The Bible advises that on occasion one should: “Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes” (Pr. 26:5). Therefore, this article is in response to the person who calls himself FARMBOY, who has a website brimming with arrogance, which is reflected in what he calls “A Letter to God (with no hope for an answer).” It would have been more nearly accurate for him to have said that he had no desire for an answer, or, simply, that he has no hope, period. In his introduction to the letter he boasts:
I am an atheist. I do not believe there is even the remotest possibility that a “god” exists. With that understood, I write this letter to the god that billions worship, knowing with full confidence that I will never get an answer.
Those who have prayed for him he insults by calling “mental types.” Those who have attempted to answer him have only succeeded in furnishing him with “a half chuckle.” He adds at the conclusion of his letter he warns believers: “If god wants me to know the answers, he will tell me. He shouldn’t need you to help him.”
Well, FARMBOY, since you spurn kindness, let me tell you in a straightforward manner why you have not heard from God. It is not that He does not exist or has problems communicating (just ask Pharaoh). In all your own self-esteem, you have probably not asked yourself this one simple question; so I will ask it for you: “Why should God bother to talk to a fool?” “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God'” (Ps. 14:1). Since you do not believe “there is even the remotest possibility that a ‘god’ exists,” you have classified yourself as a fool.
By the way, you might explain to the rest of us how it is that you reached your firm conclusion of God’s nonexistence. Were you just born with that knowledge? Did logic force you to such a conclusion? Or was it the result of some experience? Don’t you owe it to the rest of us to share your wisdom in this matter? After all, if we are serving a nonexistent being, we are wasting our time. With your knowledge we could become enlightened. Without your explanation we will be forced to think that you are the foolish one.
You may not have considered this point, either: As God gave up on the Gentiles who suppressed the truth in unrighteousness, He may also have given up on you (Rom. 1:18-32). If you do not wish to retain Him in your knowledge, He can handle it. Do you honestly think He will follow you around, begging you to believe in Him? Now that picture really is funny.
God is not accountable to us; we are accountable to Him (Acts 17:30-31; Rom. 14:11-12; 2 Cor. 5:10). He did not even explain to Job the reason for his suffering, though Job fervently desired to know the reason for it. If God would not inform a devoted servant, what makes you think He would answer an egotistical infidel?
Besides, the day of judgment will prove you wrong beyond any doubt. I can wait until then to let God’s presence show up your foolishness, but it’s a price that you cannot afford. You will have all eternity to reassess your position. Unfortunately, it will not matter if you change your mind then. You might give some thought now, however, to reversing yourself.
Now, FARMBOY, you said you were not interested in a reply to your letter; so you can quit reading if you wish. This response will be to demonstrate to others that there is no validity to what you probably think are intriguing questions. So let’s look at what you wrote.
In Genesis, it says that you created everything in “seven days and nights”. Bible scholars insist that these days and nights are not to be meant as 24 hour periods. How they come to this conclusion varies, and none of them agree on much. So, in Genesis, was your “day and night” a 24 hour period, as we mortals understand the term?
FARMBOY, if I were God and disposed to chatting with fools, my answer would be: “You need to learn how to read more carefully. The earth was completed in six days, and I rested on the seventh day. Read what I wrote in Genesis 1:31-2:3. You might also notice what I wrote in Exodus 31:17 concerning the basis for the continual observance of the Sabbath day for my people: ‘It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed.’ When you were reading through Genesis 1, did you fail to observe the expression, the evening and the morning? I only threw it in there six times (1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31). What other kind of day would you expect besides a 24-hour one? As for the ‘scholars’ you mentioned, you will need to write a letter to them if you want to understand their thinking. They do not have any more respect for me than you do. Many people have been confused by what ‘they’ say. Just stick with what I wrote, and you will not have so many questions.”
“Why did Eve have to come from a rib, when Adam came from dust?” Many have observed that Eve’s coming from Adam’s side shows their equality of worth. Paul says it demonstrates that both are interdependent: “For as the woman was from the man, even so man is through the woman” (1 Cor. 10:11-12).
“You gave this lovely couple complete freedom of choice, yet, you forbade them from eating the fruit of one tree. Why?” Isn’t it obvious? Without a restriction, how can free will be tested? Without a command, how can one be either obedient or disobedient?
“…did you not know before you created anything…that Eve would, indeed, eat of the fruit of this tree and entice Adam to also do so?” The answer is yes: God knew that sin would enter the world He created. He had already purposed that the sacrifice for sins would be paid; therefore, Jesus is referred to as “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world” (Rev. 13:8).
“If you knew this, why did you proceed with tempting them? Was it a game?” FARMBOY, you show your ignorance of the Book: “…God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone” (James 1:13).
Satan is the one that did the tempting (John 8:44). No, it is not a game. Games involve an element of chance. God’s choices are clear-cut: Choose to love and serve Him, and you are rewarded with eternal life; choose to be rebellious, selfish, and foolish, and the end result is eternal condemnation. There is no element of chance involved. Life is not a game of chance; it is making the right decision.
In Genesis, after Adam and Eve ate of the fruit, you did all sorts of things to them. They discovered they were naked and that suddenly became a bad thing. Instead of creating more humans, you condemned Eve to bear them the hard way. Why did you not just create more? Why is eating one apple so much of a horrid thing that you then condemn billions of humans to pay for the “sin” of your own first creation? Did you not create them perfectly? Where [sic] they not made in “your image?”
It would be difficult to imagine more erroneous assumptions and misinformation in one paragraph. First of all, let’s consider the technical mistakes. The question mark should be outside the quotation marks: you’re asking a question; “your image” is not a question. This letter has been on the Internet since September of 1997? You should have proofread it at least once since then. If you had, you would have noticed you have where for were in the last sentence of the above paragraph (this error gives me half a chuckle).
Your careless use of language reflects your careless ability to read the Scriptures: nowhere does the Bible say the fruit was an “apple.” You are relying more on the pop culture for your information than you are the Bible. If you are going to be so foolish as to attack the Divine revelation of Deity, you might at least try to get your facts correct.
Nakedness did not suddenly become a bad thing (although it would be defined as such later in certain contexts). Prior to eating the fruit (now notice this description) of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, Adam and Eve were in a state of innocence, as children are. The fruit provided them knowledge instantaneously. Nowadays we all attain it through growth and maturity. After they ate the fruit, they came to know what nakedness means. They covered themselves out of a sense of embarrassment.
Your question about just creating more people is as impertinent as it is irrelevant. Why not ask why God did not make the sky green and grass red? When you create your universe, FARMBOY, you can do it the way you want. You have no creative power; you can only criticize and destroy. Besides, if God decided to create more humans every time one sinned, there would be no such thing as the birth process, babies, nurturing, or parenthood! We would just have innocent, naked adults popping into existence all over the place without a clue as to what is going on.
Billions of humans are not paying for the “sin” of Adam and Eve (which you assign to God). We need only be concerned about our own sins (Eze. 18:20). God did not “sin” in creating the world. The world was pure, and mankind was pure. Human beings, however, cannot be human beings without free will. Adam and Eve only represented all mankind; they did what we all do when we choose to disobey God. Have you ever chosen to do something wrong when you knew it was wrong, FARMBOY? Then you have no basis to accuse God or Adam and Eve.
Yes, the first pair entered the world in perfect condition; they were made in God’s image, and so were you. You came with the ability to think critically, analyze, evaluate, and make decisions. You are able to reason and think rationally, but as your “letter” demonstrates, you can choose to be irrational, also. You can be like God, or you can be as stubborn as Satan. The gift of free will is what gives you these choices. If you did not have it, you would have no freedom to flaunt your misconceptions of God.
Your question about the land of Nod and mates for the offspring of Adam and Eve are typical. Atheists have shown more curiosity about the land of Nod than practically any other subject. If they spent nearly that much effort in an honest evaluation of how mankind came into existence, they would be far better off. The name Nod means “place of wandering,” as nearly any commentary will state. It probably came to be named such after Cain made that region his home, just as we might talk about the Indians who dwelt in Oklahoma, though there was no such state at the time they settled there. Adam and Eve had an unspecified number of sons and daughters (Gen. 5:4). Even today, some people have as many as 10 to 20 children, from whom could be formed 5 to 10 new couples.
“If we are all descendants of Adam and Eve, why did the first few generations not have the same health problems that modern day offspring of siblings have?” The answer is really quite simple: God is smarter than you are, FARMBOY. He knew about DNA, genetics, and diseases when He created mankind–long before mankind ever got around to figuring it out. He arranged it so that the resulting combinations from Adam and Eve would not create such conflicts.
