light of the above two verses) is best known to the Lord. We do know, however, that AFTER the cross “Philip went down to the city of Samaria and preached Christ to them…. But when they believed Philip as he preached the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were baptized” (Acts 8:5, 12).
Faith and Repentance
9. The Campbellites put faith before repentance in their doctrine, when the Bible always puts repentance before faith (15).
Really? If one considers only the two words: faith and repentance, Bogard is correct, but if one considers the concepts and the context of each verse (which he should have done), he is wrong. It is of small consolation to be technically correct while being Biblically wrong. Let us consider the context of the three verses Bogard cites. In Mark 1:15 Jesus did indeed say, “Repent, and believe in the gospel.” Is this an indication that believers must repent of their sins before they believe? The very notion is silly. Why would anyone repent–unless faith brought it about? The fact is that Jesus was preaching to people who already believed in God. Few of them, however, were living as they should. It would only be natural to call believers to repentance. Can anyone honestly think that Jesus would have walked up to an atheist and commanded him to repent so that he could then believe?
Paul recounts that in his preaching he taught “repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 21:20). Nowhere, however, does he indicate that the latter depended upon the former. He is not stating the order in which things are preached or must be done; he is just reminding the elders at Ephesus what he had done while among them.
The third verse cited is similar to Mark 1:15. Jesus is showing the hard-heartedness of the chief priests. He points out that they did not believe John. Even when the tax collectors and the harlots did believe John, and they saw these people obey and change their lives, they still “repented not afterward, that” they “might believe” (Matt. 21:32). They need to repent of their uncircumcised hearts so that they might believe. This passage does not refer to general salvation.
What about, then, passages that do provide an order of the way salvation occurs? In Acts 2:37 the people have become convinced of the resurrection of Christ by means of the preaching of Peter; they ask what they should do. Peter does not answer, “Repent and believe”; he answers, “Repent and be baptized…” (Acts 2:38). Faith is not mentioned (because his whole sermon had been designed to produce faith in them). Clearly, faith comes first, repentance second, and baptism third. Consider the conversion of Saul. He believed when the light shone around him and Jesus spoke to him (Acts 9:3-6). He expressed repentance by praying and fasting for three days (Acts 9:9, 11). Finally, he was baptized (Acts 9:18; Acts 22:16). In similar fashion, the Philippian jailer was told to believe by Paul and Silas; he washed their stripes (an indication of repentance); then he was baptized immediately (Acts 16:31-34).
What we have looked at in these three instances is the actual process of conversion; we have not merely located verses that have the words repent and believe in them. But there is a reason that Bogard so highly prizes those three verses he cites: he wants faith to come after repentance so that when he says people are saved by faith alone (a doctrine not found in the Bible), he can always say that repentance precedes faith and for that reason people can be saved at the point of faith. The reader will need to determine which three Scriptures prove the case–Bogard’s or the ones from the book of Acts cited above. The Scriptures do not contradict themselves; Bogard’s are taken out of context.
Baptizing Infidels
“10. According to Campbellite doctrine, they always baptize infidels” (16). Bogard’s reasoning on this point is so convoluted that it is scarcely intelligible. “Now since, according to Campbellites, a man believes first, then repents, he necessarily becomes an infidel…and then he is baptized. If their doctrine is true, the whole bunch are baptized infidels” (16). If the reader does not find his attempt at humor all that funny, Bogard is infinitely more funny than logical.
First of all, let us recall that there are no Campbellites to teach such a doctrine; in mathematical terms we are dealing with an empty set. Campbellites only exist in Bogard’s imagination. Members of the churches of Christ do teach that people must believe first and then repent. But the Bible does not teach that we repent of believing, but of sins. Understanding and believing the Word of God causes people to see that their lives are full of sin and that they need to repent–of sin. To act as if we teach people to repent of believing is so absurd on the face of it that it must be regarded as a joke, albeit a poor one. If Bogard is serious, he is to be pitied even more, for why would an infidel be baptized?
Heartfelt Religion
“11. Campbellites deny heartfelt salvation, and thus flatly contradict the Bible” (17). Bogard charges us with scorning “feeling,” but once again he has deliberately misrepresented us. He does not cite a single source for making this charge, although many were available to him. Most Christians have not scorned anyone for their feelings, but we have said that proving salvation by one’s feelings alone is not New Testament teaching.
Frequently, people will say, “I know I’m saved because I feel it right here in my heart.” An unscriptural song that echoes this same sentiment is found in many of our songbooks: “He Lives.” If someone asks how we know that Jesus lives today, we should know better than to say, “He lives within my heart.” Such does not constitute valid proof when Baptists preach it or we sing it. It is not the approach the Bible takes.
Peter did not say to those on Pentecost, “Jesus is raised from the dead. I just feel it.” No, Peter saw Him. Paul never preached to anyone, “I was saved on the road to Damascus. I just felt it.” Subjective proof is no proof at all. The Muslim can make the same claim: “I know Allah exists because of this feeling in my heart.” Mormons will say they asked God to tell them if the Book of Mormon was from God, and He told them it was. Such are just the beginning of problems when people sing, “He walks with me, and He talks with me.” Truth is objective in nature, not subjective. God speaks to us through His Word, not personally. If He speaks to us personally, then there is no need for the Word; if He speaks to us through the Word, then there is no need for personal “messages.”
Do we therefore teach that Christians should have no feelings, as Bogard charges? There is a difference between experiencing feelings and using them as evidence of salvation. We react to things based on what we believe to be true. If a Baptist preacher says, “You’re saved,” then people (if they believe him) will experience elation just as much as the eunuch did, who was actually saved as a result of being baptized and went on his way rejoicing (Acts 8:36-39). Feelings can be prompted by either truth or error; for that reason they are unreliable as evidence.
Bogard says that the phrase times of refreshing refers to feelings, but where is the proof? Does his feeling about the passage make it so? He says that the Holy Ghost is given to us and therefore feelings result (Rom. 5:5), but Paul did not take that position; it is Bogard’s assumption. His third “prooftext” is 1 John 5:10, which states that we have “the witness” in ourselves. Again, he assumes that the witness refers to our feelings, but John does not make such an identification. It can be argued that the word of God which produced faith is the witness of those who continue to believe. Bogard can only offer a hypothesis; he cannot prove it.
Decades ago Ben M. Bogard, L.L.D. (LIAR in LEAGUE with the DEVIL) wrote a tract entitled Campbellism Exposed. He knew when he wrote it that its contents were neither fair nor true. Perhaps he wrote it out of vindictiveness; if it were for some noble reason, he certainly blended in a heaping helping of mean-spiritedness. “So, why bother to resurrect an old tract?” the reader might wonder, to which we reply, “Why indeed?”