Most of what you write in the next few paragraphs is not in the form of a question; so there is little to answer. You do not find God’s method of redeeming mankind intelligible, but your insistence upon remaining ignorant is not God’s fault. In answer to the time of Jesus’ incarnation, it was “the fullness of time” (Gal. 4:4). You do not have the knowledge or the capability to make such a decision. What arrogance you possess. You don’t believe in God, but if He does exist, He did things all wrong because He lacked your insight.
Because the people of the times are rather stupid, you fill the new testament with parables that only they can understand. Did you not realize that thousands of years later, the meaning of these would be lost in translation?
Stupid people were given parables that we (presumably, more intelligent people) cannot understand? That’s not even good nonsense. Jesus did not speak in parables because people were stupid, but to hide certain points from those who would not accept them anyway. Their problem was centered in the heart, not the brain. They were not unlike you, FARMBOY (Matt. 13:13-16). Little (if any) meaning is lost in translation; certainly nothing crucial to salvation has been lost.
“If we believe, we can be healed of disease and pain…” What Scripture did you read that in? You have been listening to too many televangelists (which is peculiar for an atheist).
You affirm that Adam and Eve had no choice and that we do not, either. If that is so, then how do you explain that many of us have chosen to obey God, and you haven’t? If there were no choice, we would all think the same thing and make the same decisions.
You ask how you can know that Jesus did not already return a second time. That’s easy: the world is still standing. When Jesus returns for His own, the world will be burned up (2 Peter 3).
Why should you spend eternity in hell just because you don’t believe in God or Jesus? You suffer eternal torment because of your sins. It is as though you have fallen into the well of sin. God and Jesus are your hope of getting out. Don’t be surprised if you eventually drown because you have refused assistance. Jesus came to save, not condemn; you are already condemned because of your sins (John 3:16-21).
Why are you expected to follow a long set of rules and regulations? Which ones don’t you like? Which ones are not in your best interests? One who loves (John 14:15) does not mind pleasing another.
Why is God permitted to execute justice but you are not? God knows what He is doing, and you don’t.
“Why did you give us organs, biblically meant only for procreation, that also function so well as tools of pleasure?” Where in the Bible does it say that such organs are only for procreation? Read 1 Corinthians 7:2-5.
“Why do we have to die?” Death came with sin.
“If you want to talk to me…” FARMBOY, why would God wish to talk to you? Your letter reveals time and again that you haven’t listened to what He has already said. You have paid attention to erroneous ideas rather than going to the source Himself. Try reading His book first; you’ll be better prepared to talk to Him.
IN MEMORIAM: ARCHIE KEPLINGER
There will only ever be one Archie. Who would have ever thought all those years ago when he was growing up on a farm in Tennessee that he would one day preach in Liberia, West Africa, be part of a singing group that cut two record albums, or become a student of the Hebrew language? As unlikely as those seemed, at the time, to be a part of his future, they would not be the only incongruous characteristics that attended him.
Archie was an irresistible force. When he set his mind to do something, there was no turning back until the task was completed. If the pieces of whatever puzzling project he was working on did not fit, he would exercise sheer strength until it worked. Most people taking this approach would break or ruin the parts, but he would make it work, leaving others to shake their heads in wonder.
Although he was barely 15 when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, he managed to become a veteran of World War II, having served on the U.S.S. Denver, a light cruiser, which was present in Tokyo Bay when MacArthur signed the treaty aboard the Missouri. He moved his young family to Peoria a few years after the war to work for Caterpillar Tractor, from which he retired after 35 years at the young age of 56.
Amazingly, he took up golf. It was amazing because the words golf and impatience do not generally complement one another. There were predictions of his clubs becoming wrapped around trees or taking up residence at the bottom of an offending lake. But his natural athletic ability, combined with sheer willpower, made him capable of shooting in the low 80s. At a best ball tournament near Columbus, Ohio, his blazing putter saved seven strokes, allowing the group to finish 13 under par. Most of those putts were from over 15 feet away; it was as though the ball would not dare to do anything but plink into the cup.
Archie never outgrew his impetuosity; in that respect he was a combination of the apostle Peter and Peter Pan. To think of something was to do it. Or say it. On vacation to a strange state, he and I were on our way to play golf when he picked up a young hitchhiker. After a few moments Archie took his eyes off the road momentarily and turned to the young man in the back seat, demanding to know, “Where do you go to church, young man?” Caught off guard and showing signs of apoplexy, the poor youth stuttered for several seconds before admitting that he did not worship anywhere.
Evangelism is something that Archie took seriously, if not tactfully. It is doubtful that anyone attending his funeral had escaped having a discussion with him. He was not easily persuaded of certain things, but once he was, he was committed to them. Some people are timid about discussing the Scriptures with others. Not Archie. He was confident in the truths he had learned, and he was not embarrassed to tell others. Whether people agreed or disagreed with him was irrelevant; they would hear him out. Such intensity did not spring from boorishness or selfishness, but from a fervent desire for everyone else to love God as he did.
Some people are very complex; some are mysterious; some are subtle and secretive. Archie was easy to figure out. If he spoke to someone about his soul, the reason was that he wanted him to be saved. For that same reason he would rebuke even those he loved. His motivation was the salvation of all whom he met. He believed the Bible is the Word of God (which it is).
God was the central part of Archie’s life. There was never a family get-together that did not break out in a religious discussion. Meals were seasoned with gospel salt. Afterward, the men would adjourn to some comfortable furniture–but not to smoke cigars or repeat ribald stories. Archie would call upon one of the men to read a Scripture. “Now what does that mean?” The ensuing discussion would be nothing, if not interesting.
For several years he preached at various times. He moved to one city and spent four years trying to build up the church there; he even had a radio program for a while. He never liked to admit defeat, but he sadly left that town, giving in to realism. He spoke in a number of other locales within a seventy-mile radius of Peoria, and he always encouraged others to preach, also. When the brethren at Browning (the small town in Illinois with the oldest church in the state) needed help, he lined up men to speak every week. Even though those efforts had occurred in the 60s and the 80s, at least three families from there traveled to Peoria for his visitation. For the most part, Archie is the reason that I started preparing sermons. When he asked if I could preach in Browning, it never dawned on me that I could say, “No.”
Some people are not joke-tellers, but abstinence from that endeavor does not mean they do not have a sense of humor. In his Bible on a sticky note we found the following humorous bit: “Happiness is waking up in the morning and finding your boss’s picture on a milk carton.” Probably the most the family ever saw him laugh was prompted by an event that occurred a number of years ago when a boy dating his second-oldest daughter got stuck in the snow and mud of the street perpendicular to the driveway. The house was situated in a level clearing hollowed out of the woods. The driveway branched off of the narrow road that spiraled through the trees, ascending steeply at times. The side of the road opposite the house sported a great deal of shrubbery, but the embankment sloped off sharply beyond it. Archie asked the man who was all dressed up for the date to get behind the car to push it off the road back into the driveway. There was a muffled scream as the lad disappeared. Archie whirled around to find no one there. “Where’d you go?” he called. Under the bushes some fifteen feet below came a shaky voice, “I’m down here.” He climbed back up, and after the car was rescued, the boy came inside to wash his wounds and scratches. After they left on the date, Archie and the rest of us laughed over the episode for several minutes. Years later, a recollection of the event would evoke the same response.
Sometimes Archie would entertain ideas that were not really worthy of his attention. He once wrote three pages, single-spaced, devoted to a study of the word and. Several religious books of all types lined his shelves. He enjoyed ideas and studying a subject, no matter where it led; truth, however, was always the goal. He believed that Jesus meant it when He said, “Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free” (John 8:32).
He didn’t begin his study of Hebrew and Greek until he turned 60. Some thought that this endeavor would not work out, since his command of English was sometimes lacking, but he proved to be a good student.
Thanksgiving was always a family affair. Usually present were the two sons, three daughters, grandchildren, and (recently) great-grandchildren. After a bountiful meal, one could count on a few games of Rook and Aggravation. A few would be keeping an eye on the football game, but at the appropriate time (which Archie would decide) everyone would be expected to join in the singing of hymns and spiritual songs, which might last an hour. In recent years, Archie asked family members to say what they were thankful for before the prayer for the meal. One could not help noticing the emotion in the voice and the tears in the eyes of a man that many would have mistakenly thought too gruff to experience. The importance of family was exceeded only by the desire for all family members to be saved.