We, however, are not the ones who yet publish this diatribe full of invective. In fact, Bogard Press in Texarkana, Texas, appears to be the publisher, and they share the same address with the Baptist Bookstore, who sells it (4605 North State Line). Rather typical of the reluctance to state all the facts of the matter, the purveyors of this body of misinformation have put no date of publication on their product.
Consider the title, for example, Campbellism Exposed; what might the reader expect to find? One would assume that the group under consideration had made secret confessions or stated in exclusive documents that they were loyal to Alexander Campbell and regarded him the true leader of their group even though they just called themselves Christians. But such is not the case. When Bogard does cite a man or a work, he usually fails to identify who that person is or what relationship he has either to Campbell or to the churches of Christ. The first quote cited in point #1 (of the 101 reasons not to be a Campbellite) is from someone called Ziegler, who apparently wrote what may have been a well-known work at one time, titled History of Religious Denominations.
Ziegler states: “The Christian or Campbellite Church was founded by Alexander Campbell, of Virginia, in the year 1827” (8). If the reader of Bogard’s tract is an intelligent individual, he or she might ask a few questions: 1) “Who is Ziegler?” 2. “Is he a fellow-Baptist of Bogard’s, who cares not what the facts are?” 3. “Where did he get his information?” 4. “Is there a document saying that Campbell began his own church in 1827, or is this something a critic made up?” 5. “Did Campbell file papers for a national charter for a religious denomination bearing his name?” 6. “Is Ziegler writing as a member of that alleged Campbellite Church?”
Bogard attempts to intentionally deceive those reading his tract into thinking that Campbell designed a church, made himself head over it, and that his followers called themselves Campbellites when he knows that the facts of the matter are otherwise. He quotes, for example, from Richardson’s Memoirs of Alexander Campbell, the second volume, page 548, which contains a letter from the statesman, Henry Clay, who wrote:
“Dr. Campbell is among the most eminent citizens of the United States, distinguished for his great learning ability, for his successful devotion to the education of youth, for his piety, and as the head and founder of one of the most important and respectable religious communities in the United States” (8-9).
The letter obviously seeks to honor Campbell, but what was the occasion for Clay’s writing it and Richardson’s inclusion of it in the book? Was Richardson trying to prove Campbell to be head and founder of a sect, citing Clay toward that end?
This quotation only establishes that in the mind of Henry Clay (and others) Campbell was head and founder of a group. But observe the deceit of Bogard. He did not quote the following letter from Campbell that appeared in the same volume he quoted just 107 pages earlier. Richardson included this letter which Campbell had written in the New Orleans Commercial Bulletin, after they had identified him as a founder of a religious group (which is reprinted in The Lord’s Church: Past, Present, and Future, edited by B.J. Clarke, p. 597):
Gentlemen, allow me to thank you for the kind and complimentary notice you gave me in your issue of the 13th instillation of my arrival in your city. I also feel very grateful to the minister and members of the Methodist church who tendered me the use of their house of worship for the Lord’s day evening. And I regret that it was not in my power to accept it. You have done me, gentlemen, too much honor in saying that I am the founder of a denomination quite respectable in many portions of the west known as Christians. I have always repudiated all human aids and human creeds and shall feel very grateful if you will correct the erroneous impression which your article may have made in thus representing me as the founder of a religious denomination (2:441).
Martin Luther found various corrupt and incorrect practices in the Catholic Church to which he called attention with a view toward reforming those things. He did not intend to start his own church; he told friends and followers to call themselves Christians, not Lutherans. Similarly, Campbell brought to the forefront certain Scriptural ideas in an effort to restore Christianity as it was designed and practiced in the New Testament. There were restorations of the law of Moses during the reigns of Hezekiah and Josiah; so the concept is a Biblical one. Campbell called people to this concept and never intended to found a new religious group, as the above quotation certifies.
One of Campbell’s suggestions (although he was certainly not alone in making it) was to use Biblical terminology. Did our brethren in the first century call themselves Christians? Then surely such a designation is sufficient for us. This is not a sectarian or cultish idea; it is Scriptural. Men had established various hierarchies to accompany their manmade religions. To please God we should recognize the only church government that he ever authorized: elders (or bishops) and deacons (Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:1-13). These are just two applications of the idea of restoring Christianity as taught and practiced in the New Testament.
But let us pause and ask the publishers of Bogard’s tract these questions: “In what New Testament book are Christians called Baptists?” and “Where is the authority for a structure such as the Southern Baptist Convention, which so frequently makes news headlines?” How ironic that those who are trying to be obedient to God in all things (Matt. 7:21) should be attacked for doing right by those practicing error!!
Apparently, Bogard must have felt uncomfortable about being unscriptural himself; so he decided that members of the churches of Christ should be tagged with a label they do not call themselves. In his second point, he says that the “Campbellite Church was founded in 1827, nearly eighteen hundred years too late to be called the true church of Christ.” We could not agree more with the basic principle that Bogard states. Any church established so far from the time of the New Testament began too late! However, Bogard claims for Campbell what the man did not claim for himself. This would be somewhat equivalent to calling the renovator of a house its builder. “No,” the man protests, “The house was already there. I just removed the rubble and the trash, cleaned it thoroughly, and restored the marvelous workmanship that the original builder put into it.” Bogard refuses to hear any explanations and stubbornly insists, “I don’t care what you say. You built the house.”
But, since we are on the point of origins, when did the Baptist Church begin? The New Testament is silent about the existence of a Baptist Church. Its origin dates from the 16th or 17th century. Do the publishers of Bogard’s tract think that 1800 years is too late for a church to begin, but 1500 years too late is all right? At least the New Testament does speak of churches of Christ (Rom. 16:16).
Bogard’s third point is similar: “The Campbellite Church began in Virginia instead of Palestine; hence started in the wrong place.” Actually, the church of Christ did begin in Jerusalem. There is no Campbellite Church except in Bogard’s biased imagination. Uh, where did the Baptist Church begin? Bogard includes another quotation for support which does not establish the point he wishes he could make.
The reader will be much instructed by Bogard’s fourth point: “Even the theory of the Campbellite Church concerning the origin of the church is false. They claim the church was set up on the day of Pentecost, which flatly contradicts the Scriptures.” Look carefully, reader. Bogard finally got around to evaluating something that we “claim.” Up to this point he has claimed for us that Alexander Campbell is our head and that we began in 1827 in Virginia. None of the members of the churches of Christ have ever said so; Campbell himself never so claimed. Bogard has claimed it all for us–so that he could then find fault with it.
Consider the audacity of anyone who would say, in effect: “I’m going to tell you what you believe. It doesn’t matter what you say. I’m going to tell everybody when and where you began and who your head is; then I’m going to tell the whole world why you’re wrong for believing the things I determined that you believe.” The reader might refer to these tactics by a number of adjectives, but honest would not be one of them.
But at last Bogard allows us to speak for ourselves. He finds fault with the teaching, of course, and still calls us by a name we have never used, but at least we see some progress. He even gets the rationale correct. But then he presents 17 reasons for the church’s existence before the day of Pentecost. Well, of course, it existed before the day of Pentecost–in the mind of God. It was also preached before its establishment: “…Jesus came to Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying, ‘The time if fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel'” (Mark 1:14-15). No one disagrees that there was preaching and teaching to prepare people for the kingdom; in fact, we affirm that it is the case.
The question is not, “Was the kingdom preached?”; the question is, “When was it established?” If the publishers of Bogard’s tract believe that the kingdom was already established before Pentecost, let them tell us when the kingdom began. It was yet future in Matthew 16:18 and Mark 9:1. Exactly when did the kingdom begin–in reality, not simply in prospect–if not on the day of Pentecost? The seventeen points seem impressive until the reader realizes that Bogard has not said one word about the precise time that the kingdom began. Is it possible that such a great event, prophesied by Isaiah and Daniel, would have gone unheralded? It was established on the day of Pentecost.
Bogard’s fifth point is a rehashing of number two. His sixth point is that Christians regard the “Declaration and Address,” written by Thomas Campbell (the father of Alexander Campbell) in 1809, as our “great charter.” Say, are not charters usually written when an organization is formed? How odd, then, that (according to Bogard) we have the great charter for a new religion written 18 years before the religious institution began! He has oft repeated the date 1827 as the time of the beginning of the “Campbellite Church,” yet now he says the great charter was written in 1809! Did Thomas Campbell write this great charter in case his son wanted to found a new church (Alexander was only 21 years old at the time)?
To try to establish his sixth point Bogard quotes from a book, The International Centennial Celebration of the Disciples of Christ, which called the “Declaration and Address” a document that “has been fittingly called the Great Charter of our movement” (14). Such a quotation certainly seems to prove Bogard’s main contention, until one realizes who said it. The Disciples of Christ were a group of brethren who departed from the faith. They not only were among those who went beyond the authority of the Scriptures by adding instrumental music to worship; they kept right on traveling down the highway of liberalism until they reached universalism. Today many reject the inspiration of the Scriptures, the virgin birth of Christ, etc. There has been no fellowship between us and them for decades.
The title of the book itself should tell the reader that the Disciples of Christ are not the same as the people Bogard continually attacks. Bogard has already admitted that we teach that the church began on Pentecost; so on what basis would we have written a book with “Centennial Celebration” in the title? Apparently, the group calling itself the Disciples of Christ dates itself from either 1809 or 1827; peculiarly, Bogard neglected to say. We, however, date the church from the first century, which is the time it was established. Only a sect quotes a different time of origin. Bogard quotes from a group that is admittedly sectarian and tries to lump us in with them, which would be the equivalent of quoting the writings of Martin Luther as a representative of Catholicism! Here was an obvious lapse of integrity on his part.
Another inaccurate statement of Bogard’s is found in his seventeenth point: “The doctrine of baptism in order to obtain the remission of sins is a new doctrine and was first taught by Walter Scott and later adopted by Alexander Campbell” (22). The truth is that baptism for the remission of sins is not a new doctrine; it was taught by the apostle Peter on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38). Before that point in time, however, it was taught by John: “John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins” (Mark 1:4).
If Walter Scott first taught this doctrine, then why is not he, rather than Campbell, called the founder of this new movement? It really doesn’t seem fair that Alexander gets credit for being the head of a new religious movement when his father wrote the Great Charter and Walter Scott manufactured the terms of admission. But, of course, this is all flummery.
Bogard’s 19th point reveals his mean-spiritedness and dishonesty: “Campbellites claim to have no creed, which is equivalent to claiming to be fools” (23). He goes on to explain that creed “is from a Latin word that means ‘to believe.’ A man who believes nothing is a fool.” Again, it is hard to be charitable to the man when we know that he knew better than to make such a statement. We have never said that we have no creed whatsoever. We have repeatedly said (at least often enough for Bogard to have heard it): “We have no creed but the Bible.” We do indeed have a body of doctrine that we believe: the New Testament.
Most creeds were developed by councils of men to fight what they perceived to be religious error. Sometimes they were right in what they wrote; sometimes they were wrong. Creeds are unnecessary since, if they say more than the Bible, they say too much, and if they say less, they say too little. The New Testament is the only creed believers need. But thanks, Mr. Bogard, for admitting that Baptists have a creed (otherwise, they would be fools). Many modern Baptists refuse to acknowledge what you have implied in your tract.
It would be difficult to imagine a more comprehensive look at American education. Cloning of the American Mind could have been subtitled: Information That Was Never Taught to Teachers About Our Public Education System. This writer has taken a number of education courses, but none of the material contained herein was ever presented, even though it is obviously available (and well documented).
The actual subtitle is: “Eradicating Morality Through Education,” which should prompt Christians to take notice of its contents. The author, B. K. Eakman, according to the book’s back cover, “has had a distinguished career as an educator, speech writer, technical writer, and researcher. She is the co-founder of the National Education Consortium, a nonprofit corporation specializing in education law.” Her picture reveals the face of a young woman, and one wonders how she came to possess so much knowledge in so short a time.
This 606-page tome (if the reader is interested in 200-page “fluff” books, he or she will want to skip this one) is divided into five parts, the first of which is titled: “Your Computerized Ego: The Use of Psychographics in Education.” But before the author gets to that material, she writes a prologue and an introduction which causes the reader to think that this may be one of those “conspiracy” books. Eakman cannot be dismissed as a “nut,” who imagines or concocts things that are not there; she simply recognizes what is there and calls attention to it. She is most thorough and obviously quite competent. She does not deal in speculation, but facts. Consider her opening paragraph from the prologue:
On 25 June 1996, the first incriminating evidence hit the news, pointing to the existence of what White House officials admitted was a “supersecret federal information system” about private individuals. The technical name was the White House Office Data Base. But the people who used it had nicknamed it “Big Brother” (10).
The above revelation is unfortunately not the only circumstance of its kind; the next one mentioned is the name of a test given to school students under the name of Educational Quality Assessment (EQA). Parents in Pennsylvania “discovered that personal information about their families was being collected” through these tests given to their youngsters (11). Sample questions are provided by the author.