One year, after Oliver Stone’s release of the movie, J. F. K., several of us were speculating on who was responsible for what had occurred in Dallas all those years ago. The conversation ended abruptly when Archie stated rather matter-of-factly: “God killed him–because of his fornication and immorality.”
Everyone will miss those favorite expressions, such as, “You orn’ry pup,” “Don’t kid yourself,” “That’s the truth,” and even the mundane, “How about a cup of coffee?” accompanied by an ingratiating smile. Archie and Irene celebrated 50 years together in 1996. He passed away a month and a day after his 73rd birthday.
During most of his life he moved with a restless energy. There was the next project for the house, the next book to read, visiting his daughter and her husband in Liberia, the next game of golf, traveling to raise money for the church’s exhibit at the state fair–or preparing a sermon to preach. Details concerning life after death are scanty, beyond the descriptions of boundless joy or great torment. Because of God’s grace and Archie’s obedience, we have no doubts as to his current state of happiness. But if in that blissful realm there are discussion groups or an opportunity to hear difficult passages of the Bible explained, Archie will be there, listening, learning, and asking questions.
Article by Gary W. Summers.
B. K. Eakman’s well-documented book, Cloning of the American Mind, provides a fascinating overview of the men and their ideologies that have shaped the current culture in this country during this century. The author mentions, among hundreds of others, the philosophy of Walter Benjamin, who “believed that since truth was entirely relative, one could discard the concept of ‘error.’ He went on to argue that if truth and error are entirely obsolete, then the person who understands this is ‘beyond good and evil,’ i.e., ‘enlightened'” (151).
One need only look at various aspects of society to realize that many people agree with Benjamin’s view of truth. College professors, politicians, actors and actresses, and even the mainstream news media show no real excitement over the existence of truth–or verifiable facts, for that matter. For this reason they will all defend immorality and oppose decency (truth always supports virtue).
But what is worse than society’s loss of values is that this philosophy has infiltrated the church as well. Some “brethren” also think that truth and error are entirely obsolete. For that reason they are willing to cast aside doctrinal differences and champion “unity in diversity.” They say that God does not expect uniformity and conformity on the part of His people. They talk about being on the good ship FELLOWSHIP with people who are counted as brethren who have never obeyed the gospel! They either can not discern the difference between truth and error (too much trouble?), or they do not care what the difference is. Regardless of the world’s attitude, there is always One who cares.
“Hear this, O house of Jacob, who are called by the name of Israel, and have come forth from the wellsprings of Judah; who swear by the name of the Lord, and make mention of the God of Israel, but not in truth or in righteousness” (Isa. 48:1).
Many of today’s false brethren grew up hearing the Word of God preached. They know what actions are necessary in order to obtain salvation. They have been taught what constitutes acceptable worship. They know they ought not to fellowship those who remain in spiritual darkness. They make mention of God and the Lord Jesus Christ, but not in truth or righteousness!
Like their spiritual predecessors, “They trust in empty words and speak lies; they conceive evil and bring forth iniquity” (Isa. 59:4). If every man in the world thinks truth is obsolete, nevertheless Jesus will judge them according to the truth that He Himself taught and spoke (John 12:48). If 100 “preachers” decided that error does not exist, such myopia will not keep God from judging the world in righteousness (Acts 17:31).
We expect opposition to God to come from the world, since darkness cannot stand the light (John 3:19-21). But what is difficult to comprehend is the fact that God’s own people will continue to present to the world and brethren a spiritual facade that is not built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ being the chief cornerstone. They still mention Him, but not in truth or righteousness. Truth will never be obsolete; it will last throughout eternity (Matt. 24:35). What will become, however, of the errors promulgated by false teachers–and those who believe them?
During the past year I have read at least some portion of your newspaper columns; we seldom ever agree on anything. In fact, the word never would probably work best here. You have steadfastly defended Clinton with every new sleazy revelation and with equal fervor trashed Ken Starr. I do not recall a single instance in which you have defended Biblical morality; now there is a “hint” as to the reason why.
According to your column of September 9th, titled “Making God in Their Own Image” in the Denton Record-Chronicle, you think that those who believe in the literal creation of this world, instead of evolution, have made God in their image. You also rather arrogantly accuse God of “being a pretty poor excuse for a Supreme being” (8A). Perhaps, for that reason you are always so happy (and quick) to climb into bed with Satan and to advance his agenda.
Since you have taken it upon yourself to offer a “rigorous intellectual analysis” of scientific creationism, you will surely not mind an analysis of your column. You begin by saying that “a literal interpretation of the Bible produces nonsense.” Really? Those of us who study the Bible day by day and week by week do not consider it nonsense. Could it be, Mr. Kaul, that your lack of understanding is the problem? As people often say, “The one who criticizes a great work of art reveals more about himself than the masterpiece he rails against.” You have likewise revealed much more about your own ignorance than you have harmed the Bible you seek to destroy. Furthermore, you have succeeded in insulting millions of people who believe the Holy Scriptures by insinuating that they are too dim to realize that their beloved Book is nonsense. You might have said, “There are some problems that a literal interpretation carries with it” instead of being so openly hostile and implying that believers are nonsensical.
But let’s consider your charges of God’s alleged “mistakes” (fancy that–a mortal seeking to correct Divine wisdom). “If you’re going to create a creature that lasts 80 years or so, why supply it with a back that is only good for 50 or 60 years?” This must be intended to be humorous, not serious criticism. Many people thrive beyond those years without back problems; exactly what are you talking about? Regardless, you are wrong, anyway. God made backs to last several hundred years, which you might have noticed if you had read the literal lifespans of the earth’s first inhabitants.
Try to understand this crucial point, Mr. Kaul: When God finished the creation, it was very good (Gen. 1:31). Things have changed because of sin being brought into the world and because of man’s excessive love and practice of sin. Because of sin the ground became cursed with thorns and thistles (Gen. 3:17-19); disease and death likewise entered in. Earthquakes (your second objection) resulted from the Flood, which was a punishment upon mankind for his continual obsession with sin. Apart from sin these things would never have occurred.
In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened (Gen. 7:11).
The earth suffered great upheaval as punishment for man’s great wickedness, for “every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Gen. 6:5). “The earth was also corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence” (Gen. 6:11). Do not blame tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, volcanoes, and earthquakes on the Almighty; they were merited by man’s extreme fondness for sin.
Your third complaint concerns murder.
If God created man in his own image, how come man is such a sorry example of an intelligent being, one of the very few animals who kills his colleagues or fouls his own nest? …This most intelligent of species (and I wondered who figured that out) will kill friends, strangers, members of his own family, even his children, very often for trivial reasons, like the clothes his victims are wearing or the color of their skin. These people are made in God’s image? That doesn’t say much for God.
You really set yourself up on this one, Mr. Kaul. The reason man is such a sorry representation of an intelligent being is that He has chosen to ignore God’s book of literal instructions. Perhaps you may have heard the expression, “You shall not murder” (Ex. 20:13)? Or were you the one that objected to having such laws posted in schools?
God defines what is moral and what is not. It is up to man to adopt the kind of behavior that is appropriate. But holy and righteous behavior does not accurately convey the idea of what it means to be created in God’s image. This expression refers to the thinking and reasoning capacity that God gave to man. Some people are poor examples of logical, rational beings (consider your column, for instance), but all have the ability to be so. The fact that people are obstinate and unreasonable in some areas of their lives does not mean they do not know enough to get out of the path of an 18-wheeler that is bearing down on them (if they are sober and desire to live).
Actually, if evolution is true and God does not exist, you really have no complaint about man’s actions, since there would not be any Divine standard to violate. People can only be judged wrong if there is a moral standard they are violating. Prejudice, which leads to murder, can only thrive in the absence of literal Scriptures, since without them man is not created in God’s image. With the Scriptures we know that “He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth…” (Acts 17:26). We also know that people of all nations are invited to be part of the kingdom, the church (Isa. 2:2-4; Gal. 3:28). But without this revelation concerning the brotherhood of man, there is no basis for not viewing those who are a little “different” with suspicion and maybe thinking that they are inferior or perhaps need to be “eliminated.”
With reverence for the Bible people can be taught to respect their fellow man. They can be taught not to murder adults or the innocent human life in the womb (or would you agree with that, Donald?); without the “literal” Scriptures people will do all the things you accuse them of–and more.