Why would the White House or an education system want such information? Although it may sound Orwellian, “a database exists which not only has the capability to track and cross-reference generic information about people and their beliefs, but can be used to predict a person’s likely future actions” (19). There is much more information on this subject throughout Part I. Again, the author’s approach is not to say, “Here’s what could happen”; she relates what is already occurring.
There are a number of quotations throughout this book that exhibit great insight. They are far too numerous to publish in a brief review, but this one by syndicated columnist, Joseph Sobran seems especially appropriate for this “non-judgmental” era:
The epitaph of the 20th century should be: “Here lie the victims of open-mindedness” (21).
Part II is “Masters of Delusion: Psychiatry, The Counterculture, and Education.” Most of us have grown accustomed to hearing certain names in connection with American education; therefore the reader may be startled to read the following claim:
Noah Webster and Horace Mann, or even John Dewey and the Progressives, were not the roots of today’s education philosophy; much of American thought and culture were more profoundly influenced by the likes of Wundt, Neill, Ellis, Owen, Gross, Steckel, Reich, Adorno, Freud, Marx, Lewin, Marcuse, Gramsci, Rees, Orage, Chisholm, Lunacharsky, and Lukacs (110-11).
Eakman then elaborates on this point by describing the lesser-known men and explaining their “contributions” to our education system. The history of these men and their influences may be recorded elsewhere, but we have not seen it. The reader’s understanding will profit immensely from a slow and careful perusal of these chapters.
Of special interest is the means that some have for implementing the philosophies of the men mentioned above. In the chapter titled “Training Teachers for a ‘Sick’ Society” we find a husband-wife team already producing materials toward this end in the late ’60’s and early ’70’s.
Ronald G. and Mary C. Havelock were major sources of research and information on change agents for the federal government. Four lengthy papers of theirs, including case studies of change agent teams in three schools, have been uncovered in addition to another text, The Change Agent’s Guide to Innovation in Education, all of which were paid for, in whole or in part, under a government grant.
Training for Change Agents, however, is the gold mine. It blatantly rationalizes, among other things, deceiving the public about the content of learning programs and their intended usages…. The Havelocks say that in certain cases it is best not to tell the truth about the substance of an educational program until after the fact… (245).
There is abundant evidence later in the book to show that these change agents are trained specifically to deal with the objections of parents to either the methods being used to teach or the contents of the curriculum. In other words, they know parents will protest certain steps, and they anticipate that it will happen. We have failed to realize the commitment that many secular humanists possess toward their goals.
One cannot help wondering if some of the “change agents” in the church have not been schooled in their techniques to use upon the church by the same secular humanistic philosophers influencing public education. Read carefully the following words, and see if they sound familiar. The portions that are emphasized are not in the text, but this writer’s doing.
The change agent begins to question the position of opposition leaders, plays on the fears of individuals with weaker convictions, and finally drives a wedge between the “pro” group and “con” forces by helping the latter to seem ridiculous, or ignorant, or dogmatic, or inarticulate–whatever works. The change agent wants certain members of the group to get mad…. The change agent is well-trained in psychological techniques and can fairly well predict everyone’s hot buttons. Dissension breaks out. Goals become muddled. Either the group will break up completely or, more likely, the individuals against the policy or program will be shut out (248).
At a business meeting it is not difficult to imagine change agents ridiculing the few brethren who actually know the Scriptures (which is the reason they are opposed to innovations) by calling them “traditionalists,” “legalists,” “close-minded,” and other unflattering names. These sound brethren are frequently painted as troublemakers and disrupters of the peace and harmony of the body. Since most brethren want to avoid confrontation and prefer peace, they side with the change agents, even though they lack Biblical authority for the changes they are introducing.
In school systems, the change agents have all the weight of their educational credentials, the administration, and the NEA behind them. So parents who oppose their professional judgment must be ignorant malcontents. Actually, they are usually concerned citizens opposed to new standards of indecency which some are trying to foist on the children of this nation, but TRUTH is never paramount to either social, political, or religious liberals; so they demonize their opponents, a technique which has proven immensely effective for the Clintons (remember that impeachment was all Ken Starr’s fault; it had nothing to do with the lies and the perjury of the president).
Chapter 14, “Moral Neutrality Achieves Virtual Legality,” begins with two quotations that the reader may have seen before, but which continue to deserve mention (253):
The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next.
~ Abraham Lincoln
Education is a weapon whose effect depends on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed.
~ Josef Stalin
The author describes what has already been introduced in various public schools. In one New York school third graders are being taught that homosexuals should be allowed to marry; a Vermont high school passes out materials “promoting same-sex relations among girls lacking the confidence to have sexual relations with boys!” (254). Many schools are promoting less overt, but just as dangerous materials.
Part III, “The Land of ‘Virtual Legality’: The Legislative Connection,” begins with an identification of various foundations and associations that exercise considerable influence over the nation’s schools. Not the least of these is the National Education Association (NEA), which, despite its name, is anti-education. They despise, for example, rote learning. Yet “73% of teachers and 86% of the public surveyed in the same study wanted students to memorize the multiplication tables and learn to compute by hand before using calculators” (277). The NEA is often at odds with the teachers they allegedly represent; much of their philosophy has nothing to do with teaching the fundamentals of knowledge, but everything to do with making certain that children grow up “politically correct.” This dogma can be imposed legally:
The three most intrusive pieces of education legislation in recent history–the ones that will alter the lives and rights of most private citizens–are the reauthorized Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), now known as the Improving America’s Schools Acts of 1994 (IASA) (Public Law 103-382); The Goals 2000: Educate America Acts (Public Law 103-227); and the School-to-Work Opportunities Act (STW) (Public Law 103-239) (302).
Eakman explains what these laws are, how they work, and who wrote them. Chapter 18 is devoted to “Outcome-Based Education,” which has received considerable attention on talk shows. The creator of this monstrosity (OBE), Dr. William Spady, “has described the emphasis on learning traditional subject matter as ‘unfortunate'” (312), which provides a little insight into what OBE might be like. Truly, getting a writing assignment that begins “Three things I don’t like about my parents are…” certainly does not fall in the realm of “traditional subject matter” (320).
Texans will be interested in what happened in Baytown with respect to OBE (318-19). The nightmare that occurred at East Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania, is recounted (332-33). Sixth grade girls were given impromptu genital exams by the authority of the public school system without the parents’ permission. Girls that wanted to call their parents were refused permission. Nurses physically blocked them from leaving the area. Angry parents were told they “overreacted.” This excessive intrusion upon young girls’ privacy apparently violated no laws, according to the Pennsylvania State Police. Nor is this an isolated incident.
The reader will be interested to read of the results of OBE where it has been tried (342-44). It has been appropriately stated that OBE “promotes self-worth by pulling the rug out from under success” (345). The system takes away actual achievement and meeting standards. It robs students of motivation since they know they will pass whether they do any significant work or not.
Chapter 21, “Curricular Atrocities,” contrasts the removal of the Bible from classrooms with the insertion of paganism. Students are asked to play The Egypt Game, in which they are asked to construct a death mask, write a hymn to Isis, the goddess of fertility, and burn incense (401). Now if they could only add complex numbers such as 9 and 4! Of course, when they get to college, the serious work will begin. They can choose such dandy courses as “Queer Theory, Queer Texts,” “Works of Pee Wee Herman,” and “Black Lavender: Study of Black Gay/Lesbian Plays” (404). All of this “knowledge” might come in handy when playing a game of Queer Trivia. Although its value is questionable, it does qualify, however, as being nontraditional.
Part IV’s rather lengthy but descriptive title is: “The Rules: How to Combat Psychological Exploitation and Win Back Your Schools.” The author explains the principles of psychological warfare in one chapter because there are trained provocateurs to handle objections. A number of fallacies of argumentation are set forth with a view toward helping the reader avoid them and recognizing them when someone else uses them.
Occasionally, the author furnishes some insights to related topics. Can television sitcoms, for example, have an agenda? They sometimes do, and two programs from All in the Family and Maude are cited by the author as examples of these shows’ desire to influence the viewing audience (466).
Various types of “Alternative Schools” are mentioned in Part V, as well as the “voucher system,” in which a private school “may have to relinquish some of its autonomy in matters like testing, surveying, and discipline” (509).
Eakman lists some of the fields of study that are often neglected, such as literature and economics. She advises every high school student to read Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations and Milton Friedman’s Free To Choose (522). The film, It’s Elementary, is discussed (539) as well as various sex education programs. There is an account of a 14-year-old girl from Crystal Lake, Illinois, being taken by a 37-year-old man to a Title X birth control clinic for “treatment” so they could have “safe sex.” Allegedly, school officials had knowledge of the situation but did not think it prudent to notify the girl’s parents (541). Also discussed are such concepts as “merit pay” and dress codes. There is much more.
This book was published by Harvest House Publishers in 1998 and is must reading. As a final reminder of the gravity of the situation, we close this review with a quotation by Mrs. J. D. Hoye, the head of the president’s National School-to-Work Office; when asked if their programs would exclude students not in public schools, she answered: “Most of those kids we’ve got through other agencies…. We’re serious. All means all” (357).
One of the current popular religious fads, often expressed on bracelets, surfaced two or three years ago with the sudden appearing of the initials, WWJD. It was thought that the behavior of people (young people in particular) might be positively affected if, before engaging in certain actions, they would first ask a particular question: WHAT WOULD JESUS DO?
At first, this suggestion seems like a terrific idea. In fact, Charles Sheldon wrote an entire book, In His Steps, with a similar premise–everyone decides to abide by the ethics set forth in the Scriptures; society undergoes a social revolution. And what could be better than keeping God in one’s thoughts at all times? We know that Jesus would not cheat on tests, gossip, spread rumors, use corrupt and vulgar language, or put Himself in a position where the temptation to commit sexual immorality would be overpowering.
So what could one possibly have to criticize about the practice of asking, “What Would Jesus Do?” It would probably serve as a great help in an era not governed by the postmodern philosophy. If people could consider the objective word of God and the absolute nature of truth, then acting on the basis of the WWJD philosophy would be an asset. But the leading thinkers of this age tell us that truth is slippery, subjective, situational, and incomprehensible. They also have several allegations to offer against the integrity of the Scriptures (none of which possess any validity). So, by the time everything becomes watered down, WWJD becomes WDIWD (What Do I Wanna Do?). In other words, we imagine that Jesus would agree with our thinking.
A case in point is seen in a guest column written by Roland Johnson (“pastor” of Iglesia Bautista Calvario) and published in The Dallas Morning News on January 8th. In fact the title of the article is: “School Boards and Paddles–What Would Jesus Do?” The writer begins by affirming: “Schools are the only bastions in our society that still allow corporal punishment” (4G).
After a history of the termination of the use of flogging in the military (the reader is apparently supposed to see some sort of connection between military discipline and public schools), he states his disagreement with the paddling policy used in the Dallas Independent School District. He is free to disapprove of that procedure if he wants, but unfortunately he finds it necessary to trash the Scriptures in order to make his point.
Advocates of corporal punishment base their case on the sayings of King Solomon in the book of Proverbs.
Solomon was a baneful, sensual, idolatrous king whom the Encyclopedia Britannica calls “the most overrated figure of the Old Testament.” It is true that Solomon said, “He that spares a rod, hates his son” (Proverbs 13:24), but proper interpretation demands that we look at the Bible as a whole (4G).
Whew!! Seldom has anyone, much less a Baptist “pastor,” gone to such lengths to discredit Solomon in order to object to the practice of corporal punishment for children. Mr. Johnson is obviously writing from an emotional motivation, rather than a logical one. But he is not finished yet with his diatribe against Solomon.
Next he calls as evidence for his position the way Rehoboam turned out. Obviously, he argues, Solomon’s parental wisdom failed, as seen by the fact that he produced such a dud for a son. Johnson quotes Rehoboam’s threat to scourge the people with scorpions as proof of Solomon’s rotten “rod” philosophy.
We know that the hard-line approach led to revolt and civil war. More important, it underscores what psychology tells us: that violence promotes violence. It becomes a never-ending cycle. Solomon’s sons had learned physical punishment as the way to solve problems (4G).
Oh, please. This point has been stretched so far that the elastic is ruined. If Rehoboam were paddled when he was younger, that practice surely was not responsible for his turning into an obnoxious jerk who listened to the wrong counsel. If anything could be pinpointed to explain Rehoboam’s behavior, it might be argued that the prosperity he grew up with spoiled him (as it has so many in today’s society). Besides, there is no evidence that he was personally violent. The threat he issued was a civil one–one that was never carried out, either.
Notice what experts Johnson calls to make his case for him: Encyclopedia Britannica and psychology. Everybody knows what Biblical experts both of these are. The former promotes heavily the false doctrine of organic evolution, and the latter opposes the Bible on just about every aspect of life there is. In other words, neither of them has any respect for the Word of God; so why would anyone consort with such “witnesses”? Desperation forges strange unions.
If Solomon was overrated, it was a writer inspired by the Holy Spirit who overrated him. The Queen of Sheba probably did not have the degrees that the writers of the Encyclopedia Britannica had, but she possessed one thing they lack–firsthand knowledge:
Then she said to the king: “It was a true report which I heard in my own land about your words and your wisdom. However I did not believe the words until I came and saw it with my own eyes; and indeed the half was not told me. Your wisdom and prosperity exceed the fame of which I heard. Happy are your men and happy are these your servants, who stand continually before you and hear your wisdom! Blessed be the Lord your God, who delighted in you, setting you on the throne of Israel! Because the Lord has loved Israel forever, therefore He made you king, to do justice and righteousness (1 Kings 10:6-9).