Men do wrong things because of the free will that God gave us. We make wrong decisions. Some people regret their wrong actions and repent of them. Others laugh and continue their evil ways as if there is no day of judgment coming. God has warned us and provided several examples of His Divine wrath being poured out (the flood, the captivities, the book of Revelation). But the decision is ours. Free will cannot exist without the possibility of harm to those who are innocent. For that reason people need to be encouraged to take the Scriptures seriously–not be told that the Bible “produces nonsense.” Your column will do nothing but aid irrational and senseless acts, which you claim to abhor. Liberals (both political and religious) rarely see that their philosophy carries with it the seeds of its own (and their) destruction.
Next you complain about God making Adam from clay (the text says “the dust of the ground”; Gene McDaniels’ song about Eve, “A Hundred Pounds of Clay,” isn’t accurate, either) and Eve from Adam’s rib. Would you have preferred that Adam be transformed from a gorilla and Eve evolved from a chimpanzee? Adam is told, after he sins, that he will return to the dust from which he was taken (Gen. 3:19). The significance of woman being taken from man is that henceforth man has come from woman. As Paul said:
Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. For as the woman was from the man, even so also is the man through the woman; but all things are from God (1 Cor. 11:11-12).
In other words, these are not random, senseless acts on God’s part; He has reasons for what He does–even if we may not always share in that knowledge.
The next “big issue” you raise concerns the progeny of the first couple.
I have a question. Where are they getting their wives? Where did Cain’s wife come from, for that matter? She just appears, nameless and without explanation. Was she his sister? His rib? We are never told. Imagine what the creationists would do with a missing link like that in evolution.
Mr. Kaul, your ignorance of the style of Biblical narrative does not give you the right to criticize what you have obviously made no effort to understand. The Bible frequently passes over large chunks of time because it is not God’s purpose to write a complete history of the world from day one.
In Genesis 4:1-2 we read of Eve’s bearing the sons, Cain and Abel. The same verse, however, describes their occupations. This might suggest to a thinking person that several years had elapsed without any Divine revelation on what occurred during that time period. Then verse three begins with “And in the process of time….” The Scriptures frequently focus on key events without supplying details, about which we may often be curious. Sometimes there are clues; other times there are none. Perhaps we should look at what is revealed and make the proper application instead of wondering about the information we don’t have.
In the case of Cain’s wife, however, there is a little information which suggests an answer to the question. In a summary statement, Genesis 5:4 mentions that Adam “begot sons and daughters.” Mr. Kaul, it is easy to see why you write opinion pieces instead of being an investigative reporter. Most people would reason that, since there were “sons and daughters,” whose names are not otherwise mentioned, Cain married one of them. Of course she was his sister (or niece?); she certainly was not his aunt.
God is not the “bumbler,” Mr. Kaul; your interpretive skills seem to be at the core of the problem. Speaking of “interpretation,” God is addressed uniformly throughout the Bible in the male gender. Pronouns are always He, Him, or His–never She, Her, or Hers. Why is it, then, that you end your article by referring to God as He or She?
The above comments cover your objections, but more needs to be said about “a literal interpretation of the Bible.” God uses figures of speech throughout the Book. Not everything is literal (“I am the vine,” for example). Entire books have been written about the figurative speech which the Scriptures employ. But one must assign literal value to words unless there is a textual reason to do otherwise.
Are Adam and Eve, for example, not real individuals? Do they just stand for all people or an idea (if so, what?)? Are the days of Genesis 1 literal days, or do they stand for indefinite periods of time (eras)? If they are figurative, it is interesting that they all have an evening and a morning. How would you describe a literal day any differently than what is recorded in Genesis 1? And how do you explain the literal Sabbath day? The children of Israel were commanded to rest on the seventh day because God did. “It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever, for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed” (Ex. 31:17). The Bible is consistent on this point. There is not some admission later on that the days were symbolic instead of literal. And why could not God create things in seven literal days anyway–and give the world the appearance of age? (Adam and Eve appeared fully mature; so did the animals and the trees.)
Adam is also treated throughout the Scriptures as a historical, real person. He is the first person according to genealogies both of the Old and New Testaments (1 Chron. 1:1; Luke 3:38). Jude speaks of Enoch as being the seventh from Adam (14), and Paul also presents Adam as a literal figure (Rom. 5:14). In fact Paul specifically refers to him as “the first man” (see 1 Cor. 15:22, 45-49). Notice: “The first man was of the earth, made of dust…” (1 Cor. 15:47). There could be no plainer confirmation of Adam’s literal existence.
Then there is Paul’s explanation for the denial to women of the role of leadership in the church:
Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression (1 Tim. 2:11-14).
Paul did not suggest any other explanation than what Genesis offers. He did not hint that Adam was the first gorilla to reason or speak. He did not allude to Eve as being one of several women who were created. He did not deny the order of creation but remains consistent with the Old Testament.
For someone to argue that Adam and Eve were not literal or that the days were not literal, Mr. Kaul, you need some sort of basis upon which to build a case. You have none. You admit that the “theory of evolution may not be perfect” or “explain everything”; so why do you attack something that does explain everything and is totally consistent?
You did not target Noah or the flood as non-literal, but most who deny Adam also deny Noah. He too is treated as a historical figure by the inspired writers of the New Testament (Heb. 11:7; 1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 2:5). Jesus also treated both Noah and the ark as literal (Matt. 24:37-38; Luke 17:26-27). Peter actually uses the judgment wrought through the flood as a type of the final judgment (2 Peter 3).
In other words, the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, stands or falls together. Though it consists of many different parts written by as many as 40 individuals over a period of 1,600 years, it nevertheless remains harmonious and consistent throughout. Instead of reading it to find frivolous faults or misapply portions of it for an ignoble purpose, Mr. Kaul, why don’t you try reading it for what it says, “rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15)? As Paul affirms:
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work (2 Tim. 3:16-17).
Article for Gary W. Summers.
Newt Gingrich is a brilliant strategist, having devised and implemented the “Contract With America,” which resulted in Republicans gaining control of the House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years (back in 1994). He wrote an excellent book, To Renew America. He is, however, probably unelectable again in light of the fact that he filed for divorce against his wife and is currently seeing a woman 23 years his junior.
On August 31st, The Dallas Morning News published an article about this matter: “Privacy for Politicians Gets Gingrich’s Support” (3A). The first sentence of the article sets the tone for what follows: “Newt Gingrich says attacks on politicians’ private lives have no place in American politics.”
Such a statement can only apply within certain contexts. Attacking a family member on the basis of looks or a lack of talent in certain areas would be inappropriate. Such derision is based on personal, rather than substantive, considerations; it reveals a lack of class on the part of the one leading the assault.
Another appropriate application involves a person dredging up something from the distant past (longer than, say, last week, or two years ago). Someone may have been in a college fraternity in his youth and gotten drunk several times before getting smart. The news media does not need to investigate past bad behavior that has long since been repented of.
Current private behavior, however, does matter. As Rush Limbaugh has frequently advocated, “Leadership descends from character.” Any elected official who does not possess good character at the time of his inauguration is not going to have the moral authority to execute his tasks effectively. Although apparently some no longer care, many Americans cannot respect, follow, or listen to someone who cheats on his wife and lies repeatedly, even under oath. Any appeal to morality that such a man makes is a waste of time–because he has no morals. His job is affected: What validity can the name of a proven liar have when he signs a treaty? How can promises mean anything?
Newt Gingrich suddenly wants private lives kept out of politics, but privacy cannot be considered a privilege if an individual becomes involved in breaking a covenant (which divorce does), committing fraud, lying or deceiving people, smoking pot on the weekends, or inviting an employee to “work late.” These character flaws may well have an effect on one’s ability to do one’s job. In his three-part interview that aired last week on C-Span, Mr. Gingrich (who had filed for divorce the day before the taping) was quite defensive about “privacy”:
“In the first place, nobody is a saint. I mean, if you believe in God, by definition you believe nobody is a saint. So the most religious of people should have the deepest understanding that you’re not going to elect saints, you’re going to elect a sinner, and hopefully, you elect a sinner who prays, a sinner who is self-aware, a sinner who is responsible…Ó (3A).
Obviously, Gingrich is not using the word saint in a Biblical sense, since all Christians are saints and Paul wrote letters to them (Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:2; Phil. 1:1).
So we will assume he means by “saint” a perfect individual. It is doubtful that voters ever really think that their candidate is perfect. In many cases voters do not even agree with their candidate on all matters. However, ideological differences aside, many people want their nominee to be a person of integrity, a person of his word, a person of honor.