The inspired writer adds:
So King Solomon surpassed all the kings of the earth in riches and wisdom. And all the earth sought the presence of Solomon to hear his wisdom, which God had put in his heart (1 Kings 10:23-24).
Actually, he seems like a hard man to overrate “when we look at the Bible as a whole.” But, Johnson must negate Solomon’s wisdom because of his stance on disciplining children. With an air of self-righteousness, he continues: “I prefer to listen to Jesus” (as though the Lord somehow contradicted Solomon’s teaching).
The reader expects to read next a Scripture in which Jesus challenged paddling children, but all that is cited for the antiviolence position is Matthew 18:3 and Luke 17:2, neither of which has anything to do with the issue. The former passage stresses the humility of children; the latter one does not even mention children (“little ones” can refer to disciples in general). But even if children were in the context, nothing forbidding paddling is remotely mentioned. Yet the conclusion is drawn: “From such passages we can conclude that Jesus believed that it is never OK to hit a child. I would rather follow him than the debaucherous King Solomon any day.”
So would we all, but the point is irrelevant. The debaucherous king wrote inspired Scripture, and his later immoral actions do not negate the purity of the truths he recorded earlier. Why does Johnson assault King Solomon so viciously? He states that using corporal punishment on his sons “affected them very negatively.” Yet surely he must realize that entire generations have been reared with corporal punishment, and most of them were affected positively, not negatively.
We are arguing neither for nor against paddling in the public schools, and certainly we agree that there are other alternatives in administering discipline; we object to his decision that Jesus would draw the same conclusion that he did concerning the subject. Actually, the Lord agrees with what Solomon wrote–if “we look at the Bible as a whole.”
The Bible teaches: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God…” (2 Tim. 3:16). Proverbs is an inspired book, and the inspired writer of the book of Hebrews quoted from the debaucherous King Solomon:
And you have forgotten the exhortation which speaks to you as to sons: “My son, do not despise the chastening of the Lord, nor be discouraged when you are rebuked by Him; for whom the Lord loves He chastens, and scourges every son whom He receives” (Heb. 12:5-6).
The verses cited are from the Septuagint version of Proverbs 3:11-12. The word translated “scourge” (a verb) appears seven times in the New Testament (Matt. 10:17; 20:19; 23:34; Mark 10:34; Luke 18:33; John 19:1; and Heb. 12:6). Without exception these verses refer to physical punishment. The noun form of the word, used on six occasions in the New Testament, is translated “plague(s)” or “scourging(s).” All of these refer to physical distress.
In other words, physical suffering can have a practical value even for adults, and God could chasten us via that method. As the psalmist wrote, “It is good for me that I have been afflicted, that I may learn your statutes” (Ps. 119:71). Of course, there are other methods of discipline; but physical punishment is also an option. The conclusion of Johnson’s article is therefore erroneous:
School board officials who are considering the proposal to ban corporal punishment should base their decision on sound psychological research. But above all, we have the light of God’s word, which as a whole teaches that children are a gift of God, and that it is never OK to hit them (4G).
Sound psychological research? Pardon us who harbor large chunks of skepticism about the validity of almost anything in psychology. There are so many contradictions within this genre that one can scarcely find consensus–unless it involves a politically correct issue. We would rather stick with something more certain, such as the Word of God, which does not teach that it is never OK to hit a child. Of course, hit is a loaded term, much more odious than spank. Johnson apparently enjoys stacking the deck in his favor. We have already demonstrated the fallacy of his approach to this subject.
The point of considering his guest column was not just to take issue with his position; it was to demonstrate what happens when people misapply the WWJD approach to problem solving. They determine the outcome in advance, based on their own prejudices, and then support their positions by affirming, “Why, this is what Jesus would do in this situation.”
And the fact is that a similar route has been traveled before. God legislated on a number of situations in the law of Moses. But then came the captivity. Jews were scattered; the theocracy that had existed was no longer possible–especially when the Jews were being ruled by the Romans. Questions arose. What would God want us to do in these times and in this new culture? Probably no one wore WWJD (What Would Jehovah Do?) bracelets in Jerusalem. But some religious leaders had answers for all those thorny questions.
They were called Pharisees. They had figured out what God wanted. If one swore by the temple, for example, he was not obligated to keep his word; if he swore by the gold in the temple, however, he must keep his word. Pretty soon they came up with ways to circumvent honoring their parents (Matt. 15:1-9). Their opinions of what God wanted became law, which they then had to defend. They became so attached to their man-made system that when Jesus came along, preaching the truth, they decided their doctrines were right and the Son of God was teaching error! So familiar with error were they that truth sounded false.
Today many people have likewise grown up with religious error that they cannot be talked out of. It may not be what the Bible teaches, but “I was born a ________, and I’ll die one, too.” No wonder Jesus told them, “Assuredly, I say to you that tax collectors and harlots enter the kingdom of God before you” (Matt. 21:31). Those spiritually wrong cannot see their error.
Perhaps, instead of ask WWJD, we might ask WDJD (“What Did Jesus Do?”) or WDJT (“What Did Jesus Teach?”). Attempts to imagine what the Savior would do only result in assigning to Him our own reasoning. Let us remain with what the Scriptures teach. Man’s departures from the Word result in the formation of new creeds, authoritative opinions, and even criticism of inspired writers. When systems devised by men become popular, they arrogantly defend them while rejecting the truth taught in the Scriptures–which will keep them from eternal life.
In the battle against the Amalekites Israel prevailed when Moses held up his hands. When he rested his arms, Amalek prevailed. Aaron and Hur helped the nation be victorious by holding up Moses’ hands (Ex. 17:9-13). Thus the phrase, holding up someone’s hands has come to mean rendering them assistance.
Once upon a time there was a man who held up the hands of brethren such as Thomas B. Warren, Alan Highers, and other faithful proclaimers and defenders of the Word of God. But then he went to Vanderbilt to get a Ph. D., which some thought would be used to fight atheism. He has used his education, however, to fight everything that he and his mentors once stood for. Like young Anakin Skywalker, Rubel Shelly has betrayed everything true and right and noble to become the Darth Vader of the church.
There was a time when Shelly would have fought against the “gospel” that Billy Graham teaches, when he would have known that “faith only” is not Biblical and therefore cannot save. He once understood the role that baptism plays in one’s salvation and would have defended it staunchly.
Formerly, he would have fought the enemy; now he is the enemy. Twenty years ago no one, in his worst nightmare, would have ever imagined that Rubel Shelly would be lifting up the hands of Billy Graham. Below, however, is the announcement of his intention to do exactly that, as it was printed in Lovelines, his weekly church bulletin (September 29, 1999).
Billy Graham Crusade * June 1-4, 2000/Adelphia Coliseum
By now it is likely that you have heard the news that Billy Graham is planning an evangelistic crusade for Nashville in the spring of next year. This crusade has the potential to be a significant event in the spiritual life of many people in our city.
Dr. Graham will soon be 82 years old, and he is being treated for Parkinson’s Disease. The Middle Tennessee Billy Graham Crusade could be among his final efforts at preaching to stadiums filled with seeking hearts.
Woodmont Hills supports the decision of Dr. Graham and his ministry team to be in Nashville. Even though traditional revivals and crusade events are no longer believed to be the best way to reach people with the message of Christ, the uniqueness of this event stands to make it effective in reaching many who don’t know Christ.
It is important for the members of our church family to understand why we will be enthusiastic participants. Billy Graham presents Jesus Christ as mankind’s only hope for eternal life. “My one purpose in life,” he insists, “is to help people find a personal relationship with God, which I believe comes through knowing Christ.” If it is right to link arms with other believers to oppose pornography and drugs, surely it cannot be wrong to join with them to preach Christ crucified.
Dr. Graham has a reputation of honesty, accountability, and moral uprightness. In a generation when so many evangelists have been tarnished by scandal, he has exhibited Christian character throughout his career.
The Graham Crusade will challenge the church in Nashville to reap a harvest of souls to God’s glory. The most important part of the crusade will not be four days of preaching at the coliseum but the months of prayer, teaching, and seed-planting that will lead up to the first week in June of 2000.
The invitation to be given each evening will be for persons to make a decision to accept Jesus Christ as their Savior and Lord. Respondents will then make a self-designating choice to be counseled about the meaning of their decision by people from several different groups. We will be working closely with the campaign effort to advise and teach those who mark “Church of Christ.” We will also try to connect such persons with a congregation that can minister to them appropriately and help them in their spiritual pilgrimage.
With the blessing of our shepherds, Rubel Shelly is serving as a General Committee Member on behalf of this outreach effort. Several of our shepherds wrote letters of invitation to Dr. Graham to encourage him to come to our city. Training sessions for crusade workers will be hosted on our property. And we ask all of you to pray for the success of this effort to exalt Jesus Christ in our great city.
Jesus is not only the hope of the world–but of our city, your block, and a non-Christian friend you can begin now to pray will attend the crusade with you next spring.
[Editor’s note: No one will be saved through Graham’s “preaching” or Shelly’s follow-up work. These men and the “shepherds” are accountable; pray for them.]
As 1999 wound down, the Associated Press’ Religion Writer, Richard N. Ostling, interviewed Billy Graham for his perspective of the 20th century. The article was published in the Denton Record-Chronicle on December 17th, under the title “Billy Graham: Everything Changed in Century, Except Humanity” (all quotations are from page 5A). The headline could have easily have read: “Billy Graham Bows to the Spirit of the Age.”
After several paragraphs of astute observations (“man’s heart has not changed” and “God has not changed”), the well-known religious figure threw away everything the Bible stands for by praising the spirit of compromise. Graham is no stranger to compromise; he has kept baptism “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38) out of his “preaching” for years in order to maintain his popularity. Just consider the significance (not to mention the effect) of that decision: When Peter was asked by those on the day of Pentecost what they should do, the inspired apostle answered, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). In all of the years of his “preaching,” how many times has Graham mentioned that verse, or quoted it beyond the first word? If he ever did preach on that text, his purpose would be to try to explain away its obvious meaning.
Why does he not include the message presented in the Scriptures? He waters down the gospel (actually, he drains the water out of it) because people are much more likely to want salvation if it can remain a mental decision rather than an observable response.
After lauding the “ecumenical movement,” Graham selected Pope John Paul II as his man of the century:
He “has brought the greatest impact of any pope in the last 200 years,” Graham thinks. “I admire his courage, determination, intellectual abilities and his understanding of Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox differences, and the attempt at some form of reconciliation.”
What? Pardon us for stating the obvious, but there is no such office as the papacy delineated in the Scriptures. The pope claims to be the head of the church; he claims to be Christ’s representative here on earth. “Protestants,” not to mention Christians, deny both the title and the office created by men. Exactly what kind of reconciliation can there be between those who accept the pope as their spiritual leader and those who emphatically reject that concept? When Truth finds itself compatible with error, it is Truth no longer. When God’s people start admiring the craftsmanship of the golden calf, instead of being outraged by its very existence (in violation of the commandments of God), it will not be long before they want a replica of one for the mantle above their fireplace.
If the pope wants to bring about some sort of reconciliation between religious people, he should begin by announcing that there is no Biblical authority for the office he holds, that tradition is not equal to the inspired Word of God, that all Christians are priests and that therefore there is no need for a separate priesthood, that Mary has been exalted too highly, and that the Bible never mentions “the rosary.”
After he shocks the world with those statements, he could turn to Protestants and say, “You know, you folks don’t have it right, either. You have depended on grace so heavily that you have eliminated from salvation baptism (which is the working of God–Col. 2:12) and good works, in which Christians were appointed to walk (Eph. 2:10).” One can almost see Graham’s mouth pop open while he sputters, in search of a coherent thought.
Graham’s ecumenical spirit is further seen in his praise for the Jews:
Another huge change is improved relations between Christians and Jews. “We have grown. The two don’t see the vast differences and hold the prejudices they did. People have friends across all kinds of lines.”
Is there a point here somewhere? We have friends that are atheists, also. Having Jewish, Muslim, Catholic, or atheistic friends does not does not make them spiritually acceptable to God. This sort of statement implies that we must be openly hostile to everyone we disagree with, in which case it would be fairly difficult to get along with our neighbors or even hold a job.
There will always be a vast difference between Jews and Christians. Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me” (John 14:6). Peter affirmed (before the high priest of the Jews): “Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).
Paul wrote the following concerning his fellow Jews who rejected Christ:
For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God which are in Judea in Christ Jesus. For you also suffered the same things of your countrymen, just as they did from the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they do not please God and are contrary to all men, forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they may be saved, so as always to fill up the measure of their sins; but wrath has come upon them to the uttermost (1 Thess. 2:14-16).
What would Billy Graham think of someone who would make such a strong statement? Would he affirm that Paul was prejudiced against the Jews? Would he rebuke Paul for focusing too much on their “vast differences”? Did Paul not love the Jews? If not, why did he always preach to them first?