We can tolerate differences (though we may think someone is dead wrong on an issue) if we think it is a matter of conviction and honesty. But we despise a man who talks out of both sides of his mouth, depending on what a particular crowd wants to hear. In a movie about Robert Kennedy’s life, he was advised to “play to the crowd” on an issue when he was campaigning in a certain location. He refused to do so, and when asked about his stance, he admitted his unpopular position and attempted to defend it, amidst a chorus of boos. If true (it was a movie, after all), such actions are admirable, particularly in contrast to our current age, in which we are governed by public opinion polls.
We know we are not going to elect any perfect individuals, but it would be nice to see elected officials of principle and honor–who keep their word, who have some semblance of decency, and who have taken care of their private lives in such a way as to avoid public embarrassment. If a person’s personal life is a disaster, how will the country fare?
Mr. Gingrich said his current wife (whom he is divorcing) “is a wonderful and a very smart person, and we’ve had a very long and complex relationship” (3A). Oh, please. What kind of gobbledegook is that? Marriage was not designed to be “a very long and complex relationship”; it was designed to be PERMANENT! Most marriage vows say “till death do us part”–not until someone younger comes along.
The former Speaker’s statement is so nondescript and void of feeling that he could be describing a golfer’s remorse at losing his favorite caddy. Where are words such as husband and wife and responsibility?
Gingrich talked about believing in God. If he believes the Bible, he should study very carefully what Jesus taught in Matthew 19:3-9–especially that part about “let not man put asunder.” Acknowledging that God exists is worthless unless we intend to abide by His commandments (Heb. 5:8-9).
As for the comments about not being “saints,” is that a ploy to receive acceptance in one’s sins? If so, the rationale runs something like this: “We all sin; none of us is perfect. Let’s not throw stones at each other; it’s painful. We’ll just be non-judgmental and all get along and stay out of each other’s personal lives.” That means deserting one’s spouse is all right, and repentance is unnecessary.
Most everyone has heard about the court ruling which favored homosexuals and went against the Boy Scouts, as well as common decency. This is a time for those “professing” Christianity to show solidarity on the moral values taught in the Scriptures, for without God and an objective basis for morality, there remains no foundation and no hope for society. We are already well on our way to arriving at Genesis 6:5 again, and none of us knows how much more patience God possesses.
Therefore, when a “professed Christian” upholds moral degradation and denounces the Word of God, he has done nothing less than Judas, who betrayed righteousness and truth to men of corrupt mind. “He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the just, both of them alike are an abomination to the Lord” (Pr. 17:15).
On Monday, August 23rd, in The Dallas Morning News Rodney W. Pirtle of Farmers Branch played the devil’s role in attacking the Scriptures. Someone had written a letter after the court’s decision, in which he cited Leviticus 20:13 to show God’s attitude toward homosexuality. Pirtle decided to deride the man’s use of that verse when he did not insist upon other Old Testament verses, such as the death penalty for adultery.
In fact the Bible is replete with examples of people who are ordered killed for infractions for which they wouldn’t even be jailed today. Being the father of two boys, I stopped my reading with Deuteronomy 21:18-24 in which I learned that I should have killed both of them for being “stubborn and rebellious.” Tempted at times, I’m glad I didn’t know about this passage when they were growing up (10A).
Mr. Pirtle does not know how to rightly divide the Word of truth (2 Tim. 2:15) any better than does the man he criticizes. All of the verses in Exodus through Deuteronomy were written for the nation of Israel, which was a theocracy. There religious and civil laws were combined. Therefore, a man could be executed for gathering sticks on the Sabbath day, a violation of the fourth commandment (Num. 15:32-36). Adulterers, rapists, and idolaters were all assigned the death penalty.
The offense Mr. Pirtle cited in Deuteronomy 21 is more serious than he let on. (Perhaps the newspaper misquoted him since this text ends with verse 21 and there are only 23 verses in the entire chapter.) The “stubborn and rebellious” son is called an evil person because he is a glutton and a drunkard, who has chosen to reject the frequent chastening given to him. Reading the passage will provide the appropriate context.
The Christian system is not a theocracy. Christianity was designed to be observed in every nation under heaven. Moral laws could not be enforced on society unless every nation was first conquered physically, and Jesus left no instructions for His church to do that. Christianity is spread not through a sword but through the preaching of the gospel. In fact, the New Testament teaches that the old law was “taken out of the way” and “nailed to the cross” (Col. 2:14). God’s people are under a new covenant (Heb. 8:6-7). Therefore, it is inappropriate to appeal to the Old Testament as a pattern for worship or laws. Only the New Testament is valid for mankind today. The Old reveals God’s attitudes and principles, but for commandments we must abide by the New Testament.
Unfortunately for Mr. Pirtle, the New Testament does not treat homosexuality any better than the Old. Paul calls it a vile passion and proclaims that it is “against nature” (Rom. 1:26). Among those who shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven (right next to the adulterers) are homosexuals and sodomites (1 Cor. 6:9). Jude refers to Sodom and Gomorrah “as an example” of those “suffering the vengeance of eternal fire” (Jude 7). But there is no death penalty given in the New Testament, since God’s people are no longer a theocracy.
So, what will Mr. Pirtle say for himself now? He calls himself a “professing Christian.” It is an empty profession, and although he may be fooling himself, he does not deceive God. Those who believe in Jesus Christ do not attempt to make a mockery of the Old Testament (from which Jesus respected and frequently quoted). Mr. Pirtle does not possess the same reverence and therefore makes a poor follower indeed!
He concludes his letter thus:
First, the Bible is an inspirational, joy-imparting, life-changing, but dangerous book to read, if you read it honestly. Second, regardless of where you come down on the question of homosexuality or any other matter, you can’t (legitimately) pick and choose verses that support your position and ignore those that don’t (10A).
Although the Bible contains several inspirational verses, it also presents a number of sorrowful verses (Gen. 6:5, as already mentioned). The Bible is not dangerous to anyone who reads it honestly; it is dangerous in the hands of those who read it and apply it dishonestly. For example, how can one read the New Testament and then say, “regardless of where you come down on the question of homosexuality”? If you read the Scriptures honestly, there is only one place to come down. Otherwise, a person will find himself opposing plain New Testament doctrine.
Mr. Pirtle is correct in saying that no one has the right to pick and choose what verses he will be governed by (provided that we are under their authority in the first place), but if he is going to try to bind teachings that were given to Israel when they were a theocracy upon Christians who have never been under that system, then he is the one being dishonest. The burden of proof is upon him to show any inconsistency on our part.
In addition to working on that problem, perhaps (since he has implicitly defended homosexuality) he might provide a list of all those Scriptures which defend the practice. Exactly what verses support that position? There were none listed in his article. But perhaps he will deny that he defends homosexuality–that we misunderstood him. Okay, then let him state unequivocally that the Scriptures oppose the practice of homosexuality. Otherwise, he will be guilty of “picking and choosing.”
John A. Stormer has written other books: in fact, many people probably still have a copy of None Dare Call It Treason. This latest effort was published just last year by Liberty Bell Press in Florissant, Missouri 63032 (P. O. Box 32, if ordering direct). Everything that is stated is documented; there are 345 endnotes in the back of the book, and it is also indexed.
The subject matter is American education, which may not sound like a spiritual topic, but it certainly is relevant when our children are taught moral values and ethics that conflict with their parents’ values, as well as those of Christianity. If schools could achieve some semblance of neutrality relating to values, such a goal would not be objectionable; but no attempt is being made along those lines. Instead, some have in mind actually subverting Christian values. Consider the following paragraph, for example:
Every child in America entering school at the age of 5 is mentally ill because he comes to school with certain allegiances to our founding fathers, toward our elected officials, toward his parents, toward a belief in a supernatural being, and toward the sovereignty of this nation as a separate entity. It’s up to you as teachers to make all these sick children well–by creating the international child of the future (70).
Who would make such an insane and arrogant statement–one which in essence says that parents teach their children the wrong values and it is therefore up to schools to straighten them out? Who could be so pompous as to call patriotism and religion symptoms of mental illness? The person who spewed out this venom is Chester M. Pierce, M.D., a professor of education and psychiatry at Harvard. These words were part of a speech he gave to educators at the Childhood International Education Seminar in Denver, in 1973 (70).