Both Jesus and Paul spoke the truth whether it fit the multi-cultural thinking of the first century or not. They did not elevate popularity, public opinion polls, the news media, or the Roman government above truth. Spiritual truth, the gospel, needs to be publicly proclaimed regardless of who is offended by it or what the adverse response is (stoning, beheading, crucifixion).
Imagine a reporter interviewing Demas at the end of the first century and the following interview being published. After a discussion of the changes that had occurred since the establishment of the church, the reporter asks if Demas had not once worked with Paul.
Demas: Yes, but I just had to quit working with him. Paul was a great evangelist, but he was too legalistic. Well, you have read some of his letters; he was always naming names, telling everyone who would listen about those who opposed him or who failed to measure up to his standards. I was even berated in one epistle.
Reporter: Do you think the church is more tolerant now than in those days?
Demas: Yes, we have made a lot of progress. I really admire Diotrephes. He has shown great courage, determination, and intellectual ability. He has been able to understand the differences between his followers, those of the Judaizing teachers, and the Nicolaitans as well. No one has worked more tirelessly at achieving Christian unity than Diotrephes.
Reporter: Wasn’t he the moving force behind the Christian Scholars Conference in Ephesus earlier this year?
Demas: Yes, John was a stumbling block to such an event, although some had wanted this meeting for years. His passing two years ago has ushered in a new era of tolerance. Diotrephes was able to schedule the son of Demetrius the silversmith as one of the speakers. We have grown. We and the idolaters don’t see the vast differences and hold the same prejudices we once did. People have friends across all kinds of lines.
Reporter: Do you think that the emperor will relax his persecution of Christians in the near future?
Demas: The great emperor Trajan has never bothered us. We understand that offering a pinch of incense and saying, “Caesar is Lord” is just a formality–actually an expression of patriotism. We are always willing to comply with our government–especially when the economy is this good.
Reporter: How do you account for the deaths of so many Christians that we have occasionally reported?
Demas: Those are the fanatics who still follow the teaching of Paul and John, who steadfastly refuse to compromise or show any flexibility. We feel sorry for them, of course; they will probably die out soon. We think it’s better to adapt to society. We practice this philosophy even in our doctrine. Recently, some professors at Aegean Sea University have questioned the “virgin birth” doctrine, and whether baptism is “for” or “because of” the remission of sins. We really want to “get along” with others. We have such a sweet spirit; it should last another 2,000 years, at least.
After the massive tinkering that was done with the miniseries about Noah, one could only imagine how film producers would treat Mary. The first portion of it was actually fairly decent. Although Mary was portrayed as wise beyond her years and quite vocal (when she confronted the captain of some Roman troops), a little bit of artistic license is acceptable.
Then came a few inaccuracies, such as Zacharias saying, “His name is John” in private to Mary and Elizabeth after she wondered aloud what they should name him. The Biblical text, however, does not say that Mary was even present for John’s birth (Luke 1:56-57). Furthermore, it was Elizabeth who first announced that the child’s name was John to neighbors and relatives, and Zecharias wrote it on a tablet (Luke 1:59-63).
Surprisingly, however, the wise men did not show up at the manger along with the shepherds, but only a few days elapsed from the wise men’s departure until Joseph and Mary had to flee from the inn, where they were now staying.
It is implied that Jesus received His teachings from Mary. In one scene she tries to stop some men from stoning an adulteress, but she is too late; the woman has already died. When the men pointed out that it was the law, Mary responds by saying: “Scripture says, What does God require of you: to do justice, but to love mercy,'” a loose rendering of Micah 6:8. Mary teaches Jesus stories every night, such as the good Samaritan. He later decides to use these to teach others. Thus, His source material comes from His mother instead of the Father (John 12:49-50).
In the film, it is Mary’s idea that Jesus be baptized by John. He is wondering who He is and what His mission is. He follows Mary’s advice and afterward says: “We were right to come. I know what I must do now.”
The presentation of John and the baptism of Jesus was one of the worst imaginable. John preaches while wading in the waters of a river. Most men would get fairly waterlogged if their sermons were very long and a number of people responded. The Bible says that John baptized where there was much water (John 3:23); it does not say he also preached in it.
But far worse is that John’s listeners wade out into the river, and he pours water over their heads. This preposterous scenario flaunts modern customs and callously disregards the truth concerning baptism in the first century. The producers of this show, if they did any research at all, could not help knowing that baptism, by its very definition, means immersion. A superficial check of any Greek lexicon would have sufficed. They obviously wanted to present error.
If the viewer stops to think about it, there is nothing so ludicrous as people wading out into a river to have a little water poured over their heads. John could have stood on dry ground and dipped a bucket into the river if he were merely going to throw a little water on their heads. No one needs to stand in water unless he is going to immerse someone. Neither would a sane individual go down into the water and come up out of it (soaking himself to the skin from the waist down in the process) in order to receive on his head a few sprinkled droplets. Nor would “much water” be required.
The scene between Jesus and Mary, in which she informs Him of the lack of wine at the wedding feast (which turns out to be his “cousin” Joses’ wedding), is handled quite well, but afterward the scene fades out with Jesus and Mary dancing gaily and vigorously in a circle.
When Jesus reads the portion of the scroll from Isaiah in the synagogue at Nazareth, there is massive unbelief expressed on the part of the listeners, but it is not for the reason cited in Luke 4. In verse 22 the initial reaction was: “So all bore witness to Him, and marveled at His gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth….” It was not until Jesus spoke about God’s concern with the Gentiles that the people “were filled with wrath” (v. 28). In the movie, however, Jesus quotes John 6:38, 49, and 51a), which occurred much later.
The crucifixion scene was almost surreal. Jesus is put on the cross, speaks five of the seven last sayings (in the wrong order), and then is immediately taken down. Viewers might think Jesus was on the cross for only thirty minutes if they do not know the Scriptures. Mary shames John into attending the crucifixion (which is one of several speculative ideas included in the film).
The story ends with John asking Mary what they must do? She looks into the camera and says, “Go out into the world, knowing our own weaknesses. Try to teach as He taught, live as He lived, love as He loved.” Imagine–the apostles get their instructions from Mary instead of Jesus (Matt. 28:18-20)!
Catholic bias is especially observable when Jesus’ brothers and sisters are perpetually referred to as “cousins.” Only the Catholic Church believes that Mary always remained a virgin. That idea never came from the Bible. Translators never used “cousins” when referring to the children of Joseph and Mary.
The executive producers were Eunice Kennedy Shriver and Bobby Shriver. The “religious consultant” for the film was Father Heet. The viewer may at least rejoice that Peter was not anointed “pope,” nor did Mary ascend into heaven.