We may be tempted to think this radical statement is not typical of today’s educational philosophy, but there is much more evidence to consider before making such a hasty judgment. Certainly, many teachers do not hold such views, but they may be diminishing in number. Already, some teachers unabashedly defend secular humanist doctrines, such as evolution, amorality, and a one-world society. Many others who reject such ideas may nevertheless follow curriculum guidelines, not realizing some of the ways they are actually propagating humanistic philosophy.
The first chapter answers the question, “What Are Schools Doing to Our Children Academically?” The author cites a case in which a student is receiving an A in Algebra, but cannot solve a simple mathematical equation. The book that was being used minimized the need to develop mathematical skills since computer programs and calculators can do that sort of work. Furthermore:
The “algebra” book has “lectures” on endangered species, air pollution, facts about the Dogon people of West Africa, chili recipes, a discussion of hot peppers and the role zoos should play in society (2).
This textbook was protested before the United States Senate by Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) on June 9, 1997 (1). This incident also gave rise to a December, 1997 Reader’s Digest article: “Why Our Kids Can’t Do Math.”
Many more examples of academic deficiency are noted in this chapter. [During our Vacation Bible School I asked 5th-6th graders when Columbus sailed to America, which does not seem unreasonable for that age group (considering that Columbus Day remains on most calendars). They placed it in the late 1700s, which would actually fall after the Revolutionary War. Children cannot be blamed for their ignorance. They cannot know what they have not been taught.]
Chapter 2 deals with the crucial issue: “What Are the Schools Doing to Our Children Morally?” Most of this material deals with the emphasis in many schools of teaching sexuality too early and presenting homosexuality as normal. The author mentions that 1200 copies of It’s Elementary–Talking About Gay Issues in School (which we lowlighted in Spiritual Perspectives published on July 4th) “have been sold to educational institutions for teacher training” (22). Parents in Massachusetts sued Falmouth High School for putting condom vending machines in school restrooms. “The Supreme Court refused to overturn a Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling which allowed the policy” (27). Parents should consider carefully the words of Texas Federal District Judge Melinda Harmon, who ruled that “parents give up their rights when they drop children off at public school” (27).
Chapter three explains how some are “Using America’s Schools To Create ‘A New Social Order.'” This goal is a long-standing one, and the author traces some of its history back into the 1930s with John Dewey, George Counts, and Harold Rugg. It is informative to see the origins of some of the current trends.
The fourth chapter demonstrates how current textbooks are undermining marriage, family, home, the sanctity of life, work attitudes, absolutes, honesty, authority, and the existence of God. A book called Homemaking Skills for Everyday Living tells girls as young as the sixth grade that some people have a “till love do us part” attitude toward marriage, that marriage is a “short term goal,” and that divorce is “an acceptable way of solving” marital problems (43-44).
Other books encourage adolescents to experiment sexually. The Sex Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) has guidelines for all ages of school children. Enumerating them here would prove too embarrassing, but the following recommendations for children ages 5 through 8 will set the tone for these guidelines. At this tender age boys and girls are to be taught that they “have body parts that feel good when touched” (50). No teacher or program has any business discussing these matters with youngsters (and it is usually without parents’ knowledge or permission). Homosexuality is also a part of SIECUS’s recommendations. For the 12 to 15 age group, students would be taught that sexual “orientation cannot be changed by therapy or medicine” (50).
Some books, in their enthusiasm to promote a one-world society, actually have captions under photographs in textbooks, which read, “United Nations troops going ashore on D-Day” (72). That would be a pretty good trick, since the United Nations was not even formed until 1945 (D-Day being June 6, 1944). Others omit significant events altogether. One textbook quotes the Declaration of Independence in the following manner: “All men are created equal…with certain unalienable rights” (81). What was omitted? Those three dots take the place of “that they are endowed by their Creator.” Must we rewrite history in order to get every vestige of God out of the public schools?
Some textbooks are replacing B.C. and A.D. with new abbreviations, B.C.E. and C.E., standing for “before the common era and the common era” (89). If the academic world adopts these designations, how long will it be until there is a bill in Congress, calling for change?
Chapter five, “The Revolution We Lived Through,” recounts the recent history of the past forty years and is followed by “The New Generation of Reformers.” Lamar Alexander, who just recently dropped out of the 2000 Presidential race is one of those. He related his vision of the new American school as being one that “would be open year round–open from 6 a.m. until 6 p.m.” and “serve children from age three months to eighteen years of age.” (104). The features of the “Goals 2000” program are also discussed, and they are frightening.
The seventh chapter deals with the School-To-Work program (it goes by a number of other names, also). Part of this approach involves “helping” youngsters decide on their careers–even before they reach high school, and setting up files that will follow them, not just through school, but through life. This material must be read to be believed.
Many people have heard of this controversy, but chapter eight provides a wealth of information about “Using Outcome-Based Education to Modify Children’s Behavior.” Dr. Benjamin Bloom, the “grandfather of OBE,” admits: “The purpose of education is to change the thoughts, feelings and actions of students.” No less a personage than Congressman Henry Hyde has charged the Goals 2000 program as a catalyst “for dumbing down our schools and changing the character of the nation through behavior modification.” (135). The means and details of such then follow.
Chapter nine is titled “Schools Are Being Transformed Into Mental Health Centers.” The practices set forth in this section concern yet more things that are attempted without parental consent and, “If a permission slip is sent home and placed in the student’s file, and a refusal is not returned within seven days, treatment is deemed to be ‘authorized'” (157).
Chapter ten does not discuss things that might happen if certain humanists had their way (as some of the material in this book does); it describes what has already happened to the talented and gifted children who have participate in Arkansas’s “Governor’s School,” instituted by the Clintons in 1979. Each year 400 top juniors participate in an intense six-week summer program at Hendrix College. “Students live on campus and are forbidden to have visitors except on Sundays or to leave the college grounds except for the 4th of July weekend” (159). The material in this chapter needs to be read in its context by all; it is too volatile to simply print a quote or two from. The following words from a former student in the program will have to suffice: “If my parents had known what was going on there, they wouldn’t have let me go” (162).
Chapter 11 concerns the NEA and its agenda. In 1967 NEA Executive Secretary Sam Lambert said: “The NEA will become a political power second to no other special interest group” (168). The NEA is controlled by radical liberals who do not reflect the views of a great percentage of teachers or the vast public of this nation. For example, “the NEA board of directors endorsed the Carter-Mondale presidential ticket over Reagan-Bush by a vote of 118 to 4” (174). More than 40% of teachers voted for Reagan-Bush, and an even greater number of the general population did. The 118 to 4 vote shows that the NEA is out of touch with the general public and extremely one-sided in its thinking. The NEA’s political action committee in 1996 spent $1,202,880 on Democratic candidates and $5,350 on Republicans (174).
The NEA supported the Communist Sandinistas in Nicaragua and were duly praised by the Communist Party U.S.A. (173). When reading through the material in this chapter, it becomes clear why American education is on the decline. In 1994 the NEA joined a coalition involving Penthouse magazine (Larry Flynt) and several gay and lesbian organizations (178). The public needs to know what the NEA stands for.
Stormer closes his book with suggestions about what people can do to change things. He does not advise that Christian parents either home school or send their children to private schools. His philosophy is that Christians ought to be salt and light and reform the system we have. In an ideal world we could agree with this approach, but then in an ideal world we would not have this problem. Most parents have not learned to deal with being demonized by educators and those in authority (not to mention any “objective” news coverage) as “right-wing extremists” whenever they try to make a stand for decency. Parents in some locales may become sufficiently organized to make a difference, but a few small victories here and there will have no appreciable effect on the NEA. We recommend the John Galt approach (from Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged).
Let the secular humanists bear the fruits of their own policies. Let the parents who want to sue when God’s name is mentioned or dress standards are enforced have the public school system. Let them be taught that we are but descendants of apes and that human life has no value. When “Columbines” are occurring with greater frequency and other problems are out of control, maybe they will admit their philosophy has failed.
In the mean time, why not set up an alternative school system that seeks to restore the educational quality and values that we once had in this nation–one which neither asks for nor receives government money or vouchers? (It could be a national organization that allows local control.) Some will say this is too drastic a solution–that the public schools need students who can function as salt and light. But how many are converting those children to Christianity, and how many children of Christians are being converted to the world? Youngsters are not generally equipped to face the constant barrage of negative peer pressure, although some succeed. Regardless of the solutions, this book should stimulate thought–and hopefully action as well.
While the media hype may have died down, the interest in Star Wars: Episode I–The Phantom Menace lingers yet. Look no further than the displays, toys and other collectibles still available at favorite fast food restaurants for evidence that the movie is still big business. I recently peeled back a panel on a Star Wars game piece that was buried in a bag of potato chips to see if I was a million-dollar-winner. One never knows where he will find the next piece of Phantom Menace paraphernalia.
Though not the cultural phenomenon the original 1977 Star Wars was, the success of the latest installment of the George Lucas saga has introduced a whole new generation to the story of a galaxy far, far away. The long lines of devotees camped out for days, weeks, even months to be the first to see the film–don’t these people have jobs? families? a life?–gave proof in advance of the power of the series to capture attention.
Of special note, however, is the spiritual interest in the megahit. A recent article in a major newspaper cites a number of ministers “using the new Star Wars film to reach out to those searching for spiritual renewal.” There is even a web site, Star Wars–the Religion, devoted to spiritual analysis of various characters and elements of the story. In a Time magazine interview producer George Lucas revealed that he intended for the film to stimulate religious interest.
“I put the Force into the movie,” explained Lucas, “in order to try to awaken a certain kind of spirituality in young people–more a belief in God than a belief in any particular religious system.” Therein is the problem. Lucas has crafted an entertaining reinforcement of the brand of religion most Americans crave, namely, a belief in a silly putty type of “force” outside of ourselves that can be shaped into whatever comforting image we desire without all the inconvenient trappings of “any particular religious system.” Lucas reveals, “Ultimately the Force is the larger mystery of the universe. And to trust your feelings is your way into that.” The message to “just follow your feelings” is appealing because it allows men to become their own gods and create their own truth, which has been man’s problem from the beginning (Genesis 3).
The appeal of subjectivism also explains the rising popularity of Eastern philosophy and religion in Western society–especially America. Lucas confesses he borrowed freely from ancient Gnosticism, Hinduism and Buddhism. It’s not difficult to see in “The Force,” which is composed of both a good and dark side, the impersonal All of Hinduism, which includes both good and evil. This all fits nicely into our Post Modern Age of relativism, which rejects the biblical worldview and any concept of absolute truth and morality and replaces it with the nobody’s wrong, everybody’s right mentality of modern (not traditional) pluralism. In fact, Lucas said in his Time interview that he has determined one religion is as good as another, declaring, “The conclusion I’ve come to is that all the religions are true.”
As ridiculous as that statement is on the face of it, most have no problem giving it the nod of approval. By declaring all beliefs equally valid (except, of course, any belief system which rejects the idea that all beliefs are equally valid, such as traditional Christianity) we are then free to do and believe as we please. We can even claim the comfort of divine help and favor from whatever Mysterious Force outside of ourselves we choose to embrace or create, all without having to be limited by any definitive religious code.
The simple fact of the matter is, if Christianity has any merit at all, then all other religions are false. Jesus claimed to be the only way to the Father (John 14:6). If Christ really is the Son of God, then men are not free to follow their feelings or fashion their own religion, but are under obligation to obey the will of God as expressed through Christ in the New Testament (Mat. 17:5; John 3:36; 12:48). The Bible simply cannot be what it claims to be–the revelation of the One True and Living God who has manifested himself to man in the person of Jesus Christ–if the pluralistic attitude that “all religions are true” is valid. If the pantheism of Eastern mysticism is genuine, then Jehovah of the Bible is a myth, the religion of Christ is a sham and we who believe in him are of all men most pitiable. But if the carpenter’s son from Nazareth really is Lord, then it is the Force that is the farce. (There is no misspelling in the title of this article.)
All agree that Star Wars is quality entertainment. We can appreciate its moral symbolism, the triumph of good over evil. And we wish all of today’s popular movies were as wholesome. But it cannot be denied the Star Wars saga has theological overtones which undermine, however subtly, true religion and reinforce the spiritual subjectivism of new age philosophy. Men want the luxury of believing in “God” and all the benefits that come with faith without having to actually believe what God said or be subject to him. To the extent that Star Wars helps to reinforce that fatal fantasy there is cause for concern. On one level it is harmless entertainment we can enjoy, but we should be aware of the impression it leaves on the culture. That impression, especially on young people who are mesmerized by the story, may be larger than we would like to believe.
People look in different places for spiritual direction. It is a natural tendency of man to long for something which transcends the material universe–some Force to be with him. In the midst of the spiritual confusion which clouds our culture, we face the challenge of directing men to the One Ultimate Being. He is the personal God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of Old Testament Israel, the God of Sinai, the Father of Jesus Christ. He has a definite system of religion. It is revealed in the New Testament and excludes all other religious beliefs. When we look beyond ourselves for spiritual direction, we look in vain if we seek it anywhere else.
By the way, I peeled back my Star Wars game piece to find out that (surprise) I had not won the million dollar prize. The message said, “The Force was not with you.” But I already knew that.
[This article appeared in the August 8, 1999 issue of the Granbury Street Bulletin, published by the Granbury Street Church of Christ, Cleburne, TX.]
[Editor’s note: The New Age influence is clearly seen in The Phantom Menace. It was apparent not only with the “trust your feelings” line, but also in the insistence that the two Jedi Knights did not come across young Anakin by accident. Too plain to overlook were the words: “There are no accidents.” Our review of James Redfield’s book, The Celestine Prophecy, which was published in Spiritual Perspectives on May 18, 1997, the following comments were made about the first of Redfield’s nine insights:
“The first insight occurs when we take the coincidences seriously. These coincidences make us feel there is something more, something spiritual, operating underneath everything we do.”
Redfield makes it clear that accidents (or coincidences) simply do not exist.
But even though New Age doctrine permeates the Star Wars series, something even more disturbing found its way into The Phantom Menace–the implication of a virgin birth. Anakin’s mother, Shmi, does not know how she became pregnant. Is it possible that the producers of the movie wish for people to believe that the one who becomes Darth Vader was born of a virgin? How could such an evil individual, responsible for so much destruction and so many deaths, carry such an exalted status? We have no way of knowing how all of this will play out, but as it stands presently, the word blasphemy seems appropriate.]
In The Dallas Morning News (and presumably other newspapers around the country) on August 4th, there appeared a large advertisement (a quarter of a page) with the exciting title given in the approximate format below:
8 Compelling Reasons Why:
CHRIST IS COMING VERY SOON!
How To Be Prepared For History’s Greatest Event
The main subject of this advertisement will be discussed on the next page. What we want to notice here is their conclusion of the matter: “How to receive Him.” After quoting John 1:12, Ephesians 2:8-9, and Revelation 3:20, we find this paragraph:
The following is a suggested prayer: “Lord Jesus, I believe you are the Son of God and that you died on the cross for my sins to save me from eternal death. I open the door of my life and receive you as my Savior and Lord. I give you my life. Help me to be what you want me to be. Amen” (36A).
Once again, this “sinner’s prayer” differs from the others because there is no such thing as a “sinner’s prayer” in the Bible. These are all concocted by men, which is the reason there is so much variation. This one mentions the importance of the Deity of Jesus, which the other two (discussed last week) omitted. However, it leaves out any mention of repentance, unless the last line is a veiled reference.
Needless to say, baptism for the remission of sins was also omitted. Not one of the three Scriptures that is cited in “How to receive Him” is from a New Testament account of conversion, a fact which should not be overlooked or minimized. Why do the various religious groups fail to appeal to the book which records all of the conversions of sinners to Christianity–Acts?
Are we saying that the verses cited are wrong? Of course not, but they should be considered in their context. The first one is from John’s introduction to the life of Christ. He makes summary statements in this section; he is not explaining the way people are saved. Many people in the course of Jesus’ ministry did “receive” Him. The question is, “How did they receive Him?” A better verse to quote from John would be the one that records what Jesus taught Nicodemus: “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3), which is followed by a clarification of what He meant by the phrase, born again: “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). Of course, quoting John 3:5 is a risk; someone might connect that to baptism in Acts 2:38 or 1 Corinthians 12:13.
Likewise, in Ephesians 2:8-9 Paul is discussing the correct philosophy of salvation, not the particulars of it. Confessing that Jesus is the Son of God, repentance, and baptism are all left out of this passage because the focus of attention is grace versus works of merit. We have no objection to the proper use of this verse–only to its misuse as a substitute for specific accounts of conversion.
Revelation 3:20 is taken completely out of context. In fact, no one reading this advertisement would ever suspect that Jesus is speaking to members of His church–not to those who have never been saved. Like Macduff in the play, Macbeth, Revelation 3:20 has been untimely ripped from its mother’s womb, the text that would give birth to its meaning.
The passage begins with Revelation 3:14: “And to the church of the Laodiceans write….” Jesus instructed John to write letters to seven churches in Revelation 2-3; this is the last letter. The Laodiceans were lukewarm. Their prosperity was blinding them to spirituality. They thought they were in good, all-around shape and did not know that they were “wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked” (Rev. 3:17). Jesus is speaking to Christians–members of the church at Laodicea–when He says:
“As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten. Therefore be zealous and repent. Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me.”
What this verse means is that Christians can shut out Jesus from their lives–even when they are meeting together as the church. Jesus can be excluded! [And judging from the behavior of some “brethren” today, such is, in fact, happening.] In the case of the Laodiceans, they were not even aware that they had shut Him out. Oh, how we need to evaluate ourselves, as well as the church to which we belong!
The advertisement, however, would have its readers think that Jesus was speaking to those who are not Christians and telling them how to become Christians. If the producers of the advertisement really thought this was the case, the least they could have done was to have included the concept of repentance, which appears in the preceding verse–instead of omitting it entirely.
But the fact is that they are dishonest. They know the context of Revelation 3:20 as well as anyone else who has ever read the first three chapters of Revelation. The verse suits their theology; so they twist it loose from its context in an effort to deceive people.
Salvation does spring from God’s grace, and we do need to have faith in God and in Jesus as the Son of God, who gave His life on the cross for our sins. But once we have that knowledge, as the people on the day of Pentecost possessed it, then the answer to the question, “What shall we do?” is: “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins…” (Acts 2:38). Unlike the verses in the advertisement, these were spoken to sinners in need of salvation. “Then those who gladly received his word were baptized…” (Acts 2:41).
In the July, 1999 Fulton County Gospel News, edited by Ted Clarke, Thomas F. Eaves, Sr., comments very appropriately upon “the sinner’s prayer” from a booklet entitled God’s Simple Plan of Salvation. He points out that “not one single person” was commanded to pray “the sinner’s prayer” in the Bible (3). Then he discusses the very first occasion after the resurrection of Christ, in which the Jews asked what to do (Acts 2:36-38, 41). He shows that baptism was part of the plan of salvation and that those who were baptized understood that it was for the remission of sins.
The same day I read this article a tract was hung in a plastic bag upon the door of our house by a local Baptist group. Its title was The Grace That Saves, published by the Fellowship Tract League. It too contains “the sinner’s prayer,” but the strange thing is that this prayer is different from the one brother Eaves commented upon. In God’s Simple Plan of Salvation, the prayer reads thus:
Just pray: Oh God, I know I am a sinner. I believe Jesus was my substitute when he died on the cross. I believe His shed blood, death, burial and resurrection were for me. I now receive Him as my Savior. I thank you for the forgiveness of my sins, and the gift of salvation and everlasting life, because of your merciful grace. Amen (3).
The prayer in The Grace That Saves is shorter:
Oh God, I am a sinner lost and hell bound. I repent. Have mercy upon me and save me for Christ’s sake. Amen.
Now the first question someone might ask is, “Why are there two ‘sinner’s prayers'”? Why do they vary? They are quite similar in that they both acknowledge one’s personal sinfulness, but there are differences, also. The former one never mentions repentance, but the latter one does. So, which is it? Do sinners need to repent of sin, or is it “faith only”? The first prayer includes “receiving Christ”; the second omits it.
These discrepancies would not exist IF the writers of these two tracts had presented the truth from the Scriptures. What many people may not realize is that the Bible does not contain “the sinner’s prayer” anywhere. If it did, the reader would see book, chapter, and verse following a citation of it. The fact is, however, that neither tract is quoting from a book of the Bible. Both writers have made up what they consider in their own minds to be a version of a nonexistent prayer. That is the reason for the variation.
It is amazing how trusting so many people are–especially with something so important as their souls. If one has been taught “the sinner’s prayer,” he should wonder why it is never used in situations in which it would be totally appropriate. Why did Peter fail to mention to the multitude on Pentecost: “Just pray ‘the sinner’s prayer'”? Why was Saul of Tarsus not told to say “the sinner’s prayer” instead of being told to arise and be baptized and wash away his sins (Acts 22:16)? Not once does “the sinner’s prayer” in any form appear in the New Testament. Yet those who produce these tracts advocate it while promising that baptism (which is in the New Testament) is not necessary.
In fact, the tract, The Grace That Saves, makes these comments, after quoting Ephesians 2:8-9:
If it says not of works, it means NOT of works. Keeping rules, being baptized, praying continuously through to God, or anything else will not save or help save you. The Bible says not of our works, but salvation is a GIFT. All you can do is accept a gift.
Undoubtedly, the confused souls who wrote this tract do not see their own contradictions, some of which follow:
1. They say that a person cannot be saved by praying continuously through to God. But then they offer a prayer as a means to salvation. What kind of sense does that make? A person cannot be saved by lengthy, fervent, devout prayer, but one containing 23 words will do the trick. [It is true that prayer will not save anyone, but there is no virtue in a short prayer to accomplish salvation over a longer one, say, of 46 words. The fact is that Saul of Tarsus had been praying for three days (Acts 9:11), and he still had his sin when Ananias came to him (Acts 22:16.]
2. Which is more of a work that requires personal effort–repentance or baptism? Baptism is a passive act, in which someone lowers the one being baptized into the water and raises him up again. Where is the work? Repentance, on the other hand, requires exercising the will. One determines in his mind that he will give up sin. He also begins to make changes in his life when he becomes serious about salvation. His trust in God will move him to begin to give up those things that are contrary to the will of God. John called this bearing “fruits worthy of repentance” (Matt. 3:8). If anything could be classified as a work, meaning that man puts forth his own effort to achieve it, it would be repentance, not baptism. Yet this “sinner’s prayer” includes repentance (remember that the other one did not).
3. The writer(s) of this tract admit that the Bible says we cannot be saved by “our works”; but they fail to take into consideration that baptism is the working of God–not man. Paul reminds the Colossians that they were buried with Christ in baptism and also “raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead” (Col. 2:12). Baptism is not a work of man or a work of merit. It is God’s working. God included baptism as part of the process for saving man from his sins; why do the producers of this tract want to exclude it? They intentionally want it omitted as part of God’s plan–so much so that they specify it as one of man’s works when it is a work of God instead. No one in his right mind would think that being baptized somehow merits salvation (yet these men do).
The difference between this tract and the truth is slight but significant. When it teaches that all men are lost, it is correct. When it sets forth Jesus as the Savior, it is right. When it contends that we are saved by grace and not works, we agree. When it says, “All you can do is accept a gift,” we have no quarrel. The argument concerns the way the gift is to be received.
According to this tract’s version of the “sinner’s prayer,” one can receive salvation through this prayer and repentance. According to the Bible, salvation is received as a result of repentance and baptism (Acts 2:38). These two conditions are joined together in the Scriptures, but for some reason, Baptists and the producers of this tract want baptism excised when God clearly authorized it.
What is the motive behind this irrational fear of baptism for the remission of sins? It cannot be that baptism is a work or that it nullifies the concept of grace because it is less of a work than repentance, which is not considered a work, nor does it nullify the concept of grace. Furthermore, if salvation is a gift (and it is), and it is “received” by faith and repentance, then why can it not also be received through faith, repentance, and baptism?
The New Testament clearly teaches that salvation does include baptism as part of the process. If it were not, why was Saul told, after he believed, had repented, and prayed for three days, “Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16)? And why did the inspired apostle write that “baptism doth also now save us” (1 Peter 3:21)? God made baptism for the remission of sins part of accepting the free gift; man erroneously seeks to remove it, thus becoming guilty of preaching a false gospel (Gal. 1:8-9).
A final point from this tract should be made. It mentions that “keeping rules…will not save or help save you.” Such a statement might be perceived as meaning that, after one’s sins are forgiven, there are no commandments to keep. This idea plainly contradicts such passages as, “If you love Me, keep My commandments” (John 14:15) and “He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him” (Heb. 5:9). God expects those who are His to keep His commandments and to walk in His ways. If He did not expect obedience, there would be no need for repentance.
Although we are not saved by our works, we cannot be saved without works, either. “Faith without works is dead” (James 2:26). Righteous living and works are the result of salvation. They do not earn salvation, but faith would be barren without them, and salvation is forfeited if they are given up (2 Peter 2:20-22). Would that all men were content to “speak as the oracles of God” (1 Peter 4:11) and quit publishing and distributing tracts to the contrary!
